Sunday, August 19, 2007

MODIFICATION OF POSITION ALERT

Hear ye, hear ye. I am announcing a slight change of position and I ask all those interested in Immigration Reform to provide your position for these three items.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform - My position:
=====================================
A. Secure Borders. Increased number of trained Border Patrol agents. Physical and virtual fencing using the latest technology.

B. Employer Sanctions. Criminalization and Severe Penalties for abusive employers.

C. Out of the Shadows: Bring the 12M out of the shadows through a registration, ID process for all head of households. Temporary Guest Worker status with return to country of origin to begin legal process. Sponsorship by employers as applicable.

Other:
======
The following are three top issues (I realize there are more, but let us deal with the top three which are not part of the Immigration Reform issue and should not be included in these immigration discussions.) I do not support any of them. However, you should clarify your recommendations so all Americans understand what it is you are proposing. There is far too much misunderstanding of these three ANTI recommendations, even by your own side:

1. Official English. Any proposals should be defined. The ANTI groups have a broad range of understanding. If Official English means all government documents should be printed in English only and all Oral government proceedings should be in English only, then say so and remove all other language so the American public does not misunderstand what you are trying to achieve. Then submit bill and put it up for a vote. If it passes, so be it. If not, let it go.


2. Changes to 14th Amendment - Birthright citizenship (Jus Soli): Clear language in your bill. Make sure all Americans understand this does not mean any retroactive change to those with current citizenship status including what many ANTIs term “Anchor Babies.” Make sure you all agree. Then submit the bill and put it up for a vote. If it passes, so be it. If not, let it go.

3. Moratorium on Immigration: If this is what you are recommending, write the bill clearly so all Americans understand it. Define number of years of moratorium you are recommending, from which countries, etc. Just be clear. Then submit bill and put it up for a vote. If it passes, so be it. If not, let it go.

27 comments:

Patriot said...

A. I have no quarrel with this, expecially since it includes a physical fence.

B. Absolutely, but our government and the illegals should be held accountable too. It was a thrice conspiracy.

C. Once employers have a fool proof way to check a potential new employees validity and the upcoming plan to be implemented by Homeland Security demanding the employers check the status of their current employees, the illegals will come out of the shadows and hopefully return home voluntarily. I am undecided whether it would be fair to allow them to re- apply to come back here legally when there are so many other immigrants waiting to come that didn't break our immigration laws. Perhaps after the others get to come first and there is a demonstrated need for more foreign workers they could be allowed to re-apply.

Other:

1. Official English has already been defined in the existing bill that I believe is in the House right now. I suggest that those opposed to Official English read it and they will find it will put aside any of their fears and concerns.

2. Same thing with the 14th Amendment clarification bill. This bill is also probably in the House for consideration and from what I have read there is no intent to rescind any existing citizens's birthrite citizenship.

3. Moratorium on immigration. I think we need to straighten out the illegal immigration problem first and then do an extensive study on the future availability of our natural resources and other things it takes to sustain anymore population growth from legal immigration. We also need to make sure that the immigrants we have here already are fully assimilated. I am not sure if we still have a quota policy in regards to immigration but it only makes sense that we continue down that path so that no one group or country is favored. We need to determine what our needs are for skilled and unskilled labor while keeping population growth in mind.

Dee said...

Pat, there are several bills before Congress re: English. If you are referencing S1334. It is much, much broader than you have said. The Official Language Act of 2007 in the Senate, there are 4 key pieces to it:
1. Declaration that English is Offical language
2. All official govt activities must be conducted in English (all govt activities, income tax forms & govt info materials in English.)
3. Preserve, Enhance role of English
a. Preserve & enhance role of English - (very ambiguos)
b. All govt materials in English.

Sec 3: Repeal of bi lingual voting reqmts. (I guess this is what you are after)

Sect 4:For all ceremonies and admission of new citizens.



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110h8gIqW::

Dee said...

Ulty,
Patriot thinks you should wait on the moratorium to Immigration. I agree. Let´s resolve Comprehensive Immigration Reform before we talk about moratoriums on overall legal Immigration.

patriot said...

I see nothing wrong with this Official English bill. It shouldn't be our responsibility to supply immigrants with documents and materials in their native languages. They should have that understanding when they choose to migrate here. We can no longer afford to print government documents in a dozen or more different languages when we have had to cut funding for so many citizen benefits and programs.

Dee said...

So we agree on A and C. Number C needs more discussion. So I will write about that in a minute.

We agree on number 3. Number 1 and 2 need more discussion. I will start with number 1.

Yes, there is an official English bill before congress. If what your side is after is printing govt documents in English only, I don´t know why this is such a major issue for you. There are so many more much more urgent matters which must be resolved and should take priority. Even so, before this bill can proceed, a study should be completed listing all government documents that are currently listed in other languages and the languages. We should understand who are the recipients, why they are being printed in that language, and understand the impact if these printings stop. To stop the process without studying and understanding the current process is like asking someone to close down a street in your town because you don´t use it.

I don´t see Official English as a top priority. Our most urgent domestic issues are A, B, C and I believe both sides agree on this.

Dee said...

1st paragraph should say we agree on A and B. C needs more discussion.

Dee said...

Regarding any bills written requesting changes to the 14th ammendment, please help your side understand that this bill would not be retroactive and would not impact the so called "anchor babies" your side continues to complain about. These folks are Legal Citizens and should be treated as such. Stop the name calling. Document your bill and know it will only references future births, not current citizens.

ultima said...

A. Okay as a first step but all of these investments need to be results oriented: 80% reduction in the number of apprehensions within 100 miles of the border within five years and a measurable decrease in the number of illegals present in the U.S..
B. Sanctions need to be balanced between employers and the illegals they employ. Illegals must be expeditiously and involuntarily deported unless they can show cause within one week of apprehension why they should not be deported. Repeat offenders must serve one year in jail for the first repeat offense and five years for the next offense. Employers must provide family health insurance for all foreign workers.
C. What will be the penalty for a failure to register? No one will register if it means they have to return to their country of origin and stay there until their number comes up or an employer is able to prove the need for a foreign worker and will provide sponsorship for and H2-b visa. Employers must show why H2-B visas will not meet their need before any other types of visas can be considered.
1. Let's go with S1334 but better define any areas that are ambiguous.
2. HR100 is good enough for me re: clarifying the intent of the 14th.
3. Let's establish a national objective of a stable population with a requirement that the Administration present a plan and new proposed legislation that would permit the achievement of this goal within a reasonable time frame. This plan should include a reduction in legal immigrants of all kinds by 200,000 per year until a level of 200,000 per year is reached and made permanent. The plan must also indicate the measures necessary to assure a soft landing for our economy as we approach that goal. Finally, I would double and index the tax deduction for exemptions for the first two children in each family and eliminate it for all additional children.

ultima said...

The bill relating to citizenship by birth is H1940 IH rather than HR 100.
It states as follows:
" (b) Definition- Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered `subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is--

`(1) a citizen or national of the United States;

`(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or

`(3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).'.

(b) Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.

Dee said...

Ultima,

Agreed as follows:
1. English Only- CLARITY on S1334. Keep in mind the research needed prior to vote. That is, list the official govt documents and languages published today and the impact, savings, if not published in other languages. Then help your ANTIs understand what this means. This does NOT mean people will stop marketing in other languages or restaurant, business signs will not be displayed in Spanish, or you will not have to press 2 for another language, or you won´t see ads in stores or on TV. Help them understand this Ultima.

Dee said...

Ultima, Agreed

Birthright Citizenship:
S100
Help your side understand this does not impact anyone prior to the vote-passing of the bill. Ask them to stop saying Anchor babies or breeding.
I don´t support the bill, but in the language you stated, it could be a possibility, but your side needs to understand what the Bill is asking and how it will be implemented and most of all, how it will not impact any CITIZENS (so called anchor babies) born prior to the enactment of any changes to the law.

Dee said...

The Humanitarian side of me disagrees with S100. GE talked about this a few times. What about all the babies born in the US who will have no nationality. They will not be American. They will not be natives of the country of their parents. They will be lost with no nationality. As long as employers continue to solicit and hire undocumented workers or visa overstayers, then we will have these children. What about the parents who have fleed here for sanctuary but never receive sanctuary status. There are so many scenarios this could occur. Just sad for the children.

patriot said...

dee, If anyone wants to know what would be in a new birthrite citizenship bill or Offical English bill they can read the bills for themselves. Odd that you should suggest that we should go on a mission and spread the details ourselves. No one has asked me to explain it. I have a job and I don't talk politics with the people I associate with.

I was going to post a link to the birthrite citzenship bill but I see someone has already done that in here. As you can see it wouldn't be retroactive.

We don't need any further studies about how an Offical English bill would impact anyone. Many if not most other countries have an official language, why shouldn't we? It is our right.

I don't try to tell anyone what terms they should or shouldn't use to describe something or someone as in the anchor baby term. I understand the concept behind it. The parents have anchored themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil. Why is it ok for illegal immigration proponents to call illegal aliens, undocumented immigrants? I find that phoney term offensive just as you find anchor baby offensive. To each his own. I don't try squelch freedom of speech in this country.

Dee said...

Patriot, I enjoy your posts. It is good you can discuss these issues civilly.

Not all on your side are as civil or thoughtful as you are.

patriot said...

Another point or two I would like to make about both bills is that our politicians would have already thought out every scenario that could come into play if they were implemented. A child would not be without a nationality. They would be the nationality of either their father or mother depending on the country they were citizens of and what their particular birthrite citizenship rules are, if neither parent is a U.S. citizen. You seem to be conjuring up problems where there aren't any and from your remarks it is because you don't want either bill to pass. I question why any American would not want either of these bills to pass. It sounds like an ulterior motive to me and I shudder to think what that might be.

I am not sure what your concern is about making the Official English bill a priority opposed to other bills. I haven't heard that it was a priority above other bills. I think all bills are important because they all effect us citizens one way or the other. Again I think that you have an ulterior motive. You seem to want to have any bill defeated that is in the best interests of this country but instead favors minorities, foreigners and special interest groups.

Dee said...

Pat,
As I mentioned, Ultima and others and I have been discussing this issue for months. There are news reports that indicate the "child with no country" reports because the country of the parents´origin does not recognize their citizenship.

Let me look for the urls and I will post them this evening.

Dee said...

Pat, One other item I should mention. I think the Immigration issues are very important and I started this blog so both sides (you, me and all here) could discuss these issues civilly. I want us to be able to talk. My motivation is to ask questions, research, discuss and my wish is, the end result will be providing vital feedback to Congress on a Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill that will pass and reunite all Americans who are divided on these issues.

ultima said...

Obama and others underestimate the importance of Official English. This should be a slam dunk and not impede the discussion of other needed reforms, especially A and B. In fact, I am convinced that an Official English amendment would greatly increase the chances for favorable consideration of other immigration problems. It would show some willingness to compromise on the part of the pro-foreign, pro-illegal elements in our midst. This should not be a difficult compromise to make given that everyone including Obama believe people must and will learn English. One has to ask, if so, what's the problem? The Official English bill need not be so complicated as to result in endless debate.

With regard to the moratorium, I agree that a ten year moratorium as some have proposed is probably too extreme to garner much support. A ten year moratorium would mean no immigration of any kind for ten years. I think a steady reduction in immigration quotas is a more rational approach with actual admission tailored more precisely to our needs. I strongly believe in a national objective of a stable population as a way of getting us on the right path towards reduced immigration. We need to let the world know that is our policy.

Preserving and enhance role of English is probably a meaningless phrase or provision without some concrete ideas about what is expected and funding to implement those ideas. I suspect this is just window dressing that no one would do anything about. The only thing I can think of would be to have free community-based English language instruction for anyone who wants it,a study of what works best to move Spanish-speaking children and adults into the English-speaking community and in the process help them to achieve success without having to be bi-lingual.

Dee says, "If what your side is after is printing govt documents in English only, I don´t know why this is such a major issue for you. There are so many more much more urgent matters which must be resolved and should take priority. Even so, before this bill can proceed, a study should be completed listing all government documents that are currently listed in other languages and the languages." No I don't think any study is needed on this and it is not English only, it is Official English -- to be used in all government documents and proceedings at all levels of government. The only thing we need to assure that hospitals and police have interpreters to be billed to the recipients of their services except for those who cannot afford one or for whom no family member can provide this service. We don't care how many are involved or for what purpose -- just say no!

This is a matter of some urgency to us and should be given the top priority rather than sloughing it off as of minor importance. As I have said many times, this is a simple bill that doesn't require a lot of debate and its passage would grease the skids for other immigration reform measure you and others consider more urgent. Close out this item and move on is my motto.

Dee says, "this bill would not be retroactive and would not impact the so called "anchor babies" your side continues to complain about. These folks are Legal Citizens and should be treated as such. Stop the name calling. Document your bill and know it will only references future births, not current citizens." I am surprised that Dee continues to underestimate the intelligence of the opposition. Almost everyone understands that it is very difficult if not impossible to deprive a citizen of his citizenship. Besides you have the problem of whether or not the home country would be willing to accept a return of an anchor baby. We should get over the concern about this accurate and descriptive term. It is neither demeaning or insulting. It's just the way it is.

Dee says,"What about all the babies born in the US who will have no nationality. They will not be American. They will not be natives of the country of their parents. They will be lost with no nationality. As long as employers continue to solicit and hire undocumented workers or visa overstayers, then we will have these children. What about the parents who have fleed here for sanctuary but never receive sanctuary status. There are so many scenarios this could occur. Just sad for the children."

I think this concern is overblown. Immigration courts will generally be sympathetic to stateless children. Visa overstayers should take their children with them when they are deported and never return.Persons fleeing from political persecution are generally permitted to stay and no judge would separate them from their children. If there are potential problems in this area, let's deal with them after we have the abuse of the 14th under control.

ultima said...

Some countries are restricting lex soli (law of blood) by requiring that at least one of the child's parents to be a national or a legal permanent resident of the territory of the state in question at time of the child's birth, or that the child is a foundling found on the territory of the state in question. The primary reason for imposing this requirement is to limit or prevent people from traveling to a country with the specific intent of gaining citizenship for a child. The 27th amendment to the constitution of the Republic of Ireland was passed by referendum in 2004 for this purpose. Why not adopt this enlightened law as a model for our country?

TheCarlsonCrew said...

My two cents may not be worth a plug nickel, but they're all I've got! ;)

I realize I'm joining in late here, so I'll just start at the beginning with my thoughts.

A. Secure Borders: Without question, the highest priority. Fence first, then more border patrol, then high-tech wizardry. The money is already there, just not the political will from the gov't (though it's clear that Americans overwhelmingly want it).

B. Employer Sanctions: Without question, this is critical. Shady employers are a HUGE reason this issue has spiraled out of control. Crack down mercilessly here!

C. Out of the shadows: I respectfully disagree with you on this one. I think that A. and B. will cause a fairly high number of illegals to leave voluntarily, especially when coupled with increased efforts of enforcement. The overall effect would be that what is now an INcentive to be here illegally will become a DISincentive. If they leave voluntarily, they can re-apply to come back in, but only AFTER those who are currently playing by the rules have been processed through. If we do utilize temporary workers, they must be required to return to their country of origin before they could even apply to come back.

1. Official English: Official English is very important. I think one of the reasons for the backlash was that Americans watched thousands of illegals marching through the streets in '05 waving foreign flags, speaking their native languages, and demanding their "right" to be here. This signaled (whether intentionally or not) that they were more interested in being themselves IN America than BECOMING Americans. Bad move. To state unequivocally that English is the official language of America is to retain a piece of the national identity that made America great.

2. 14th Amend.: This just needs a clarification. The parent(s) must be legally authorized to be in America in order to grant citizenship to the baby; otherwise, the baby takes the citizenship of the parent(s). You cannot possibly take away the citizenship of those who already have it, so that idea should be dismissed. What we're missing is that the intent of the 14th Amendment (as I understand it) was to give citizenship to the children born to black slaves, thus giving them 'equal protection' under the law. It had nothing to do with the current illegal immigrant problem, and it just needs to be clarified to deal with the current situation. Besides, I believe I read somewhere recently that only thirty-something countries around the world grant automatic citizenship to babies born on their soil, so the 14th Amendment in the U.S. is actually more of an exception than a rule. Again, removing the "anchor baby" facet would change an INcentive to a DISincentive.

3. Moratorium: I understand the logic that we need to get our arms around the current problem before bringing more people in, but I think this would be a bad idea - at the pace our government runs, it would take forever to get things sorted out, and that time would hurt America. Instead, I think we need to focus on temporary workers who have skills and knowledge that would benefit America. Forget the family ties - this country was made great on the backs of people who came here on their own (and only later brought their families over), so that is not unprecedented, either. We need highly skilled immigrants, and the rest of the world has many to offer. But we have to prioritize and be smart about it.

Above all, under no circumstances should there be any kind of amnesty program. That would be similar to me stealing from my neighbor, and, when I get caught, I get to keep the stuff I stole. Very, very bad idea, and the whole reason we're in this mess - we've given amnesty several times, and each time the problem has only gotten worse. It's time to try a different tactic.

Thanks for letting me jump in! :)

Dee said...

CC, Thank you for joining our civil discussion. We agree on the 1st two. As you mentioned, we disagree on 3. Maybe there is room to meet in the middle? Suggestions?

TheCarlsonCrew said...

Hm, middle ground...

Well, I'm not sure how much middle ground there is here. As I stated before, I believe that to create DISincentives is going to be the most effective way to reduce illegal immigration: if we secure the borders to stop the influx, crack down hard on employers, and clarify the birthright citizenship, much of the draw for coming to America illegally will go away. I believe that if we did those three things and then stated that on a certain date (say, two years in the future) the enforcement crackdown would begin in earnest, that would provide a great incentive for illegals to leave voluntarily. It wouldn't be a mass deportation, it wouldn't require huge federal funding, and it wouldn't 'rip' families apart (since they could take their time and move in a controlled fashion) - it would be a reasonable, voluntary withdrawal.

Once the problem is under control, we can certainly work on legal immigration reform, and I think we can definitely agree on the necessity of that.

What suggestions do you have for common ground?

Dee said...

CC, I do agree with your suggestions re: secure border, employer sanctions, 2 year notification, however, I think some people have been here for 5 - 20 years and have contributed significantly. My middle ground would be to offer some type of Guest Worker status for those that can prove they have been here 5 plus years, crime free, contributing. Notice I didn´t say path to citizenship status this time. This is a big compromise for me.

We as a nation have to have some accountability for not enforcing our laws and welcoming (offering waivers) to these folks for the past 20 (100) years.

Can you agree to this compromise?

TheCarlsonCrew said...

I see two problems with your proposal.

First, anyone with a half-decent printer and scanner can forge documents to 'prove' they've been here for years. The system is so understaffed and bogged down that it would be years before every application could be verified.

Second, I would question how much they've contributed. Are you talking about taxes paid in? I think we can agree that most of the people we're talking about here aren't taking in much income, so how much are they really paying in taxes? Did you know that in 2004 the bottom 50% of wage earners paid only 3% of all taxes? Quite frankly, that's not much of a contribution. If you're talking about 'doing jobs Americans won't do', that's a MSM myth. If 24% of all California agriculture jobs are done by illegals, who's doing the other 76%? Americans.

I agree whole-heartedly that America's leaders (clear back to Reagan) have done a woefully inept job at enforcing our borders. But, that does not excuse those who broke the law to come here.

For example, if I break into my neighbor's house and steal some of his stuff, who's fault is it? Is it his fault for not adequately securing his house to prevent me from coming in? Or is it me, for actually perpetrating the crime? Obviously, it's me. Furthermore, when I'm found out, should I be allowed to keep my neighbor's stuff, or should it be returned to him? Obviously, it should be returned to him. This is the nutshell of amnesty - they broke the law, yet they're being allowed to keep the benefits of that crime.

Your comment about not requiring citizenship points out just how serious you are about true assimilation. If all of these illegals truly wanted to assimilate, why would they not want to become full citizens? The truth is that they don't, and that's why citizenship doesn't matter to them (or you, apparently). Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

I'm sorry, I can't accept your proposal.

Dee said...

CC, The problem most of you ANTIs have is you are not willing to compromise. There have been many compromises offered, none accepted. Anything short of Mass Deportation is considered Amnesty by your side.

Your example about your neighbors house would be more legitimate if you used this scenario:
Your neighbor puts up a yard sign saying No Trespassers. Your neighbor invites you over to their barbeque, asks you to help him build his new deck, pays you under the table, then calls the cops to put you in a detention center your cronies built in a tent city in your backyard. The cronies are making $100 a day to keep you in their tents.

TheCarlsonCrew said...

Dee - you're completely missing one key component here. The only people in America who 'invited' illegal aliens here are the big-business types and spineless politicians who are fighting hard for amnesty (against the will of the American people). Don't lump me (or the other 80% of America who agrees with me) in with them - I believe they should suffer the biggest crackdown of all, and I've been saying that since the beginning!

If you want to twist my original analogy, THIS would actually be the most accurate: my neighbor's landlord invites me in to my neighbor's house without my neighbor knowing about it, and I steal my neighbor's stuff. Then, when my neighbor tries to call the cops on me, neither I nor the landlord gets in trouble, and I still get to keep the stuff I stole from my neighbor. Still wrong, still unfair, still illegal.

You accuse me of not being willing to compromise, but I would ask you why you seem to think a compromise is necessary? Why should I compromise on obeying the laws of America? Why should I compromise on asking that the laws of America be enforced on people who are breaking them? Why should I compromise on wanting to spend my tax dollars on American citizens who need the help rather than illegal aliens? Why should I compromise on any of it?

I would also like to point out that you've now crossed the line into name-calling and attacking me rather than debating the issue. That is always the last resort of liberal philosophy - when you run into a sound argument and a standard that is applied to everyone, your own arguments simply do not hold up. So, you attack. Classy.

Dee said...

CC, I like you. I would never attack you sweetie.

I do believe that you and I do share some responsibility. We are both Americans. My father, his and his were born here. I would suppose you could say the same.

We were complicite in the fact that we did nothing to stop the problems and reaped the fruit of the activities our govt and big business allowed. We reaped the fruit via lower prices, increased revenues in taxes, etc, and in not having to do the work ourselves.

I did put this documentation together regarding the history of immigration. Maybe this will help.

http://novice2blogowner.blogspot.com/2007/09/chapter-1-history-of-us-immigration.html

Page Hits