 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Old Church | Main | Today's Reading List » December 12, 2005Action HeroBy Donna Locke Wamp, who has an A+ grade from Americans for Better Immigration, is one of 91 members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus. The other Tennessee members of the caucus are Reps. John Duncan and Bill Jenkins, both Republicans. All but two of the caucus members are Republicans. Come on, Lincoln, I know you can do it. You're Blue Dog - you're almost there. Just take a deep breath and take the plunge. (Rep. Lincoln Davis, a Democrat, is my congressman.) Posted in Immigration
Comments
Donna, 90+ reps are trying to get legislation passed to enforce the 14th. Amendment as it was intended and stop the anchor baby syndrome. It's dead in the Senate because of granite politicians like Sen. Gregg: "There is no support for the concept in the Senate," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.). "There are certain things that we have done as a nation for a long time that I don't think we're going to change." Uh, Sen. Gregg, wasn't the same thing said about slavery a barbaric practice done for a long time? Why doesn't Gregg be up front and honest and say, "I don't want to uphold my oath of office and address the issue because it may cost me some votes." Posted by: Rick Forman at December 12, 2005 8:59 AMRick, how many other countries allow this automatic citizenship for children born to noncitizens, particularly those who are in the country illegally? Is the United States the only one now? Even liberal columnists for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution used to write about how stupid that interpretation of our law is. Folks, in case you don't know, newspapers have reported that many pregnant South Korean and other nationals come to this country on tourist visas deliberately to have their babies here (instant U.S. citizens) and then fly home. Why do they do it? Well, here's a posted Los Angeles Times story published on May 25, 2002, about the situation. I read the story when it was published but don't have the paper's link at hand. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors reported that two-thirds of births in L.A. County hospitals were to illegal aliens, mostly Mexicans. Conservative estimates of illegal-alien births in the U.S., assuming an illegal alien population of between 8.7 million and 11 million (the low-range estimate), run from 287,000 to 363,000 per year. Read this about the history and interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Posted by: Donna Locke at December 12, 2005 4:40 PMDonna, why would you like to see the birthright citizenship law changed? Also, Rick, do you think comparing current birthright citizenship laws to slavery is a fair comparison? It seems by comparing the two you are doing a huge disservice to those slaves who suffered in this country. Posted by: brittney at December 12, 2005 6:26 PMBrittney, the "anchor-baby" situation in which our country grants instant citizenship to babies born here to illegal aliens is a major magnet to illegal immigration. We are trying to address the magnets, especially since our government refuses to secure our borders or fix our mess-of-a-visa-system. A child born here is eligible for all welfare benefits any other citizen could get and as a citizen can eventually sponsor his/her parents and unlimited family members in other countries for legal residence here. The baby is the illegal parents' access to everything in this country. The lawbreaker parents know this. Chain migration now accounts for two-thirds of the permanent residency visas issued by our country and allows in folks who are not necessarily a benefit to this country but are simply related to someone here. Many or most of these people are coming from the Third World and are uneducated and low- or unskilled. Once they're in and citizens, they can sponsor their own relatives. It's an endless chain and national suicide for a welfare state like us. We now have a very liberal policy that has erased our country's previous stricter policy of screening and allowing in only those folks who would not be a burden to our country but would have something to contribute that is in our best interests. Those were supposed to be the criteria. I continue to be amazed that people who have broken our laws are considered good candidates for citizenship by Bush and others. Like, what laws may I ignore and be rewarded for, please? Native citizens here are held to a higher standard. Please ponder that inequity the next time you are required to supply your Social Security number before you can get a driver's license or a lot of other stuff, while in Tennessee, illegal aliens can just say "No Social" and be allowed to drive legally anyway. The citizen is required to be traceable. The illegal alien is not. That's just one example of the outrageous double standard. You'd see more of it if you applied for welfare or showed up in your local hospital emergency room and told them you can't pay. Aside from all that, it's unfair to the citizens of this country to allow the entire rest of the world to treat our country as a large dinner table from which they feel free to help themselves. Read that news story I linked to above. Brittney, I used to be young and idealistic. Then life happened. In trying to deal with the consequences of extreme and shortsighted policy, I have realized the value of tough love and a sharp scalpel.
Brittney, even I'm against granting citizenship to anybody born here to illegal immigrants or tourists. If someone is here legally working, i.e. work permit or green card, I have no problem with it. Like many things, though, I'm not sure how it would work logistically to deny someone born here citizenship, and, as usual, the anti-immigration crowd offers only ideas, not implementation details. It would really drop us into another round of "show your papers, brownie" at the hospital. Seriously, one parent would have to bring their birth certificate or legal immigration papers for their child to be a citizen. If it was the father, we'd have to do genetic testing to make sure he really is the father. Anyway, that's not what I'm here to write about. I just wanted to counter at least one paragraph with facts: Chain migration now accounts for two-thirds of the permanent residency visas issued by our country and allows in folks who are not necessarily a benefit to this country but are simply related to someone here. Many or most of these people are coming from the Third World and are uneducated and low- or unskilled. Once they're in and citizens, they can sponsor their own relatives. It's an endless chain and national suicide for a welfare state like us. We now have a very liberal policy that has erased our country's previous stricter policy of screening and allowing in only those folks who would not be a burden to our country but would have something to contribute that is in our best interests. Those were supposed to be the criteria. Yeah, I quoted the whole thing. My wife and I are now in the process of bringing her parents over, and we have petitioned her brother as well. Donna, as usual, leaves out a few facts. First, there are strict limits to how many people get in. It's taken about a year for her mother to get through the process, but she still had to wait to get an appointment at the embassy. She also has to get a health evaluation. And, lastly, we have to show our finances to show that we can support them even if they don't work. Yes, you read that right: we have to send copies of tax returns and such to show that we make enough money to support the petionee. For her brother, it'll take far longer than that, I think 6 or 7 years before they'll even start processing the paperwork. I'd love to know when they erased the screening process, because we're in the middle of it. I'm not even mentioning the hundreds of dollars that it costs. It's US$95 to get the required checkup in Manila. Anyway, don't be fooled by Donna. It's not a easy system, and there are no guarantees. We're doing what we can. I understand Donna being worried about people not being a benefit to the country, but I wish we could apply the same standards to some citizens. Posted by: Michael Chaney at December 13, 2005 9:28 AMBrittney, I wasn't comparing birthright citizenship with slavery. I was comparing Senator Gregg's do nothing attitude on anchor babies to some of the backward reasoning used to justify slavery. "There are certain things that we have done as a nation for a long time that I don't think we're going to change.", said Gregg regarding the recent move in Congress to address the citizenship birthright issue. The "I don't think we're going to change" mantra is a convenient out for pols who are want to keep the status quo. The 14th Amend. SCOTUS ruling in 1965, like the recent Kelo decision, disregarded the original intent of the amendment. So if you are looking for a disservice then look there. The 14th Amendment was designed to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of recently freed slaves. It did this by prohibiting states from denying or abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, depriving any person of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Posted by: Rick Forman at December 13, 2005 9:45 AMI appreciate your response, Donna. I am very curious about the illegal immigration debate, but have no dog in this fight, so to speak. I read about your daughter's accident, and I can only imagine how difficult that must have been for you and your family. I was wondering, what do you think of Jim Cooper's proposal to target the employers of illegal immigrants? It seems to me that getting employers to comply with the law would curb much of the illegal immigration. Posted by: brittney at December 13, 2005 10:30 AMBrittney, we have to target the employers. Our side has been saying that since the 1970s. Workplace enforcement pretty much ended around 1995 or 1996, though a few token employers are still charged every year. One other thing: the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, and other entities were calling attention to our broken visa system, testified before Congress, years before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and warned that something like that could happen. "Of the 48 terrorists in this study, 12 were living illegally in the country when they committed their crimes, and several others had been illegal aliens at some point prior to taking part in terrorism. [Most of the illegals had overstayed their visas, becoming illegal aliens. -- D.L.] Thus, enforcing immigration laws in the interior of the United States, in particular apprehending and removing those who have overstayed visas, could have disrupted terrorist plots. Unfortunately, the INS, Congress, and successive administrations have never tried to develop a comprehensive interior enforcement strategy. As a result, over the last decade millions of illegal aliens have lived and worked in the United States with impunity, including a number of terrorists. . . ." -- "The Open Door," Center for Immigration Studies. Summary here. Paper here. Never say our government wasn't warned. It was. Many times over. . . . previous stricter policy of screening and allowing in only those folks who would not be a burden to our country but would have something to contribute that is in our best interests. Those were supposed to be the criteria. -- as I wrote. True. Our country no longer screens under those criteria. You misread, Chaney. I didn't say no screening is done if the person is coming in legally. But a person can usually get in legally as long they are related to someone here and are not on the terrorist watch list if that happens to be noticed. There are so many applications for such entry that the process can take a good while, however.
Don't count on Lincoln ever having the backbone to take a firm stand on ILLEGAL immigration. When he was in the state senate, and on the transportation comm., he literally ran out of the room to keep from voting on a bill to prohibit ILLEGALS from getting drivers's licenses. Michael, The national standards for drivers licenses is the camel's nose in the tent. It will be followed closely by a national ID card. It's inevitable one of these times it will stealthily make it into an obscure appropriation bill. So when that ID comes to pass, require everyone, meaning EVERYONE, to show proof of citizenship and denote it on the card. To get a drivers license in Tenn. you are required to have proof of citizenship or legal residence. When young potential drivers apply with their parent/guardian the primary proof is citizenship in the form of a birth cert. Denote it on the drivers license. There are multiple methods to produce evidence of citizenship. But for Congress to ignore the problem like Sen. Gregg is uncalled for. If U.S. citizenship is as important as the open borders apologists claim then having proof should be like a badge of courage. Hey, let's see if the IRS will ignore 10-20 million tax evaders this year. After all most people cheat anyway don't they? Who wants to go first? Posted by: Rick Forman at December 13, 2005 8:15 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
