Posted on 12/12/2003 12:05:21 AM PST by yonif
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:40:59 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A great idea. I have already done so verbally, but a copy of what is NOT coming sounds good. I still wonder though if money is the key. It is the votes that will be most important.
Even if i reward my children for bad behavior they will surely repeat it, even increase it. The same would happen with the border.
I hope Bush trashes this lame idea because it will not help him with either Mexican American votes or Republicans., Even worse its just plain wrong to do.
Mexican Americans are a great asset to America.
Illegals of any kind are not. The cheap labor they provided just wont be cheap anymore. Thats the price to pay for security.
That's not true. Only race baiters like you say "Latinos should fix their own country." The rest of us say "Mexicans should fix their own country." 'Mexican' is a nationality not a race. Most of the other immigrants you described came here legally.
I read in a newspaper a while ago that our immigration laws have changed little in the past eighty years since they were developed by Hitler-admiring eugenists ...
Then how did the Eastern-Europeans, the Russians and the Vietnamese get here? They all came in the last eighty years. You've been reading leftist propaganda. Stop it it rots the mind.
You're dead on.
I just checked your Freeper background, and saw that you signed up in April 2003, and you were (or are) a home-schooled HS Senior.
First, let me say that this is wonderful. It's much better to learn about the immigration issues here than to be force-fed the "everything is wonderful about our friends from other countries" nonsense in the public schools.
Do they know they are an invasion force? Especially with the Mexicans, every indication from things that have been posted from a Mexico City newspaper is that yes, they do. Vincente Fox's actions and demands, and some of the quotes you'll read in some articles, indicate that the goal is to turn most of the SW United States into part of a greater Mexico.
You might want to get your name on the lists of people to be pinged about border issues. At times, the maps, the outrageous demands, and the attitude of we US citizens can't live without their labor will come up.
You seem to be a very intelligent, thoughtful person for your age group. It might be harder for you to see the impact this invasion has had on our culture, safety, education, and economics because you don't have the basis of comparison that us older folks do.
Keep on freepin'...
Hey that's good! We simply ask everyone who comes in to the U.S. "Do you plan on subverting our laws and/or committing terrorist acts?" and if they answer "yes" we send them back. Brilliant!
Get Tom Ridge on the line and let him know what you came up with.
Now how do we get the questionaires to the ones who are sneaking in at night and in the backs of freight trucks?
Personally, I think PresBush would be seriously damaging his re-election chances by offering to give any form to amnesty to illegal aliens. But then again, I thought the USSC would throw out CFR. So what do I know.
Since Bush receieved little opposition from within the GOP's majority base of conservatives, on legislation that ranged from increased spending on education, farm subsidies and the new Medicare PDP, may be the Bush people think this is the right time to seek passage of some limited amnesty program. Say for about five million illegals.
Wonder if Bush, Cheney and Rove feel that confident about re-election and are that willing to spend political capital on the issue of amnesty. We shall see.
Upholding the Immigration Laws: No Large-Scale Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants
Seth H. Harris
April 23, 2001
Should the United States ever grant another amnesty to persons who have illegally immigrated to the United States since January 1, 1982?
Since Congress approved the last large-scale general amnesty for illegal immigrants in the United States in 1986, people throughout the world have debated whether it accomplished its goals and whether the United States government would grant another amnesty in the future. Proponents of another amnesty argue that there are many illegal immigrants in the nation that live in fear of deportation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They also say that employers exploit illegal immigrant labor and that adjusting the residency status of the aliens would help protect their human rights under the Constitution (Whalen 28).
As the number of illegal aliens estimated in the United States continues to increase, human rights advocates and many members of Congress have been pressing for another large-scale amnesty for these aliens (Cheng A16). Although the arguments of amnesty proponents are valid, another large-scale amnesty would discriminate against foreign nationals awaiting permission to enter the United States, hurt the United States economy, and create a mockery of the United States immigration laws.
In 1986, the United States Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which essentially created a "guest worker" program that allowed for temporary admission for certain types of employment, sanctions against employers who hire undocumented workers, and a large-scale general amnesty for illegal immigrants who have resided in the United States continuously since January 1, 1982 (Briggs 163).
The amnesty allowed approximately three million illegal immigrants that were not excludable to automatically adjust their national status to permanent resident alien without penalty. This was necessary because many of the immigration laws prior to 1986 were ambiguous and were misinterpreted by immigrants.
Also, the amnesty was supposed to alleviate the high number of illegal aliens residing in the United States and allow the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the border patrol to start a stricter policy of border enforcement (Edwards 4A). It should also be understood that the bill passed Congress under the assumption that it would be a one-time amnesty and that future illegal entry into the country would be punished.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of law enforcement officials to ensure that illegal immigrants are barred from entering the nation and those who have already entered the nation are punished and deported. Implementing another large-scale general amnesty would contradict the United States' assertion of discouraging illegal aliens from entering the nation (Geyer 19A).
One important reason for not permitting another general amnesty is that it rewards lawbreakers and discriminates against foreign nationals that are currently in their home country awaiting permission to enter the United States. Amnesties encourage illegal aliens to enter the United States and avoid authorities until the government allows them to legally adjust their national status.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, "another amnesty would send a signal to those foreigners seeking to migrate to the US that they too should risk dangerous passage, endure unscrupulous employers, and hide out for years in hopes of yet another amnesty (Illegal 10)."
As a result of the 1986 amnesty provision, a large influx of aliens entered the United States in hopes of gaining another amnesty that Congress is debating. By 1997, five million illegal immigrants were estimated to be living in the United States (Mendieta 23). This shows that by granting an amnesty, the government not only gives no incentive for following the Immigration and Naturalization Service procedure in applying for an immigrant visa, but also encourages more illegal immigrants to enter the country.
If the United States government wants to legitimize its immigration laws, it must enforce them to the best of its ability. They must not contradict these laws or risk having more foreign nationals disregard them.
It has been recommended that a compromise be reached and grant a general amnesty to those illegal immigrants who pay a fine to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Mendieta 23). This is not a worthwhile alternative because it would create a market for United States citizenship and would grant an immigrant visa only to those immigrants that could afford to pay.
Citizenship is not a commodity and should not be able to be bought at any price by anybody. Also, even if a fine were implemented, it would be discriminatory to favor nationals of wealthy nations over those of poor nations. Not only would this create an imbalance of immigrants from different countries, it would not give each person an equal opportunity to achieve national status in the United States. Therefore, in order to give each person an equal opportunity to enter the United States legally and achieve national status, the government must not grant a general amnesty.
Another large-scale general amnesty could also create major economic problems for the economy of the United States. According to the New York Times, illegal aliens in the United States cost the federal government twenty-five billion dollars annually in 1984. This accounts for emergency services, health visits, and other social welfare programs that any person in the nation receives (King A20).
It is very difficult to determine the national status of a person prior to providing them with these essential services. Therefore, illegal immigrants receive these services at the expense of taxpaying citizens. Also, illegal immigrants that work in low-paying, non-skilled positions in the United States displace legal employees from jobs (Edwards 4A). Illegal immigrants will often accept extremely low wages jobs so that they will have just enough money on which to live. This makes them more attractive to employers because they can get the same quality of labor at a considerably lower price.
According to a study by Donald L. Huddle, professor of labor economics at Rice University, "for every one hundred illegal aliens working in the United States, sixty-five United States workers lose their jobs (King A20)." By following this formula, about three million Americans are currently unemployed because of illegal immigrant labor. This costs taxpayers eighteen billion dollars in unemployment insurance each year (King A20).
This is not fair to legal workers that have to support a family and earn a living wage. While hard working, unskilled American workers are being displaced, the wage levels of the lowest paid jobs are pushed even lower. Thus, as the wage level is forced down, it becomes harder to earn a living wage. In order to protect American workers from being displaced and to ensure the financial stability of the United States economy, illegal immigrants should not be granted an amnesty.
In order to maintain the integrity of our immigration laws and avoid the need for another amnesty similar to the one granted in 1986, the United States must solve the problem of illegal immigration at its source. This means that the United States must commit itself to a strict enforcement of its immigration laws. This would include stricter border controls, regular audits of employers' I-9 forms, and deporting any and all illegal immigrant found in the nation, consistent with current laws. The United States needs to portray itself as a nation that takes its laws seriously and follows them consistently (Hollingsworth 15).
In order to do this properly, the government must follow the same guidelines in each and every case for admitting foreign nationals to the United States. The Immigration and Naturalization Service would not have to explain its reasons for its admission decision in each case because it would be following strict guidelines. For example, proponents of an amnesty argue that illegal aliens that have children born in the United States should be granted amnesty (Keep 10). This could create one of the largest loopholes in immigration history. It would encourage illegal aliens to enter the United States, have a child, and be automatically granted permanent resident alien status.
It would be much more organized if the government required all illegal immigrants to return to their native country, either with or without their child, and apply for an immigrant visa before returning. This would ensure that each prospective immigrant is given an equal opportunity to enter the United States, give more consistency to the legal immigration process, and allow the United States government to more accurately control who is granted an immigrant visa. It would not be inhumane because it would just require all foreign nationals to go through the same process for applying for permanent resident alien status.
Another large-scale general amnesty must not be granted because it would undermine the integrity of the United States immigration laws. It would be demeaning to the border patrol because the government would essentially be encouraging illegal aliens to avoid authorities in order to gain national status. Without a strict controlling of entry into the United States, the governmentÂ's national sovereignty would be greatly compromised. This would then make it more difficult to enforce internal laws. The first, and supposedly one-time, general amnesty in 1986 was designed to reduce overall illegal immigration, but instead had the opposite effect.
It is argued by proponents of another amnesty that the illegal immigrants that have been in the nation for many years are working and have families (Whalen 28). Although this would finally allow illegal immigrants to obtain national status, the United States cannot simply take a humanitarian approach toward them while harming the American people and economic stability. Therefore, the United States Congress must take into consideration the negative effects that such a large-scale amnesty might have on the nation and whether granting this amnesty would even accomplish its goal.
Works cited and source of the article:
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/shh22/amnesty.doc
OR here.
How about writing in Tom Tancredo? If enough of us do it... who knows?
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.