Posted on 06/16/2007 11:17:18 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I have been listening to the talk show hosts on this issue for several years. None of them, nor the vast majority of the callers, have had any contact with the INS (or whatever it is called at this moment), and do not understand just how broken the immigration system has been for many decades. THAT is why people have come illegally - there is no proper legal structure to use to come here, except for a few 10’s of 1000’s of people each year.
It is amazing to me that this huge and vital national debate, which started at the grassroots, is based on so much ignorance, with little attempt having been made to educate the citizenry to the background.
I also agree that there are 14million illegals - but that’s probably the total for Southern California alone, not the nation, it’s probably 30 million Hispanics give or take a few million, and millions of others from all over the world.
US citizenship is an honor.
It shouldn’t be offered to illegals just because they are here.
In fact the opposite is true - they broke the law to get here and shouldn’t be rewarded by letting them jump the line ahead of people who are trying to immigrate legally.
Illegals are squatters and looters and don’t deserve citizenship.
thanks to earned income credit they will get a refund bigger than what they paid in
Yep, and that 12 million figure is more like 35 million,
just from my area I can tell there has been a huge increase. And it has nothing to do with being predujice,
I like most any folks who don’t break the law.
Congress men and women who pass this immigration amnesty will lose respect.
Well put, bears repeating.
Pat's plan would still saddle this country with 12-20 million poorly educated, barely literate people. I believe that they would still consume our social services at a much higher rate than your average born-and-raised American. And just because they can pass some rudimentary government English test, doesn't mean that they're going to speak English day-to-day. I'm tired of "press 2 for Spanish", and I don't want it to get worse.
All these fancy proposals for bringing these people into the country still fail to answer the most basic question: Why should we?
“If Arnold Schwarzenegger can’t run for president, like any other citizen, because he wasn’t born here, why should children born here illegally have more rights than the governor of California? In a democracy worthy of the name, personal rights and obedience to law are inseparable”
I cant be president either...eventhough I am an American citizen, because I was not born here...
This is a great point...
“The bar to be a legal resident alien should be lower than the bar to become a citizen”
At present it is not lower...it’s the same...
The holder of a Registered Alien card, (green card) is eligible to become an American citizen...
That’s why green cards are so valuable and sought after...
When the US govt hands out a green card, its saying “you pass muster...you qualify to become an American citizen...
Green cards are not given to people who do not meet all the requirements to become an American citizen...
The only thing the immigrant /Registered Alien need do is be in the US the required time , know English, pass the knowledge tests and pay the fees...
Not further legal ramifications are required...
Pat Boone is amazing. He has not lost a step, he is still as sharp as a razor and lively as ever.
If its ok to make illegal aliens into Citizens, then conversely its ok to make politicians like Bush, Kennedy, McCain into illegal aliens.
Deport them now.
I agree. Also, a few hundred carcasses floating down the Rio Grande each day would be a great deterrent.
Individual Rights Don't Come From the Government
Like the founders of this country, I believe that our individual rights exist by the very fact of our existance as thinking human beings, and that these rights are not the gift of kings or congressmen. Rights do not flow to us from government, but in fact governments are formed by men as an artificial construct to help us protect those rights, and well-constructed governments, like ours, are carefully limited in their powers to avoid stifling the rights we have inherently as human beings.Do you see where this is going? The individual rights we hold dear are our rights as human beings, NOT as citizens. They flow from our very existence, not from our government. As human beings, we have the right to assemble with whomever we want and to speak our minds. We have the right to live free of force or physical coercion from other men. We have the right to make mutually beneficial arrangements with other men, arrangements that might involve exchanging goods, purchasing shelter, or paying another man an agreed upon rate for his work. We have these rights and more in nature, and have therefore chosen to form governments not to be the source of these rights (for they already existed in advance of governments) but to provide protection of these rights against other men who might try to violate these rights through force or fraud.
So Citizenship Shouldn't Determine What Rights You Have
These rights of speech and assembly and commerce and property shouldn't, therefore, be contingent on "citizenship". I should be able, equally, to contract for service from David in New Jersey or Lars in Sweden. David or Lars, who are equally human beings, have the equal right to buy my property, if we can agree to terms. If he wants to get away from cold winters in Sweden, Lars can contract with a private airline to fly here, contract with another person to rent an apartment or buy housing, contract with a third person to provide his services in exchange for wages. But Lars can't do all these things today, and is excluded from these transactions just because he was born over some geographic line? To say that Lars or any other "foreign" resident has less of a right to engage in these decisions, behaviors, and transactions than a person born in the US is to imply that the US government is somehow the source of the right to pursue these activities, WHICH IT IS NOT.In fact, when the US government was first formed, there was no differentiation between a "citizen" and "someone who dwells within our borders" - they were basically one in the same. It is only since then that we have made a distinction. I can accept that there can be some minimum residence requirements to vote in elections and perform certain government duties, but again these are functions associated with this artificial construct called "government". There should not be, nor is there any particular philosophical basis for, limiting the rights of association, speech, or commerce based on residency or citizenship, since these rights pre-date the government and the formation of border.
New "Non-Right Rights" Are Killing Immigration
In fact, until the 1930's, the US was generally (though not perfectly) open to immigration, because we accepted the premise that someone who was born beyond our borders had no less right to find their fortune in this country than someone born in Boston or New York. I won't rehash the history of immigration nor its importance to the building of this country, because I don't want to slip from the philosophical to the pragmatic in my arguments for immigration.In the 1930's, and continuing to this day, something changed radically in the theory of government in this country that would cause immigration to be severely limited and that would lead to much of the current immigration debate. With the New Deal, and later with the Great Society and many other intervening pieces of legislation, we began creating what I call non-right rights. These newly described "rights" were different from the ones I enumerated above. Rather than existing prior to government, and requiring at most the protection of government, these new rights sprang forth from the government itself and could only exist in the context of having a government. These non-right rights have multiplied throughout the years, and include things like the "right" to a minimum wage, to health care, to a pension, to education, to leisure time, to paid family leave, to affordable housing, to public transportation, to cheap gasoline, etc. etc. ad infinitum.
Here is a great test to see if something is really a right, vs. one of these fake rights. Ask yourself, "can I have this right on a desert island". Speech? Have at it. Assembly? Sure, if there is anyone or things to assemble with? Property? Absolutely -- if you convert some palm trees with your mind and labor into a shelter, that's your home. Health care? Uh, how? Who is going to provide it? And if someone could provide it, who is going to force them to provide it if they don't want to. Ditto education. Ditto a pension.
These non-right rights all share one thing in common: They require the coercive power of the government to work. They require that the government take the product of one person's labor and give it to someone else. They require that the government force individuals to make decisions in certain ways that they might not have of their own free will.
And since these non-right rights spring form and depend on government, suddenly citizenship matters in the provision of these rights. The government already bankrupts itself trying to provide all these non-right rights to its citizens -- just as a practical matter, it can't afford to provide them to an unlimited number of new entrants. It was as if for 150 years we had been running a very successful party, attracting more and more guests each year. The party had a cash bar, so everyone had to pay their own way, and some people had to go home thirsty but most had a good time. Then, suddenly, for whatever reasons, the long-time party guests decided they didn't like the cash bar and banned it, making all drinks free. But they quickly learned that they had to lock the front doors, because they couldn't afford to give free drinks to everyone who showed up. After a while, with the door locked and all the same people at the party, the whole thing suddenly got kind of dull.
Today, we find ourselves in political gridlock over immigration. The left, which generally supports immigration, has a lot at stake in not admitting that the new non-right rights are somehow subordinate to fundamental individual rights, and so insist new immigrants receive the full range of government services, thus making immigration prohibitively expensive. The right, whether through xenophobia or just poor civics, tends to assume that non-citizens have no rights whatsoever, whether it be the "right" to health care or the more fundamental right, say, to habeas corpus.
I resent the focus on the illegal invaders. Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Americans get to decide, who we invite in and who we don't. The Government of Mexico has for over 20 years been working to subvert our laws and our country. What does President Bush do, he goes to Mexico and promises the people of Mexico that he is going to get "immigration reform" passed. President Bush has forgotten , who he represents. He needs a hard smackdown on this bill.
No more RINOs!
Illegal aliens are all criminals who have shown their willingness to break our laws if it is to their benefit and most even demand special privileges. They are catered to as if they they will improve the gene pool and save the future of this country. The reality is that they will not and in the long run only cause lasting damage.
Those who demand that we cater to illegal immigrants tend to exhibit a fervor that is bizarre, a frenzied obsession, maybe insanity or treason. Whatever their motive, they are promoting foreign interests and seriously hurting this country.
At this point, since we don’t seem to want to annex Mexico, and how hard could it be with most Mexicans being in our country, is to make all citizens into illegal aliens. They will have more freedoms to break more laws and the president will like them better.
And then with a population of 300 million illegal aliens, we can close the border.
“Let’s use the IRS template to control illegal immigrants. If a company knowingly hires an illegal immigrant, said company could be reported by the illegal immigrants who would then be given immediate citizenship plus $2,000. The company would be fined $10,000.”
Why do you want to give someone who has broken our laws, a reward of citizenship and cash? This would just encourage more illegal immigration and the breaking of our laws. If they want to become citizens they can get in line like everyone else. As Fred Thompson says “This is our home, and we get to decide who comes into our home.” NO self selection.
I am going to stick with my solution, which is revenue neutral (law breaking businesses pay for it), and gets citizens, local law enforcement, and private industry all economically engage in ending illegal immigration.
CALL! CALL! CALL! CALL! AND KEEP CALLING TILL THE LINES FRY!
WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! TILL YOU RUN OUT OF INK IN YOUR PEN!
Bombard the Democrats as well, especially the ones that ran on an anti illegal immigration plank and the ones in marginal districts who could be vulnerable. keep pounding on them. This is a bipartisan issue not a Conservative or Liberal issue BUT AN AMERICAN issue.
She was a left-looney for years, but always spoke up for Pat Boone.
Just say NO to Illegal Alien Amnesty!! Keep calling!! It’s NOT OVER!!
U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121
U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121
White House comments: (202) 456-1111
Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep
Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Our country is not competent to deal with this problem. That is why the politicians are doing all the hamming and hawing. They know they can't fix it so they are just trying to legislate it away by making the illegals into legals. They are afraid we will find out that the empire has no clothes on.
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.