Will someone please explain what's so wrong with existing laws that they cannot possibly be enforced and, instead, have to be "reformed"?
If the solution to the problem was as simple as enforcing existing laws, don't you think that the Reagan administration would have chosen that option over amnesty?
"Enforce existing laws" is not a solution at this point.
It's a slogan.
Yes, but the existing laws are in place as a result of Reagan's amnesty. They made the laws stricter, but there was no enforcement, and that made the law ludicrous. Meanwhile, Reagan's amnesty set a precedent that let everyone in Latin America know that the USA was going to be the breadbasket of the hemisphere.
Absolutely nothing was learned from that experience.
I have always maintained that our problem is not immigration, but socialism.Agreed! So let us amnesty the parents of dreamers and get to work fixing the socialism.
If we were a free market, capitalist system we could easily accommodate all the immigrants who wanted to come here and work hard. Furthermore, the federal government has no business dictating to the country who may be employed and who may not. It is a de facto usurpation of property rights.Agreed.
The problem I have with immigration is that the post-modern immigrant is a savvy manipulator of American liberalism who takes far more from the country than he contributes.
Any immigration "reform" must eliminate all social spending on immigrants, tighten voter ID laws to prove citizenship in order to vote, and encourage an open and free labor exchange with Mexico. Otherwise we are just importing votes for Democrats instead of doing what is right.
I do not take issue with a "path to citizenship" but I do take issue with La Raza and other Hispanic activist groups systematically stuffing ballot boxes with illegal votes, as they routinely do in the Southwest.
SOLUTION: Fit all illegal aliens with an electronic explosive collar...like Invisible Fence for our pets. Only instead of a slight electric shock, it blows their head off. There was a movie where this was actually used, but I can't remember it.It was "The Running Man."
It was "The Running Man."
Will someone please explain what's so wrong with existing laws that they cannot possibly be enforced and, instead, have to be "reformed"?
I want to add another question to yours.
If the executive can refuse to enforce existing laws, or parts of laws that he doesn't like, what makes anyone think that a new law would make any difference?
I want to add another question to yours.
If the executive can refuse to enforce existing laws, or parts of laws that he doesn't like, what makes anyone think that a new law would make any difference?
I want to add another question to yours.
If the executive can refuse to enforce existing laws, or parts of laws that he doesn't like, what makes anyone think that a new law would make any difference?
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.
There is much in that I would agree with but I'll make you a sizable wager that neither the president nor the democrats in congress will even consider anything like it. And the Chamber of Commerce would go ballistic!
That was the reason Boehner said publicly many times....we can't trust the President to enforce ALL aspects of the bill. Ergo...we're back in 1986 all over again. So now they're going to send him a good one come the beginning of the year, and watch him veto it.One President refused to enforce and actually violated the Boland Amendment and the Arms Export Control Act. He was not impeached.
One President refused to enforce and actually violated the Boland Amendment and the Arms Export Control Act. He was not impeached.
You send Obama a realistic and rational bill and he will sign it, or he will get closer to impeachment. Obama must work with the GOP or nothing gets done.
Obama's executive action is a side show. The air was just as sweet today as it was last Thursday despite the executive order which changes nothing. ICE will still deport the criminal illegals and ignore illegal families living and working here. Same as it ever was.
I won't take that bet! But I would like to see as much of that as possible. After Obama's potentially extra-legal shenanigan with immigration, Republicans won't do much on this, something no doubt Obama was hoping for. Maybe tax reform? ^-^
In saner times, tax reform should be on the table again because it's been about long enough since the last reform. From the 1939 code it took 15 years to get the 1954 code and from there it took 32 years to get the 1986 code. It's now 2014, so it's been 28 years since the 1986 code, and therefore we're a little overdue for the start of serious tax reform discussions.
One President refused to enforce and actually violated the Boland Amendment and the Arms Export Control Act. He was not impeached.
You send Obama a realistic and rational bill and he will sign it, or he will get closer to impeachment. Obama must work with the GOP or nothing gets done.
Obama's executive action is a side show. The air was just as sweet today as it was last Thursday despite the executive order which changes nothing. ICE will still deport the criminal illegals and ignore illegal families living and working here. Same as it ever was.
I do not take issue with a "path to citizenship" but I do take issue with La Raza and other Hispanic activist groups systematically stuffing ballot boxes with illegal votes, as they routinely do in the Southwest.
It was a sincere question, not a slogan. What about current law must be reformed?
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.
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 musthave 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 timemust 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.
Illegals who are to be considered for future naturalization musthave 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 timemust 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?
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!
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, 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.
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...
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?
Their express powers on this issue being establishing rules of naturalization, not controlling the flow of people across the orders
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
Luis asks:
[[ So, they'll stay and not become citizens.
What did you accomplish? ]]
OK, I'll answer.
What we'll "accomplish" is that by preventing them from becoming citizens we can prevent them from having a voice in the political process: i.e., the vote.
This is the penalty they must pay -- that they forever remain "non-citizens", even if they remain here.
I know that their children born here will have birthright citizenship and the right to vote, someday.
But "the sins of the fathers" must NOT be forgiven...
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?Really great analogies. I'm stealing them.
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!
Really great analogies. I'm stealing them.
Unfortunately they pretty much do that today....
No, they don't. That's the point. Our authorities have no way to identify the security threats because they are too busy trying to regulate the labor market.
It's another one of those cases in which a few laws vigorously enforced makes for a better system than a crapload of laws, few of which are enforced.
* * *
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!
Interestingly enough, that precise issue came up in Australia when the aboriginal tribes started demanding return of land in Australia.