Posted on 05/18/2010 7:42:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
With his thick Austrian accent, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger quipped in his commencement address at Emory University this past week: "I was also going to give a graduation speech in Arizona this weekend. But with my accent, I was afraid they would try to deport me."
It seems that the whole country is taking sides in the battle over the border in Arizona. Yet it truly remains the tip of the iceberg of our immigration troubles. Spurred on by the national debate, at least 10 other states are seeking to enact tougher immigration laws.
Now more than ever, we must protect our borders and sovereignty, by providing genuine solutions to the dangers of American boundary fluidity. With estimates showing that by 2060 America will add 167 million people (37 million immigrants today will multiply into 105 million then), it is imperative for us to do more to solve this crisis. Now is the time to beat the doors of change and save the boundaries and future of America.
But the federal government has failed miserably to produce a viable solution to the illegal immigration crisis. Amnesty is not the answer. And immigration laws aren't effective if we continue to dodge or ignore them. Furthermore, globalization efforts have only confused security matters, further endangering our borders and national identity -- our sovereignty. And the question that keeps coming to my mind is: How is it that we can secure borders in the Middle East but can't secure our own?
From America's birth, our Founders struggled, too, with international enemies and border troubles, from the sea of Tripoli to the western frontier. While welcoming the poor, downtrodden and persecuted from every country, they also had to protect the sacred soil they called home from unwanted intruders.
America's Founders also were concerned with properly assimilating immigrants so that their presence would be positive upon the culture. George Washington wrote, "By an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people." Thomas Jefferson, hailed as one of the most inclusive among the Founders, worried that some immigrants would leave more restrictive governments and not be able to handle American freedoms, leading to cultural corruption and "an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." And Alexander Hamilton insisted that "the safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country, which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family."
According to the Declaration of Independence, "obstructing the Laws for the Naturalization of Foreigners" was one of the objections leveled against Britain that warranted the American colonists' seceding. Yet even the Founders themselves believed that a total open-door policy for immigrants would only lead to complete community and cultural chaos.
We are discussing and debating new ways to resolve the social crisis we call illegal immigration, but our Founders pointed the way more than 200 years ago. Like enrolling in an Ivy League school, American citizenship was considered and promoted by them as a high honor. James Madison shared the collective sentiment back then when he stated, "I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States." Hence, they processed applicants and selected only the ones who would contribute to the building up and advancement of their grand experiment called America.
Therefore, our Founders enforced four basic requirements for "enrollment and acceptance" into American citizenry. We still utilize them (at least in policy) to this day, but we desperately need to enforce them. The Heritage Foundation summarizes: "Key criteria for citizenship of the Naturalization Act of 1795 remain part of American law. These include (1) five years of (lawful) residence within the United States; (2) a 'good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States'; (3) the taking of a formal oath to support the Constitution and to renounce any foreign allegiance; and (4) the renunciation of any hereditary titles."
Just think if such immigration tenets were taught in schools such as Live Oak High School, in Northern California, where kids are confused about allegiances to flags and countries. And just think if the federal government actually enforced such tenets! Arizona and the 10 other states following suit wouldn't even need to go out on a limb and create their own immigration laws as states did prior to our Constitution. If we held citizenship in the same high esteem as our Founders and simply enforced the laws we already have, we wouldn't be in this illegal immigration pickle today. Next week, Chuck will lay out his plan, drawing inspiration from our Founders, for dealing with the 12 million-plus illegal immigrants in our country today.
he wanted to be a kennedy i think and his wife wanted to be a first lady somewhere i guess. not impressed with either one of them especially her eating the muffin in hurry in her car while parked illegally. Real class NOT.
*rme*
I think you need to listen to the video again. It is Whoraldo who is for amnesty but that is nothing new
Remember Hitler was Austrian until Germany was stupid enough to give him German citizenship
In another country in another time....they would have.
That is the definition of amnesty. The back of the line is the lawbreakers' home country. And what kind of message does that send to the approximately 3 million intending immigrants who have completed all of the paperwork and are waiting in their home countries for their turn to enter the US. Many have been waiting for years to enter this country. If you legalize the status of the lawbreakers, they are in the front of the line. Don't you get it?
We had a one time amnesty in 1986. It required the lawbreakers to have been here for five years to apply. They were required to learn English and to pay an application fee. If they had a criminal record, they couldn't apply. The USG estimated that 1 million would apply and the number turned out to be 2.7 million. The process was rife with fraud. And this amnesty just created the conditions for another one--only this time we have 12 to 20 million lawbreakers.
I find it amazing that your are essentially supporting the McCain-Kennedy bill. I have provided you with the costs of an amnesty and the fact that once you legalize tghem, they can bring in 70 to 100 million of their relatives.
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, 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.
In arnie’s dreams maybe...in his dreams.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: The textbook example of an amnesty. The 1986 law's path to citizenship was not automatic. The legislation stipulated several requirements to receive amnesty, including payment of application fees, acquisition of English-language skills, understanding of American civics, a medical exam, and registration for military service. Individuals convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. No one disputes that this act provided amnesty.
This part says it all “Hence, they processed applicants and selected only the ones who would contribute to the building up and advancement of their grand experiment called America.”
Why?
1. Any person who is in this country illegally will never be eligible for citizenship, under any circumstances.
2. Social services and assistance programs are available to only American citizens. ID required.
3. Employers in America must obtain citizenship documents or lawful visa documents from every employee.
4. Social Security Administration must contact the employer if a submitted SS number is already being used by another employer.
5. Social Security Administration must contact employees when their SS number is used by another person. The US government will no longer be an accomplice in identity theft.
6. Every ineligible employee will be arrested and imprisoned until deported.
7. Employers who fail to notify ICE of ineligible employees will be fined $50,000 per incident.
Ask him. I guess he believes it is humane.
It does indeed and it proof that illegal immigration is not in the constitution like the left claims
Existing law says that person must be deported.
Yes, but such people and those here now illegally would be forever ineligible for amnesty (which is after all the goal of the DC crowd)
Normally that is the case if they have been found to have broken US laws. In fact, many of the lawbreakers could not even qualify for a tourist visa to enter the US.
To rephrase...why do you say he supports amnesty?
Check out my post #6 and check out the link. I don’t know why he supports amnesty. My concern is that he does. The motivation is irrelevant for my purposes.
hey Elana Kagan does United Nations international Human Rights Laws supercedes America constitution laws ?
Thats just wayyyy tooooo simple...but it would work and without loopholes.
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.