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.
They want to change the law to benefit the lawbreakers. You can't call that anything but amnesty, if you're an honest person.
And anyone who's in favor of it can go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned, from President Bush straight on down to you.
Amnesty does not mean citizenship (although some jurisdictions now want to give ILLEGALS the right to vote)Second, the country just does not have the capacity to absorb and assimilate as many individuals as there are here.
I disagree, although we have to start taking steps now on assimilation.
Third, where do you draw the line? Ten years? How about nine years six months?
It would be a judgement call by the boards with time spent here being weighed against behavior/sponsorship/assimilation. There would be a cutoff but some who lived here 9 years and 6 months would get to stay, and some who lived here 10 years and 6 months would get the boot.
What about anchor babies?
The simpliest way to address anchor babies w/regard to amnesty boards is to ask what about anchor babies without amnesty boards?
Which gets us to another problem we conservatives have in how we are dealing this issue. How we deal with it is that we scream. That's pretty much it.
Anchor babies are citizens according to federal law and the fairest reading of the 14th Amendment Where is our amendment to the Constitution to restrict by-right citizenship? I don't know of anybody proposing one? Why? I don't know, but maybe we ought to be contacting our legislators about it. It would at least be productive.
Bwahahahahahaha!!!
Trib, we're talking about the federal government here - not Johnson & Johnson.
The FedGov, as enormous as it is, can barely manage the jobs it's already taken upon itself. I have no faith it could ever do an effective job of managing this "comprehensive amnesty"
It would have a much better chance if the problem were carved up and solved systematically.
Step 1: Plug the hole in the boat (build the fence and patrol it). Then we'll talk about Step 2.
I'm not sure that someone who is here illegally -- someone whom the government isn't even aware is here -- is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.A.
Any constitutional lawyers out there?
Maybe that well-run amnesty board can help the State Department with the passport backlog.
Like the Fort Dix terrorists who, up utill recently lived here as law abiding illegals untill they decided to blow up JFK?
OK, who are we expecting to enforce the border? Check hirings?
If it's that bad we are screwed regardless. But it's not that bad. The feds can be fixed. It does mean, however, having a plan that is a little more nuanced that what we are presenting.
Another example: of the problem before us
Why not push for a law allowing business to discriminate free and clear on the basis of English fluency? They can't do it now. I think a lot of small business owners are going to get the shaft big time if the enforcement provisons some are pushing for are passed.
However, I expect that they would immediately vote Democrats into office and make matters unimaginably worse.
Furthermore, the nation cannot absorb them all.
Social Security, for example, is almost broke, even without extending its entitlements to them.
And worst of all, nobody seems to know what's in this amnesty bill. There is no reason to think that Bush et al. will enforce new law when they refuse to enforce existing laws. I have NO confidence in Bush or his bill.
Not only that--existing law will suffice if enforced.
Bush has made it clear that he has no intention of enforcing U.S. immigration laws.
And also--Bush has revealed himself to be a con artist--trying to pull a fast one on the American people!
Amnesty might be acceptable if it were not for these other considerations.
Frankly, I don't trust Bush. And the more he says "Trust me" the less I do.
But it's not just Bush. I don't trust any of those politicians in Washington.
Can you imagine what would happen if those mediocrities were writing the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution???
One shudders to contemplate it!
Throw 'em all out!
I say let's make it a requirement that a tazer receiver be implanted within the strotum of every official in Washington and that every American citizen have access to its trigger. Maybe that'll keep 'em honest.
Are you sure? Enforcement is being stepped up:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=191204
I have no illusions about the competency of the FedGov to do anything. But it's a much simpler matter, if our corrupted "betters" will allow it, for the Feds to build the a fence and give the BP the latitude to patrol it than to create a massive new bureaucracy to "control" every aspect of this mess.
Once the hole in the boat is plugged, ICE raids and employer enforcement (as spotty as it is) will have a chilling effect on the attaction of illegals to stay here. Eventually, given time, employers will need to find alternate ways to be competitive and many illegals will go home.
This problem wasn't created overnight and it won't be solved overnight. But we simply cannot allow our culture to be swamped with tens of millions of poorly-educated "legalized" illegals from Central America.
Who would appoint the members of the amnesty board(s)?
How 'bout the fact that he isn't always such a mild-mannered, English-speaking, lettuce picker? How 'bout the fact that he alone brought 58 other family members here by now? How 'bout the fact that he's fathered another 5 free babies and you and I paid for them? Sir, the list goes on. Stop the madness NOW!
Your “PAPERS PLEASE SOCIETY” remark serves as a most smarmy cutesy tagline.
... Would you apply that particular slogan to any and all laws that simply just get in your way?
Feel free to pick a few more laws that you want enforcement to be sidestepped, we’ll do the same, and see where that would go.
Who would be candidates for such an “amnesty board?”
I could care less. Some things are more important than profit.
I owned a small business for years and once had a latino carpenter working for me under a fraudulent SSN. When it came to my attention, I threw him out on his ear immediately. If I could do it, other owners can do it too.
Amnesty in the context of the Senate bill means virtually instant legalization of resident illegal aliens. Do you disagree?
It’s pretty easy to take a relaxed attitude when you live in PA.
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.