Posted on 01/29/2013 5:02:19 AM PST by LD Jackson
There are some issues in America that simply refuse to go away. Immigration reform is one of those issues. I'm not advocating that it should fade from our consciousness, but like all issues political, it has had its time in the sun, a little here and a little there. It comes and goes, but never has there been a time when the reality of the issue could be denied. At some point, America is going to have to deal with immigration reform. It is a hot-bed topic on both sides of the political aisle and emotions have run hot.
During the latest Republican presidential primary, the issue took center stage at more than one debate. Newt Gingrich made headlines when he tried to approach the issue logically, saying there is no way we should be deporting grandparents. The term he used is that "we have to be realistic in our indignation". This was in response to Mitt Romney taking the position that we need to build a fence on our southern border and the illegals should participate in self-deportation. I'm not a big fan of Newt Gingrich, but his position made much more common sense than expecting millions of illegal immigrants would voluntarily move back to their country of origin. That just isn't going to happen and anyone who believes it will is naive.
The big news of the day Monday was the announcement of an agreement on how to proceed with immigration reform. This announcement came from a group of eight Senators, four Republicans and four Democrats. One of the Republicans is Senator Marco Rubio. The details are a little scarce, but it does contain ideas from both sides of the issue, including a process for illegal immigrants to become citizens of the United States.
(The Hill) The package features efforts to strengthen border security and better track temporary visitors to ensure they leave the country when their visas expire – provisions favored by Republicans. The proposal would also create a path to citizenship for the roughly 12 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living the in the United States – a change favored by Democrats.Before we go further, here is an outline of the basic legislative proposals we could be seeing out of the agreement between the eight Senators, taken from Hot Air.The package has been endorsed by four Democrats — Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.) — and four Republicans, Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.).
Four Basic Legislative Pillars:1. Create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States that is contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required;
2. Reform our legal immigration system to better recognize the importance of characteristics that will help build the American economy and strengthen American families;
3. Create an effective employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and end the hiring of future unauthorized workers; and,
4. Establish an improved process for admitting future workers to serve our nation’s workforce needs, while simultaneously protecting all workers.
Yes, there will be a path to citizenship included in any major reform of our immigration system. I'm not necessarily enamored with the prospect, as I believe it is unfair to the millions of legal immigrants in this country, but so be it. We may as well get used to the idea. Let's face reality. Do we really expect to be able to force 12 million illegal immigrants out of the country? Possibly, it could be done, but not without a major expenditure of time, manpower, and most of all, money. Money that we do not have. The reality isn't pleasant, but that doesn't change the fact that it is staring us in the face. How much longer can it be ignored?
Consider also, the political ramifications of standing in the way of immigration reform. There is no doubt the division on the issue, partly fueled by the reelection campaign of Barack Obama, is one reason why we are looking at another four years before he retires to Hawaii.
If immigration is almost certain to happen, would it not be wise and prudent for us to factor in the political realities of the issue and use it to our advantage? Would it not be wise and prudent for us to have a say in the legislation as it goes forward, instead of standing in the way and suffering the political consequences in 2014 and 2016? Those consequences would likely include our entire government being controlled by a Democrat Party with their minds set on advancing their liberal agenda. Is it worth it to kill legislation that reforms our immigration system, just because it contains elements which are less than palatable to our political palate?
There are a lot of considerations to look at before we move forward. Not the least of these is how the sudden influx of 12 million new "legal" workers will affect the millions of Americans who are out of work. All I am advocating is that we look closely and consider our options, preferably before we open our mouths and make a lot of statements that we can not retract. We should proceed cautiously, but proceed we should.
The problem is, what do you tell those people who are waiting in line to immigrate legally?
How many people, troops in fact, did we send overseas during WW2? Thirty million? And that was using 1940's transportation methods going across oceans.
So what is so hard about using modern transportatiom methods to take illegals to our southern border?
If the border were made impenetrable as it should have been decades ago ala the 1986 Immigration Reform package, we wouldn't be saddled with the hundreds of thousands per year influx that is daily boosting (and has been) this "ficticious" 12 million to a real number that would scare the pants off Americans. IMO, it is 50 million minimum.
Secondly, if existing laws and other new laws made penalties for hiring these invaders too harsh too ignore, many of these invaders would go home where they belong.
We simply DO NOT NEED THESE PEOPLE HERE. The canard that they're only doing the work Americans won't do is getting old. I, for one, would be glad to pay more for lettuce, or oranges, etc. if it meant illegal invaders didn't pick them. We've had over 300K people a month applying for unemployment insurance payments for almost 5 years now. Why is this tolerated?
I will not acquiesce simply because these people "want to be here." Let them go the hell home and stand in line like the rest of the third world. The cost of these people is immeasurable: drunk driving manslaughter, murder, rape, free health services, massive overcrowding of our schools, and all the other free public money they get (WICs, SNAP, et al).
NO!
Here are the House RINOs most likely to vote with Boner and RATS for Amnesty:
Lou Barletta (R-Pa.), Dan Benishek (R-Mich.), Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.), Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.), Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.), Joe Heck (R-Nev.), Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.), Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), Tom Marino (R-Pa.), Tom Meehan (R-Pa.), Kristi Noem (R-S.D.), Tom Reed (R-N.Y.), Reid Ribble (R-Wis.), John Runyan (R-N.J.), Steve Womack (R-Ark.).Rodney Alexander (R-La.), John Boehner (R-Ohio), Kevin Brady (R-Texas), Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), Kevin Calvert (R-Calif.), Dave Camp (R-Mich.), Howard Coble (R-N.C.), Tom Cole (R-Okla.), Anders Crenshaw (R-Fla.), Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.),Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.), Peter King (R-N.Y.), Jon Kline (R-Minn.), Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), Bob Latta (R-Ohio), Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), Frank Lucas (R-Okla), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo), Buck McKeon (R-Ca), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), Candice Miller (R-Mich.), Gary Miller (R-Calif.), Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), Todd Platts (R-Pa.), Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Calif.), Ed Royce (R-Calif.), Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Aaron Schock (R-Ill.), Bud Schuster (R-Pa.), John Shimkus (R-Ill.), Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Steve Stivers (R-Ohio), Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.), Mac Thornberry (R-Ga.), Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio), Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Greg Walden (R-Ore.), Bill Young (R-Fla.), Don Young (R-Alaska).
Now, about a pathway to citizenship ~ these people already have citizenship. They are not stateless people. This is not the aftermath of WWII with millions of refugees wandering around with no homeland to return to.
We have the largest economy in the world. Mexico next door has the eighth largest economy. This can be dealt with humanely through an appeal to their own self interest. I'm thinking here LAND FOR PEACE. They give us their 10 states closest to the border and we set up a new buffer state for those 12 million Mexicans.
They are a rational people. They'd understand the full implications of the offer!
Sure there will be immigration reform - which will consist of amnesty and nothing else.
No employer crackdown, no 'tough new' border enforcement rules, no mandatory english requirement. If they are there in writing they will go unfunded, or be reversed at a later time. Like always.
Just stop trying to sh*t us and tell us the truth.
Gingrich made headlines when he tried to approach the issue logically, saying there is no way we should be deporting grandparents. The term he used is that "we have to be realistic in our indignation". This was in response to Mitt Romney taking the position that we need to build a fence on our southern border and the illegals should participate in self-deportation. I'm not a big fan of Newt Gingrich, but his position made much more common sense than expecting millions of illegal immigrants would voluntarily move back to their country of origin. That just isn't going to happen and anyone who believes it will is naive.
Based on your comments, you have a lot to learn on the immigration issue. Let's see if we can start with a few:
When Mitt Romney was speaking about self-deportation, he was describing the strategy of attrition thru enforcement. It is not a naive concept, but rather a practical one.
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.
Do you understand the consequences and impact of an amnesty? Do you believe in the Rule of Law and fairness?
Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay and work here is amnesty. We must not only prevent the Democrats and some moderate Republicans from hijacking the meaning of the word amnesty, but the public must be made aware about the true impact of an amnesty.
The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty would be $2.6 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 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens--a number that many believe is much too low. We cannot assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen.
Conferring rights and privileges upon illegal aliens has a corrosive effect on the Rule of Law, the very foundation of our Republic. It is also a slap in the face to legal immigrants who have followed the rules and obeyed the laws. There are over 4 million intending immigrants waiting their turn overseas to enter the U.S. legally. They have completed all of the required paperwork, paid the fees, undergone the background checks, physicals etc. Many have been waiting for years in their countries to enter based on their immigration categories.
How fair is it to reward illegal lawbreakers with the right to stay and work here? Most of them have committed other crimes besides just thumbing their noses at our laws and entering illegally. They have committed ID theft, worked illegally, evaded taxes, misused SS numbers, drove illegally, etc. and there are estimated 2 million criminal aliens who have committed felonies such as robbery, selling of drugs, murder, etc. One third of our federal prison population are criminal aliens.
Yes, there will be a path to citizenship included in any major reform of our immigration system. I'm not necessarily enamored with the prospect, as I believe it is unfair to the millions of legal immigrants in this country, but so be it. We may as well get used to the idea.
Get used to the idea? We had an amnesty in 1986. The proponents said it would be a one-time amnesty never to occur again. They stressed that it would solve our illegal alien problem once and for all. The USG estimated that 1 million would apply, but the true number turned out to be 2.7 million. The process was rife with fraud with phony document mills being sent up blocks from the processing centers. And there was a flood of illegals who entered the US once it was apparent there was going to be an amnesty. Ed Meese, Reagan's AG, called amnesty a major mistake and should never be repeated.
The 1986 amnesty law, Simpson-Mazolli, provided for employer penalties for hiring illegals and other enforcement measures; the applicants had to be here for five years; and they had to learn English, pay a fine, etc. We had the amnesty part implemented, but enforcement was never really implemented. The result: 12 to 20 million illegal aliens waiting for a second amnesty. When you reward something, you get more of it.
Let's face reality. Do we really expect to be able to force 12 million illegal immigrants out of the country? Possibly, it could be done, but not without a major expenditure of time, manpower, and most of all, money. Money that we do not have. The reality isn't pleasant, but that doesn't change the fact that it is staring us in the face. How much longer can it be ignored?
You create a phony strawman. Why the urgency to legalize the status of the 12 to 20 million lawbreakers already here? We can enforce our immigration laws including making such programs as E-Verify mandatory to cut off the job magnet, the elimination birthright citizenship to stop the drain of 300,000 to 400,000 anchor babies born to illegal aliens annually, and other measures to make life as uncomfortable as possible for illegal aliens giving them little choice but to go elsewhere.
Do you realize how much immigration, legal and illegal, is costing us? Illegal immigration is costing about $130 billion a year in just education, healthcare, and law enforcement not to mention the human toll. 57% of immigrant headed households are on welfare.
If immigration is almost certain to happen, would it not be wise and prudent for us to factor in the political realities of the issue and use it to our advantage? Would it not be wise and prudent for us to have a say in the legislation as it goes forward, instead of standing in the way and suffering the political consequences in 2014 and 2016? Those consequences would likely include our entire government being controlled by a Democrat Party with their minds set on advancing their liberal agenda. Is it worth it to kill legislation that reforms our immigration system, just because it contains elements which are less than palatable to our political palate?
We are already suffering the electoral consequences of our immigration policies that are effectively making the Dems the permanent majority party. The canary in the coal mine is CA. That is our future. Immigration has changed the demographics of the US forever. There is a reason why the Dems want amnesty and the continuing flood of 1.2 million legal immigrants a year, most of whom are poor and uneducated.
There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the Dems will win the WH in 2016 and for many elections to come. The reelection of a failed President who defied political gravity is proof that we have already reached a tipping point electorally. Demography is destiny.
I will provide you separately with a real immigration reform plan in another post. I agree that, "we look closely and consider our options, preferably before we open our mouths and make a lot of statements that we can not retract." You should start with yourself before spouting a lot of nonsense about a subject you appear to know very little about.
Lou Barletta? Are you nuts?
Republicans need to provide the American people with their own comprehensive immigration reform plan, i.e., give people a reason to vote FOR something rather than just attack the other side’s proposals. Such a plan should contain the following elements:
Formulate a merit based immigration system that brings in the skills and talents to keep us competitive in the global economy;
Reduce immigration levels based on need more closely approximating 300,000 a year;
Eliminate extended chain migration, i.e., family reunification, limiting it to the nuclear family,
Secure the border;
Enforce existing immigration laws to reduce the current illegal alien population and limit future illegal immigration, i.e., attrition thru enforcement. Enforcement would include: (1) ending the job magnet; (2) increasing coordination at the federal level by eliminating barriers to information sharing among agencies; (3) leveraging state and local enforcement resources; (4) fully implementing the US-VISIT Program to track and deport visa overstays; and (5) make mandatory and improve such programs as E-Verify and 287 [g] authority to assist employers and law enforcement in identifying illegal aliens;
Eliminate birthright citizenship and the visa lottery program;
Ensure that anyone who enters this nation illegally is not rewarded by being permitted to stay and work here; i.e., no amnesty;
Streamline the processing and adjudication of immigration cases;
Promote pro-immigrant measures that help newcomers assimilate and embrace the values and principles of our Founders and the Constitution.
NO! There has to be a penalty for living in this country illegally. The penalty is to NEVER HAVE A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP. Pass that priveleage down to your children who are born in this country, but NOT TO THE LAWBREAKERS.
I'm a realist and understand you're not going to deport 12-15 million people, so I'm not happy but OK with giving otherwise non-criminals green cards. But not citizenship.
Totally agree, 11 is a nicer number than 30-40 actual
Well for one thing the day this immigration proposal goes into effect all illegals will be legal before the border is secure so you can expect millions more to come.
Second these legislators will not tell you that polls have shown only about 20% of illegals have any interest in becoming US citizens. They are mostly here to work and get the freebies and send money home. So the reality is that this amnesty package we are going to get shoved down our throats is not even going to bring most illegals out of the shadows.
The other thing you will never hear coming out of your legislator’s mouth is that we already have 4 guest worker programs to bring people in to work and then let them go back home.
Bottom line neither party has the cojones to get rid of the illegals so its just easier to let them stay and of course they have no intention of securing the border with Mexico. The Mexican govt does not want it and we are not going to close off their escape valve. If we did they would have to reform their own failed govt and create jobs for their citizens.
Marco Rubio can almost taste the Presidency in 2016 and he needs a landmark issue to run on. Immigration reform.
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.