Long Residency Requirements Should Not Be in Immigration Reform
Posted January 16, 2013 by Patrick Young, Esq.
This is the third in a series on what should be avoided in any immigration reform plan.
Marco Rubio is floating word that he may introduce an alternative to a White House-backed immigration reform plan. He recently told the Christian Post that any undocumented immigrant applying for legalization “would have to prove they’ve been here for an extended period of time” under his plan.
The notion that people applying for legalization must have been here a long time to be worthy of legalization is not unique to Rubio’s potential proposal. The Reagan Amnesty of 1986 required that an applicant prove he or she entered five years earlier. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program announced by President Obama also requires that an applicant prove that he or she entered five years earlier, by June 15, 2007.
One problem with long residency requirements is obvious. Assuming that half-a-million undocumented immigrants arrive every year, making the cutoff date for eligibility a year earlier than the date of the law’s enactment means that 500,000 people will not be covered by it. If the cutoff is 2007, the new program could leave 2.5 million people out. A legalization program with a cutoff date five or ten years in the past will result in millions of undocumented immigrants remaining undocumented because they simply will not qualify.
It is not only those who arrive after the cutoff date who are disqualified by requiring a long residence. To be eligible to apply, undocumented immigrants will need to find documentation to be used as evidence of being in the United States by the cutoff date. It is much easier to prove you were here a few months ago than to prove you were here in 2007, even if you were here by that date. So millions of people who were here by the cutoff may just find that it is impossible recover documents to prove it.
In addition, if you have to prove that you were here five or ten years ago, it is much more likely that you moved around. So instead of just going to your local school or city hall to get documents, you may have to travel around the country assembling the paperwork. The further back the cutoff date, the more time consuming and expensive it will be to assemble your proofs.
Programs like Temporary Protective Status don’t have requirements that applicants prove-back long periods of residence. The proof requirements focus on the applicant’s identity and lack of a dangerous criminal record and not on some arbitrary date in the distance past.
1) Seal the Border
2) English Only (no taxpayer funded interpreters, no ESL classes in public schools, etc)
3) End all taxpayer funded multicultural classes, events, programs, etc
4) Zero government aid/money to anyone who is not a US citizen (includes no 'free' education, healthcare, food stamps, etc)
5) Uphold/Enforce the true meaning of the 14th Amendment (being born on US soil does not make you a citizen if your parents aren't citizens)
6) Implement 3 strikes and you're out policy for employers who hire illegals... 1st time caught, on probation, public notice must be posted, at business owners expense, clearly stating the business is on probation for breaking the law; 2nd time caught, 1 year in jail or 1 million dollar fine; 3rd time caught, you're out, business license revoked
7) Make it clear to all those here illegally that they will not face any further punishment if they choose to leave on their own
8) Give illegals 1 year from the date the law is passed to leave the US
9) Anyone caught here after that year will be deported, along with any family members who are here illegally, within 24 hours of their being arrested for the crime of invading a sovereign country
10) Make it easier to become a US citizen for SELF-SUFFICIENT individuals who wish to become Americans and assimilate into our culture
I would just add....keep ICE agents at the welfare offices and arrest and deport on the spot any illegals coming in for handouts. BOOM!
I am less astounded by Rubio's immigration platform than I am by his pablum spewed today at Kerry confirmation hearing.
I think though what astounds me the most though is the comments on this forum throwing Mark Levin under the bus. There is no better advocate for conservatism and pragmatism for that matter than Levin.
Circular firing squads don't make majorities nor do they win elections.
While Mark Levin is a constitutional scholar, and has no trouble pointing out the downhill, runaway, bullet velocity rush toward tyranny, he is still locked into the Republican Party.
His major response to Obamao's inaugural speech included the statement that it is not time for a third party. He still harbors the DOA concept that conservatives can "take over" the GOP. There is no acknowledgement, on the part of Mr. Levin, that there are literally (correct use of the word) thousands of GOP apparachiks in all the states who are solidly entrenched in the Party apparatus, with fealty only to the Party, and that it will take decades to remove or replace them with constitutional conservatives.
It is "a fool's errand."
Better to just leave them where they are, and spend our time assembling a similar type of apparatus in each and every state populated by real constitutional conservatives. Much less waste of time, energy, and resources (money). It is easier to just point to the GOP candidates and say, "They lie!" Then pinpoint every lie as we engage them in the debate for votes for our truly constitutional conservative candidates.
They all have records that can be exploited, and that exposes them as spineless, with no principles that they will not discard to serve their own interests.
In point of fact, it is only through the crucible of elections, in head-to-head competition, that their machinations can be exposed to the public at large.
As long as Mr. Levin, and all the other right-wing talking heads, are blindly tied to the GOP, they will continue to "spin their wheels" in the mud. And they will be of no real help to We The People to turn these Political Ruling Class traitors out of office.
Yes, Mr. Levin constantly points out what is wrong. So what? Any poster on any of the "right wing" websites can do as much. Where are the solutions to the problems? As long as Mr. Levin continues to believe that the answer lies within the GOP, he is still trapped within the establishment web.
The establishment, and its Ministry of Propaganda, cannot be changed from within.
Throw them all out! The status quo must go!
Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.
Illegitimi non carborundum.
As a naturalized situation and who has had to go through several really difficult challenges to always be up-to-date on my paperwork over several years, this seems to be a strategy that really amounts to pandering to the Hispanic vote.
A simple question would be: what about all the people who are doing things legally and have been waiting for years and going through all manner of hardships (more often than not, because of INS (DHS, whatever) incompetence and negligence)? Any plans for them?
try getting the illegal criminal murdering userper in the WH out of the country... they yammer all the time about mexico and the boarders while all the time they simply ignore the fact that obumfux a illegal communist destroying capitolism , giving the country away to china , hezzbola, muslim brotherhood and turning the USA into a dictatorship .. turning the military on American citizens to shoot us if we dont turn in our guns...
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with a whole bunch of people in here evidently, which is pretty uncommon.
The Senator outlined, what seems to be a solid plan, that solves a problem. Not only does it solve a problem, it takes a wedge issue away from our opponents who will assuredly use it day in and day out to charicature the party, and conservatives as a whole.
A lot of people in here seem to be happy with the current strategy, where we don't take a thoughtful approach to solve a complex problem, and just allow the Dems to keep demagoging us on this issue to gain support.
So what some people seem to want to do is hand this issue over the Dems, election after election, meanwhile the border stays open, more illegals come in, and you'll eventually be left with an elecorate that will vote real Amnesty everytime!
So feel good about yourselves that you stood by your principles, because unless we start supporting SOLUTIONS, that's about the only people we'll be talking to, ourselves.
It comes down to a choice we have to make.
Are we content with being called the racist party as long as we stand strong and lock up or deport every illegal alien, and losing election after election, or will we stand up and show the American people that we want to SOLVE the problem, at which point the border will be secured and illegal immigration is severly reduced, if not eliminated.
I would offer a side Amendment that says after all triggers are in place, the border is secure, the severe criminals have been shipped out, legal immigration is improved, and we have documented the illegals, that the penalties for coming into the country illegally be increased drastically, and be strictly enforced! With an up to date immigration system, and valid work programs, anyone who wants to legitmately imprve their lives have access to the US should be able to gain legal access much easier, so there should be no reason to sneak in illegally.
The American people are on our side, we just have to shatter the perception that we're all a bunch of racists who hate foreigners, which I know we're not.
You give illegals legal status and you get more illegals. Just because someone wants to come here "for a better life" does not mean they should get to come here. We are full. We already allow over a million people a year legally!! Many come and get on welfare and don't get me started on the muslims!
We already have valid work programs. We offer UNLIMITED agriculture visas. There is NO reason to come here illegally...unless they can't pass the criminal background check and the medical screening.
MOST Americans want illegals out of our country.
Quite frankly, it is time to end legal mass immigration too. We can't assimilate the hordes that keep coming. We are becoming an alien nation.
It is time for folks to work to improve their own countries. We can't be the safety valve for the worlds' poor. We could take in a million poor people a day and a million more would be born into poverty that same day!
The answer is capitalism in these countries. The answer is for them to work to make their own countries better.
To accept a false premise for an argument, is to lose it.
False premise 1: Open borders are the problem. Many countries with substantially smaller and easier to secure borders than ours exist fine without fences and drones, like Switzerland for example. You can drive right in. That is because they enforce common and simple immigration laws which make it very difficult to live or even stay very long without papers. Try over staying your work visa very long in any sane country that values its sovereignty and economy. Over a million islamists are estimated to be here illegally. They simply came in on student or tourist visas and never went home because we do not enforce our laws.
False premise 2: We will have to deport illegals. These people have homes and citizenship in wherever country they came from. Once they have to talk to a judge after being found without a visa, and when they can no longer get drivers licenses, apartment leases, car insurance, free medical care, free legal counsel, free education and cash-only jobs. They will head on home.
False Premise 3: We will have to split up families. No. Even an anchor baby has the citizenship of their parents. No parent would return home without their children.
False Premise 4: We need a special program for those who want to get a visa, green card or citizenship. Nothing is stopping any of them from starting that process today.
False Premise 5: Once amnesty or a "fast path" is given to illegals, they will become fine citizens. I have experience working with both legal and illegal immigrants. I can tell you the illegals planned thier illegal entry/overstay, know they are breaking the law, do not care, have no respect for America, believe they are entitled to what they get and more, and openly mock us for our stupidity.
Well said! Illegals showed contempt for us the second they over stayed a visa or snuck in. Their contempt seems to grow the longer they are here.
False Premis 1 Response: You are right, the border is NOT the only obstacle. We should be enforcing the LEGAL immigration statuses as well, and Rubio states that specifically in his proposal. So you agree with that.
False Premise 2 Response: Again, you are right. As soon as the heat get's turned up I thik a lot of them who haven't been here that long will leave on their own. All the more reason to back a plan that makes it difficult for those who chose to remain "illegal" to maneuver inside our country. I believe Rubio should put some kind of deadline to come clean. Otherwise you face stricter penalties.
False Premise 3 Response: While agree that the anchor baby situation is ridiculous. You know the media is going to find every sobbing mother they can and shove a camera in their face, which we all know plays into the Dems hands. You have to be willing to rip the issue from their hands, and smack em across the head with it. The only good way I can think of to do it is to encourage the parents to come forward and be registered. Still not citizens, but at least their known.
Fasle Premise 4 Response: Which is why I thikn Rubios got the right idea by updating the immipgration system as a whole to make it more efficient. That would also help law enforcement keep track of those who overstay their visas.
Fals Premise 5 Response: No conservative, or Rubio has said that ever said that all illegals once they are given a legal status are going to become flag waving Americans. Hell a good portion of people who are BORN in this country are "fine citizens" so that argument rings a little hollow.
Here's what I don't get.
You start out with this statement:
"You have an awful lot of trust that a lawless government that intentionally created this situation by failing to enforce existing immigration laws , will start doing so and also start enforcing new laws."
and then end with this one:
"We need to tell the bastards to fix it now, fix it with what they have on the books, and stop asking us to give up our rights and our money for more laws and regulations that give them more power."
You contradict yourself in one post.
In your first point, nothing will ever change because of "lawless" govt, but then you claim we need to "tell the bastards" to fix it.
So after all of that, you still have no proposal to fix the situation.
You'd rather rip apart the guys who's trying to fix it.
This can be done once we deport BO and his regime. Nothing, repeat, NOTHING will be done as long as this inept, imbecile, is in office.
You have an awful lot of trust that a lawless government that intentionally created this situation by failing to enforce existing immigration laws , will start doing so and also start enforcing new laws.
All that will happen is amnesty. They will get that, hand it out like candy for votes and ignore everything else. Have you ever seen them do anything different?
We need to tell the bastards to fix it now, fix it with what they have on the books, and stop asking us to give up our rights and our money for more laws and regulations that give them more power.
How is his plan different then the one that was signed by reagan that did nothing to actually enforce the laws on the books and nothing to secure the border. His plan has noble intentions, but it relies on politicians actually enforcing the law. If you think that this will do anything more then give more voters to democrats you seriously are duping yourself. Also, many illegals are hired for what reason? cheap labor. They become treated as legal workers..they must get paid the way the rest of us do. Therefore they become less valuable to the employer and likely get laid off. Then, we will need a new influx of illegals to cover the jobs the companies who abuse this labor now to fill those positions.
1.)Rubio's plan, as he stated in the clip above, is that none of the other proposals even come up until the border is secured (and there should be specific benchmarks in the legislation to judge whether it is, or not), E-Verify is mandated, and the current immigration system is improved first. Now if those triggers were in Simpson/Mazoli then it didn't get enforced, and I'd say that Regan didn't do the right thing in making sure the trigger was executed first. Also, did Simpson/Mazoli deport the violent criminals, and force those who received the Ammnesty to pay fines and back taxes?But that is not my understanding of the law. Also, I'd add an Amendment that incentivises states to use their Natl Guard troops to help supplement border security.
2.) Politicians don't "enforce" law. They make law. The Justice Dept and the Attorney Gen enforce the law. So I'm not sure what you're talking about there. However, that's why the bill should contain STRICTER penalties for illegal passage into the US after the initial triggers have been acheived. At which point i believe immediate deporation is the only vialbel sentence. Now politicians have to have the courage to back the enforcement of the law, but if we would allow a proposal to come forward, like Rubios, I think the majority of the American people will support those who support this law as a fair solution, if they get a clear understanding of what the law will accomplish. Of course the Dems are going to oppose it, but we have to be ready for that with a meaningful counter argument. As far as handing over more voters to Dems, I'll ask this. They already have the majority of the hispanic vote, so you really think that the whole "round em up and ship em out" rhetoric is somehow going to pull more of them to our side? You'll have to explain that one in further detail because it doesn't pass the smell test.
3.) Your labor coment is confusing as well. Your suggestion is that we have illegals working now, once they become "legal" they'll get fired, and the business will just hire more illegals? I have to ask, did you actually listen to the proposal in the clip? The border is secured, as well as improve the efficiency of the current immigration system, as well as enforce legal employment via the E-Verify system, all of which are primary triggers before one illegal immigrant gets to even begin the process of a status change! So you'd be pretty hard pressed to find, after all of that, a new influx of illegals to replace the ones who just got a work visa. I do see something in your post that Rubio did seem to miss, or didn't touch on, is stiffer penalties for employers who employ illegals, rather than legal immigrants, or US citizens.
Maybe I'm just on the wrong side of this, but with the current situation as it is, I don't have a problem AFTER THE BORDER IS SECURED to allowing illegal immigrants to pay a fine, back taxes, and come forward to be registered for a work visa(not citizenship). Then make them get in line with everyone else to get a green card (not citizenship), and if they still stick around after all of that, and have assimilated (also a part of the proposal in the clip), then after the specified waiting time, they can APPLY for citizenship, and if they pass the test, can become citizens, and enjoy the priviledges and rights that we enjoy. Now that's probably close to a 10 year process. I'll raise my hand and say that this proposal beats the hell out of being labeled racists every election cycle!
But that's my .02 cents
You aren't being very coherent. What in this administration has given you the idea that they have any interest in securing the border? It is better to do nothing then to do what reagan did again. That is exactly what this starting point will end in. We are negotiating on the wrong side of the 50.
You don't start a negotiation with something you'll think they'll accept. Cause they won't accept it and you WILL move to their position. Seriously simple negotiation. Putting amnesty in the bill to secure the border as a starting point is a sure sign that it will end up being an unenforceable empty threat just like it was in the 80's. Learn from our mistakes.
The illegals willing to break the law to come here will vote dem no matter who put forward the bill to make them legal. Its interesting you only responded to one of my points.
So after all of your posting ripping Rubio and his proposal, you say you'd support it if it were two separate bills? Then why not say that in the first place? You didn't. Not many in here did. They just immedaitely start calling names.
You may not be a sheep, but you're also not very coherent.
You do the same thing I see the others doing, you use the strawman that govt will NEVER secure the border, but then at the bottom of your post, you say it should be it's own bill for you to support it. WTF? Which is it? It'll never be secured is your first oppostion point, but then you say at the bottom border security shuld be in a separate bill.
So here are your options:
1.) Do nothing (status quo) and the problem not only never gets fixed, but gets worse and worse, until one day the dems have all three branches and grant full blown Amnesty to every illegal alien and they'll all vote Dem.
2.) We can propose a thoughtful solution that can garner support from most of the American people. Secure the border (which is an idea supported by a majority of Americans), and improve the legal immigration system before anything else happens! After the border is secure, deport those who have criminal backgrounds, encourage the ones who are left to come forward, and register and determine a fair penalty, then stiffen the penalties for hiring illegals, and those illegals who choose not to come forward voluntarily, should be deported. Increase enforcement of legal immigration statuses as well. THEN work on a path to citizenship for those who seek to meet the requirements.
We can either keep chasing our tails, and eating our own. Eventually, the word will get out that prinicpled thoughtfull people can never survive in the party, and just stop trying to run, and then we'll be left with the true RINOS who don't want to solve problems, but just be Dem lights
E verify is a joke. Illegals steal an American's social security number and bingo...they pass e-verify.
We already have laws on the books that if you want to come work legally you have to get the proper work visa while you are in your country of origin.
Rube is full of it. He knows this and what he is proposing is nonsense.
Just enforce the laws on the books.
And yes, employers will just look for a new crop of illegals. They pass e-verify, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, but they know the non-English speaking guy is illegal and they pay him less. That is why they hire them.
1. If true, its inconsequential. They are not going to secure the border. So, if that is true then it either will not pass or will never actually be implemented.
2. This is actually multiple points inside of this one so I will take them one at a time.
2A) Are you saying the executive branch and the bureaucracy is not made up of politicians? I'd say you are seriously mistaken.
2B) The American people won't support a law if they don't support the laws currently on the books.
2C) Not only are Dems going to oppose it... I am going to oppose it. I have seen no arguments made that have even come close to passing the smell test much less being constitutionally and logically sound.
2D) Look at what happened in the election after Reagan's law was passed. The hispanic portion of the vote in GHW Bush's election went down significantly for republicans. Whatever is done will be painted as either bipartisan or credited to democrats and in the end it is the welfare state that makes people vote for democrats not immigration or other secondary issues.
3. 3 and 1 are related. Again, if this actually contains a trigger mechanism that requires full border security before implementation it will either a) never happen or b) they will say it will happen but it won't happen. E-verify in many jobs is hardly widely enforceable and quite frankly some business's can't afford to have the apparatus necessary to do e-verify. So, it would necessitate more corporate welfare, and make it even more expensive to start a business up. There are other things that can be done without requiring that sort of thing.
I will raise my hand and say let them call me a racist. I am not a racist, and the party accepting that not wanting a pathway to citizenship is racist is MY OWN PARTY calling me a racist. Accepting that we have to give up on the pro-life cause because it shows we hate women to others is MY OWN PARTY calling me out for "hating women". Accepting that Gun Control/Assault Weapons ban is necessary and common sense by republicans is MY OWN PARTY calling me a criminal.
In the end, I don't have any faith in the execution (by the executive branch) of any of this, and I've heard from too many republicans that securing the border is a pipe dream to believe that the states and federal government will ever set up a situation that is necessary for border security. We secure the border, then we talk about what to do with those here, and in the mean time we go after business's that hire illegals. That will eliminate the magnet, that Rubio is actually setting up just like Reagan did, for illegals to come here. If this were a proposal in two separate bills and the second bill was introduced after a serious effort was made to secure the border it would be one thing. I am not a sheep, and I will not be treated like one by my own party.
You can take RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUbio. I reside in Florida and will never vote for the Jeb Bush mafia lapdog again. He is NOT conservative. He is the same old corrupt cretin the Bush crime family recruits.
I don't buy the propaganda. Been there done that.
Insanity is having the same behavior and expecting a different outcome.
Just for your own information the Cubans in south Florida don't agree with Rubio. They see him as a traitor. They are fed up with all things Bush! They ARE conservative and see Rubio as the sellout that he IS!
Outside of Immigration, I have an honest question. What outside of immigration makes Rubio a RINO? To me, he's the most articulate person at defending and explaining the constitution and conservative principles. Is immigration reform going to get done? I believe so regardless of Rubio's position on it. After that is done, Rubio becomes the most conservative non-libertarian in the senate. If I say Rubio is a RINO, then there are no republicans at all.
Stop calling amnesty "immigration reform". It's amnesty for INVADERS.
What difference does it make where he stands on anything else, if he's willing to sell our country out to folks with Spanish surnames, muslim terrorists, and God knows who else? Most are Marxist.
Do some research. He speaks with forked tongue. He is like Odrama on the other side of the aisle. The only thing he deserves is an Academy Award for his impersonation of a conservative. He IS a corrupt member of the crony capitalist Bush swamp. He needs to get a REAL job. He's a politician for life living large off of your dime. Wake up. He is not on your side.
I've done research, so apparently you are going to have to point me to the proof. Again, if he is a RINO there are no republicans at all.
GOP is losing everyday in DC since the election because they bought into the narrative that "We lost because we didn't pay attention to changing demographics." So they changed the conservative message.
It is not racist against blacks or hispanics to want to rein in government spending, reduce the deficit, reduce the debt, increase job opportunities for American citizens living in poverty first before allowing illegal immigrants to take jobs away from THEM, to stop spending money on illegals which could be better spent on many other things that would help alleviate poverty here (wouldn't t be a good idea to support much more Vocational Ed in the public schools from middle school on? just wondering...), etc..
America has had an ever-changing demographic since before the pilgrims. This is not the impetus for immigration or conservative reform..Sticking to original principles is the only message of hope to all of us, especially and including the very poor.
Bush recently said the best way out of the recession was to bring in MORE immigrants. What an insult! And it explains a lot of the damaging things he did. Supporting Americans, all of us, first and the opportunities for us to get the jobs first is the most important thing for this economy, the GOP message, and our national security, all rolled into one.
It has to be done swiftly, like a surgeon, and the jobs opened up to be filled by impovershed Americans. If there is any amnesty, it should be for employers who agree to replace their illegals with the long-term unemployed American citizens, giving THEM whatever training and a frresh start.
Sorry Joshua to be so blunt but you definitely don't reside in Florida or know much about Florida politics. Not that anybody would or should if they didn't live here.
Jeb Bush is still the king of the Republican party here. Governor Scott is relegated to wash room attendant. They barely were going to allow him to speak at the GOP convention in his own freakin' state! Jeb Bush calls all the shots. Rubio is his client, always was. The Florida GOP pulled a fast one when they knew that Charlie Crist was going down and would not win the senate seat after he hugged Odrama.
In 2010 every single GOP establishment candidate lost in Florida to the Tea Party candidate in the primary. As soon as they won the general election the Bush crime family set to work to co-opt everyone including Florida A/G Pam Bondi. The Bush crime family bought them all off.
The Cubans in south Florida are P O'd with Rubio. They know socialism. They left it. And they don't want any party of Rubio's marriage to the Bush crime family's crony capitalism. He sold out. He's corrupt. Jeb Bush's baby is the Dream Act. It's not Rubio's priority. He knows that he is pissing off his own but he sold his soul to do Jeb's dirty work.
In 2008 we in Fl- 22 got NO Help, and I mean zero, in Lt. Col. Allen West's run for the congressional seat. He just lost with NO help from them. In 2010 we got more garbage from the Florida GOP than the progressive Democrats.
The Bush crime family's motto is "Better a Democrat than someone who is not one of us."
What the Bush crime family refuses to admit is that it is not conservatism that is dead, RINOism is. Every single RINO they forced down our throats in Florida in 2012 lost. We didn't show up to support them. Before they redistricted West Fl-22 was 1/3 Republican, Democrat, and Independent. Conservatism wins every time. RINOism loses to the real Democrat.
How's that redistricting Allen West out of his congressional seat working out for them?
You've seen proof that he was the arm twister? That definitely was a strange occurrence, being the governor is as conservative as he is, but I have a hard time believing that Rubio would have been the person trying to get that done. I don't believe counter-intuitive things without proof.
Research like arm twisting the Republican Florida legislature to redistrict Lt. Col. Allen West out of his congressional seat. Oh, yeah that's real conservative.
I reside in Fl-22. We know the truth, the whole truth and, nothing but the truth about corrupt Jeb Bush lap dog Marco Rubio. You can't BS us.
ACTIONS speak louder than Marco Rubio's flowery words. He's full of himself and full of it! He's just like Odrama, a legend in his own corrupt mind and a part of the DC cesspool.
One of the insidious tactics of the Left is to subvert the law of the land by appealing to 'compassion'.
They've corrupted our penal system, our judicial system in that way, and as the Left abhors the Nation state, especially the Western kind, which is 'hideously white', and which is disgustingly conservative, the import of non-white voters, as permanent clients voting Left, is a necessity. Oh - and call everybody who is against that a racist.
They've done it to us in the UK, the POS is doing it to you - and Rubio and the GOP is falling for it.
If Israel, not exactly rich, can build a fence around its borders, the much bigger USA should be able to do the same, no?
There is no 'immigration control' without secure borders. Rubio's proposals are hot air, because he's trying to out-do the Left in 'compassion'.
I think there are some reasonable components of Rubio's plan... I think he has a couple good ideas. However, I don't support any form of amnesty, whatsoever. And I don't like some of what he's saying... and I don't know if I trust him. But he is having an open discussion on it and seems to be the most transparent of anyone talking about it.
That being said, America is going to be fed a feces sandwich on all of this... and no one is going to like how it tastes. The question is, just how much feces will it contain?
Also, I doubt this adequately gets solved over the next four years... Obama loves him some illegals to stack the voting deck for Democrats.
Hispanics, Mexicans and what else? Muslims? Terrorists?
What the country needs, badly, if for all U.S. military to come home and become our National Security Forces and protect our borders, assist in surveillance of muslim activity, especially around the mosques, and defend our borders 365-366/7---all along the border, usung helicopters, satellites, planes, tanks, anything that will do the job.
Check out the movement of illegal immigrants, and have some kind of reward in place for those who can point out who is smuggling in drugs and guns. We have to stop the craziness of allowing muslims to come here to populate this country, and then bring up terrorists to take us over. That's how they work. Why are we so dumb to allow potential terrorists the freedom to take away freedom in this country?
Now I understand why people started their own organized Crusades more than once in the past. Muslims and their Islamic cult have been a thorn in the side of Christians ever since Mr. M. decided God's commandments interferred with his lust. Just like Planned Parenthood did, in our so called 'modern' time. The proper name should have been Unplanned Parenthood, but that would not have been as credible a lie as using the word 'planned'.
I shudder to think how much damage Obama will do to this country. He wants to see all his agendas become reality before he leaves, and passes on the same agendas to his followers.
Forward! with more cultural marxism. If a Democrat can't get it done, get a RINO to do it! And if the folks don't agree with cultural marxism, called them 'Racists!', 'Bigots!' & 'Naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews!'
Sen. Marco Rubio’s immigration plan earned a measure of praise from the White House. And why not? It looks a lot like a White House plan from 2011.
"Star" Rubio with no accomplishments is working on handing the Left tens of millions of new voters!
Hopefully Levin won't fall for Rubio's BS like Hannity, Rush, and Fox News. Might as well just start a third party if the GOP is going to hand the Left tens of millions of new voters.
Painful to listen to. I realise Levin is on the side of most folks who comment on this blog and view its contents. But I have never really viewed him as conservative (or constitutionalist) as he touts himself to be. And here, again, its hard to listen to the clip and pretend Levin isn't giving Rubio a free pass here.
I know Rubio sounds good; I know he sound legit; And I know he sounds conservative. But how one can fail to see that he is still a RINO is beyond me. Look up his voting record and things he hasn't taken a clear stand on, not just his past speeches (no matter how good they were) and the real Rubio is undeniable.
But even still, I don't think its that much of a slight on a man to be a RINO. Many RINOs I believe are decent human beings. They aren't RINOs because they're inherently evil or have it in for America. I believe they just lack the courage to spout an out-and-out defense of the Constitution. Why? Because, America has gone so far away from the founder's intents and ideals that the consequences of true Constitutionalism and Conservatism are things your average immoral freebie-loving Aemrican citizen today can't even conceive of. RINOs realise this and realise the hellish opposition they'd face if they were to stand in strict defense of the constitution (such as the likes of Alan Keyes have done) they'd have no chance of political office, not because the American citizen of today can't be won over; but because of they will be fighting the formidable house of Satan (the MSM) in order to get to that citizen; And the prospect of such a fight cowers them. So what begins as capitulation on one point such as immigration leads to capitulation on a lot others, such as the Federal Reserve; Taxation; abortion; gay marriage etc.
Sad thing is that what RINOs like Rubio fail to realise is that the founding Fathers KNEW they stood no chance against the might of the greatest Empire ever known to man. And yet ignored this fact. As a result, God honoured this massive act of Faith and changed the course of history just for them! Thats why America was born I believe.
It wasn't because the founding fathers were immensely clever or witty or determined. They were. But still, it wasn't for this reason. It was because God took note of their faith in the face of the odds. The Fathers knew the majority of their countrymen were happy to go along to get along and would thus be fighting a war against their own countrymen as well; they knew they'd be going against centuries of [false] teaching that under no circumstance did a citizen 'rebel' against tyrannical government; they knew they'd be painted as traitors; And worst of all, they knew their efforts would most likely fail and they'd all die ignominious deaths with their severed heads ending up on pikes all around the land.
Yet they put their hope and faith in God; Trusted him for the righteousness of their cause and ignored all their rational fears. God honoured that. And rewarded them with the USA. Why won't the likes of Rubio do that today? Its just whats needed.
While I agree with your point about the death spiral of compromising ones principles, you give the Republican politicians excuses they do not warrant. They took an oath and with it, a sober and dangerous responsibility which they have abdicated, and betrayed America. They lie and deceive the public because they think it is in our best interest.
They have become RINOs (Republican Progressives) because they have been bought, blackmailed, threatened or had their families threatened.
There is no way the republicans in DC do not know that the Executive Branch is acting outside the law to dismantle America, the Constitution is being violated and under attack, and that we are in the end stage of the Republic.
One needs simply to see what they did to Colonel Allen West, but there are more proof points each and every day. The republicans are complicit in the surrender of America.
I agree with much of the sentiment already posted. Conservatives need to shift the conversation about what's broken -- ENFORCEMENT is broken. Government is broken.
However, the system DOES have flaws. Chain migration, deliberate misconstruing of the Citizen Clause of the 14th Amendment, Anchor Babies (which derives from the 14th Amendment's bastardization).. So, we do need to clean that up, insofar as those things being what's "broken" in our system.
However, all of that said, that would address FUTURE immigration, and does NOTHING to address those folks already here. I am in favor of measures that would result in self-deportation. But I don't think we will be able to deal with those folks already here in an ex post facto fashion, if they do not freely choose to leave. Those children "born citizens" would still be citizens, even if clear up the 14th Amendment "issue". I don't see how we could "undo" that citizenship. So, if they're citizens, do we round up and deport the parent(s)? Who then takes care of the children?
The issue is sticky, and, yes, it's government's fault that we're even in this mess, but that doesn't negate the fact that we have to deal with it, and that rounding folks up and shipping them hither and yon isn't the answer -- even though, yes, it SHOULD work that way. You break the law, you get punished. It SHOULD be black and white, but it IS gray. We have to deal with what IS not what SHOULD BE.
I don't think I necessarily disagree with getting people documented: knowing who's here, how many, etc... And I don't disagree with getting them "legalized" in some fashion: work permits, green cards, etc... But I would ABSOLUTELY INSIST that the PREVENTATIVE measures be in place FIRST. The fence, dissolving chain migration, strict enforcement of security at the the border - emphasis on the southern border, and "revoking" the recognition of citizenship at birth. If all of that happens FIRST, then we can discuss the rest.
Babies born to illegals on our soil are NOT US citizens. They are citizens of their parent's country.
The 14th amendment does not give babies born to foreigners on our soil citizenship.
In fact, it spefically does NOT. The proceedings of the 14th Amendment were recorded in the CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OF 1866. In it it was recorded that Jacob Howard said that babies "born to foreigners, aliens,.....are NOT US citizens". Jacob Howard wrote the line, "subject to the jurisdiction"...you are subject to the jurisdiction of your own country...even if you are in another country.
""subject to the jurisdiction"...you are subject to the jurisdiction of your own country...even if you are in another country."
This is precisely the case. Children of slaves had no jurisdiction - their parents were either traded by other tribes in barter agreements or were sold or were forcibly brought in chains...
Children of citizens of Sweeden, Guatamala, India, whatever... Their parents HAVE a jurisdiction - their home country - and so they are citizens of THAT country, even if they are born in the United States.
Why is it that millions of parents can pick up their families and move them across country, even to other countries without any explanation to the children or the government, necessary, it's what people do.
But, when someone breaks the law by entering our country illegally and has to be returned to their home country, we have a "moral" problem with shipping the kids (born here, illegally) back with them? The parents entered our country illegaly and broke our laws! The children, regardless of being born here, should be required to return with the parents to their homeland and when they reach a certain age (18), if they want to return to America and claim their citizenship by renouncing their parents homeland citizenship, it's their choice. At that time, in order to be considered for permanent residency into America, require citizenship classes, testing, and an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution of the United States of America.
It is constitutional to deport the parents, however currently it is not to deport the children. There are things that could be done, adoption for instance. Also, forcing someone to renounce citizenship in order to come back when they are actually a legal citizen is also unconstitutional. The anchor baby problem is a problem, but it is a constitutional problem that requires an amendment to fix. I rant all the time about liberals changing stuff by not following the proper procedure, we need to not do the same.
See my reply above regarding the CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OF1866...babies born to illegals on our soil are NOT US citizens.
Yet every judicial review of that even back then applied it to "anyone who is born on American soil". I know, very well, about the twisting of words and I am an original intent constitutionalist. I cannot find anything concrete that states that it means something different then what it says.
Exactly! The children have been recognized, Constitutionally, as citizens (if they're born here). We cannot change our interpretation (or Amend the Constitution, if that's what it takes) to change how we treat babies born here, and have that apply ex post facto to those children already recognized. That's the HUGE rub. Everything else is just a matter of enforcement and streamlining. We could DO that. It wouldn't even be hard. It's just that no one (and this includes the Bushes and assorted RINO's) WANTS to do it.
As for the Anchor Baby issue, that is MUCH stickier, which is where Rubio's approach makes the most sense. It IS amnesty, make no mistake, but because those children are constitutionally protected (via the 14th Amendment), there really is probably no other way to go.