To his credit, President Bush plans to lobby Capitol Hill today on behalf of the compromise immigration plan, which he hopes to salvage despite its collapse last week in the Senate. As he said, “securing the border and upholding family values are not partisan concerns. They must be addressed, and this bill is the best way to do it.” Well, perhaps not the best way — the bill drew criticism from both right and left. But it’s notable that few among the critics have offered realistic alternatives. By endorsing nothing, they are endorsing the status quo and its “silent amnesty” for those millions here illegally.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
108 Comments
It’s too bad there cannot be a real clean sweep of the beltway blowhards. There might be some real reform. But being beholden to business, as it now is, makes real reform impossible. Mark my words; there will be no immigration reform this year, just as there was no election reform last year.
I support amnesty but you cannot blame Americans for being less than happy with this bill. It is a bad bill and many of us recall Simpson Mazzoli in 1986 that granted amnesty and we were promised that this problem would be fixed- and it wasn’t.
Since the current immigration laws are not enforced there is no point in offering an alternative. There is no point to law without law enforcement.
Is there a list somewhere of the optional laws that are not enforced? I’m sure we could all benefit from that inside knowledge.
How can the Eagle possibly say;”But it’s notable that few among the critics have offered realistic alternatives. By endorsing nothing, they are endorsing the status quo and its “silent amnesty” for those millions here illegally.”There have been many alternatives to the existing ‘badly’ proposed, and overwhelmingly opposed, new plan. Our present situation would not be as bad if only our existing laws were enforced.
Hey, how about this:
1. Enforce border security according to the laws already in existence, with the armed military if necessary.
2. Enforce employment verification and punish with fines, or jail if necessary, employers that break the law. Choose potential immigrants and future citizens based on what they can contribute to the U.S., not what we can contribute to them. Our country became great because the immigrants coming here were self-sufficient and hard working. There was no entitlement society enabling them to exist on the working taxpayer.
3. Eliminate U.S. legal rights for illegal aliens, and stop the ‘anchor baby’ citizenship fiasco. There should be no automatic citizenship for babies born to aliens, legal or illegal, except through a legal citizenship process. It a must be a mis-interpretation of the Constitution to allow aliens to sneak in and have a child that automatically becomes a citizen entitling everyone to taxpayer funded benefits. Those parents must at least be here legally first, or better, citizens themselves.
4. Stop all entitlements for illegal aliens. No food stamps, welfare, free medical care except life-saving emergencies, stop all in-state tuition to colleges until they become citizens and residents of that college’s state. Also, no free ride on the taxpayer in our public schools, meaning no benefits to attendance in our public schools, be it grade, middle or high school, unless they, or their parents, have a legal visa and are paying taxes to support those schools.
5. All those presently here illegally must register for a work visa and pay a fine or fee to do so, and for breaking the law in the first place.I would prefer to send them back to apply, but that is probably unworkable and would disrupt our economy, so imposing a fine for those that came here illegally, that those seeking to come legally would not have to pay, seems appropriate.
If we eliminate the benefits of coming here illegally people will not come illegally. Life must be more difficult for illegals sneaking into the U.S. than those who come through approved channels, and more difficult than in their country of origin, or they will continue to come illegally.
My recommendation to Congress and the President would be; “Now, get to it, enforce our present laws at least. And remember, you work for and at the pleasure of the U.S. Citizen.”
“It a must be a mis-interpretation of the Constitution to allow aliens to sneak in and have a child that automatically becomes a citizen”Posted by: Mark | June 12, 2007 at 07:59 AM
The 14th Amendment was written to grant citizenship to anyone born on US soil, no matter the place or condition of birth of their parents.
Those folks need to be here legally first, as opposed to that aspect of the 14th. Amendment, of which I am well aware, being an enticement to enter the country illegally. Just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st., so should the ‘anchor baby’ aspect of the 14th.
Call your Senators, Mark. Call your Congressman. Talk them into offering a Constitutional amendment.
On one hand, it’d be interesting to see how far an attempt to amend the 14th would get. On the other hand, it would be one of the ugliest, nastiest debates in modern history. Ultimately, it would be a waste of time and attention when other, more important issues languished.
I suppose the 14th Amendment wasn’t written at a time when he had an immigration problem with or Southern neighbors. :)
The changes made in that proposed law were cosmetic. It really didn’t fix anything.
This is akin to giving amnesty to criminals and saying all problems of crime are solved.
I don’t think so…
Mark,Or just vote wisely in ‘08…
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html
One more thing about your long post, Mark:
I can think of no faster way to turn the US into a third world nation than to deny education and medical care to children, merely because their parents have broken one or more US laws.
Your plan would create a permanent uneducated underclass that would be permanently unemployable. Within a generation, there would be landfill shantytowns of the kind we see in impoverished nations.
Tom,If the children are not granted immediate citizenship because his/her parents broke the law and entered the US illegally, then your paradox is solved.
Sol,
Huh? I don’t understand what you mean. Children of illegals aren’t granted citizenship. Only children born in the US are automatically citizens.
I really don’t know what you mean.
Were American Indians born in America given citizenship?
With Americans so evenly split by partisan politics a few percentage points can be decisive in our political system. If the new “Americans” vote as a block, we can expect a more leniency not less to be applied to our borders in the future, as politicians respond to their new political reality.
Tom, you are absolutely right, a change to the 14th. would likely go no where, and I am really NOT in favor of tampering with the Constitution from its original text. That is dangerous and may bring on a further lack of respect for it.I am simply frustrated, and prone to a little hysteria or at least exaggeration, due to that frustration. I see the erosion of this countries ideals and lifestyle, and a bleaker future for our children and grandchildren if we do not get this problem under control. Also, I begin to question why I, or any body else for that matter, should respect the law of this country when our own Congress and President don’t enforce them, or enforce them selectively, and take an attitude of; “we will have it all under control with this new law and things will be all hunky-dory, (Wink, Wink)”.
“The 14th Amendment was written to grant citizenship to anyone born on US soil, no matter the place or condition of birth of their parents.”Posted by: Tom | June 12, 2007 at 08:03 AM
“I can think of no faster way to turn the US into a third world nation than to deny education and medical care to children, merely because their parents have broken one or more US laws. “Posted by: Tom | June 12, 2007 at 08:28 AM
If a pregnant woman enters the United States illegally and gives birth (on the tax payer’s dime no less) then that child is granted citizenship. That allows the parents to live here as well – your first post.
To deport and deny citizenship of said child and parent’s eliminates the paradox of your second statement.
Strong borders. No amnesty.
Tom, in reference to your comment;”I can think of no faster way to turn the US into a third world nation than to deny education and medical care to children, merely because their parents have broken one or more US laws.”It is not that I want to deny them anything as long as they are here legally. The children of illegals would not remain in the U.S., just as their parents would not remain. There would be no denying an education, or health care, to ANY immigrant children when they and their parents are here legally. The central issue is the legality of their presents in the U.S.I am not opposed to immigration when it benefits this country and those that seek citizenship integrate into this society. I am opposed to those coming in who seek to ‘use’ the U.S. and attempt to turn it into the 3rd. world country from where they came.
*parents*
Ditto Mark,
One change that might clear it up from your post: change “I am not opposed to immigration “ to “I am not opposed to LEGAL immigration”
Strong borders. No amnesty.
If you want to turn America into a third world country, grant citizenship to all who would come here illegally.
What methods do you all propose for removing the 12+ million illegals that are here right now? And over what time frame?
Mark, you said you don’t want to “disrupt the economy.” What does that mean?
Investigate suspect employers that may be using illegal immigrants. Should they be found with illegals, police up the illegals for deportation and fine the employer in the amount it would take to deport the illegals.
If an illegal commits a crime, he/she does the time and is deported.
Time frame : as long as it takes.
Strong borders. No amnesty.
I would like to see a path to citizenship… One that REQUIRES each to learn English and assimilate into our culture, pay taxes, pay a fine, have a job, NOT be on welfare and they can not bring anyone else into the country…
There is no doubt about it, we need some of these illegals to be here and stay here. I don’t know about the rest of you, but Dish Washer, Lawn Mower, Road Pavers and Slaughter House Worker aren’t very high on my dream job list.
Sol,
That’s a pretty thin plan as far as plans go. It’s almost like the post-war planning for Iraq.
If “as long as it takes” takes 10 or 20 years, what do we do with the children? Keep them out of our public schools? Deny them health care?
If you’re talking about a 10 to 20 month plan, how do you carry that out? Where do the money and personnel come from?
Where do we keep illegals pending transfer to their countries of origin? Keep in mind that you’re talking about entire families – old, young, men, women, healthy and ill.
The last two jobs on your list at one time were high paying jobs because they are such hard and/or dangerous work. There were no shortage of workers until the wages were depressed by illegals. Should set off alarm bells.
If the incentives are removed (the reasons they came here) I imagine most would return to their native country.
So then Tom, your plan would be to welcome them with open arms. Give children of illegals (their birth’s paid for by OUR tax dollars) and their extensively extended families free tenure here. Support them on welfare and Medicaid.
Oh and wait, grant them this amnesty while our borders are weak, so that all in Mexico that want to share in the American Dream (read free ride) can do so.
Thin plan?
Strong borders. No amnesty.
Or, things could be left in limbo where they are now, if they want to stay, they can be second class citizens, or return to whence they came. Just secure the borders so no more can enter. I don’t think a fence is going to stop anyone intent on entering, no more than constantino wire will keep out an enemy. It will just make entry a little more inconvenient, and we’ll be addressing this same problem again in a few more years. Dejavu all over again. Except they will have amassed greater numbers.
Tom,I am not suggesting we form a posse and round them all up.I am proposing to strictly enforce the borders first, and to reduce the ‘draw’, the enticement, to come here illegally by eliminating any entitlements or benefits, and punishing those that do and those that enable them.A poor, but somewhat effective, analogy can be drawn from physics and it’s laws of partial pressure. Whenever there is a greater partial pressure on one side of a permeable membrane fluids will flow from the area of greater pressure to the side with the lower. There is tremendous economic pressure on the people where these illegal immigrants are coming from. They are seeking a better life economically, as one can well sympathize, and are penetrating our sovereign border to escape that pressure. There are two ways to reduce that pressure gradient and thereby stop, or greatly reduce, the flow. Ideally, reduce the pressure on that side of the border by improving the lives of those there. Or, decrease the permeability of the border and increase the pressure on this side of the border making it less attractive to come here illegally. We have very limited options for change in those countries so we must first focus on measures on this side of the border.
Strong borders… http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6297149.stm
So then Tom, your plan would be to …[snip]Posted by: SolDevVB | June 12, 2007 at 09:22 AM
Sol,
Thanks so much for deciding for me what my views on this complex subject are. I’ve been waiting to be told what I think for a long time. You’re just the man to do it.
Next time I’m faced with a complex issue, I’ll give you a call so you can tell me what I think. I’d be lost without you.
Any time Tom. You can even call collect.
Coming to a city near you!
http://www.silive.com/newsflash/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-26/118165618696750.xml&storylist=simetro
I think Mark is on the right track. How long would it take to round up 12+ million illegals? Not very if the fed would empower state and local gov’t to enforce the laws on the books.
As for anchor babies….they can go home with their parents. If they are a US citizen then they can stay. But to come here and immediately get pregnant so that the parents are granted citizenship is ridiculous. If the illegals take their US born children with them…….fine. The children can come back when they are 18 or whatever.
And you MUST stregthen the border. Build that fence, triple the size of the border agents, and mine the last 100 ft leading up to the fence.
they=babies….not the parents
Wow, another piece of dreck from the 4th estate, or should I say the 5th column? Just shoot ‘em already.
Even if I weren’t convinced this is a hot-button red-meat issue conjured up to thinly veil xenophobia and latent racism, no one’s supposed “solutions” to the immigration “problem” make any logistical sense.
“Secure the Boarders.” — America’s southern boarder is what? 1700 miles, much of if though desolate desert and mountains. The most aggressive build-a-fence suggestion has proposed a 700-mile-wide barrier. That merely opens up a thousand miles or so of unfenced boarder. Further, if you build a 15-foot-high fence, somebody’s likely to come up with a 16-foot-high ladder, ya think? Further, the ecoomies of both nations’ boarder communities depend on millions and millions of people crossing the boarder every day: to and from Brownsville and Matamoros, to and from El Paso and Juarez, to and from San Diego adn Tijuana….all along Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.
“Enforce Employment Verification” An admirable goal; one I’ve long advocated. But as a practical matter, computer graphics and skilled forgers can replicate any document. Holography, retinal scans, DNA profiles could — I suppose — develop into a workable technology sometime in the future, but I guarantee it’s gonna cost a lot more than 2-bucks a meal in food stamps. How much more do you want to pay in taxes to develop a magic tech identity card?
“Eliminate U.S. legal rights for illegal aliens” — Sorry, but I get really hinky when people start clammoring for “eliminating rights.” Good conservatives long ago taught me about unalienable rights; and that the Constitution doesn’t “grant” rights, but prevents the government from depriving rights. Problematic? You betcha! But the whole concept of American Freedom opens up a lot of problems. It’d be a whole lot easier to gather up undesireables on to cattle cars and ship them off to death camps. The Germans were very efficient.
“…and stop the ‘anchor baby’ citizenship fiasco.” — I’m unconvinced there really is an “anchor baby” fiasco; that massive numbers of people scamper across the boarder simply to give birth to an “anchor baby.” I’ve never seen accurate numbers of such alleged situations. Care to enlighten me on the numbers, cost, and degree of this “fiasco?”
“All those presently here illegally must register for a work visa and pay a fine or fee to do so, and for breaking the law in the first place.” — Assuming their employers made good-faith effort to verify whatever documents they presented to get hired in the first place (a major leap of faith), such a procedure essentially requires the “illegal” worker to self-incriminate. Forget the constitutional issue for a moment (but only for a moment), what could possibly drive you into a government office to prove you broke the law? You’re making, say, $300 a week and if you don’t show up for work you don’t get paid and you’re gonna trust the government not to arrest you if you take the day off to show up and admit to defrauding your employer and the government? Come now, these people are poor and unskilled and don’t speak much English, but they’re not stupid!
Ultimately, the nature and scope of this problem has been blown up beyond all proportion. There are 12 million “illegal” aliens in America? This is a nation of 300 million people. The “illegal” alien problem constitutes less than one-half of one percent of the population.
Perhaps we should get our priorities straight.
The constitution only applies to citizens.
FIASCO??????
Venezuelans giving birth in S. Fla. to obtain citizenship for their children
By Tal AbbadySouth Florida Sun-SentinelPosted June 12 2007
Weston · Veronica Pita recently traveled from Venezuela to South Florida just to give birth to her son and guarantee that he grows up a U.S. citizen.
Worried that President Hugo Chavez may claim guardianship rights over children, dozens of Venezuelan women have traveled to South Florida in recent months to give birth, local doctors say.
LocalLinksThe women generally arrive on tourist visas when they are seven months pregnant and return home six weeks after delivery.http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-cvenbirth12jun12,0,6013627.story
Ultimately, the nature and scope of this problem has been blown up beyond all proportion. There are 12 million “illegal” aliens in America? This is a nation of 300 million people. The “illegal” alien problem constitutes less than one-half of one percent of the population.
Perhaps we should get our priorities straight.
Posted by: Long Time Poster, First Time Lurker | June 12, 2007 at 11:45 AM
While I disagree in philosphy about the rest of your post, the last portion is simply wrong. 12 million is actually 4 percent of 300 million. THat is a long way off from 1/2 of 1 percent.
“In particular, the cost of retirement benefits for amnesty recipients is likely to be very large. Overall, the net cost to taxpayers of retirement benefits for amnesty recipients is likely to be at least $2.6 trillion.”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1490.cfm
While we argue the merits of this bills the Heritage Foundation ran the numbers. Unfunded liabilities will permanently cripple our economy. While we argue about GW which may or may not be harming our atmosphere the illegals are on their way to legality.
I voted for Bush in both elections. I am very opposed to this bill and Bush’s stand on it. Several years ago while working for an insurance company that required SS numbers for ID I called the IRS because two employees had the same number. Their response with a laugh was “Is his name Jose Gonzales or something like that?”
Their action was to do nothing. To long we have looked at this with a wink and a nod. It isn’t going away. Call your senators, your congressman, the prez and any other organization that can help. This action must be stopped now.
Deporting 12 million plus illegals is impossible but controlling them isn’t. Businesses have to be more accountable. The borders have to be monitored.
Well ltp, if you can’t secure the borders, then it would definitely just be a repeat of the last amnesty, and the message will have been reinforced, sneak over and wait until the next amnesty solution is offered for citizenship.
“The Phantom” –
Have you ever sat down and talked with “illegal” aliens?
My ex- used to work for Legal Aid and came in contact with many of them. Most didn’t come her ti immigrate, they came here to work for a while, build up some cash, and return to their village in rural Mexico and Central America.
Then life happened. They met a girl, got married and maybe had a baby. The whole concept that every “illegal” alien somehow conspired to take advantage of Aid to Dependent Children and other social welfare programs is patently absurd. If anything, they were lured and thrust into a “crisis” not of their making.
I’ve noticed that no one has chosen to respond to the reality that millions of people cross the Mexican-American border every day…twice… as a central process of how enterprise works in border communities. Yup, drugs will get throughl and yup, some people might cross the border only once some day. There’s no way — from a purely logistical reality — that will be prevented, regardless of how neat a fence you think you can design and build for 1,700 miles through desert and mountains. An authentic-looking green card that gets a cursory glance from an official in Tijuana (given the mile-long-back-up of vehicles at morning rush hour) is all it takes.
Congress can pass a law permitting people to flap their arms real fast and fly to Muncie, Indiana, but the reality is it’s not gonna happen.
The so-called immigration “problem” isn’t gonna be solved until there’s a modicum of reality inserted into the process.
Reality is a special consideration albeit, an important one.
Sol,
I was trying to have a reasonable conversation with you about a difficult and complex subject. Why did you find it necessary to respond with an attack? What does that get you, or anyone else? Do you honestly think telling me what my views are create a straw man worth attacking?
“That’s a pretty thin plan as far as plans go. It’s almost like the post-war planning for Iraq.”
Friendly debate?
“If “as long as it takes” takes 10 or 20 years, what do we do with the children? Keep them out of our public schools? Deny them health care?”
When the children and/or parents are found to be illegal, you escort them to the border. Why would US citizens pay for health care and education for illegals? If they are injured, care for them and send them to the border.
“If you’re talking about a 10 to 20 month plan, how do you carry that out? Where do the money and personnel come from?”
If they are employed, fine the employer the cost of sending them back across the border. If you count up the medical expense, special classes for non-English speaking illegal students, welfare, non payment of taxes, I think you would find the program well funded with recovering the hemorrhage of cash outflow supporting illegals.
Sol,
Have you considered the logistics of repatriating a population the size of the entire state of Michigan? Larger, actually – US Census says Michigan has 10 million people. So make it all of Michigan and 2/3rds of Indiana.
I don’t think the “send’em all back NOW” crowd has really thought this through. If we’re going to have a crash program, say, 15 months long, it’s going to mean giant internment camps across the country, with the illegals transferred to the border in trains.
If we’re going to come up with a plan that logistically calls for the repatriation of (x) number of illegals a year, how big should (x) be? What kind of infrastructure will it take to carry out this plan? What do we do with the (xy) illegals who don’t get sent back until the end of the program?
If this nation is going to have this debate, this factors MUST be considered.
Tom, if you search the internet you will find info on those camps having been all ready set up.
Have you considered the massive drain on the economy to provide health care, special classes for non-English speaking illegal children, welfare, crime rates, lost jobs … the list continues. Recoup that money and what do you have?
I never mentioned a time table. I said “As long as it takes”. If the system can process them quickly, then all the better. If not, we will have to prod along until we streamline.
I do not have any confidence in a political, business and judiciary system on solving the immigration problem that blindly launch a so called war on terrorisms, war against Iraq, seeking war against Iran and possibly trying to re-start the cold war with Russia at the same time of not having any plans in place of enforcing border security with priorities to securing the nation first before all other actions.The Republican / Democratic administrations in favor of the one world government ideology have recklessly risk our nation’s sovereignties.
Wiseman… Ron Paul 2008. Look him up. Betcha like ‘im.
Wiseman,
If you have links to internment camp websites, please share them.
Sol,
I’m trying not to be a jerk about this, but that’s not a plan, that’s an editorial. My question remains: _HOW,_ logistically, do we transfer 12+ million people to their nations of origin? How do we do that in a humane way? I’m not seeing any answers.
You use the same infrastructure and logistics that are in place today. You expand and reallocate as necessary.
What infrastructure is in place? What logistics? There’s a place to hold 12+ million people pending transit to a border?
Tom,The 12 mil rhetoric is duly noted. No where have I said to scoop up 12 million people in one day and hope to have logistics for them. There IS a system for deporting illegals today. Look it up.
Sol,
If there’s a working system, please point me in the right direction.
I know there used to be some holding facilities along the border where people appealing their deportations were held. Men were held in separate facilities from their wives and children, and some people had been stuck in the camps for up to four years. If I recall correctly, a Federal judge ordered the facility closed several years ago.
Is that the system you’re talking about? Or is there something else?
And the “12 mil” isn’t rhetoric. It’s the _number_ that has to be dealt with under any mass deportation plan.
Take away their jobs and they will go home on their own..
BG, that’s the route to landfill shantytown, USA. No thanks.
what is the difference, they are slave labor now anyway.
I guess that the life of a four year old White chil is a small price to pay for diversity and cheap labor, huh Rhonda?
Tyler Evans’ Killer Sentenced
Posted By Brenda Walker On 6 June 2007 @ 10:08 am In General, Immigration | Comments Disabled
Keep the name Tyler Evans in mind as you watch the Senate amnesty extravaganza this week. He was a four-year-old boy killed by a drunk-driving illegal alien last August. The driver, Christian Javier Sanchez-Rubio, was a Mexican too inebriated to keep his vehicle in the right lane and as a result, an innocent little boy is dead and a loving family is devastated.
Sanchez-Rubio was recently sentenced to just 10 years in the West Virginia state penitentiary, with parole allowed. That sentence hardly seems adequate punishment for such a terrible crime.
Police said after his arrest that Sanchez-Rubio had provided a fake immigration document and a Mexican driver’s license, both of which identified him as Jose Carlos Madrigal. He had worked at coal mines throughout Boone County, police said.[[1] Illegal immigrant pleads guilty in wreck that killed 4-year-old boy, (Charleston) Daily Mail 5/30/07]
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/06/06/tyler-evans-killer-sentenced/print/
Tom,
Do you seriously think that we do not deport people today? Do you think they are magically popped over the border with the twitch of a blonde woman’s nose?
Can the current system handle an increase? I don’t know. I don’t work with border security. Do you?
Will changes need to be made? Of course. Will there be up scaling? Of course. What is your point? Beyond the rhetoric of “12 MILLION PEOPLE”
Mass deportation plan. Define please.
The irony in all this is that Bush cannot keep his own party in line. What happened to the decider and his loyal followers?
Wow, our government is granting asylum to illegal latino gangmembers because they ARE gangmembers! This must warm Rhonda’s very heart.
6/3/2007U.S. Grants Asylum to Gang Members — *Because* They Are Gang MembersFiled under: General, Immigration — Patterico @ 8:26 amI thought it was bad enough that the government allows some illegal immigrants to stay in the country despite the fact that they are gang members.
I didn’t realize that the government allows some illegal immigrants to stay in the country because they are gang members.
In a story I couldn’t make up if I tried, the L.A. Times reports on Gerson Alvarado-Veliz, an illegal immigrant and gang member who was deported to Guatemala after serving a sentence in California for dealing crack cocaine. Alvarado-Veliz claims that he was targeted by death squads in Guatemala, who identified him as a gang member by his tattoos. The article reports that Alvarado-Veliz “knew he had to flee Guatemala or be killed. So he sneaked back into the United States.”
Why did he come here, rather than Mexico, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, or any number of other places? Because only the United States is crazy enough to grant asylum to somebody because they are a gang member:
Now the 23-year-old is sitting in an Arizona immigration detention facility after an arrest related to charges of marijuana possession and driving on a suspended license. He’s citing his past as a gang member as the reason he should be granted asylum and allowed to remain in the U.S.
. . . .
In 2005, a U.S. immigration judge found Alvarado-Veliz credible and granted him the right to stay in the U.S. legally.
The decision was later reversed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and is now pending before the 9th Circuit along with several other similar cases.
It turns out that several gang members have used this absurd strategy before, with success:
[I]mmigration judges have in recent years begun granting some former gang members the right to stay.
In 2005, a former gangster from Guatemala, who sold drugs for Long Beach’s East Side Longo gang, was granted one of the two lesser forms of relief, withholding of removal.
Also in 2005, a gang member who at age 7 joined the notorious Mara Salvatrucha gang in El Salvador, also called MS-13, and was later convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in Los Angeles, won the right to stay in the U.S. when an immigration judge ruled that his former gang membership and tattoos would put him at risk of persecution if he were returned. That decision was reversed, so his case is also pending before the 9th Circuit court.
A former gangster from Honduras convicted of grand theft auto as a member of Los Angeles’ Down for Anything gang won the right to stay in the U.S. in 2005 because of his past gang affiliation. In 2002, a former member of MS-13 in Los Angeles who was born in El Salvador won asylum with the backing of then-mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa.
Meanwhile, we’re treated to a sob-story account of Alvarado-Veliz’s life:
Alvarado-Veliz’s life, as he describes it, has been full of bad breaks and bad choices.
. . . .
It’s not possible to verify parts of his story, but Alvarado-Veliz describes how — despite refraining from criminal or gang activity in Guatemala — the tattoos on his face, neck and arms and his California gang dress and mannerisms were enough for police to target him.
“It’s not possible to verify parts of his story” — but we’ll report them anyway, invoking the “Sob Story Exception” to the usual rules of journalism. You’d think that editors would be wary of relying on the Sob Story Exception so soon after the paper’s recent embarrassing experience with “rehabilitated” gang member Hector Marroquin. But you’d be wrong.
Incidentally, Alvarado-Veliz, who claimed to refrain from criminal activity in Guatemala, didn’t manage to do so here. He was convicted of disturbing the peace, petty theft, and driving on a suspended license after entering the United States illegally for the third time in 2003. That doesn’t stop the L.A. Times from ending the piece in this way (warning, have your hankies ready before you proceed):
In prison, he leads a daily Bible study and on Sundays translates the prison chaplain’s sermon for the mostly Spanish-speaking inmates. He faces another year before a court decision is likely. He believes the jail time and previous torture are punishment enough for his past. Jesus Christ, he said, taught forgiveness.
He says he hopes one day to be a youth minister targeting those involved in gangs and drugs in Los Angeles.
“My past is pretty messed up, but I think I can use it to the benefit of other people,” he said.
The piece is reminiscent of the plaintive end to the puff piece the paper did on Hector Marroquin, who was later reported to have continuing ties to the Mexican Mafia and suspicious connections to multiple homicides:
“If a good man can turn bad, how come a bad man can’t turn good?” Big Hector asked.
This puff piece has convinced me: Alvarado-Veliz must stay! Write your local Congressperson and demand that this country retain its illegal immigrant gang members!
The time to act is now.http://patterico.com/2007/06/03/us-grants-asylum-to-gang-members-because-they-are-gang-members/
Ben,
I for one have dropped out of the Support bush Band Wagon when I heard and researched Ron Paul. I am a Republican and after reading some of his stuff and watching him speak, I am reminded of what a Republican is.
I sure am glad that the decider sent the Guard to secure our border. I guess that “loyalty” is just a matter of perspective?
NewsMax.com, June 11, 2007
Three National Guardsmen assigned to the Texas-Mexico border were accused of running an immigrant smuggling ring after 24 immigrants were found inside a van one of them was driving, the U.S. Attorney said Monday.
{snip}
Pfc. Jose Rodrigo Torres, 26, and Sgt. Julio Cesar Pacheco, 25, both of Laredo, and Sgt. Clarence Hodge Jr., 36, of Fort Worth were arrested near Laredo.
A Border Patrol agent found 24 illegal immigrants inside a van Torres was driving along Interstate 35 near Cotulla, Texas, about 68 miles north of the border, the U.S. attorney’s office said. Torres was in uniform at the time of his arrest Thursday.
Prosecutors accused Hodge of helping Torres pass through a Border Patrol checkpoint on the highway by making it look like the two were conducting Guard business.
Both are assigned to Operation Jump Start, President Bush’s initiative to place Guard troops at the border to help local and federal authorities with immigration enforcement. All the soldiers volunteer for the border initiative.
Pacheco was accused of recruiting soldiers to transport the migrants for $1,000 to $3,500 a trip. He and Hodge were arrested Friday.
{snip}http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/06/guardsmen_suspe.php
Aren’t you a California Republican SolDev?
It makes sense that you would like Ron Paul as he lines up more with “Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger” in ideology.
Displaced Texan – Repub. Currently held hostage in Michigan.
what have you found wrong with ron Paul?
Well, let’s see…
Ron Paul appears to be a tad racist:
“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,”
“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,”
Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”
Look for the video at youtube.com about Ron Paul’s statement about blaming 911 on the U.S. (search Giuliani and Ron Paul.)
He appears to be part of the “blame America first” crowd which I know there is more complexity to problems than that. Paul, however, seems to always give more weight to the “blame” problem than others, except Liberal Democrats.
—–
Birthright Citizenship and its Original Limitations:
Here is the sentence from the 14th amendment..note the part about “under the jurisdiction of..” This is the part that states that if the Mexican ambassadors wife has a child here – it is NOT A CITIZEN since she is NOT under the “jurisdiction” of…. We could set up a guest worker thingy where they are NOT under our jurisdiction for constitutional things are are here at the BEHEST of the Mexican government as guests.
The quote below is from the Senator (Jacob Howard) that WROTE the 14th amendment clause.”Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”Senator Jacob Howard,co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
Interpreting the 14th Amendment:
The United States is unusual in its offer of citizenship to anyone born on its soil. Only a few European countries still grant automatic citizenship at birth. The United Kingdom and Australia repealed their U.S.-style policies in the 1980s after witnessing abuses similar to those plaguing the U.S. today.1Why does the United States continue to allow a practice subject to widespread abuse? The answer lies in how American courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution as part of the post-Civil War reforms aimed at addressing injustices to African Americans. It states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States” and was crafted so that state governments could never deny citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But at the time, the United States had no immigration policy, and thus the authors saw no need to state that explicitly.The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. In the case of illegal aliens who are temporarily or unlawfully in the United States, because their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child, the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship.
Others have stopped it as we should:
1. On June 11, 2004 Irish voters voted in a national referendum to end automatic citizenship for any child born in Ireland regardless of the parents’ residence status. Ireland was the last member of the European Union to allow pregnant foreigners to gain residence and welfare benefits as a result of birth in the country. Seattle Post Intelligencer, June 13, 2004.
“By endorsing nothing, they are endorsing the status quo and its “silent amnesty” for those millions here illegally.” Rhonda Holman, WE
Congressmen who do NOT endorse this latest immigration bill are likely listening to the millions of legal law-abiding Americans who have complained about this bill.
And one very realistic solution has been offerred by millions of voters and we expect this realistic solution to be implemented:
ENFORCE THE EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAWS!
If the first law isn’t enforced and thus isn’t effective, just pass another law?!? Yup, that’s the status quo for Congress.
Here’s 16 years of deportation statistics directly from Department of Homeland Security:
1990 30,0391991 33,1891992 43,6711993 42,5421994 45,6741995 50,9241996 69,6801997 114,4321998 173,1461999 181,1942000 186,3912001 178,2072002 150,7882003 189,8562004 204,2902005 208,521
Let’s assume the rate of deportations remains constant. Let’s also assume the border is perfectly sealed. At the current rate of deportation, we’re looking at being free of illegal immigrants by the year 2064.
Critics of this math will undoubtedly say “we can deport more every year.” That’s true. But consider this: ICE (formerly INS) is already stretched to the limit. To increase the deportation rate, our government will have to commit the resources to make this happen.
This is not a problem that scales well. In the late 30s and early 40s, the Third Reich was murdering Jews at the rate of a few hundred a day, using inefficient means such as truck gassings and firing squads. It wasn’t until huge facilities covering several square miles were built, and the victims were delivered in packed boxcars, that the Reich was able to make significant progress in resolving their particular problem.
To forcibly remove 12 million people from the United States, in any reasonable amount of time, will take a massive investment in infrastructure. Of course, we can trade humanity for investment, such as using boxcars the way the Reich did. That should save a few dollars. We can also not feed the illegals that are rounded up, for a savings of probably billions (quite a few will die before deportation, saving the cost of food AND transport).
Ridiculous, you say? Come up with something different. Show me how you can conduct mass deportations without making THIS nation into something like the Reich was 70 years ago.
SolDevVB, I am an independent voter, yes Ron Paul is making sense and is on the top of the list of choices.The last 9 president term limits have been Bushes and Clinton and I want those people out of the white house.
Tom –www.greaterthings.com/News/Concentration_Camps/index.htmlwww.abovetopsecret.com/pages/camps.htmlwww.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htmwww.greatdreams.com/concentration.htmwww.angelfire.com/music2/fullcircle/con1.htmlwww.rense.com/general17/statebystate.htmwww.texemarrs.com/122002/concentration_camps_in_america.htmwww.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2816www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/FEMA-Concentration-Camps3sep04.htmwww.whatreallyhappened.com/concentration.htmlwww.geocities.com/theawakeningnews/Police_State-Concentration_Camps_Locations.htmlwww.youtube.com/?v=0P-hvPJPTi4
Google Results of about 1,920,000 on concentration camps U.S.How much of this is true?You can figure it out.
Ah the classic Nazi comparison by Liberal Democrats.
Enforce the Law = Nazi. I see. :)
Ok, if we give up on law enforcement, then let’s give up on having the IRS enforce tax laws too.
Calling on all hard-working American taxpayers, meet in Washington DC and let’s march against paying taxes to the IRS. Let’s also stop paying Social Security and Medicare taxes!
Let’s invite all illegal immigrants to join us in this march against law enforcement in the United States.
It’s inhumane to enforce the laws. It’s racist to enforce the laws.
Let’s demand that all laws be unenforced equally!
After reading these posts about deportation, no rights etc etc to the illegals here, just curious, has anyone actually had a point in their life where an “illegal” directly effected them? Using the social systems in place as an arguement is extremely weak at best, because we all know good ole home grown u.s. LEGAL citizens are the ones putting the burdon on the systems in place (simple numbers). Appears people want to focus on a minimal problem that really doesn’t effect them and not deal with the current issues we have today that is born and bred out of the good ole usa. Focus on the real problems, don’t let the smoke and mirrors distract you to illegals.
What do you mean illegal immigrants don’t feed off the taxpayers by using the social welfare systems?
They get medical treatment, food stamps, housing assistance, especailly in CA.
Can’t beleive the Unions are in favor of jobs being taken away from Americans by those who will work for 1/4 as much.
There is a direct cost to taxpayers for illegal immigration, and we can actually save taxpayer dollars by sending these folks back to their home country.
Max…Not to sound rude, but, realistically, look at the numbers of people and where they are from who abuse the social systems we have in place. To Blame the collapse/burden on illegals is to myoptic. They compromise such a minimal percentage of the population but yet people feel they absorb most of the social systems in place. How crazy is that thinking, like i said, it’s simple numbers. Our social system is being dragged down by people born legally here. Not really a hard concept to grasp.
Thanks for those links, Wiseman. There’s now a scary place in my head where there used to be peace and freedom and complacency.
Tom-
I agree this a serious issue. What are YOUR thoughts? Let them stay? GIve them citizensip? Guest worker status? I am curious. (actually).
Littlejohn,
I’ve given this issue some thought, but it certainly needs more. Here’s some starters:
1. Bring our National Guard troops home from Iraq, and put them on the most vulnerable parts of our border.
2. Fix the 14th Amendment. Children born on US soil are US citizens only if born to a woman legally here.
3. In Kansas, raise the minimum farm wage to the Federal minimum. Do the same in other states with farm wages that amount to indentured serfdom. The goal here is to make these jobs more attractive to US citizens, and less available to illegal workers.
4. Bite the bullet on national ID cards. Sad but true, the Federal government has already data-mined all of us into massive databases already. A national ID card isn’t going to make this worse. These cards should be free, and will also solve some of the voting problems we’ve been having.
5. Issue temporary worker ID cards to illegals already here. Let them keep working. If we put 12 million people out of work, what do people think will happen? Is this really going to lessen the burden on social services? Anyone who believes that is…well, fill in the blank here.
6. Focus on deporting illegals who present a real danger to others. Focus our limited ICE (INS) enforcement on urban areas where illegals have taken over local gangs, and get rid of them. Jail them, deport them, whatever. Any illegal convicted of anything more than speeding should go.
7. Give those temporary workers in (5) a path to permanent residency. Paying $10,000 fines is ridiculous; no working making 2.65 an hour will ever be able to pay that. And citizenship? Once they’re permanent residents, for their children, sure. But if they’ve come here illegally in the first place, no citizenship. Go back to their home nation and start from scratch.
Some of the above may never be workable; I don’t know. But I know one thing: I will NEVER support turning this nation into the police state that we’d have to be to kick them all out.
Tom,Seems like we are on about the same sheet. Changes I would make;
1) Be more aggressive in finding illegals2) Tax the illegals3) Misdemeanor crimes are 3 strikes and out (speeding/parking tickets). Felonies, do the time and take a ride across the border.4) Whoops, this one is out of order, but first and foremost secure our borders and coastlines.
Repub,Racist? Check here
freemarketnews.com/Analysis/134/7587/high%20alert.asp?wid=134&nid=7587
Don’t be a fool lead by your nose by Fox News and the GOP. Did you actually listen to what the man said? The US foreign policy is partly to blame for 9/11 and the quagmire in Iraq. If you can’t listen to and understand a statement, you shouldn’t comment on it. Blame America huh? You know what? America isn’t faultless. To believe so is naïve and I know you are brighter than that Repub.
But hey, cheers. If that is all you can find on him… Care to talk about Romney and Giuliani?
Repub,Whoops, try these instead
ignoblus.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/07/761415-is-ron-paul-racistlatestpolitics.com/blog/comments/991
TEXAS MONTHLY:———–What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” Paul says that item ended up there because “we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’” It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.
*************************************
Don’t be lead by your nose Repub.
Sol,
Traffic violations typically aren’t misdemeanors; they’re infractions. And I wouldn’t be in favor of deporting otherwise law-abiding people over infractions, or even one non-violent, non-drug misdemeanor.
What do you mean by “tax them?” Most working illegals already pay taxes, both Social Security and income.
Tom,If they don’t have SSN’s, how are they paying social security tax? How many day labor employers are paying tax on their behalf?
I didn’t say deportation over one misdemeanor, I said one felony.
Those phrases, SolDev are from Ron Paul’s newsletter.
They are not from the Fox News News Letter, they are from the Ron Paul Newsletter.
Sol,
Many are using other people’s SSN’s. As far as day laborers are concerned, well yeah, that whole mess needs to be cleaned up. Yet another argument in favor of putting limited enforcement resources into _domestic_ investigations, not multi-millions mass deportations.
Repub,
“When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around.”
Tom,Again, I never supported trying to get all 12 million in a day or a week. If we are currently deporting 200,000 per year, then increase that to 500,000. Find the problems, fix them then move to 1,000,000 per year. Keep going until the problem is resolved.
Sol,
Tell me how you find the infrastructure to quadruple the forced deportation rate. It certainly does _not_ exist right now; if it did, we’d be using it.
Or are you a fan of using internment camps?
Tom,
I keep repeating myself with you. Please read the posts. Take what works now and expand/reallocate as needed.
Sol,
There’s an inherent assumption in your position, though, that’s unsupported by facts: That the current system works, and that it can be expanded to remove all illegals by, say, 2014 instead of 2064.
Tom–Thanks for the answer. I agree with some, and don’t agree with some. As my body trys to absorb the caffeine in my coffee, and feed necessary energy to start my brain, I will try absorp what you said and forumulate a response that doesn;t sound like “nyuuuuu”SOmeimes, I just hate mornings.
208,521 in 2005 Tom, from your post….
Sol,
Right. And at that rate, it’s 2064 before the last illegal is deported. And _that_ assumes our borders are perfectly sealed _starting_now_.
For the past several years, deportation rates have increased anywhere from 2% to 5%. Even if we assume we can gradually scale the program at a _generous_ 10% rate, my calculations show it will still take 18 more years to clear them all out:
2007 251,6802008 276,8482009 304,5332010 334,9862011 368,4852012 405,3332013 445,8662014 490,4532015 539,4982016 593,4482017 652,7932018 718,0722019 789,8802020 868,8682021 955,7542022 1,051,3302023 1,156,4632024 1,272,1092025 1,399,320
There is no serious effort to deport illegals right now. If we remand this to the states and apply some federal funding, are you telling me the great state of Kansas could not figure out how to get the illegals out of the country?
If we are deporting 200k + right now and aren’t serious, why would you believe we could not deport more if we were serious and the logistics were left up to the states?
Why are you such a defeatist? Why are you so concerned with me giving you an exact time frame for when they will all be deported? For all I know, they may build a super train throughout the country and ship them out by the millions. I can’t look into the future and tell you what is going to happen. If you can, please give me some winning lotto numbers.
What hasn’t been mentioned is the detterent effect.
Once illegals see serious enforcement being increased, some of their friends and family going to jail and being sent back, being tried in the tax courts and thrown in jail for tax evasion, drug smuggling, etc.., then they will soon start leaving on their own.
But, the fence must be built and the border secured or they will come back.
“they may build a super train throughout the country and ship them out by the millions”
See my post yesterday about cramming people into boxcars.
I’m done with this thread.
Max,
I am a strong proponent of strong borders, but do you think a fence will work? I am thinking of better surveillance. Motion sensitive alarms and/or cameras. With the Guardsmen proven susceptible to corruption, some kind of overwatch needs to be in place. Also, check this out…
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6297149.stm
You are such a joke Tom. A defeatist joke. You keep putting words in my statements, not reading what I write; you just keep finding fun new ways to shoot down comments. Bravo. People in box cars. That is YOUR statement Tom. Yours and yours alone. What a horrible way to think.
One possible idea for Immigation reform
1)as we bring back troops, reservists, and national guards from around the world, redeploy them along the border, providing border security. Specialized units need only be used
2)Any illegal found to have committed more than 3 misdemeanors or a single felony is immediately deported
3)The 14th amendment stays as it is, but anchor babies can only anchor siblings and parents
4)Anyone applying for public assistance must provide proof citizenship or permanent residency. Failure to do so will result in deportation
5)Illegal aliens may apply for guest worker or some newly defined status for one year. Failure to do so within the year after passage of the immigration reform act will result in deportation. In addition, illegals found to be present in the United States after one year will be subject to immediate deportation. However, for those currently within the US wishing to gain guest worker status must supply
a)the name of an employee sponsor who agrees to:1)provide English language classes2)provide medical care or insurance3)pay the prevailing industry wage4)certify that there are no American citizens or permanent residents available, at a wage no less than 125% of the prevailing wage6)Employers found to have hired illegal aliens that are not in compliance with item 5 will spend no less than 1 year in jail and pay no less than $100,000 fine
7)Citizenship will not be granted to those here illegally, at any time,
8)Any guest worker or special status worker defined by #5, even though granted that status, will be deported if found guilty or more than 3 misdemeanors or one felony.Any takers?
Pretty good LJ. A couple things I don’t 100% agree with, but pretty damn good.
Now that Tom has left…(yeah, right!)
No one said anything about turning the USA into a police state with immediate forced deportation by the trainload.
Look what happened at that meat packing plant in Iowa when BCIS raided the place and chose to enforce the law on a couple hundred illegal immigrants.
The press immediately was outraged against law enforcement, but the press also served to effectively alarm other illegal immigrants and many suddenly disapeared from Marshalltown, Iowa.
The IRS aggressively enforces tax laws, and by enforcing the law on a few thousand tax-dodgers, 200 million of us Americans are scared into obeying the law – and without having to send all 200 million of us to jail in boxcars!
Littlejohn – agree with much of your post as well.
Another point I would like to make is that the details should be left to the state. This should be co-sponsored (financially) by the fed, but the logistics should be mandated by the state.
Sol – I think a fence will work in combination with the approaches you mention – electronic surveillence, etc..
I’m so tired of the “can’t do approach” that many in this country apparently follow. Explains why you rarely get good service anywhere in the US today -incompetence is rampant.
Too simply give-up, will only lead to a more screwed-up country then it already is.
“Can do” built America and made it strong for 200 years. And America CAN build a fence and solve this illegal immigration problem, by enforcing existing laws, not by passing more uneforced laws.
Only in the last few decades have the “Can’t do” crowd become so large and politically powerful – making the “Can do” people do all the work and pay all the taxes, while whining continuously about why things can’t be done.
The only action the “can’t do” crowd ever takes is when their socialist programs are threatened – then look out, here comes Hillary to save them!
LOL Max.
With a fence, and I am assuming a chain link? It would be pretty easy to snip through it, and expensive to repair. Razor wire on both sides? About 25-30′ tall so you would have to climb down as well? I don’t know, some kid of deterrent to just snipping thru it.
You would definitely need boots on the ground as well. They need to be well armed with lethal and nonlethal devices. They need Mexico facing to put signs up in Spanish letting potential illegals know that if they do not adhere to the border guards, things will not go well for them. There needs to be some kind of over watch system. People in another state that monitor the border. This would keep collusion to a minimum with corruption temptations.
The worker program is fine as well. As an addition, have the employer prepay the cost of delivering and returning the worker to the border.
You should listento the can’t do people. They can only make you rethink, redefine and plan your “whatever” better. I think everyone needs a little “can’t do” in their life.
The fence would be 10′ above ground and 5% below ground, steel reinforced concrete. And yup, need some boots on the ground with some helicopter support every 50 miles or so. Teams of 4 troops every mile or so, that’s 3,200 hundred troops or 9,600 troops to cover 24/7. Still have border guards and heavier patrols near legal border crossing areas, and additional troops stationed in densely populated border areas. Round-up and 15,000 troops and 20 helicopters should do it. Wouldn’t necessarily need military forces, but would need 15,000 border guards. Need some highly armed rapid response units to bust the heavily armed drug smugglers.
Pulse Opinion Research*Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
May 15, 2007Click here to read Eagle Forum press release announcing poll and its highlights
(* Part of Rasmussen Polling)1. First…there are currently 26 million legal immigrants in the country. That’s one out of every 11 people in the country. An additional one million new legal immigrants are allowed in each year. Is the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country too high, too low, or about right? 8% – Too Low55% – Too High32% – About Right5% – Not sure2. Okay…The total immigrant population in the United States, including both legal and illegal immigrants, is currently 38 million. That’s one of every eight people in the country. An additional 1.5 million new legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year. Putting aside the question of legal status for a moment, and focusing only on the totals, is the number of immigrants allowed into the country each year too high, too low, or about right? 5% – Too Low70% – Too High19% – About Right 6% – Not sure3. Have the government’s efforts to enforce immigration law been completely inadequate or has the government made a real effort to enforce our immigration laws?76% – Inadequate11% – Government has made a real effort12% – Not sure4. Should we continue the current level of immigration or has the time come to reduce immigration so we can assimilate the immigrants already here?23% – Continue current level64% – Reduce immigration14% – Not sure5. Do we need to allow more immigrants into the country to fill the jobs that require relatively little education? Or, are there plenty of Americans already here to do those jobs, but employers just need to pay higher wages and treat workers better?14% – We need immigrants to fill jobs77% – There are plenty of Americans here to fill jobs, employers just need to pay higher wages and treat workers better9% – Not sure6. Some have suggested granting legal status to the 12 million illegals already in the country. How confident are you in the government’s ability to weed out criminals and terrorists and others who should not get legal status: 7% – Very confident 19% – Somewhat confident43% – Not very confident28% – Not at all confident3% – Not sure7. As part of the effort to reduce illegal immigration, would you prefer a 700 mile long fence covering one-third of the US-Mexico border, a 2,000 mile fence covering the entire US-Mexican border, or not building a fence along the US-Mexico border?7% – 700 Mile fence51% – 2,000 Mile fence35% – Do not build a fence7% – Not sure8. With regard to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, ideally would you prefer they go home or be allow to stay legally? 58% – Go home30% – Be allowed to stay legally13% – Not sure9. A proposal has been made for a large-scale effort to round up and deport the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this proposal?40% – Strongly support24% – Somewhat support17% – Somewhat oppose14% – Strongly oppose5% – Not sure10. Another proposal has been made that would allows the 12 million illegal aliens here to be legalized and offered citizenship after they pay a fine, learn English and undergo a background check. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this proposal?27% – Strongly support33% – Somewhat support14% – Somewhat oppose24% – Strongly oppose2% – Not sure11. A third proposal has been made to reduce the illegal immigrant population over time by enforcing existing immigration laws. This would include increased border enforcement, penalizing employers who hire illegals, and more cooperation with local law enforcement. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this proposal?54% – Strongly support25% – Somewhat support9% – Somewhat oppose6% – Strongly oppose6% – Not sure12. Which approach do you prefer — enforcing the law and cause illegal immigrants to go home over time or granting legal status and citizenship to those who meet certain requirements.56% – Enforce the law35% – Grant legal status9% – Not sure13. Would you be more or less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who favors allowing the 12 million illegal immigrants to stay in the United States and eventual get citizenship? 12% – Much more likely24% – Somewhat more likely19% – Somewhat less likely33% – Much less likely 11% – Not sure
On September 27, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced that the DREAM Act would not be considered as an amendment to H.R. 1585, the Defense Department authorization bill for fiscal year 2008.
The Washington Times reports, however, that Reid will push for passage of the DREAM Act, which would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, by different means (possibly in its stand-alone form [S. 774, sponsored by Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin {D-Ill.}]) before the Senate adjourns for the year (i.e., on or about November 16).
Reid’s concession on the DoD authorization bill may doom other immigration-related amendments to the defense bill as well.
Please fax your senators: We have stopped the DREAM Act for now, but there is already a push to pass it as a stand-alone bill.
Senator Sam Brownback contact information- Taken from his web site
Office location Phone # Fax #Washington DC office 1-202-224-6521 1-202-228-1265Overland Park Office 1-913-492-6378 1-913-492-7253Topeka office 1-785-233-2503 1-785-233-2616Garden City office 1-620-231-6040 1-620-231-6347Wichita office 1-316-264-8066 1-316-264-9078
Senator Pat Roberts Contact Information Taken from his web site
Washington DC office 1-202-224-4774 1-202-224-3514Overland Park Office 1-913-451-9343 1-913-451-9446Topeka office 1-785-295-2745 1-785-235-3665Wichita office 1-316-263-0416 1-316-263-0273Dodge City Office 1-620-227-2244 1-620-227-2264
Representative Todd Tiahrt, Contact information taken from his web site
Wichita OfficeAddress: 155 North Market St.Suite 400Wichita, KS 67202Phone: 316.262.8992Fax: 316.262.5309Washington OfficeAddress: 2441 Rayburn BuildingWashington, DC 20515Phone: 202.225.6216Fax: 202.225.3489