Posted on 03/07/2006 12:51:23 AM PST by XHogPilot
As the Senate is entering the great debate over illegal immigration, it's imperative to examine the frequent claim of "immigrants' rights." Bluntly said, people who are illegally in this country possess only those civil rights that we grant to them.
Yes, they have human rights, such as the familiar life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But civil rights, by most definitions, are protections and privileges of freedom given by nation's laws to its citizens.
This, of course, flies in the face of the contemporary confusion about "immigrants' rights," which proclaims that anyone who lands on U.S. soil, by whatever means, has the same civil right to obtain a driver's license, get a subsidized mortgage or any of the other benefits that are typically granted by law to citizens.
An illegal immigrant can claim the protections of human rights, which cannot be voided by any governmental action. But--and this will startle and anger some--an "undocumented" immigrant has no claim to equal treatment.
This may sound like a lot of philosophical gibberish, but it has some very real implications. For example, the teen who was in America illegally and who was denied admission to an Elmwood Park school has a human right to an education. But whether she has a civil right to attend that school, using our public money, at this time, should be a matter for the citizens of the United States and Elmwood Park to decide. Same goes for issuing driver's licenses or providing mortgage assistance.
I might sound like a squirrelly policy wonk for saying it, but if the citizens of the United States don't get to decide who qualifies for citizenship and who benefits from government programs, then citizenship is made meaningless by denying them control over their laws and their spending. So, Americans are properly offended by the bald-faced attempt by Mexico President Vicente Fox and 10 other Latin American leaders to prescribe their solution to the vast problems caused by the illegal presence of 11 million people in our country and a non-functional border.
While we're trying to set some ground rules in this difficult debate, it would help to clarify some language. A foreigner (yes, that's the proper name for someone here from another country) who can't produce his documents to demonstrate his legal status in the United States is different from a foreigner who has no documents because he is here illegally. Thus, "undocumented immigrant" is an imprecise substitute for "illegal immigrant."
It is yet another loss for proper usage in the never-ending skirmish over political correctness. And while the use of "illegal immigrant" may cause offense, it hardly rises to the offensive heights caused by labeling one side of a legitimate debate "nativists" or "xenophobes."
Also, as we enter this debate, it's wise to bring up what we've learned from the past, since we've been around this corner before. In 1986, we conducted this same debate and the "solution" then was to grant amnesty to about 2.7 million illegal immigrants. Then, amnesty advocates said we need grant it "just this once," and that better enforcement--mostly going after employers who hire illegal immigrants--would solve the problem. That amnesty didn't stop the illegal flow across our border, and enforcement--especially by the Bush administration--has been a joke.
Last year, 86 members of Congress felt compelled to urge President Bush to enforce three dozen immigration laws that they said the administration had ignored.
Amnesty wasn't part of a border-security bill the House passed last year. But the Senate won't escape a debate over amnesty, especially with President Bush pushing for a "guest worker" program. At least four bills are up for Senate consideration, but as far as I can tell, none of them would immediately round up 11 million people and ship them "back." Nonetheless, some believe any solution is so intractable that we might as well live with an open border.
To the contrary, we can solve this problem, humanely and effectively. Strengthen our border. Enforce the laws on the books. Restore respect for the rule of law. Agree that the fight isn't over immigration, but illegal immigration. And, most important, agree that Americans have a right to define and defend what it means to be an American.
A big part of the problem that must be resolved is the dispute between feds and local law enforcement. A cooperative system has broken down and is just now being rebuilt.
IMO, These people have the right to be treated with respect as We kick their butts back to where they came from.
It would be more precise to say, "But civil rights, by most definitions, are protections and privileges of freedom preserved by nation's laws by its citizens.
The alleged reasoning by those wanting this perk for illegal aliens is straight out of the Twilight Zone: The bill "would punish young people for their parents' decision to bring them to this country." (The Washington Times, March 7, p. B3)
Those saying this are mentally retarded, psychotic, corrupt, and/or traitors.
The illegal invasion is a religious matter, and the remapping of a nation, for the political, economic, educational and religious shareholders. I can think of no other issue that demonstrates what the liberals belief, a living evolving Constitution.
Enforcement by the Bush admin has been no better or worse than Clinton..or Bush 41..or Reagan.
"So, Americans are properly offended by the bald-faced attempt by Mexico President Vicente Fox and 10 other Latin American leaders to prescribe their solution to the vast problems caused by the illegal presence of 11 million people in our country and a non-functional border."
There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for Vincente and his buddies to give a rip about Americans. They've all probably worked out a deal, to send in the illegals then later split up the land amongst themselves. They know that Washington is sporting a big ego...
Can you ping your list, please?
Freedoms are not given to anyone, by anyone other than the Creator, the Constitution places constraints on the government's interaction with "persons" (read Amendments five and six to the Constitution) and enjoins it to protect rights that we already have by Nature's Law, and limits their ability to interfere with them, so protection from governmental abuse of power is afforded to both citizens, and non-citizens.
Criminals are not afforded any less protection under the Constitution than non-criminals are, and non-citizens are not afforded less protection than citizens.
Criminals have all the same civil rights that you have, up until the time that the Constitutional process has been observed, and that individual has been found guilty of a crime.
Having said that, access to government entitlements is not a "right", but the argument is sure being made that it is.
The Constitution is not a "living, evolving thing", but the people and the Nation are.
The Framers, in crafting the Constitution, created a marvel of minilamism; adaptable, amendable, giving just enough guidelines to be an effective tool of government in spite of the major changes undergone by the Nation since its ratification nearly 220 years ago.
The question then is, if the people of the late 1700's America, truly believed in the right of the people to chose their own mode of government, that sovereignty rested on the people to dictate to government in what manner they would be governed, and that the people had the right to craft a Constitution setting such rules and restrictions in place, why would the people of 2006 America have less of a right to do the same?
The Constitution is a living and evolving thing because the people and the Nation are living and evolving, and the Constitution is the will of the people, not an imposition on the people of today by the people of yesterday.
You would be correct if the Supreme Court had taken from the people the right to amend the Constitution, they have not.
What they've done, they have done with our taciturn approval.
Safeguarding the Constitution, even from the Supreme Courts requires action.
We take no action.
I think that if we do the math, the Constitution may be amended without a super majority of the people. Proposing an amendment requires the approval of two thirds of the States in both Chambers of Congress, not two thirds of the people. That's 33 States. Ratifying it requires three fourths of the States, that's 38 States.
California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, and Georgia house the majority of citizens, but even if they all voted against an amendment, they would fail to defeat it if the remaining 40 States ratified it.
You were doing great until that last paragraph.
I had no idea that you were British.
"I had no idea that you were British."
LOL.... I was speaking to the PC perversion not nationality. As far as I am aware not a drop of British blood in me, not that I could change it if there was.
All I have to say is that they come over here, illegally, and have in a month what most americans have worked their whole lives to get. Many American CITIZENS who are working for harldy minimum wage have a hard time getting welfare where as illegals have no problem with it, assuming my research is correct. It is getting rediculous and something needs to be done. Our economy is going DOWN DOWN DOWN and because of corprate companies it is getting harder and harder for citizens to find jobs. It took me three years to find a job because everywhere I went jobs were taken by, assuming, illegals whose companies are willing to cover up that many of their employees are illegal because they will work for anything. URG! not cool!!!
Learn the language, get a green card, pledge your allegiance to AMERICA, or get the hell out.
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.