I Remember
Nobody. Hates. Immigrants.
Crossposted from Red Hot Cuppa Politics, written by Frau Budgie
Neil Stevens is one of my favorite writers and thinkers over at RedState.com. He's asking today "Why do you guys hate immigrants so much ... ?" and it deserves an answer, because alot of Republicans just don't get it.
I'd like folks to embrace this fact: Nobody hates immigrants. It's the little "illegal" thingie that folks object to -- and object strongly.
Stevens praises the effects of (legal) immigration in his well-thought out article, he's correct on every point, and he even agrees towards the end of his article that he's opposed to illegal immigration. Good.
However, the thrust of the article is opposition to Tom Tancredo's bill HR H.R. 946, which would "cut the number of immigrants in half by eliminating chain migration of extended adult family members and the visa lottery. It would also cut out nearly all permanent green cards for skilled workers and would cut refugee admissions by more than half." (from FreeRepublic)
Here's another summary of the bill, from the Library of Congres, so we'll all be on the same page:
Rationalize our citizenship requirements, and give foreign workers a shot at citizenship, so they'll have a stake in our country. Once citizenship is established, fine. Allow spouses and kids in. But stop it there. Nobody's second cousin's brother-in-law wife's nephew needs to be whisked automatically into our country because one guy immigrated. If they're interested in becoming American citizens, let them apply for themselves. If they want to work, let them apply for a work permit.
Of course, the insanely Byzintine INS policies need overhaul, but nobody in this entire debate is even touching the INS, are they? Remember -- the INS is the agency that issued Mohammed Atta a renewed Visa -- six months after 9/11.
If a person's here just to work, why do they need a permanent work card? What's the matter with an evaluation process after a set period of time? If non-citizen workers plan to stay permanently, why not allow a citizenship process, which doesn't include amnesty.
In most states, illegal immigrants are entitled to social services. Along the Texas and Arizona border, there are hospitals which are bankrupt because of being legally required to render medical treatment to illegals. Their kids are entitled to go to public schools, which teach them in Spanish, which is not a bad thing -- but at least here in Texas, it's possible to get through school without really learning English. Who does this help?
The way the current situation stands, employers get to hire illegal immigrants at slave wages, without having to pay for benefits, in perpetuity. It's a good deal for the companies, it keeps the price of lettuce down at Wal-Mart's, and allows professional women to hire babysitters at dirt cheap wages. But -- the price we're paying is Balkanization of this country. Remember the first wave of "immigration" protests in most of our major cities -- remember all those Mexican flags ... and statements from those who apparently have no real loyalty to the US -- they're just here to "work," remember ... and where does the respect for American principles fit in?
I'm willing to support re-vamping of the citizenship process. It's outdated. But -- amnesty, by whatever name has been proved since the 80's to do more harm than good.
The other thing's that's more likely to do more harm than good is the current Senate Bill. The citizenship issue is addressed -- on the honor system. What our good Senators are asking is that illegal immigrants step forward, volunteer to pay a couple of thousand dollars plus back taxes, and wait eleven years for citizenship. And, indeed, a few folks might do that. But how many illegal workers in their right minds are going to step up voluntarily to pay thousands of dollars, when they can just keep on doing what they're doing indefinately.
We need to seal the border, or at least do what we can to do that, and enforce the laws ... and the curious thing is that alot of CongressCritters, when asked why the local laws can's be enforces say that it's "unrealistic." Huh?
Re-vamp the citizenship process, and put some teeth into compliance. Make consequences for companies that hire illegals, and make those consequences stick.
Make a work permit, or a green card, mandatory if a person is seeking social services, and don't allow 20 forms of ID's to be accepted.
As to the third and fourth provisions of Tancredo's proposed legislation-- you know, if a person's fleeing to the US because they're being persecuted by their own country -- we can take them in. But, let's assess first exactly why they're being persecuted. For example, alot of Islamists are persecuted in the Middle East -- for a good reason. Do we really need them here? And finally, what on earth is the matter with renouncing your citizenship to another country if you're so desparate to be an American ... ?
As to the fury among some conservatives around the illegal immigration issue -- there are a couple of reasons. First, resentment has been building for twenty years, mostly because there's a strong, strong feeling that US political parties have been catering to illegal aliens at the expense of "regular" Americans; for example, as taxpayers, we foot the bill for social services. Then, there are things like the driver's liscense issue, in more than one state In California, the electorate has risen up to deny illegal aliens drivers' liscenses (which are used for voter id's) -- but it's been struck down twice by the courts. And, finally, we've been watching politico's of every stripe falling all over themselves to garner the fabled Hispanic vote.
I'll just close with this thought: 30 years ago, ranchers along the southern border would offer water and lemonade to illegal aliens. They'd give the folks a place to sleep in the barn, or on the porch, and wave them on their way.
These days ranchers along the border are faced with destruction of property, livestock, and at times, threatened with violence. Legal actions by the ACLU and others have prevented ranchers and local law enforcement from protecting themselves and their property. The feds refuse to do it -- and now, folks wonder why illegal immigration is an issue.
Please click to the CoalitionBlog for the latest and freshest on illegal immigration reform.
**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let us know at what level you would like to participate.
Technorati Tags: Coalition Against Illegal Immigration, Amnesty, Politics, Congress, US, Mexico,
Neil Stevens is one of my favorite writers and thinkers over at RedState.com. He's asking today "Why do you guys hate immigrants so much ... ?" and it deserves an answer, because alot of Republicans just don't get it.
I'd like folks to embrace this fact: Nobody hates immigrants. It's the little "illegal" thingie that folks object to -- and object strongly.
Stevens praises the effects of (legal) immigration in his well-thought out article, he's correct on every point, and he even agrees towards the end of his article that he's opposed to illegal immigration. Good.
However, the thrust of the article is opposition to Tom Tancredo's bill HR H.R. 946, which would "cut the number of immigrants in half by eliminating chain migration of extended adult family members and the visa lottery. It would also cut out nearly all permanent green cards for skilled workers and would cut refugee admissions by more than half." (from FreeRepublic)
Here's another summary of the bill, from the Library of Congres, so we'll all be on the same page:
Mass Immigration Reduction Act of 2003 - Provides that during a specified immigration moratorium period: (1) employment-based immigrant visas shall be reduced, and family-sponsored and diversity immigrant visas shall be eliminated; (2) immigrant status shall be granted only to children and spouses of U.S. citizens or priority workers; (3) refugee admissions and asylee adjustments shall be limited to 25,000 per year; and (4) an alien shall be required to renounce citizenship or nationality of any other country in order to be naturalized as a U.S. citizen.To me, Tancredo's recommendations make sense. If a foreign laborer wants to come to the US to make some bucks, given our 94 something employment rate, I'm fine with that. But, if the object is to permit workers, let the work permit be temporary, and let's figure out how many jobs there really are that "Americans won't take."
Rationalize our citizenship requirements, and give foreign workers a shot at citizenship, so they'll have a stake in our country. Once citizenship is established, fine. Allow spouses and kids in. But stop it there. Nobody's second cousin's brother-in-law wife's nephew needs to be whisked automatically into our country because one guy immigrated. If they're interested in becoming American citizens, let them apply for themselves. If they want to work, let them apply for a work permit.
Of course, the insanely Byzintine INS policies need overhaul, but nobody in this entire debate is even touching the INS, are they? Remember -- the INS is the agency that issued Mohammed Atta a renewed Visa -- six months after 9/11.
If a person's here just to work, why do they need a permanent work card? What's the matter with an evaluation process after a set period of time? If non-citizen workers plan to stay permanently, why not allow a citizenship process, which doesn't include amnesty.
In most states, illegal immigrants are entitled to social services. Along the Texas and Arizona border, there are hospitals which are bankrupt because of being legally required to render medical treatment to illegals. Their kids are entitled to go to public schools, which teach them in Spanish, which is not a bad thing -- but at least here in Texas, it's possible to get through school without really learning English. Who does this help?
The way the current situation stands, employers get to hire illegal immigrants at slave wages, without having to pay for benefits, in perpetuity. It's a good deal for the companies, it keeps the price of lettuce down at Wal-Mart's, and allows professional women to hire babysitters at dirt cheap wages. But -- the price we're paying is Balkanization of this country. Remember the first wave of "immigration" protests in most of our major cities -- remember all those Mexican flags ... and statements from those who apparently have no real loyalty to the US -- they're just here to "work," remember ... and where does the respect for American principles fit in?
I'm willing to support re-vamping of the citizenship process. It's outdated. But -- amnesty, by whatever name has been proved since the 80's to do more harm than good.
The other thing's that's more likely to do more harm than good is the current Senate Bill. The citizenship issue is addressed -- on the honor system. What our good Senators are asking is that illegal immigrants step forward, volunteer to pay a couple of thousand dollars plus back taxes, and wait eleven years for citizenship. And, indeed, a few folks might do that. But how many illegal workers in their right minds are going to step up voluntarily to pay thousands of dollars, when they can just keep on doing what they're doing indefinately.
We need to seal the border, or at least do what we can to do that, and enforce the laws ... and the curious thing is that alot of CongressCritters, when asked why the local laws can's be enforces say that it's "unrealistic." Huh?
Re-vamp the citizenship process, and put some teeth into compliance. Make consequences for companies that hire illegals, and make those consequences stick.
Make a work permit, or a green card, mandatory if a person is seeking social services, and don't allow 20 forms of ID's to be accepted.
As to the third and fourth provisions of Tancredo's proposed legislation-- you know, if a person's fleeing to the US because they're being persecuted by their own country -- we can take them in. But, let's assess first exactly why they're being persecuted. For example, alot of Islamists are persecuted in the Middle East -- for a good reason. Do we really need them here? And finally, what on earth is the matter with renouncing your citizenship to another country if you're so desparate to be an American ... ?
As to the fury among some conservatives around the illegal immigration issue -- there are a couple of reasons. First, resentment has been building for twenty years, mostly because there's a strong, strong feeling that US political parties have been catering to illegal aliens at the expense of "regular" Americans; for example, as taxpayers, we foot the bill for social services. Then, there are things like the driver's liscense issue, in more than one state In California, the electorate has risen up to deny illegal aliens drivers' liscenses (which are used for voter id's) -- but it's been struck down twice by the courts. And, finally, we've been watching politico's of every stripe falling all over themselves to garner the fabled Hispanic vote.
I'll just close with this thought: 30 years ago, ranchers along the southern border would offer water and lemonade to illegal aliens. They'd give the folks a place to sleep in the barn, or on the porch, and wave them on their way.
These days ranchers along the border are faced with destruction of property, livestock, and at times, threatened with violence. Legal actions by the ACLU and others have prevented ranchers and local law enforcement from protecting themselves and their property. The feds refuse to do it -- and now, folks wonder why illegal immigration is an issue.
Please click to the CoalitionBlog for the latest and freshest on illegal immigration reform.
**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let us know at what level you would like to participate.
Technorati Tags: Coalition Against Illegal Immigration, Amnesty, Politics, Congress, US, Mexico,
posted by Lady Jane | 11:21 AM
<< Home