Posted on 06/22/2007 6:57:10 AM PDT by Tribune7
For the record, I'm glad the recent immigration bill failed to pass but it would be wise for we conservatives not to go red-in-the-face and start banging our heads against the wall every time we hear the word "amnesty".
What's wrong with letting someone stay who snuck across the border 10 years ago, learned English, became a productive member of the community, and kept out of trouble? Especially considering the aggravation it would take to root him out.
Now, understand this does not mean letting someone stay who has been nothing but trouble for 10 years, or who just snuck across three weeks ago or who has been unproductive, which as I fear would be the case in the 380 page Kennedy bill.
Rather, than a blanket amnesty -- and let's use amnesty in the sense that it is meant: no fines, no punishment -- require that those needing it apply for it as individuals and appear before amnesty boards which would determine merit based on easily understood criteria such as fluency in English, no criminal record, having held jobs, and, importantly, sponsorship by more than one citizen in good standing (no criminal record, has a job).
The point is amnesty is not a bad word and is almost certainly going to be part of any solution to this problem, so we really should put a plan of our own on the table.
You can scream about enforcement -- and enforcement should be stepped up -- but frankly I'd rather be up to my keister in Mexicans than live in a "your papers please" society.
spend a couple days and nights in lovely LA and get back to me...
I have a cousin in Europe who wants to come to America. Should I have her fly to Mexico, cross the border and skirt our laws? It would be a lot less expensive and time comsuming for her, right? Why not — because she would be breaking our laws and disrespecting our country, that is why.
Explain to me, then why my son — a high-scorer on the ACT who wants to go into rocket science — is given less credit in states outside our own but illegals are awarded preferential treatment?
No wall — no talk of amnesty. Period.
Close the border first. Enforce sanctions on employers first. Deport those convicted of a crime first. Cut off government benefits to illegals. Then look to the issue of what to do with those left in the country . . .
Think they will self-deport when they don’t have jobs or benefits and the problem is solved.
spend a couple days and nights in lovely LA and get back to me...
:::::
Good point — California’s expanding barrio.
OK. I have known a few who did that. Ten years ago may have been a different story- it may have been a leak rather than a stampede.
It also sets the precedent that if enough people ignore a law, the law will go away, and the fact it is a crime will be ignored.
So, all you drug legalizers, jump on the bandwagon!
And this also means none of us have to file Income Tax returns or pay withholding either! I mean, millions of people hate those!
That's kind of the point isn't it? How many of those causing problems in LA are gang members/drug dealers who would be rejected by a well-run amnesty board?
There are several things wrong with your suggestion.
First and foremost it rewards law-breaking and tells the hundreds of thousands of LEGAL immigrants that they are saps and suckers for playing by the rules.
Second, the country just does not have the capacity to absorb and assimilate as many individuals as there are here.
Third, where do you draw the line? Ten years? How about nine years six months? What about family ties? What about anchor babies?
We have to insist that anyone in the US in contravention of the rules leave. We shouldn’t round them up, we should simply put them on notice and give them a reasonable period, say 60 to 90 days to pack up and get out.
If they are found in the US at some later time, they shuld be subject to arrest, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment, to a term sufficient to make it unlikely that many will stay behind.
its not just drug dealers and gang bangers, its the radical movement that wants to reconquista the southwest..
Another point -- that would be kind of a stupid risk for her to take wouldn't it? Especially since the amnesty wouldn't be "by right" but determined on a case-by-case basis via a board.
“That’s kind of the point isn’t it? How many of those causing problems in LA are gang members/drug dealers who would be rejected by a well-run amnesty board?”
Any idea how much it might cost to pay for an amnesty board that would hear and decide on 20 million different cases?
Because stupid and corrupt people are running our society, and if we don't start thinking about the solutions we offer it is going to get a lot worse.
How is an employer supposed to determine who's legal and who's not, without "papers"?
>> I’d rather be up to my keister in Mexicans than live in a “your papers please” society.
That’s hyperbole.
Enforcing immigration laws won’t turn us into a “your papers please” society.
But when you go to get a job you WILL have to “show papers” to prove you’re a citizen and your SSAN is accurate. JUST LIKE IT HAS BEEN FOR AWHILE. Problem with that?
Would it be a “your papers please” society if you were required to show “your papers” (drivers’ license) to vote?
Oh, and by the way, we’re ALREADY up to our keisters in Mexicans.
If you’ll excuse me, I need to get back to work now, to pay for their “Lone Star” welfare cards and medicaid, and save up for the Texas state income tax that WILL be implemented if “amnesty” ever opens the floodgates even wider...
So, the criterion for leniency is having broken our laws for a longer period of time?? No thanks.
I agree with the "simplists". Close the border, impose stiff fines on businesses who hire illegals, hire more ICE agents, and let nature take its course. Eventually we will deport them all, with no serious "aggravation" to speak of.
It took my brother in law six months to immigrate to the US and he was married to an American citizen ten years, had a firm job offer and a house.
He would have been better to snick across the southern boarder.
What planet are you living on? Have you read NOTHING ABOUT THIS ISSUE except what your local liberal rag decides to run about the poor, put upon illegals? Do you really want to live in a Third World country? Do you really want to live in a country that has abandoned the rule of law? How many people in your city have been killed by illegal alien criminals or illegal alien drunk drivers? Did you refuse to show your "papers" the last time you started a new job? Have you no desire to collect the Social Security benefits you have been paying for all these years? Do you really want the hospital emergency rooms in your community to close because they are overrun? Spend some time in LA and then let us know what you think. I urge you to inform yourself and at least make an attempt to think things through.
Why does it have to be an either/or ?
While we aren’t a true democracy, we are a country ruled by the majority. Maybe it’s time for the minority to seek their utopia where the minority does rule.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.