He creates the phony strawmen of those who are on the right, i.e., white racists, population pessimists, selfish-upper middle class who resent paying taxes to support the poor, or cynical politicians who want to keep the illegals here as long as they can't vote.
People have a genuine right to switch countries when they are unsafe or cannot find “means of livelihood.” The Catechism says nothing about mere economic betterment; I would live better in Switzerland, but that does not mean that the Swiss owe me citizenship. Only the prospect of grave physical danger or the inability to live and raise children grants a right of immigration. Even then, this right is not absolute, but is subject to the “common good” of the receiving countries. Part of that common good which immigrants must respect, as a condition of exercising the right to enter a country, is to “respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”
Pure claptrap. Immigration to America is a privilege, not a right. There are literally billions of people who would qualify for immigration to this country using his standards. Immigration must serve the national interests of America. We already take in 1.1 million LEGAL IMMIGRANTS A YEAR, more than the rest of the world combined. We have admitted 29 million legal immigrants since 1990.
But we want to be merciful, where we can, while protecting the common good. And it is surely imprudent to deport 12 million people. It is equally imprudent to grant those people an amnesty while the U.S. borders are still insecure — since doing so would surely invite yet another influx. Even the rumor of a possible amnesty goaded thousands of parents to dump their children across our borders. Every child who dies in the desert is a victim of those rumors.
When you reward something, you get more of it. Any legislation that allows the lawbreakers to stay and work here is amnesty. Citizenship is just the cherry on top.
If we put such firm policies in place, and made their enforcement well known to potential immigrants, it would then be safe to grant some legal status to current illegal residents.
The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty would be $6.3 trillion just for increased entitlement program costs. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach tens of millions over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers.
Zmirak says all the rights things about securing the border, implementing a system to track and deport visa overstays, employer verification, etc., but he fails to say how the transition will work. Do we stop deporting people while what he suggests is being implemented, which could take years? Why can't we just have enforcement only?
The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between a blanket amnesty and mass deportation of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. In reality, we have other choices and alternatives that don’t reward people who have broken our laws with the right to stay and work here and an eventual path to citizenship. The 12 to 20 million illegal aliens did not enter this country overnight and they will not leave overnight. Attrition through enforcement works. We have empirical data from Georgia, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Arizona proving that it does.
During the 2006 amnesty debate, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) commissioned a Zogby poll offering respondents not the false choice between mass deportation or amnesty (a word CIS did not use in the survey), but rather a three-way choice between mass deportation, earned legalization, and attrition — and attrition was preferred two-to-one over legalization.
We must dismiss the instincts of tribalism on both sides of the issue and work together for the common good of the country. That is our duty as patriotic citizens who are grateful for all that our nation has given us, who know that love of neighbor demands the practice of thoughtful, active citizenship.
The author doesn't comprehend the motivations involved by the left. We need to reduce legal immigration substantially. We should go to a to a merit-based immigration system and not the current kinship system. Immigrants, legal and illegal, are taking American jobs and depressing wages. Immigrants, legal and illegal, use the welfare system to a much greater extent than the native born. And immigrants who become citizens vote more than two to one Democrat.