The Democrats are in power, elections are in the air and the traditional Democratic base has lost interest so that means it’s time to play….Let’s Grant Amnesty! Yes, let’s grant amnesty; the exciting decennial game where millions of people are given a free chance to collect thousands in benefits and social aid. To be eligible to play you must be in the United States illegally, you must have avoided capture for at least five years and you must have worked in a cash only business or with the use of someone else’s Social Security number; extra points are awarded if the Social Security number you are using belongs to someone that is still alive.
Of course I lay this initiative at the feet of Democrats but there are a few Republicans like Lindsay Graham (R-SC) that support this as well as Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who actually co-sponsored an Immigration Reform bill with the now deceased Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in 2005. The “Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act” or McCain-Kennedy Bill incorporated several provisions to grant amnesty for certain illegal immigrants, provide for guest worker programs and to strengthen border security. The bill was never voted on but similar legislation based on McCain Kennedy was proposed in 2006 by Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) and proposed again in 2007 by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). The 2006 legislation passed the Senate but failed in conference committee and the 2007 bill failed all three attempts to obtain cloture and died without leaving the Senate.
In all three of these bills, there was bi-partisan opposition to one or more of the provisions within the bill. The right argued against the amnesty provision which would have in essence, rewarded people for having entered the country illegally. The left fought the bill’s tight language regarding family unification that limited Visas only to immediate family members of US citizens. They also despised the guest worker program that would have allowed workers temporary work permits for particular industries stating that it would create an entirely new class of workers that were prohibited from access to the benefits enjoyed by so many others. Also, industry opposed the new limits the bill would impose on the employer sponsorship of green card applications and the elimination of priority processing for the highly skilled workers specifically selected by the U.S. employers.
Immigration reform is guaranteed to be a hotbed of controversy. Until 1986, immigration legislation had largely been used to block entry into the United States based on criminal background or to enact quotas on immigration on the basis of nation of origin. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was the first time that legislation was used to grant amnesty to people that had entered the United States illegally provided they had resided in the US continuously since January 1, 1982. It was signed into law by Ronald Reagan mostly because it contained some important reform language designed to dissuade future illegal immigration. Under the 1986 reform bill, it became a crime to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants and would require employers to attest to their employee’s immigration status.
The proponents of the 2010 push for immigration reform want to go beyond what has already been done. There is no real desire to secure our borders which is absurd in a post 9/11 America. Not every terrorist is going to board an airplane in Amsterdam; especially if they can simply walk into the country unchallenged through one of our land borders. The current bill proposed by Representative Gutierrez (D-IL) says that it strengthens border protection but then prohibits the use of the United States armed forces, including the National Guard from States adjacent to the US border, to enhance border protection. The bill expands the definition of “family” for the purpose of determining the eligibility of entrance based on family reunification. The bill would hamper the ability to detain those people that are known to be in the United States unlawfully. The bill would also relax the requirements for citizenship, allowing those that were recently considered law breakers to become law makers through the election process.
Proponents of the bill have always claimed that the opposition to immigration legislation was based solely on racial hatred but is that really true? Most of the opposition I’ve heard is centered on several principals. The proponents of immigration reform like to rephrase the argument by calling illegal immigrants “undocumented workers” suggesting that they are a legitimate part of the U.S. workforce. In fact, they have already had to have broken several U.S. and State laws for them to be “undocumented workers” in the first place. They are illegal and no amount of flourish can change that. Opponents also recognize that the reforms suggested under the Gutierrez bill would, in short order, allow these people unlimited access to American social benefit programs that are already severely challenged, adding billions to the burden of tax paying Americans.
I am the first to admit that there are good and bad in every race and nationality but does it really make sense to relax immigration and citizenship standards when we have little or no cooperation in obtaining the criminal records of the applicants? Mexico is now under assault from drug cartels and their gangs of assassins; the same gangs that are responsible for an exponential increase in gang and drug violence in U.S. communities close to the Mexican border and the Mexican government would do anything to see some of these people leave for the United States and out of their hair. These violent tendencies and trends must be considered as an impediment to relaxed immigration policies as long as we do not have a willing partner in identifying the criminals that are seeking legal status in America. That is strictly speaking for the rule of law and self preservation which has nothing to do with hatred or racism.
Speaking of self preservation, there is also the reality of our economic crisis here in the United States. Recent tax and trade policies have allowed many of our manufacturing jobs to leave the U.S. for places around the globe where labor is cheap and government restrictions are few. As Al Gore campaigned for President, his defense of the United States trade policies adopted by the Clinton administration was that America doesn’t want to make underwear and sneakers; America wants to make information systems and new technologies. Really?
Not only did Mr. Gore fail to ask the Americans that were making underwear and sneakers how they felt about their country adopting policies that would ship their jobs to Asia, I find it curious that America’s immigration policies do not reflect that drive towards the future. We are discussing embracing people that entered the nation illegally to perform menial and unskilled labor while we have driven the need for unskilled labor from our shores leaving millions of Americans seeking employment in the few remaining service industries that survived government ignorance. These remaining jobs for our own unskilled labor force are directly challenged by this wave of illegal immigrants who are willing to work longer hours for less pay because it is still a better existence than they had in their country of origin.
Finally, the periodic and regular granting of amnesty for illegal immigrants only encourages further illegal immigration. After all, what is the downside? Many that were caught and deported only return to the U.S. within weeks or months. There is no will in the Federal government to assist the States in stopping this influx and the prevalent train of thought of the current administration actually seeks to inhibit the actions of local law enforcement that try to combat the illegal immigration problem on their own. This is a discussion that always seems to surface whenever Democrats are in control because as these people are amnestied and naturalized, they overwhelmingly vote Democrat because the current Socialist leanings of today’s Democrats more closely reflect their own political ideologies.
Paul
Of course I lay this initiative at the feet of Democrats but there are a few Republicans like Lindsay Graham (R-SC) that support this as well as Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who actually co-sponsored an Immigration Reform bill with the now deceased Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in 2005. The “Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act” or McCain-Kennedy Bill incorporated several provisions to grant amnesty for certain illegal immigrants, provide for guest worker programs and to strengthen border security. The bill was never voted on but similar legislation based on McCain Kennedy was proposed in 2006 by Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) and proposed again in 2007 by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). The 2006 legislation passed the Senate but failed in conference committee and the 2007 bill failed all three attempts to obtain cloture and died without leaving the Senate.
In all three of these bills, there was bi-partisan opposition to one or more of the provisions within the bill. The right argued against the amnesty provision which would have in essence, rewarded people for having entered the country illegally. The left fought the bill’s tight language regarding family unification that limited Visas only to immediate family members of US citizens. They also despised the guest worker program that would have allowed workers temporary work permits for particular industries stating that it would create an entirely new class of workers that were prohibited from access to the benefits enjoyed by so many others. Also, industry opposed the new limits the bill would impose on the employer sponsorship of green card applications and the elimination of priority processing for the highly skilled workers specifically selected by the U.S. employers.
Immigration reform is guaranteed to be a hotbed of controversy. Until 1986, immigration legislation had largely been used to block entry into the United States based on criminal background or to enact quotas on immigration on the basis of nation of origin. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was the first time that legislation was used to grant amnesty to people that had entered the United States illegally provided they had resided in the US continuously since January 1, 1982. It was signed into law by Ronald Reagan mostly because it contained some important reform language designed to dissuade future illegal immigration. Under the 1986 reform bill, it became a crime to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants and would require employers to attest to their employee’s immigration status.
The proponents of the 2010 push for immigration reform want to go beyond what has already been done. There is no real desire to secure our borders which is absurd in a post 9/11 America. Not every terrorist is going to board an airplane in Amsterdam; especially if they can simply walk into the country unchallenged through one of our land borders. The current bill proposed by Representative Gutierrez (D-IL) says that it strengthens border protection but then prohibits the use of the United States armed forces, including the National Guard from States adjacent to the US border, to enhance border protection. The bill expands the definition of “family” for the purpose of determining the eligibility of entrance based on family reunification. The bill would hamper the ability to detain those people that are known to be in the United States unlawfully. The bill would also relax the requirements for citizenship, allowing those that were recently considered law breakers to become law makers through the election process.
Proponents of the bill have always claimed that the opposition to immigration legislation was based solely on racial hatred but is that really true? Most of the opposition I’ve heard is centered on several principals. The proponents of immigration reform like to rephrase the argument by calling illegal immigrants “undocumented workers” suggesting that they are a legitimate part of the U.S. workforce. In fact, they have already had to have broken several U.S. and State laws for them to be “undocumented workers” in the first place. They are illegal and no amount of flourish can change that. Opponents also recognize that the reforms suggested under the Gutierrez bill would, in short order, allow these people unlimited access to American social benefit programs that are already severely challenged, adding billions to the burden of tax paying Americans.
I am the first to admit that there are good and bad in every race and nationality but does it really make sense to relax immigration and citizenship standards when we have little or no cooperation in obtaining the criminal records of the applicants? Mexico is now under assault from drug cartels and their gangs of assassins; the same gangs that are responsible for an exponential increase in gang and drug violence in U.S. communities close to the Mexican border and the Mexican government would do anything to see some of these people leave for the United States and out of their hair. These violent tendencies and trends must be considered as an impediment to relaxed immigration policies as long as we do not have a willing partner in identifying the criminals that are seeking legal status in America. That is strictly speaking for the rule of law and self preservation which has nothing to do with hatred or racism.
Speaking of self preservation, there is also the reality of our economic crisis here in the United States. Recent tax and trade policies have allowed many of our manufacturing jobs to leave the U.S. for places around the globe where labor is cheap and government restrictions are few. As Al Gore campaigned for President, his defense of the United States trade policies adopted by the Clinton administration was that America doesn’t want to make underwear and sneakers; America wants to make information systems and new technologies. Really?
Not only did Mr. Gore fail to ask the Americans that were making underwear and sneakers how they felt about their country adopting policies that would ship their jobs to Asia, I find it curious that America’s immigration policies do not reflect that drive towards the future. We are discussing embracing people that entered the nation illegally to perform menial and unskilled labor while we have driven the need for unskilled labor from our shores leaving millions of Americans seeking employment in the few remaining service industries that survived government ignorance. These remaining jobs for our own unskilled labor force are directly challenged by this wave of illegal immigrants who are willing to work longer hours for less pay because it is still a better existence than they had in their country of origin.
Finally, the periodic and regular granting of amnesty for illegal immigrants only encourages further illegal immigration. After all, what is the downside? Many that were caught and deported only return to the U.S. within weeks or months. There is no will in the Federal government to assist the States in stopping this influx and the prevalent train of thought of the current administration actually seeks to inhibit the actions of local law enforcement that try to combat the illegal immigration problem on their own. This is a discussion that always seems to surface whenever Democrats are in control because as these people are amnestied and naturalized, they overwhelmingly vote Democrat because the current Socialist leanings of today’s Democrats more closely reflect their own political ideologies.
Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment