Pat Buchanan makes the argument best in his last few books, in particular his 2006 book on the immigration crisis, STATE OF EMERGENCY.
We don't need "comprehensive immigration reform", we just need to enforce our existing laws, in a few easy steps:
1. Secure the southern border with several thousand national guard troops in a matter of weeks. And leave them on the border until a border fence is built. As was constructed over the most vulnerable 14-mile section of the San Diego border, that can be duplicated along the entire southern border, that has already proven to stop illegal crossings by 95%.
2. Begin heavy enforcement and fines on employers of illegals. Unable to find work, many illegals will leave the country on their own, with no need of INS or other law-enforcement to round them up.
3. Add an amendment to the Constitution that only children born to parents who are LEGALLY in this country at the time of birth will be entitled to citizenship at birth. This will eliminate tens of billions in benefits to "anchor babies" and their extended families, and roughly 300,000 babies born annually to illegals who come here for the specific purpose of gaining unwarranted rights of citizenship through this loophole in the law.
4. Increase INS agents to round up the remaining illegals who have not already left due to the above steps.
5. No amnesty, ever, for people who have shown a contempt for our laws and broken into our country. Amnesty would only result in encouraging millions more illegals to come. These are not people who love this country, they are just here to exploit the U.S., and take as much free stuff as they can grab. Once illegals have left for lack of jobs or been forcibly deported, they still have the option to apply for a green card and enter legally, through the proper channels. But those who would want amnesty after breaking our laws are unworthy of citizenship, in their lack of respect for our rule of law.
Anonymous commercials by PAC-groups have been hard-selling Rubio's push for "immigration reform", that is amnesty by any other name.
But as Herman Cain said during one of the 2012 debates: "We don't need comprehensive immigration reform. We already have a comprehensive immigration policy. It's called LEGAL IMMIGRATION!"
Verily and Amen. All we need to do is enforce out existing laws. Period.
Ann Coulter has been one of the few voices of dissent within the GOP, arguing how destructive and self-defeating this Rubio-led proposal truly is.
From last night:
No matter what concessions are given, hispanic voters will still reflexively vote overwhelmingly Democrat. And giving amnesty to millions of illegals will just speed up that demographic shift.
As Charles Krauthammer said, someone who broke our laws to enter this country, should not be given the ability to shape that law, and at best should be given legal residency, but not the ability to vote. Let only their children who were born here have that right.
It's funny how it seems like conservatives are the ones that end up proposing a change in the Constitution. Also there's a bunch of conservative talking heads besides Coulter that are panning Rubio's attempt. I don't think the republican party is capable of creating anything on this that will get bipartisan support that it's own party would go for so it seems like a moot issue anyway.
It's funny how it seems like conservatives are the ones that end up proposing a change in the Constitution...
That's because liberals don't propose changes. They just get them done by judicial fiat.
Even if you disagree with a proposed change, the conservatives deserve credit for discussing it in terms that are consistent with the intent and language of the Constitution, ie, the amendment process. That process involves debates, legislation, ratification and full participation by the legislature and the public. You know, things we normally claim to want in a healthy representative democracy.
As for the other points raised by you and WB....really, guys? Another immigration thread? You couldn't have had this debate one of the sixty or so I think we have already? Or are you two trying to beat your record previously set by the inumerable gay marriage threads?
This is a new "comprehensive immigration reform" push spearheaded by Marco Rubio, and I wished to separate it from the other immigration topics for that reason. I think it is an insulting deception to say we "need" immigration reform. We just need to enforce our existing laws (and there seems to be little will to do that, to the point that it is demoralizing Border Patrol agents and INS). And it especially burns me to have this Rubio deception (a trojan Horse for de-facto amnesty) being hard-sold by the GOP, accompanied by a barrage of 501-group ads to persuade the uninformed.
Which, again, is why I wish to separate this wrongheaded push from the major thrust of immigration debate.
Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions took issue with Florida Republican and Gang of Eight member Sen. Marco Rubio’s characterization of the immigration reform process on Friday after Rubio explained the Senate must enforce border restrictions for the immigration bill to pass.
Rubio spoke about proposals to tighten the border security aspects of the Senate’s immigration reform bill Thursday night with guest host Ed Morrissey on “The Hugh Hewitt Show.”
Rubio explained that in order for more lawmakers to rally around the legislation, they will need to be able to point to the bill’s provisions for tighter border enforcement to their constituents back home.
“There are a lot of Republicans that want to be supportive of something, but need to be able to go back home and tell people that they have taken serious steps to ensure this never happens again,” Rubio said. “Like I said, it’s going to have to happen. It’s going to have to be in there, or this is not going to pass.”
Sessions — who has been critical of not only the law enforcement aspects of the Senate bill but also the legislation’s impact on American workers — was “not encouraged” by Rubio’s comment.
“This is the whole problem: it’s not about just passing ‘something’ and telling the American people we’ve fixed the problem. It’s about actually fixing the problem,” Sessions said in a statement Friday evening.
The Senate voted down Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley’s border security-first amendment on Thursday. Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn also unveiled his more strict border security amendment to criticism from Democrats and some GOP Gang of Eight members this week.
Roll Call reports that as early as next week Rubio and other Republicans could release another border security amendment.
Including Republicans who delusionally put perceived appeal to hispanic voters (and fear of being labelled racist) above border security and the best interest of the nation.
I saw hispanic Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) last night say that, contrary to the official line, many hispanics in Texas and elsewhere support border security over amnesty too. Because they know the illegals, if given a pass, will lower wages and take the jobs of hispanics and other minorities. This law does not benefit hispanics, only illegals. And the Democrat party. And that last point is exactly what this amnesty push is all about.
Again: Herman Cain in a 2011 debate was asked if he supported "comprehensive immigration reform". He said we don't need it, we already have a comprehensive immigration policy. It's called LEGAL IMMIGRATION!
I couldn't agree more.
This is a scam and a hustle, and it's following the exact same path as when Obamacare was rammed through.
If you understood the bill I'm not sure how you can call it amnesty? This passed with more than a couple of republicans voting for it. Surprising considering how the GOP has been more about obstructing legislation than anything else these days.
"The pernicious impact" of federal immigration enforcement "on certain communities in Philadelphia" is pushing the city to curtail police cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, public safety director Michael Resnick said Wednesday.
At a City Council hearing packed to the balcony benches with immigrant-rights groups, Resnick said Mayor Nutter soon will sign an executive order barring police and prison officials from honoring immigration detainers, except when a suspect in custody was previously convicted of a violent felony, and ICE obtained a warrant to support the detainer request.
An earlier draft, a copy of which was obtained by The Inquirer, would have upheld detainers for people arrested and accused of a violent crime, but not yet tried.
"In its current draft form," Resnick told Council's Committee on Public Safety Wednesday, the initiative "resolves the issue of individuals being detained merely at the request of ICE officials."
Philadelphia's new policy "is huge. It's historic," said Councilwoman Maria Quinones Sanchez. "It shows what cities can do until Congress deals with comprehensive immigration reform."
Councilman James Kenney said local police should not be doing the work of federal agents.
"When two young Mexican kids get into a fistfight and get hauled off to the 4th [police] District and there's an ICE agent waiting in the lobby. That's not right," he said.
Resnick cited "the tireless work of the advocate community" for prompting the new draft.
Yet some advocates said in testimony and interviews after the three-hour hearing that the new draft does not go far enough.
"Ask the mayor to change his mind and end all ICE holds," testified Vera Tolbert, past president of the Union of Liberian Associations in America.
Across America advocacy groups have pushed municipalities to modify data-sharing and law-enforcement relationships between police and ICE.
When police implement an ICE hold they book a defendant, share his fingerprints with ICE, and instead of releasing him to face charges as they ordinarily do, they detain him for 48 hours so ICE agents can investigate and interrogate.
About 17 localities have banned or modified ICE holds, including Miami, San Francisco, Newark, New Orleans and New York City.
More than 25 witnesses testified Wednesday.
Several said fear about ICE detainers impedes local law enforcement because people are afraid to approach and share information with police.
Speaking for a minority in attendance, John Ryan, Vince Weston, and Margaret Weston-Adelsberger held a banner promoting the group, Victims of Illegal Alien Crime, voiac.org, which describes its mission as tracking crimes committed in the U.S. "by foreign nationals, including illegal aliens."
In his testimony, Ryan urged the council members "not to yield to the demands of leftist human rights groups," who want to "install radical left mind control" and "embrace a world without borders."
1971 370,478 1972 384,685 1973 398,515 1974 393,919 1975 385,378 1976¹ 499,093 ¹ Includes the 15 months from July 1, 1975 -Sept 30, 1976 because end date of fiscal years changed from June 30 to September 30.
Pat Buchanan makes the argument best in his last few books, in particular his 2006 book on the immigration crisis, STATE OF EMERGENCY.
We don't need "comprehensive immigration reform", we just need to enforce our existing laws, in a few easy steps:
1. Secure the southern border with several thousand national guard troops in a matter of weeks. And leave them on the border until a border fence is built. As was constructed over the most vulnerable 14-mile section of the San Diego border, that can be duplicated along the entire southern border, that has already proven to stop illegal crossings by 95%.
2. Begin heavy enforcement and fines on employers of illegals. Unable to find work, many illegals will leave the country on their own, with no need of INS or other law-enforcement to round them up.
3. Add an amendment to the Constitution that only children born to parents who are LEGALLY in this country at the time of birth will be entitled to citizenship at birth. This will eliminate tens of billions in benefits to "anchor babies" and their extended families, and roughly 300,000 babies born annually to illegals who come here for the specific purpose of gaining unwarranted rights of citizenship through this loophole in the law.
4. Increase INS agents to round up the remaining illegals who have not already left due to the above steps.
5. No amnesty, ever, for people who have shown a contempt for our laws and broken into our country. Amnesty would only result in encouraging millions more illegals to come. These are not people who love this country, they are just here to exploit the U.S., and take as much free stuff as they can grab. Once illegals have left for lack of jobs or been forcibly deported, they still have the option to apply for a green card and enter legally, through the proper channels. But those who would want amnesty after breaking our laws are unworthy of citizenship, in their lack of respect for our rule of law.
Anonymous commercials by PAC-groups have been hard-selling Rubio's push for "immigration reform", that is amnesty by any other name.
But as Herman Cain said during one of the 2012 debates: "We don't need comprehensive immigration reform. We already have a comprehensive immigration policy. It's called LEGAL IMMIGRATION!"
Verily and Amen. All we need to do is enforce our existing laws. Period.
I cited this in several topics, way back when.
The glory is, we now have a president who is actually doing this! I'm thrilled every day to see what Trump will do next. He is the first president of either party in decades whose actions make sense and are in the best interest of the nation.
Just as the caravan of illegals is reaching the U.S. border on their way up through Mexico, there are 4,000 new national guard troops now there to stop them.
How do you encourage illegal immigration? You let them stay here.
How do you stop new waves of illegals? You don't let in the ones who just arrived, word will get out, and the next wave will not think it worth the risk to even try. It's really that simple.
