Another major issue that divides the country and even some factions within factions is the almost daily "tossed-about" debate regarding immigration. For you legal-beagles out there, not just lawyers, what about "illegal immigration" is not understood? For a country to be sovereign, it must be able to control its borders as to the crossing of unless it is being invaded during a time of war.
Before you get upset, I believe that the US did invade Afghanistan and Iraq, but I also believe that it was justified in doing so, but that's a discussion for another time. The US is also being invaded by the flood of illegal (undocumented for the liberal and non-"rule of law" folks out there) aliens now using the US borders as their own private thruway. Illegal immigration is the problem, not immigration. Just so we are clear on that point.
See, if we can't agree that illegal immigration is the problem then the rule of law means nothing since if you are for the non-prosecution of illegal aliens that have obtained that status by breaking our immigration laws, then you also have to be for the breaking of other laws.
No, you shout! Well, bear with me. Let's go through this step by step. I am going to use the well-known Fox News commentator and lawyer, Mr. Geraldo Rivera (sp), as a prime example of someone that should know better, but allows his emotions to sway his judgment. First, he says that it is not a Hispanic problem, and I agree, its just that the Hispanics comprise most of the illegals now residing in our country. Second, he said on the "Factor program" that we, the US, is responsible since we have lured these people to America with offer of jobs. Now, as a lawyer, Mr. Rivera should know that one of the most dangerous "slippery slopes" in the legal profession is the support for disobeying the rule of law even though the law being ignored is abhorrent. The reason for this is that once any law is "ignored on principle" then all laws become ripe for the same treatment. Now Mr. Rivera has yet to suggest who would make the determination of what laws should be obeyed and which should not.
So this point, I offer the following situation. Since Mr. Rivera believes that the US is to blame since we lured the illegals here for jobs and our standard of living, then I would suggest the following should also to be allowed: Mr. Rivera should not be upset if I move into his backyard, use his resources, ignore his property rights as long as I am willing to clean his pool for less than his current pool-cleaner. See, I would say that Mr. Rivera lured me to his property by his lifestyle and the nice belongings he has in his house. We all know how long that situation would be allowed to exist before Mr. Rivera called the authorities and had me forcibly removed from his "country", but he can not see that he is supporting the same situation on a much grander scale along the US-Mexican border. It is always dangerous to let one's emotions get in the way of higher brain functions. You end up supporting very silly positions as Mr. Rivera finds himself doing.
OK, so we can see that it's illegal immigration that is the issue since the crux of the problem is the rule of law. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not, and the alternative is anarchy. You simply can not have it both ways regardless of how unjust one believes the law to be. This nation has ways to change laws, and Mr. Rivera as a lawyers is better suited to doing it the right way than most; however, like many liberals, he chooses not to do so and therefore condemns himself to being branded worse than silly: that of being a hypocrite.
The solution to illegal immigration is very simple, but tough to agree upon since emotions have gotten in the way of most civil debates. First, illegal means just that: illegal. Those that are in this country illegally must take the steps to correct that status. They themselves came here illegally and they must remedy that in order to bring the rule of law back into balance. This also means that we must adopt the English common law of not conferring citizen-status on children born to illegal aliens in adherence to the legal concept of "fruit of the poison tree" whereby one can not benefit from an illegal act. Citizenship is a benefit, it can not and should not be bestowed on those regardless of their complicity in the original act.
Next, once the illegals have taken steps to return to their countries of origin, then the immigration laws of this country should be altered to allow them to return if they are sponsored by a US citizen that can affirm 3 things: 1) that the immigrant will have a job when they arrive legally, 2) that they will pay the current taxes including social and payroll taxes, 3) they will submit to and complete a background vetting process to ensure their identity and purpose for being in the US. The sponsor will be responsible for and liable for this immigrant while they are here in the US. This puts the monitoring of the immigration process on those that have the most gain and lose: the businesses that say they need the immigrant labor, and the immigrant themselves.
Additionally, all law enforcement personnel regardless of rank or jurisdiction will be required to determine the immigration status of all those that find their way into their custody. Any illegal aliens are to be processed via the current laws and turned over to the proper authorities for processing. Illegals that commit crimes and are found guilty will be incarcerated in the US with the cost of their detainment, adjudication and incarceration to be born by the country from which the convicted illegal crossed into the US (50%) and the convicted illegal's country of citizenship (50%). This will put the impetus of solving illegal immigration on the parties most responsible for its inception.
The solution of illegal immigration is unsolvable if one is willing to accept the basic premises of its existence and be tough-minded enough to understand that illegal means illegal. Finally, I offer one last reason why the US should stop and control illegal immigration: other countries do! Mexico, for example, has laws on the books that make illegal immigration a felony with stiff fines and almost certain incarceration and deportment. Mexican authorities have put federal troops on their southern borders to stop illegal immigration from countries south of their geographical position regardless of the fact that these illegals speak the same language and many share the same customs and culture. Mexican authorities are actually allowing, by not stopping the practice, gangs of Mexican thugs to accost, round-up, rob, beat, and even torture these illegal immigrants to Mexico! Again, here is the prime purveyor of illegal immigration to the US being the quintessential hypocrite in this matter.
Why not simply change the US immigration law and practice to match those of Mexico? Liberals have a tough time with that one, but turn a blind-eye to the breaking of the US law along the southern border with the hypocritical Mexican state. Ah, aren't emotions wonderful? They get you into all kinds of silly positions and beliefs.
Next, an offered solution to the role of government in providing "universal health care". Wow, another big emotional issue. See you then.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Interesting example...the liberal commentator on Fox News. How nuanced of you ;).
I definitely like your proposal regarding the return of previously illegal immigrants. It is similar to an idea that I had been formulating, although with the addition of the U.S. sponsor. I'll have to think about that more. My initial reaction is that that would create a quick "sponsor" black market, and actually make it easier for organized criminals to gain a semblance of legitimacy. But I suppose that would simply be a different, rather than additional, problem.
I would also do a lot to simplify the immigration laws, which I believe are a major cause of confusion and turn legal visitors "illegal" because of its many quirks. Those are not the folks we're worried about. And finally, I do not see severe disadvantages to drastically raising immigration quotas. Just making it easier to get in to the US would save security resources and allow the US to focus on the "bad guys". It's a big country, and the only objection I can imagine to raising quotas is essentially xenophobia. Which is emotional on the other end of the spectrum.
I think a couple of your ideas would be difficult to pull off. Namely, the actual deportation of all illegals, as well as the 50/50 idea. My understanding is that deporting several million people would totally break our immigration system financially. We simply don't have enough money to do something like that. Local law enforcement rounding people up is one thing, but actually deporting them is a much bigger fish.
Having other countries pay for the incarceration of their own criminals is going to be quite a sell to the international community! Theoretically, they may be happier that we're taking care of their criminals, but practically, they're just not going to want to pay. They're going to say that the crime was committed in the U.S., that that's not even a crime in their country, that U.S. costs for incarceration are 3 times more expensive than in their country, etc. Besides, there's no enforcement of such a rule. A nice idea, but a very large international law issue!
Finally, emotion runs both ways. I am indeed struck by the hypocritical leftist "oh, don't hurt the poor people" attitude, but not at all am I deaf to the right's xenophobic tendencies and racial profiling proclivities. Just because someone has dark skin and an accent does not mean they are illegitimately here, or even that they aren't a U.S. citizen. Well-founded and objective anti-illegal-immigration positions can easily morph into WASPish nerves, and has a long American history of doing so. I hope the US population can grow closer to appreciating the two things we've been wrestling with from day one: respect for the rule of law and appreciation for the crazy cultural differences that our neighbors have.
One more question...do you not see any legitimate situations for civil disobedience? Perhaps this can be a future blog topic.
Let me address the "black market sponsor" issue first. With the vetting process includes the sponsor vetting as well since the sponsor would have submit validation ids such as tax-ids, SSN, and/or job ids that could be easily tracked for malfeasance. Most OC or "coyotes" do not have valid tax-ids it would seem. This also would ensure to whom the tax responsibilities would fall in sponsoring the immigrants. If work is truly the reason that we have so many illegal aliens, than the offer/acceptance of legal work and the tracking of payroll via the tax-ids (which we already do quite successfully for the other 200 million workers in this county) would help to remove this as a big issue.
I agree that increasing the quotas is good thing as long as the quota is represented by legal work that I discussed in the previous section. However, I would first require that the job be "post for promotion from within" for any US citizen to attempt. This is very similar to the "buy America first" program that was successful during the 70s and 80s. I believe that the US has an obligation to take care of its own first before allowing anyone and everyone to just meander across the border.
I disagree about the xenophobic response since this country was and is based on a "melting pot". What other country in the world other than maybe Great Britain has such a mixed legal population? We have shown that people coming here legally pose no problem to the citizenry. It is only the monetary and legal burden that illegal aliens bring to the party that is usually objectionable as evidenced by the overwhelming bi-partisan defeat of the "Bush/Kennedy" immigrant/amnesty bill of 2006/2007. It was interesting that the Republican power brokers blamed its defeat on the conservative talk radio crowd ;-). Politics do in deed make strange bed fellows.
The 50/50 ideas is simply an accounting entry on the "balance of payments" ledger that it almost meticulously maintained by the US Government, and the deportation is simply enforced by the same legislation that is currently in effect in Arizona and causing illegals to leave that state in the droves! Liberals don't want to talk about the Arizona laws since like the Surge, they are working.
It is interesting that we worry more about the international community so much in deference to our own citizenry. The world needs a dose of "America takes care of its own" by having the US pull all its bases and troops and the economic impact they have along with the billions in foreign aid. As the world's only superpower left, I believe in the Roman approach to global power application.
As for the same crime, then we simply deport the illegal criminal back to their country along with all the US criminal guilty of the same crime so they can be free and enjoy the "freedoms" of said country. Quite worrying about their responses! We need to take care of the problems over here. In addition, by that logic, than we should dismantle all laws that conflict with other countries: SEC, FAA, FCC, OSHA, etc. See the silly positions that liberals have take to make their arguments. ;-)
Finally why do the liberals always bring up the WASP-card when its the Muslim, Blacks, and Hispanics that have shown a far greater xenophobic nature during the past 50 years. Muslim want all kinds of restrictions and isolations in colleges, airports, and schools. Blacks are preaching from their pulpits about "Black-first" policies and slavery reparations. "WASPnerves" is not simply most prevalent form of xenophobia being expressed today.
Finally, as for civil disobedience, I am a big fan of it as long as the practitioners are ready to accept the consequences of their disobedience. I have a major problems with those that espouse CD and then whine when they have to pay the piper: fines, jail time, records or inconveniences. Until the laws are changed, the CDers have to be willing to accept the fall out of their deeds, no?
OK. Good discussions. Everyone else needs to chime in.
Until everyone else does chime in, I hope you don't mind if I continue to discuss. I do need something to stimulate my brain, since it's not doing much at work ;).
What is interesting about America's immigration system is that it is intentionally (and heavily) family-based. It is structured to favor keeping families together. It's actually pretty difficult to get in for employment, for the reasons you specified: the sponsoring employer must show that they adequately marketed the position to US Citizens first and that there was no one suitable. It is slightly easier as a non-immigrant to get in for a one to two year stay, but you still must be sponsored by an employer. Of course, this pretty much limits work-based immigrants to white collar jobs. There is no real work-based program for "unskilled" immigrants. The closest thing I can think of is migrant workers, and that is just a seasonal thing. Immigrants who want to work their way from the bottom up really have to have a very close family member here first in order to legally get in. Pretty much a parent or a child--brothers and sisters don't really count.
I'm unfamiliar with the Arizona program you're talking about...I'll have to look that up.
As for the international community, I'm inclined to agree with you. Countries are people too, in the sense that they're run by emotional, self-interested politicians. Some expect US handouts and want to give nothing in return, because corruption is ingrained into their government system. That is the cynical perspective which leads me to believe that few countries are actually going to pay for their own citizens to be incarcerated to the US, regardless of the aid we've given them in the past. Since illegal immigrants have no rights to due process, I think they should be deported immediately. The charges should go on their permanent record to be reviewed if/when they apply for re-entry.
As for "liberals" who "always" bring up the WASP-card, I believe they do this because it is still the WASPs who have the power in this country right now. Of course it is true that every group has its extremists and its xenophobes, and WASPs are probably better than a lot of minorities, precisely because they have the power. They (we?) have no reason to be afraid. But a small irrational fear in the hands of a large majority has a big impact.
The US has indeed been idealized as a cultural melting pot, and in the great scheme of things has been quite successful. We have had few riots and hate crimes, considering the plurality of ethnicities, religions, etc. But the US has long had a resistance to "foreigners". The Immigration Act of 1924 was passed to limit the number of Eastern and Southern Europeans. The Asian Exclusion Act completely prohibited East Asians and Indians from immigrating entirely based on race. We have moved on from race-based immigration restrictions, but I believe the majority group continues to propagate prejudices against new groups through condescending and pejorative attitudes. This is not a anti-white comment; it is a comment about human nature. ALL majority groups do this--I think they always have and they probably always will. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing. It leads to oppression and discrimination, which can, in extreme cases, lead to genocide when the tables are turned. And the tables always turn.
Just for kicks, other "melting pot" countries include Brazil, Argentina, Israel, Australia and South Africa.
It seems I have a lot to say on this subject, so instead of hi-jacking your blog any more, I'll post a comment on my own blog. Thank you for your comments! I really do appreciate having someone with whom to discuss things like this :).
Post a Comment