'Shame on us' for not passing immigration reform, Graham says

[Luis Gonzalez]

Both good questions.  As to the latter one, nothing other than Congress or the courts can prevent an executive from failing to enforce any law.  But the more loopholes in a law, the more an overly zealous president or head of an agency can take advantage. 

Some of the areas a better law could address include better clarity and prioritization of border security responsibilities, which includes certification by border governors, but recognizing there is no perfect border security.  Creation of a fraud-proof id system will go a long way, as will much stronger employer sanctions for hiring illegals.  Chain migration and diversity quotas and the lottery have to end.  The rules for legal immigration have to be cleaned up by allowing work and resident visas to only those who meet the needs of this Nation in terms of education and experience.  Foreign exchange student visas is a mess.  English proficiency must be mandatory after a period of time.  State cooperation should be welcomed, and sanctuary cities must be penalized and enforcement against them by federal law.  All waivers must be reported to Congress within a reasonable amount of time.  Illegals who are to be considered for future naturalization must have no serious felony record, no past or present gang membership, be holding a job, pay a series of fines and penalties and any back taxes owed, agree to no use of welfare, and have been in the US steadily for at least a reasonable period of time.

Multiple border violations by an individual must be addressed, as this is a serious problem. 

Each waiver and loophole in the current laws must be addressed to either end them or require the executive to provide Congress with each use.

And we must have the appropriations to go after gang members, drug and human traffickers, as well as fraudulent use of the system by those selling such services.

That would be a start.

The Constitution is silent on the subject of immigration. It grants Congress the power to establish uniform rules of Naturalization, and Naturalization can only happen after immigration. This leads me to believe that how to deal with the physical act of immigration (or illegal immigration) by individuals or groups of individuals falls to the individual States (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.), or at least that was the way the nation was set up before the Constitution became "alive" vis-à-vis the expansion of the Federal government and the fading idea of Federalism.

We should not demand for Congress to do anything about Obama's immigration "Executive memos", but let the individual States sue the Federal government over its policies.

Follow Texas' lead.

Illegal aliens are entering Texas, so it should be Texas who decides how to best handle that problem. 
 

[olde north church]

The movie is "Wedlock".  A Rutger Hauer sci-fi extravaganza.  MiMi Rogers, formerly of Tom Cruise "wedlock" fame.
I saw the movie. 

[MACVSOG68]

The Constitution is silent on the subject of immigration. It grants Congress the power to establish uniform rules of Naturalization, and Naturalization can only happen after immigration. This leads me to believe that how to deal with the physical act of immigration (or illegal immigration) by individuals or groups of individuals falls to the individual States (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.), or at least that was the way the nation was set up before the Constitution became "alive" vis-à-vis the expansion of the Federal government and the fading idea of Federalism.

We should not demand for Congress to do anything about Obama's immigration "Executive memos", but let the individual States sue the Federal government over its policies.

Follow Texas' lead.

Illegal aliens are entering Texas, so it should be Texas who decides how to best handle that problem. 
 

I do agree that immigration is not an express power of Congress, and I agree that states should be included as participants in the protection of borders and regulation of immigration.  However, I also believe that while not an express power, the final clause of the powers section provides that Congress make all laws respective of their express powers, " and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The purpose of the constitutional convention was to provide for a stronger central government that would erase the dangers of the loose confederation that existed since independence was declared.  The government is charged with providing for the common defense and protecting the borders and regulating immigration is certainly part of that mandate.

But I agree Texas should be part of the solution.

[Bigun]

Both good questions.  As to the latter one, nothing other than Congress or the courts can prevent an executive from failing to enforce any law.  But the more loopholes in a law, the more an overly zealous president or head of an agency can take advantage. 

Some of the areas a better law could address include better clarity and prioritization of border security responsibilities, which includes certification by border governors, but recognizing there is no perfect border security.  Creation of a fraud-proof id system will go a long way, as will much stronger employer sanctions for hiring illegals.  Chain migration and diversity quotas and the lottery have to end.  The rules for legal immigration have to be cleaned up by allowing work and resident visas to only those who meet the needs of this Nation in terms of education and experience.  Foreign exchange student visas is a mess.  English proficiency must be mandatory after a period of time.  State cooperation should be welcomed, and sanctuary cities must be penalized and enforcement against them by federal law.  All waivers must be reported to Congress within a reasonable amount of time.  Illegals who are to be considered for future naturalization must have no serious felony record, no past or present gang membership, be holding a job, pay a series of fines and penalties and any back taxes owed, agree to no use of welfare, and have been in the US steadily for at least a reasonable period of time.

Multiple border violations by an individual must be addressed, as this is a serious problem. 

Each waiver and loophole in the current laws must be addressed to either end them or require the executive to provide Congress with each use.

And we must have the appropriations to go after gang members, drug and human traffickers, as well as fraudulent use of the system by those selling such services.

That would be a start.

Illegals who are to be considered for future naturalization must have no serious felony record, no past or present gang membership, be holding a job, pay a series of fines and penalties and any back taxes owed, agree to no use of welfare, and have been in the US steadily for at least a reasonable period of time must return to their native country and get in line just like every other person trying to come here legally.

With your acceptance of that small revision, you and I have a deal! I see no reason to grant any preference to anyone who has broken our laws over all those who have not.

[MACVSOG68]

Illegals who are to be considered for future naturalization must have no serious felony record, no past or present gang membership, be holding a job, pay a series of fines and penalties and any back taxes owed, agree to no use of welfare, and have been in the US steadily for at least a reasonable period of time must return to their native country and get in line just like every other person trying to come here legally.

With your acceptance of that small revision, you and I have a deal! I see no reason to grant any preference to anyone who has broken our laws over all those who have not.

The problem is that everything else is what the Republicans want, and I seriously doubt any bill that isn't part of a compromise will ever see its way to the president's desk.  Which puts us right back where we are now.  And let's face it, crossing the border illegally isn't a felony, and in the US about 95% of felony charges are plea bargained down.  Why not this?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Illegals who are to be considered for future naturalization must have no serious felony record, no past or present gang membership, be holding a job, pay a series of fines and penalties and any back taxes owed, agree to no use of welfare, and have been in the US steadily for at least a reasonable period of time must return to their native country and get in line just like every other person trying to come here legally.

With your acceptance of that small revision, you and I have a deal! I see no reason to grant any preference to anyone who has broken our laws over all those who have not.

Yeah...

Good luck with that.

[Bigun]

The problem is that everything else is what the Republicans want, and I seriously doubt any bill that isn't part of a compromise will ever see its way to the president's desk.  Which puts us right back where we are now.  And let's face it, crossing the border illegally isn't a felony, and in the US about 95% of felony charges are plea bargained down.  Why not this?

Because doing anything other than what I have suggested sends a BIG message to all those around the world who are doing everything they can to come here legally!

What I have suggested is the only truly fair thing to do!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Because doing anything other than what I have suggested sends a BIG message to all those around the world who are doing everything they can to come here legally!

What I have suggested is the only truly fair thing to do!

Bigun, you're tilting at windmills. That's just not going to happen, ever.

There's no logic to it and it cements in place the practice of staying here illegally.

Why would people who are already here, most with jobs and settled into some sort of a community and way of life, think that dropping everything, leaving everything they've worked for and accumulated to go back home (where the standard of living is far worse than the lowest possible standard of living they enjoyed here as illegal aliens) in order to perchance be allowed back in to start all over again, be a good idea?

Yours are the sorts of demands that a segment of the GOP has saddled the GOP with which have made dealing with the issue of millions of people being in the country illegally an impossibility for the GOP.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I do agree that immigration is not an express power of Congress, and I agree that states should be included as participants in the protection of borders and regulation of immigration.  However, I also believe that while not an express power, the final clause of the powers section provides that Congress make all laws respective of their express powers, " and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The purpose of the constitutional convention was to provide for a stronger central government that would erase the dangers of the loose confederation that existed since independence was declared.  The government is charged with providing for the common defense and protecting the borders and regulating immigration is certainly part of that mandate.

But I agree Texas should be part of the solution.

Their express powers on this issue being establishing rules of naturalization, not controlling the flow of people across the orders

[Bigun]

Bigun, you're tilting at windmills. That's just not going to happen, ever.

There's no logic to it and it cements in place the practice of staying here illegally.

Why would people who are already here, most with jobs and settled into some sort of a community and way of life, think that dropping everything, leaving everything they've worked for and accumulated to go back home (where the standard of living is far worse than the lowest possible standard of living they enjoyed here as illegal aliens) in order to perchance be allowed back in to start all over again, be a good idea?

Yours are the sorts of demands that a segment of the GOP has saddled the GOP with which have made dealing with the issue of millions of people being in the country illegally an impossibility for the GOP.

Oh I beg to differ! From my point of view there is EVERY logic to it!

If we ever want to have an EFFECTIVE immigration policy we MUST make the message loud and clear! "If you want to immigrate to America, and become a citizen thereof,  there is only ONE way to do that! The LEGAL way! Nothing else is going to work!"

[Bigun]

He couldn't possibly be more right!

[Fishrrman]

Bigun, you're completely right with the graphic in post 35.

This has been a goal of the Obama administration for some time now.
That is to say, what they intend to do with "immigration reform" is to literally change the definition of what "immigration" -is-.

There are still those -- like myself, and hopefully a few remaining members of this forum -- who understand that there are TWO different types of immigrants:
1. legal immigrants
and
2. ILLEGAL immigrants.

By using executive powers to diminish or remove both the social stigma and legal sanctions against illegal entry, the Obammunists (and the left) are trying and succeeding to redefine the concept of "immigration" in the sense that the notions of "legality" and "illegality" will no longer apply.

No more "legal immigrants"; no more "illegal immigrants".
Just: "immigrants".

To wit: anyone who can get their feet on American soil, from anywhere, for any reason, will then be an "immigrant" and entitled to all the benefits that were previously only enjoyed by [the now-obsolete term of] legal immigrants.

This is right out of the Orwellian playbook:
Change the language, change the words used, and you will also change how and what people think about such words and the concepts behind them.

'Way back in 1967, it was none other than Jim Morrison of The Doors who wrote:
"The west is the best...
....GET HERE, and we'll do the rest."

And that's what we're going to become.
"The Camp of the Saints" writ real...

[Bigun]

[katzenjammer]

Bigun, you're completely right with the graphic in post 35.

This has been a goal of the Obama administration for some time now.
That is to say, what they intend to do with "immigration reform" is to literally change the definition of what "immigration" -is-.

There are still those -- like myself, and hopefully a few remaining members of this forum -- who understand that there are TWO different types of immigrants:
1. legal immigrants
and
2. ILLEGAL immigrants.

By using executive powers to diminish or remove both the social stigma and legal sanctions against illegal entry, the Obammunists (and the left) are trying and succeeding to redefine the concept of "immigration" in the sense that the notions of "legality" and "illegality" will no longer apply.

No more "legal immigrants"; no more "illegal immigrants".
Just: "immigrants".

To wit: anyone who can get their feet on American soil, from anywhere, for any reason, will then be an "immigrant" and entitled to all the benefits that were previously only enjoyed by [the now-obsolete term of] legal immigrants.

This is right out of the Orwellian playbook:
Change the language, change the words used, and you will also change how and what people think about such words and the concepts behind them.

'Way back in 1967, it was none other than Jim Morrison of The Doors who wrote:
"The west is the best...
....GET HERE, and we'll do the rest."

And that's what we're going to become.
"The Camp of the Saints" writ real...

Agree with all of the above.  I am one (not sure how many of us there are) that stands with you in understanding the need to keep the definitions of ILLEGAL & LEGAL Immigration, in place, and in force.

In my mind it is not too much of a stretch to compare the treatment of the ILLEGAL immigrants with the approach of "well they are here now and there is nothing that we can do about it expect to reward them" to basically saying that people that robbed a bank (or another form of grand theft) with a similar: "well they have the money now, probably have it hidden well, there is nothing we can do about it."  When you consider the incredible COST of having ILLEGAL immigrants here to all levels of gubmint, the comparison is probably too soft, if anything.

"A nation without borders is no longer a nation."  -- Ronald Reagan

(And yes, we are well on our way to The Camp of the Saints.)

[Luis Gonzalez]

Oh I beg to differ! From my point of view there is EVERY logic to it!

If we ever want to have an EFFECTIVE immigration policy we MUST make the message loud and clear! "If you want to immigrate to America, and become a citizen thereof,  there is only ONE way to do that! The LEGAL way! Nothing else is going to work!"

So, they'll stay and not become citizens.

What did you accomplish?

[Bigun]

So, they'll stay and not become citizens.

What did you accomplish?

I stood up for the LAW and the TRUTH!

And as a matter of fact I have no problem with them staying as long as they have a green card.  They can stay till hell freezes over but will never become citizens unless and until they decide to do it the right way!

[MACVSOG68]

Their express powers on this issue being establishing rules of naturalization, not controlling the flow of people across the orders

The express power I posted is also known as the necessary and proper clause which gives Congress the implied power to legislate in those areas necessary to carry out the requirements of the Constitution.  AFAIK, one of the powers of Congress is to provide for the common defense.  If Congress cannot make laws controlling the borders, then Congress cannot provide for the common defense, an express power.

[MACVSOG68]

Because doing anything other than what I have suggested sends a BIG message to all those around the world who are doing everything they can to come here legally!

What I have suggested is the only truly fair thing to do!

Every time a district attorney agrees to lower charges for a variety of reasons, it sends a message to the victims and their families.  Yet it's done 95% of the time.  We shouldn't have let these illegals in the Country in the first place.  But we did, and many of them stayed, and worked here.  Why is this any different? 

And what message was sent every time we invaded and settled Indian lands here?  We might have made some movies about it in Hollywood reflecting how bad it was...but none of us are talking about giving any of it back to them, at least not me!

[massadvj]

The express power I posted is also known as the necessary and proper clause which gives Congress the implied power to legislate in those areas necessary to carry out the requirements of the Constitution.  AFAIK, one of the powers of Congress is to provide for the common defense.  If Congress cannot make laws controlling the borders, then Congress cannot provide for the common defense, an express power.

It's one thing to provide for the common defense and something else altogether to try to artificially constrain the labor market. 

I would argue that having an open border policy would actually improve the ability to defend the nation because if almost everyone were free to come and go so long as they document themselves, then it would be easier to identify the true security threats.

[Oceander]

Every time a district attorney agrees to lower charges for a variety of reasons, it sends a message to the victims and their families.  Yet it's done 95% of the time.  We shouldn't have let these illegals in the Country in the first place.  But we did, and many of them stayed, and worked here.  Why is this any different? 

And what message was sent every time we invaded and settled Indian lands here?  We might have made some movies about it in Hollywood reflecting how bad it was...but none of us are talking about giving any of it back to them, at least not me!

Would you stop making so much sense!  I'm finding it very hard to get into a knock-down argument with you!

[MACVSOG68]

Would you stop making so much sense!  I'm finding it very hard to get into a knock-down argument with you!

I told ya my friend.  We gotta talk taxes.   ^-^   

[MACVSOG68]

It's one thing to provide for the common defense and something else altogether to try to artificially constrain the labor market. 

I would argue that having an open border policy would actually improve the ability to defend the nation because if almost everyone were free to come and go so long as they document themselves, then it would be easier to identify the true security threats.

Unfortunately they pretty much do that today, and the security threats are there, including gang-bangers, drug smugglers, human and gun traffickers, and other such perps including those of the Islamic faith who find that illegal border crossing is easier than getting visas.  Add to that liberal sanctuary cities...and states, and the surrounding states are defenseless.  Our Founding Fathers could not conceivably have believed in that, or why bother to have tried to strengthen the Articles of Confederation?

If a nation does not protect it's borders, it's not a nation, but simply a geographical area. 

[katzenjammer]

Unfortunately they pretty much do that today, and the security threats are there, including gang-bangers, drug smugglers, human and gun traffickers, and other such perps including those of the Islamic faith who find that illegal border crossing is easier than getting visas.  Add to that liberal sanctuary cities...and states, and the surrounding states are defenseless.  Our Founding Fathers could not conceivably have believed in that, or why bother to have tried to strengthen the Articles of Confederation?

If a nation does not protect it's borders, it's not a nation, but simply a geographical area.

Couldn't agree more.  The whole "open borders, free flow of labor" stuff is one of the areas where I part ways with the big "L"ibertarian party.  (Chuckling to myself that given enough time and broad enough subject matter, I found something that I can agree with you upon!!  lol)

[Luis Gonzalez]

I stood up for the LAW and the TRUTH!

And as a matter of fact I have no problem with them staying as long as they have a green card.  They can stay till hell freezes over but will never become citizens unless and until they decide to do it the right way!

The "right way" is whatever way Congress says it's the "right way", even if they change the "right way" every other Wednesday.

[Bigun]

The "right way" is whatever way Congress says it's the "right way", even if they change the "right way" every other Wednesday.

Exactly right! CONGRESS makes the law and the president is charged with carrying it out!