US Deal on Immigration Reform [updated]
But what if they refuse to return home even for one year? (and most will refuse, I promise). Then you will still have anarchy, will still have uncontrolled borders, will still have Churches trying to protect illegals from deportation, immigrant protest marches, etc etc.
National Park Rangers detain 15 border crossers at Coronado National Park. Photo by mitchblomert.
Apparently, the Senate leadership and the President have reached a deal on comprehensive immigration reform. But its unlikely to survive the Senate and House vote without some adjustments, if it gets through at all. Frankly, from what is reported so far, I don't see how this is going to solve the problem. Not everyone will cooperate, many illegals will refuse to leave the country or go through the process, and many more will continue to cross the border. Let's take a look...
Here's the part they are using to placate the Republicans:The plan would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.
Ah... but what if they don't return home, or don't pay? Never fear, there is an answer: Heads of household could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.
You have got to be kidding me. This is their answer? Here is my prediction - if this thing goes through as written, most illegals will not pay the $5,000 and/or return home. So they will just use the "probationary" card instead. And use it. And use it, and use it again and again... As long as they can legally live in the US without fear of deportation, I don't think they will be too concerned about getting that path to citizenship. Other than voting rights, I don't see what advantage it really is for them to become US citizens. They can still enjoy all the perks, and they won't even have to register for the draft! Since this bill doesn't mention any extra funding or manpower for deportations, it has no teeth and will be ignored.
Also from the article: "When the objections are raised as to amnesty, the question is returned, what more can be done with these 12 million undocumented immigrants?
Send them home? What more hurdles can be placed to be sure that we do the maximum to avoid the charge of amnesty? And we are still open for suggestions. But the consequences of not moving to a solution on this issue is we have anarchy. We have uncontrolled borders," Specter said.
Workers would have to return home after job stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.
How about this instead?
1) Build an effective border fence without gaps
2) Triple the size of the Border Patrol
3) Pass a law so that children born to illegals are not automatically US citizens (or just interpret the 14th Amendment as the writers intended)
4) Offer illegals aid and incentives to return home.
5) Put a moratorium on immigration from Latin American countries for at least five years, replaced with immigrants from the rest of the world instead (to prevent sections of the US separating into Spanish-speaking zones)
My prediction here. If this thing actually becomes law, it will do very little in the short run, and in the long run it will increase illegal immigration, exactly the same way the 1986 amnesty did.
Update 5/18/2007 09:56:00 PM: Several congresspeople from both sides of the issue are echoing my very points above. The American Immigration Lawyers Association said: "A practical solution for the undocumented population is an enormously important step in the right direction, but the cost of fixing our current problems cannot be the creation of bigger problems in the future."
Sen. Barack Obama: "We need to fix our immigration system, but we should not replace one dysfunctional, broken system with another equally troubled system"
Reports are also coming in that the new deal does include a doubling of the Border Patrol (not enough, but its a start), new fencing, and more enforcement on hiring illegals. IF these things are implemented (and that's a big "if") then this thing does actually have a chance to work. But remember, all this tougher enforcement was promised in the 1986 amnesty and then ignored. Why not separate the two issues? Double or triple the size of the Border patrol now (using the military as a temporary fill until that happens), build a fence, and enforce existing laws against employers. Once you get control of the border, then even the die hard opponents of amnesty will have far less to worry about, and will be much more amenable to a compromise.
4 comments:
Your article is so wrong and misleading, that I can barely decide where to start refuting it.
Let’s start by some grammar. "Illegal" (as in "the illegals") is not a noun, it is an adjective.
Using it as a noun, as in "the illegals" is both cruel and illogical, since no human being is per se "legal" or "illegal".
Applying it to a particular type of illegal behavior (living and working on a country without proper documentation), in fact tells me more about where you stand on this issue.
Not to make a fine point of it, you would simply excuse me if I call these people using the adjective "undocumented".
You say, deriding the Senate deal:
many illegals will refuse to leave the country or go through the process, and many more will continue to cross the border.
You simply can’t know that. As a matter of fact, it only make sense to suppose that most undocumented aliens would prefer any means whatsoever of regularizing their situation (which current law prevents them from doing).
As this measure is coupled with a reasonable employment eligibility verification, the option the undocumented workers would face would be coming forward or being prevented from work and earn a living.
What would they irrationally chose a path that harms them, other than to further your argument that they are inherently incapable of rational thinking?
Further on you say:
So they will just use the "probationary" card instead.
And use it. And use it, and use it again and again... As long as they can legally live in the US without fear of deportation, I don't think they will be too concerned about getting that path to citizenship.
Nonsense. Obviously that card would carry a very hard to forge biometric information component, and it would have an expiration date.
Again, why would the undocumented population engage in reckless, repeated criminal behavior if given the chance of starting with a clean slate?
You depict them as less than human, lawbreakers for the sake of it.
Later:
Other than voting rights, I don't see what advantage it really is for them to become US citizens. They can still enjoy all the perks, and they won't even have to register for the draft! Since this bill doesn't mention any extra funding or manpower for deportations, it has no teeth and will be ignored.
This is a confusing statement of yours, based on several a priori, unfounded assumptions that I will try to decompose into simpler statements, with your permission I put them in italics:
Undocumented workers are currently enjoying "perks" they don’t deserve, and will continue to do so.
False: What perks? They take menial, backbreaking jobs, pay takes, don’t collect social services for fear of being deported, contribute to Social Security and can never claim any, avoid hospitals as much as they can, are ripped off when sending money home. Please, what perks?
-If given the option of becoming citizens versus remaining lawfully employed, they would not choose citizenship.
False: You simply can’t know this would be true in all cases.
It is obvious that a good portion of them would pursue citizenship.
-If granted legal status, this is unfair for the rest of Americans because they wouldn’t be eligible for draft.
True, but irrelevant.
Then your problem is with legal immigration as a whole, or with the concept of an all-voluntary army, not with the undocumented workers.
-By not placing additional resources for roundup and deportation, the measure has no teeth.
Doubly false: First, the bill would simply prevent offenders from working (which meand HUGE "teeth"), and the US has right now the ability to arrest and deport, independently of additional resources allocated by this law.
You go on adding:
But what if they refuse to return home even for one year? (and most will refuse, I promise).
-None of us can predict the future, but my assumption would be most undocumented aliens would jump at the opportunity to some sort of regularization that the current state of affairs totally denies to them. Why on earth wouldn’t they? Didn’t you think that they are human beings, and many left families behind that they were unable to visit for years? Why would they refuse to jump this hoop, capricious and mean-spirited as it is? Just to bother you and prove the inherent incapability of logical thinking of Spanish-speaking people?
Then you will still have anarchy, will still have uncontrolled borders, will still have Churches trying to protect illegals from deportation, immigrant protest marches, etc etc.
You are mixing personal opinion and statements of fact here to suit your convenience.
It is true that, the US immigration system is chaotic and weakly enforced at best.
Also true that the United States has the right and even the obligation of controlling its borders.
But in my opinion the Churches across the country are doing the Christian thing to do.
And although they are unusual in the American political landscape, it is borderline fascist to equate protest marches with chaos.
On to your "solutions":
1) Build an effective border fence without gaps
2) Triple the size of the Border Patrol
No problem here. I don't share the approach, but let the Goverment spend its money any way it finds fit.
3) Pass a law so that children born to illegals are not automatically US citizens (or just interpret the 14th Amendment as the writers intended)
Aaaw man, you lived among the Germans too long. And now even them are starting to withdraw from those "blood" criteria.
As for the USA, for the American mentality the very concept is so odious, than only a minority of wackos (and yourself, who are a very articulate person) support it.
4) Offer illegals aid and incentives to return home.
So you are willing "reward illegal behavior" as long as they take their swarthy faces and strange language off your yard.
5) Put a moratorium on immigration from Latin American countries for at least five years, replaced with immigrants from the rest of the world instead (to prevent sections of the US separating into Spanish-speaking zones)
I would suggest we got to the root of the problem here.
First of all the obvious: it was Mexico who was invaded by droves of unauthorized slave-holder immigrants and it was Mexico who had a large portion of it separated into English-speaking zones, not the other way around.
Current Latin American undocumented immigrants into the USA are far less motivated politically, they are mostly fleeing poverty and are desperate to become part of the American fabric.
Moreover, all studies demonstrate that by the third generation, Spanish is all but lost on immigrant households; a rate comparable to any other immigrant group.
In sum, raising fears of secession is another cheap, argumentative shot.
And finally, your conclusion:
My prediction here. If this thing actually becomes law, it will do very little in the short run, and in the long run it will increase illegal immigration, exactly the same way the 1986 amnesty did.
You call yourself a Christian elsewhere on your site, but the fact that this bill would alleviate the suffering and anguish of millions of people seems to pass below your "Christian" radar.
Deriding these efforts as irrelevant is also disingenous, because the sheer overhauling our current employer identification system from the joke it is today is a VERY important step, and this fact can’t escape you.
There is no need to read much between the lines to assume that the origin of undocumented immigrants (namely, Latin Americans) is as much as a problem in your mind as illegal immigration itself.
Elsewhere on your site you claim that in your house German and Korean are spoken, so I would assume that your phobia towards Spanish is more psychoanalytical in nature and that you are basically an intelligent person.
You are also shown at the turret of an armored vehicle, what suggests me you are also a smart person (at least smart enough to pass whatever psychological checks I would assume the US Army personnel has to clear in order to be allowed to operate such weapons).
So you are not stupid, just evil.
The worse kind of evil: those that coat themselves in sacntimonousness and ride low feelings hitting on people that can’t defend themselves.
These people just want a respite, stop hating and leave them alone.
If you are so averse to Latin Americans and at the same time enjoy training the police of kangaroo regimes, maybe you could consider going to Fort Benning and applying for a position with your like-minded fellas at the "School of the Americas".
It never closed.
Gonzalo Díaz
gonzalo_diaz@yahoo.com
Wow, I've been called a lot of things but I don't think I've ever been called "evil".
I think the current system is broken, unfair to many, exploitative, devisive to the US and rewards human traffickers. I believe continuing the status quo would be "evil".
In any case, if you look at my update, I said the bill just might work, IF it actually gets control of the border. Now, I'm not going to argue all the particulars of the bill with you, since it's undoubtedly going to change quite a bit before it passes. Opposition is strong, look here, for example:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070521-121929-4099r.htm
But I will respond to a couple things. "Illegal" is simply short for "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien". If it is offensive, I may go back to using the long form, but I refuse to use the Orwellian newspeak "undocumented immigrants", which implies that their only crime is that they misplaced their papers or something. Their crime is entering the Country without permission (which is a crime in virtually every nation on Earth, including Mexico). I suppose "illegal border crosser" would be more accurate, but that's not the common term.
On another subject you said:
Aaaw man, you lived among the Germans too long. And now even them are starting to withdraw from those "blood" criteria.
(Little background to those who don't know: the US grants citizenship to anyone born there, whether illegal status or not)
Actually, Germany withdrew the requirement for German ethnicity in 2000, in order to bring itself more in line with the European Union. Under German law (as in pretty much the rest of Europe) anyone born to a legal resident, is a citizen automatically (with a few exceptions, like US military children). This is really a common sense approach, and if leftist/socialist Europe can do it, why can't the US? The 14th Ammendment was designed to make certain that freed slaves were citizens. Times have changed, and I'm certain the framers would not approve of the way its being used now.
You also claim:
Moreover, all studies demonstrate that by the third generation, Spanish is all but lost on immigrant households; a rate comparable to any other immigrant group.
I would like to see what studies these are; in any case, if true, do you realize how long it takes to go through three generations? And hispanics are not just any immigrant group. They are the dominant majority, and when you hit a certain saturation point (we're already past and going farther) where schools are taught in Spanish, government literature and voting forms are in Spanish, and there is Spanish TV and radio, then immigrants really have no need to use English, even if they understand it. Quebec certainly hasn't, and Canada has had to resort to some pretty extraordinary measures to keep the province in Canada.
the fact that this bill would alleviate the suffering and anguish of millions of people seems to pass below your "Christian" radar
The suffering and anguish is caused by corrupt regimes at home. There is nothing magical about the soil the US is on; if you analyze it on both sides of the Mexican-US border, it is exactly the same. What is different is the cultures on either side of that border. Allow immigrants in, yes, but to to so faster than the US can assimilate them, is only creating a "little Mexico" inside the US.
Besides, if the US got the border under control, it might send a message to Latin American leaders that they need to seriously deal with their problems at home, instead of exporting their disaffected populations to the US.
I think the current system is broken, unfair to many, exploitative, devisive to the US and rewards human traffickers. I believe continuing the status quo would be "evil".
We agree on all of the above (whether you menat "divisive" or "derisive").
In any case, if you look at my update, I said the bill just might work, IF it actually gets control of the border. Now, I'm not going to argue all the particulars of the bill with you, since it's undoubtedly going to change quite a bit before it passes. Opposition is strong, look here, for example:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070521-121929
Also true.
But I will respond to a couple things. "Illegal" is simply short for "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien". If it is offensive, I may go back to using the long form, but I refuse to use the Orwellian newspeak "undocumented immigrants", which implies that their only crime is that they misplaced their papers or something. Their crime is entering the Country without permission (which is a crime in virtually every nation on Earth, including Mexico). I suppose "illegal border crosser" would be more accurate, but that's not the common term.
What you call Orwellian, I call an important distinction. Using "illegal" as a noun is cruel and wrong. I defend my effort to clarify this point because it shows how simplistic your view is: undocumented workers are Mexicans who crossed the border illegally.
A great portion of the undocumented workers in this country entered legally and are visa overstayers, and I doubt many of them are Mexican. The focus of your fear is them, though.
Actually, Germany withdrew the requirement for German ethnicity in 2000, in order to bring itself more in line with the European Union. Under German law (as in pretty much the rest of Europe) anyone born to a legal resident, is a citizen automatically (with a few exceptions, like US military children). This is really a common sense approach, and if leftist/socialist Europe can do it, why can't the US? The 14th Ammendment was designed to make certain that freed slaves were citizens. Times have changed, and I'm certain the framers would not approve of the way its being used now.
So many things out of place in this section:
-What the "framers" had in mind, even if it were true under your interpretation, is ultimately beside the point.
-You are confirming what I said about Germany
-Sarkozy just won Frances presidential election, and he is not a leftist nor soft on immigration.
I would like to see what studies these are; in any case, if true, do you realize how long it takes to go through three generations? And Hispanics are not just any immigrant group. They are the dominant majority, and when you hit a certain saturation point (we're already past and going farther) where schools are taught in Spanish, government literature and voting forms are in Spanish, and there is Spanish TV and radio, then immigrants really have no need to use English, even if they understand it. Quebec certainly hasn't, and Canada has had to resort to some pretty extraordinary measures to keep the province in Canada.
Alright, I will separate this confusing group of half-truths and respond separately.
I would like to see what studies these are;
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/
why-hispanic-immigration-not-
threat-american-identity-12910.html
This will get you started. But I read the full study, and I can assure that it says pretty much as this summary.
From a personal perspective, I would like to add, the results of the study actually sadden me. I would prefer that Spanish were spoken as much as possible, all the time, being a far superior language than English as it is.
But my feelings matter little, immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries assimilate at the same rate and speed than everyone else.
And hispanics are not just any immigrant group.
Hmm... I have another confession to make: I never liked the term "Hispanic". What does it exactly mean? The national origin of the person? The language he is competent with? The color of his skin? The last name?
The same as the use of "illegal" as a noun, I firmly believe that the word "Hispanic" tells more about the person coining/using it than about the people to which it is supposed to refer.
However, let me rephrase, for the sake of an argument.
"Recent arrivals from Spanish-speaking countries are not any minority, they are a dominant majority.
Technically, according to census data, they are the largest minority (again, whatever "Hispanic" means, I am not sure). What I know for a fact is that that group contains millions of people as American as the most, and millions of people with little of no competence in Spanish, and several millions of people as committed to assimilation and as restrictionist as yourself.
Your fear recognizes no nuances.
and when you hit a certain saturation point (we're already past and going farther) where schools are taught in Spanish, government literature and voting forms are in Spanish, and there is Spanish TV and radio, then immigrants really have no need to use English, even if they understand it.
Partially true: Spanish has a presence in schools, signs, ATM's, etc. - That bothers you, doesn't it :) -
But in order to conduct any remotely successful activity in this country, English is essential and its status is not at all threatened. If anything, we should worry about preserving Spanish in the USA.
Quebec certainly hasn't, and Canada has had to resort to some pretty extraordinary measures to keep the province in Canada.
Wrong again. The Bloc Québecois never was able to repeat the near-success of the referendum before-the-last. And in recent elections (due in part to some scandal) obtained an embarrassing 3rd place. French-Canadians are not stupid, they want to preserve their cultural identity, as much as you and I want, but benefit from the framework and infrastructure of the federal government. What is that they "don't understand"?
You want to force-feed English also to them?
The suffering and anguish is caused by corrupt regimes at home.
There is nothing magical about the soil the US is on; if you analyze it on both sides of the Mexican-US border, it is exactly the same. What is different is the cultures on either side of that border.
That statement is too simplistic, encompassing and unfair to even start refuting it (the soil composition on the border is a nice figure, I concede you that).
Allow immigrants in, yes, but to to so faster than the US can assimilate them, is only creating a "little Mexico" inside the US.
Again a general, simplistic catch phrase. But even if that one were true, there are ethnic enclaves everywhere in the world, who gave the US the sacred right a universal, English-speaking cultural monolith?
Are you concerned as immigration policy by itself, or you just want to use as leverage to protect some sort of perceived cultural integrity?
Let that people be and stop hating, man. They are here to stay.
Besides, if the US got the border under control, it might send a message to Latin American leaders that they need to seriously deal with their problems at home, instead of exporting their disaffected populations to the US.
That the USA has all the right in the world to control its border, true.
That the US is being able to provide an environment that makes the undocumented population think their hard effort is worthwhile, also true. And that most Latin American countries should work harder in recreating some of that environment within their own, nothing truer.
Going from there to the idiot punchline that Latin American countries are deliberately "exporting" their nationals nationals to the US blows it.
Try to analyze your own writings. See how "Mexicans" "illegals" "Hispanics" "Latin Americans" are a big, diffuse, threatening blob for you, and then do something about it.
Another point that you leave unanswered is my how distorted your alleged Catholic values seem to be on this. I tried to read your "Caesar to Caesar" line of argumentation, but I have to confess that as soon as I read the name "Bill O'Reilly" cited as an authority some uncontrollable spasm took over my body and I could not continue reading.
The extent to which a Catholic has the moral obligation to succor the weak and distressed is a worthy, intriguing debate, but your whole line of argument pretty lame.
Deep in your heart you know it, and repeat the "they broke the law" mantra to ease your conscience.
I don't have time to respond to everything, so I'll just correct your very last paragraph in which you misunderstand me greatly. If you actually read that column, you see that I don't cite O'Reilly as any kind of authority, and in fact, I say that his "Caesar to Caesar" argument was weak. And more importantly, as I also point out there, it just so happens that you can still help everyone that asks for it, and do so entirely within the law. Unlike some in the sancturary movement, I don't see deportation as a form of "persecution"; if it is, then it's persecution to enforce the border or even have a visa system in the first place.
Post a Comment