posted
"Make all who are desirous of immigrating go through the proper, legal channels, regardless of how long they have been here."
I agree, with the proviso that there needs to be a proper legal channel available for undocumented individuals (particularly young children born elsewhere but raised here) to regularize their status. That is why I support the Judiciary Committee's proposal, which provides such a channel. Under current law, the vast majority of the 12 million could never legalize their presence. Even those who could legalize their presence would have to leave this country for many years, even decades, before they could come back. [Please see my post of April 3, 5:07 pm, beginning halfway through the quote of immigration lawyer Mark B. regarding current law.]
Posts: 319 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:to be a proper legal channel available for undocumented individuals
Seems to me the existing law addresses that based on what you quoted... maybe not the way a lot of people would like it to, particularly those who come in around the law... but nevertheless, it is covered. There is a law, and there is a penalty if the law is not followed. Why then should there be a general amnesty or accomodation made, regardless of how large the group of people are, simply because the law has not been fully enforced? Is the law enforceable? I think so. What the politicians won't do is enforce it and are trying to do a CYA by making it seem like the law is unenforceable so let's make some new ones that really have no teeth and will truely be unenforceable and look good to our voters at the same time.
Hey, tough break for those families and people who end up having to go to their native country for x number of years before they can return through the legal channels... But, this puts the onus back on their home countries to fix the problems on their side. Would any other country be so generous to US citizens who illegally immigrate to their nation en masse as we have been with our latin american neighbors? I seriously doubt it...
Posts: 2402 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I believe you reason from the purest of motives, but the assumptions upon which the reasoning rests have not yet been addressed in any cogent form.
Why, for example, is the lament; "Under current law, the vast majority of the 12 million could never legalize their presence." ...not followed by some justification explaining why any of the 12 million should be naturalized?
Once I read a coherent rationale, the next step would be to apply that criteria universally (as just laws are), and project the consequences.
Speaking for myself, we will always be speaking past each other until a foundation for just immigration law is laid.
Posts: 1942 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"we will always be speaking past each other until a foundation for just immigration law is laid."
I believe a just immigration law would allow anyone who has not committed a serious crime (note, under current law, being in the US is a civil, not a criminal, offense), who is willing to learn English, who is willing and able to work and support himself or herself and family, to immigrate to this country and work toward citizenship. (Similar to the standards that appied at Ellis Island.) I do not oppose a reasonable waiting period (two or three years--not decades).
What do you think a just immigration law would be? How many people? What requirements? Waiting period? Etc....
Posts: 319 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As of 2005, approximately 1 in 22 of the Earth's total human population were United States citizens. Currently legal immigration quotas are at 270 to 340 thousand per year. In addition, H-1B work visas bring in 195,000 skilled, temporary, workers annually. Since 1986, ~12 million Mexican migrants have dwarfed the combined legal naturalization, and H-1B visa holder increase by a ratio of approximately 2:1.
Is it moral for us to confine Mexican immigration to the limits imposed by government legislation? I would first ask; what is government?
Government is the structure formed, and instituted, by the citizenry to create/interpret/enforce laws with which we wish to order our dealings between each other. It is a national compact, whose primary object is the codification of limits upon the use of private property, and secondarily, collaborative allocation and use of common property for the community purposes. The ideal is maximization of material liberty for all citizens.
Can signatories (through the franchise), morally limit participation of non-citizens?
My answer would be yes, in the same way a homeowner can prescribe activity within the confines of their home. To be sure, visitors to his house have rights which trump home ownership, but they have no long term interest in that property. I equate long term interest with citizenship.
My answers to your immigration law reform questions are tenative...nobody has yet asked me to form national policy. So here goes;
*"How many people?" - No more than infrastructure can handle with growth that does not compromise water resources, employer base, and environmental balance. I do not think the current quotas are unreasonable. I would give special preference to H-1B visa holders without limit under the cap, and place them on the citizenship track if they so desired.
*"What requirements?" - In terms of criminal, and civil law violations, I think we can afford to require standards far above that of the average citizen. It is not hippocritical to demand the best from an applicant. Someone willing to violate immigration law should be disqualified out-of-hand (for life) in my opinion. It is the ultimate insult to those with the integrity to bind themselves to legal process.
-Communicable disease should disqualify.
-A minimum five year period, from provisional application acceptance, for the purpose of proving ability to support onself, and one's family.
-Success on an English proficiency test demonstrating at least written language comprehension (no limit on time from application).
-I would look for a constitutional amendment precluding automatic citizenship to a child born in the United States by a non-citizen.
-I would permit challenge, and waiver, of any requirement based on individual case review (and it should not be easy).
I am sure there is more, but this is what springs to mind.
(Edited to add; I think all applicants for citizenship should pass the same mandatory testing on Constitutional text, and meaning, which we had in 8th grade. Following successful completion of the course, I think the same oath pledged by members of the military should be administered to a new citizen.)
posted
Bruce, I'm from Southern California. I've seen the fall-out from this situation first hand.
quote:If this is really what they want, then why don't we just deport all the loud-mouthed, trouble- making radicals? Let them go to Mexico or Third World countries and see if they can do better!
Not all illegal immigrants feel this way, LynnTruthseeker, but those who do believe this IS THEIR LAND! Not the US! THAT is why they feel it is theirs to own and rule.
Posts: 1911 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem is not so much with the illegal immigrants as with the organizers of the boycotts who are communist sympathizers, and who would do anything to overthrow the sovreignty of the US. My problem is with the people who so abuse the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, especially the right of free speech and assembly, that they use it to advocate the end of the US. Those are the loud-mouthed radical troublemakers that I wish would go somewhere else. Why do they have the right to advocate, and actively work for, the end of this nation? Isn't that treason?
Posts: 1305 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
They have the right because the Constitution guarantees free political speech.
We have the right to petition our government for redress of grievances. Use it to defeat these shrill morons in the arena of ideas. Posts: 1942 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Far from simply opposing Sensenbrenner's bill, signs, slogans and speeches supported the immediate "legalization" of every single illegal immigrant in the United States. They also eschewed the idea that future illegal immigrants should be obstructed by anything so crass as a border. This invitation to uncontrolled mass immigration presumably includes illegal immigrants not just from Mexico or Latin America but from all over the world.
Sure, let's open the doors wide, and let all the terrorists in. Let's put Osama bin Laden in the White House, too. And, while we're at it, let's put Al-Queda in charge of our military forces, and our intelligence operations.
Let the secret combinations rule unmolested, and watch this, once great, nation crumble in the dust like the Nephites. Posts: 1305 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:-I would look for a constitutional amendment precluding automatic citizenship to a child born in the United States by a non-citizen.
I guess there are no easy answers, and more shades of gray than I thought of. I have a granddaughter in Australia, of dual citizenship. She was born in VA, her mother is Australian, from Queensland, and her father, my son, was born in SC.
I guess there might have to be a provision to protect children born in similar circumstances.
Posts: 1305 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
If the father is an American, that is a pretty good argument for waiver. I do not think dual citizenship should exist past age of majority, however. Divided national loyalties do not make much sense to me.
Posts: 1942 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Use it to defeat these shrill morons in the arena of ideas"
I marched (in Phoenix) and support the marchers. I hope you don't mean, even in jest, that I am a "shrill moron," or unpatriotic. You are free to believe that, but I believe asserting that here is contrary to the charter of this forum.
Posts: 319 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
posted
I would campaign my heart out against any constitutional provision denying citizenship to persons born in the US.
I would truly be shrill.
My ancestors (some of them) came to this country 150+ years ago. They kept their non-English native language for four generations.
Whatever happened to
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these The homeless Tempest-tossed To me. I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door.
Y'all want to make a lie out of lady liberty and what this country stands for.
posted
Right... cuz that whole statue of liberty thing... that pretty much trumps the rule of law, the constitution, and all the rest of the legalistic clap-trap and mumbo-jumbo...
posted
What does Lady Liberty and illegal aliens crossing the border intentionally to have "anchor babies" in order to receive all the government assistance they can receive, have to do with one another??
As an FYI, only a few Western nations still provide automatic citizenship at birth. U.K. and Australia repealed similar policies in the 1980s after witnessing similar abuses to those plaguing the U.S. today.
Posts: 2308 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please Tendrill, there is no need to cast that sort of emotional guilt trip on us as if we are some sort of ingrates because we feel strongly about sheer quantity of foreign nationals that are entering our country illegally and causing major problems with our social, political, and economic infrastructure.
Oh, the poem that comes from wasn't written until 1883 and was actually written to help raise funds to finish the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, and "Lady Liberty" herself wasn't completed until 1886, 10 years after the centennial of our independence for which France had intended it to be for. From the website :
quote:The Statue of Liberty National Monument officially celebrated her 100th birthday on October 28, 1986. The people of France gave the Statue to the people of the United States over one hundred years ago in recognition of the friendship established during the American Revolution. Over the years, the Statue of Liberty has grown to include freedom and democracy as well as this international friendship.
Funny how the National Park Service does not state that "Lady Liberty" is about an open door policy for immigration, despite the quaint notion some may have because of it's proximity to the old Ellis Island and how immigrants (who were entering the port of New York legally) viewed it as a symbol of their new land and freedom.
[ETA Yes, the Statue of Liberty does have great symbolism in the immigration of people to the United States, but it celebrates the legal immigration and the subsequent assimilation into the nation, not the illegal crossing of borders by essentially squatters.]
quote:we feel strongly about sheer quantity of foreign nationals that are entering our country illegally and causing major problems with our social, political, and economic infrastructure.
and
quote:that pretty much trumps the rule of law, the constitution, and all the rest of the legalistic clap-trap and mumbo-jumbo...
I suggest you take it up with the Supreme Court. Plyler v. Doe. 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Yes, we absolutely positively must find the congressional backbone and wisdome to establish and enforce effective and humane immigration laws. But removing compassionate services --- even from those who are guilefully abusing them --- is wrong. These are people, and they deserve humane treatment.
That is what our Constitution says.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Supreme Court. Plyler v. Doe. 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Please, enlighten us as to what this case is.
quote:humane immigration laws. But removing compassionate services
What exactly is a humane vs. inhumane immigration law? There are no immigration quotas that I am aware of based on nationality, religion, ethnicity, etc. The free ride through the open door with unlimited access is not the "humane" thing to do... Neither is the culture of sneaking illegal foreign nationals across the border where they can be hurt or die or be robbed by unsavory types in the process. What "compassionate services" are being removed by enforcement of the laws on the books, or by the laws that have been proposed?
quote: That is what our Constitution says.
Could you elaborate as to exactly what you mean?
Posts: 2402 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, I must be a little rusty with my history, but which federal assistance programs are guaranteed by the constitution?
Is this like the inalienable human right to make folks with actual health emergencies have to wait 8 additional hours before being able to receive treatment in the E.R. because it is clogged with folks who have stuffy noses?
posted
btw, you'd probably be surprised by my personal stance on this issue... as I tend to be very sympathetic at my core, but if it can't be solved legally, it isn't going to get better by continuing the current system... people are just gonna get angrier.
Well, That and I've lost a lot of sympathy for the folks waving the flags of countries other than the American one... demanding some kind of American humane treatment...
--Ray
PS> I don't even have a problem with the whole anchor-baby thing either, if the intent is to stay here and contribute to the country, rather than just send all the money back to Mexico so he can retire as a rich mexican... That just seems somewhat suspect to me.
Posts: 13112 | Registered: Oct 98
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme court considered the question of whether it was constitutional for the State of Texas to require a surcharge on parents of undocumented children of illegal immigrants before providing basic education services. This decision is the currently controlling case law on the subject.
Here are some salient points from the Court's 5-4 ruling (two of the 4, by the way, were Rehnquist and O'Connor):
"Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments."
"Sheer incapability or lax enforcement of the laws barring entry into this country, coupled with the failure to establish an effective bar to the employment of undocumented aliens,m has resulted in the creation of a substantial "shadow population" of illegal migrants -- numbering in the millions -- within our borders. This situation raises the specter of a permanent caste of undocumented resident aliens, encouraged by some to remain here as a source of cheap labor, but nevertheless denied the benefits that our society makes available to citizens and lawful residents. The existence of such an underclass presents most difficult problems for a Nation that prides itself on adherence to principles of equality under law."
"Even if the State found it expeient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundament conceptions of justice."
***
You asked about humaneness. Now speaking for myself, I am deeply troubled by any solution that impacts on children in unfair ways.
If you can propose a solution that doesn't penalize children - including children either raised here or born here, then I'd be willing to back that solution.
But any solution that punishes children for the sins of their parents, no matter how egregious the parents' violation of law may be, I will vocally stand against with all my heart.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, That and I've lost a lot of sympathy for the folks waving the flags of countries other than the American one...
The Supreme Court settled that one back in 1944. Baumgartner v. U.S. 322 U.S. 665. People are allowed to think their home country is better than the country to which they have come.
Look, I've spent the past decade teaching - among other things - citizenship and respect for our flag. Even in the middle of writing this post, I picked up the phone to hear a tape-recorded message from my high school about vandalism where unknown persons broke into the school and damaged classrooms and stole several US Flags; in the hot-bed of opinion that is my town right now over the issue of flag-flying and immigration, I am teaching my children, and absolutely begging you, to let the flag issue go. It is a non-issue. A red herring. A provocative move that absolutely deserves nothing more than turning the other cheek. Let it go. Please!
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rayb, I am convinced that you and I are not going to see eye-to-eye on this one, mainly because of the stereotyping assumptions you demonstrate with comments like these:
quote: clogged with folks who have stuffy noses
and
quote: send all the money back to Mexico so he can retire as a rich mexican
This kind of attitude, if you are representative, only convinces me more that racism and bigotry are the motivating factors behind the anti-immigration crowd.
I'm dropping out of this conversation.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my views as an advocate of much more open borders are now known on this thread.
I, too, will take a break for a while.
You should not take the absence of further posts from me to mean I agree with the passionate criticisms of undocumented workers and their children on this thread.
In fact, you may assume that I have responded as follows to each one:
"I respectfully disagree."
I reserve the right to check the thread and post another response in a few days (but then again, I might not).
Posts: 319 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
David, you are right then that "humane" and "comprehensive" are code words for "open-borders". See ya in a few days. Posts: 2308 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:racism and bigotry are the motivating factors behind the anti-immigration crowd.
It seems no matter what we say we are accused of being racist unless we agree that we should open the borders, support criminals, and pay for all immigrants' education, medical bills, fallout from no insurance, and prison bills in some cases.
Apparently if legal, fair means of advocacy aren't working pulling out "the racist card" is always the best way to scare politicians into going along with any absurd request, no matter how detrimental to the country's well being. This is certainly the same technique used by illegals to support any demand no matter how absurd.
Well, I'm not buying the accusation that people who oppose supporting illegal activities are racist. It's simply not true.
Posts: 1911 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You impress me as neither shrill, nor moronic. If you had told me you were waving a Mexican flag last Monday, and shouting "Viva La Raza", then my comment could have been construed as a violation of the charter. No offense was implied, nor intended. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.
With that aside, can you lodge some reasoned criticisms of my response to your earlier post?
Posts: 1942 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Am I to understand that you see case law, and the Constitution as equivalent? Give Rhenquist a break, nobody gets it right all of the time. As for O'Connor, she never did turn out to be the Reagan appointee we had hoped she would.
I am more interested in understanding this comment;
"But why should we punish children for the sins of their parents."
I will agree the parents have "sinned", but since when is being Mexican a punishment?
Posts: 1942 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought that's what Judicial Review was...interpretation of the Constitution, i.e. until new review comes out, case decisions ARE what is Constitutional.
Posts: 5737 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
So here goes;![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
