The Immigration Continuum - Time to End "the Shrill"

Comments:

• The yellow - green - yellow continuum is my creation. Click on it to enlarge.
• The Libertarian view is here: "Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel freely as long as they are peaceful. We welcome immigrants who come seeking a better life. The vast majority of immigrants are very peaceful and highly productive. Indeed, the United States is a country of immigrants, of all backgrounds and walks of life…some families have just been here for more generations than others. Newcomers bring great vitality to our society. A truly free market requires the free movement of people, not just products and ideas. Whether they are from India or Mexico, whether they have advanced degrees or very little education, immigrants have one great thing in common: they bravely left their familiar surroundings in search of a better life. Many are fleeing extreme poverty and violence and are searching for a free and safe place to try to build their lives. We respect and admire their courage and be proud that they see the United States as a place of freedom, stability, and prosperity. Of course, if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense."
• The Phase down mass migration view is here: "Phase Immigration Down so we can Phase Americans Back In! Immigration is an optional program that is supposed to respond to the needs and desires of the American people. Our government can and should determine admission levels based on what’s best for America, but that's not happening.
• The Constitutional view is [duh] from the Constitution
• Observations:
• Even the Libertarian view is not an absolutist view: "f someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense". It's not anti-Constitutional! It's not the John Lennon - "Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for" - view!
• I tend towards the Libertarian view on many things - I can say that I personally do not hold this view (but I am close to it) and I've never met a true Libertarian who has expressed this view
• On the other extreme, I personally have never met anyone who has exposed this view
• On the extremes: The "yellows" are over-represented in size in my continuum chart for the sole purpose of having enough space for the text!
• Back to the Constitutional view - note the text: "The Congress shall have the power ..."
• We have a crisis today because the Congress has punted! We have laws on the books that have not been followed, exacerbating the immigration crisis
• On the "shrill": Trump's position is not substantially different than Bill Clinton's
• Notable attempts at reform:
• The George Bush plan
• The "Gang of 8" plan

#MiltonFriedman #Quote "It's just obvious you can't have free #immigration and a #welfare state"https://t.co/QyxHQdcwhm pic.twitter.com/sZZ41iAG2i

— James Peet (@jrpeet) March 1, 2017

.@marg1390r @Ill_Mindst8 Good immigration readhttps://t.co/aeSIhhDoVC

— James Peet (@jrpeet) September 21, 2018

Wow ... surprised me. 22Mhttps://t.co/kFU4zPtleU

— James Peet (@jrpeet) September 22, 2018

A broken asylum system all but guarantees entry if you bring children.https://t.co/AB0oscoA3g pic.twitter.com/attl3f9eUa

— James Peet (@jrpeet) April 6, 2019

Theodore Roosevelt on Immigration

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907. 

Excerpt:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Comment: After I posted my Immigration comments Monday, my sister mentioned the Teddy Roosevelt quotation (Thanks Sis). His quotation represents my own view

The Muslim immigration debate: "good" Muslim / "bad" Muslim

At times I am asked my view and it is as follows:

• Muslims have been in the United States since our inception. I don't think there is much debate about this: Link, Link, Link
• While it seems clear that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian values ("The majority of the founders believed that religion was necessary for maintaining moral virtue and assumed that the nation would remain culturally Christian") - frankly any study of the colonization of America will confirm this (think the Pilgrims) - it's fairly obvious that there have been many non-Christians, Deists, atheists, and cultists in our history
• I believe that the intent of the founders was that this nation would specifically not be a Muslim nation -  being that Islam in its essence does not believe in a separation of faith and state, and promotes Sharia law: "many Muslims around the world say sharia should be the law of the land in their country"
• Sharia law is not compatible with US Jurisprudence
• Sadly countries that are majority Islam do not provide religious liberty for Christians and Jews (there may be exceptions). Example: The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
• I have a sense that were the United States a Muslim majority country that freedom of religion would be imperiled
• It seems clear to me that the recent rash of terrorist attacks have a Muslim connection. The Ohio State attack today is a case to point. Boston, San Bernardino, Saint Cloud, Orlando, Fort Hood and New York come to mind
• I support legal immigration and accept that immigrants will come from a variety of countries
• The Scriptures call the Christian to love the foreigner and I hope to obey this directive
• I personally have Muslim friends and acquaintances (and before I retired co-workers). Those who know me know this to be true. At our table, we have entertained Hindus, Muslims, atheists, et cetera. I always pray to my heavenly Father in the name of Christ in public prayers in our home. In another's home, I will testify of my hope in Christ but not press the point if my views are not welcome.
• As a Christian, I view various belief systems as contrary to the Christian faith.  I John 2:22 states "Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son." Islam ≠ Christianity. From time to time on this blog I point out the errors of Islam. This is not "Muslim hate"! It's a role I have assumed as a Christian. As an aside there are Muslim blogs that are critical of Christianity. I don't regard those blogs as "Christian hate"
• As a citizen, I have worked hard, I have paid taxes, I have not been a slacker / suck on society. I believe in the US Constitution and the laws of the United States
• I personally have completely eschewed violence as a method of promulgating my personal views - "But when you talk about destructionDon't you know that you can count me out"
• Back to the topic at hand - The Muslim immigration debate: "good" Muslim / "bad" Muslim. Every Muslim I have known is a person of peace and a person of good character. I would like to reframe this debate as who is a good candidate for immigration: That would be:
• One who will believe in the US Constitution
• One who will study and embrace the amazing history of our country (at this point a critic could easily mention the black spots of US history such as slavery (and more). I am not suggesting that these flaws should be glossed over or ignored!)
• One who will endeavor to learn the language of our country which is English
• One who will pay taxes, eschew violence, and not be a suck on society
• One who, if qualified, would be willing to defend our country.
• With regard to Muslims, only those who will reject Sharia law

Images: Abdul Razak Artan, Stats, UK Muslims inciting violence.  About the photo of Artan see this link and this link

Feel free to debate my comments. Anonymous comments welcomed and will be answered
Update on 1/28/17: The Problem With Only Letting In the 'Good' Immigrants - It’s difficult to determine who is “good” without making some troubling assumptions.

Good ruling by #SCOTUS https://t.co/zolxVXVdEk

— James Peet (@jrpeet) June 26, 2018

This writer also says, “Make no mistake about it, this is and has always been a Muslim ban.” Then how come the overwhelming majority of the world’s Muslims are not covered by it? https://t.co/gYuVGABDiW

— Brit Hume (@brithume) June 27, 2018

EAD Card vs Green Card | Renewal and Processing Time https://t.co/RTw7nOJUhU via @ShilpaMalikEsq

— James Peet (@jrpeet) July 29, 2018

Come for our Freedoms ... Enjoy our Freedoms ... Respect our Freedoms

Moroccan-born mayor of Rotterdam tells fellow Muslims who do not appreciate the 'freedoms' of living in the West to 'pack your bags'

Excerpt:

The Moroccan-born mayor of Rotterdam has said Muslim immigrants who do not appreciate the way of life in Western civilisations can 'f*** off'. Ahmed Aboutaleb, who arrived in the Netherlands aged 15, spoke out in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris last week. Appearing on live television just hours after the shootings, Mayor Aboutaleb said Muslims who 'do not like freedom can pack your bags and leave'.

Comment: Franklin Delano Roosevelt's The Four Freedoms speech insired Norman Rockwell's Four Freedoms. A print of Rockwell's Four Freedom's hangs on the wall of our kitchen.

Related: The Troubling Math of Muslim Migration

Incredulity over Arizona's immigration bill

The real immigration scare tactics

Excerpt:

"Physician, heal yourself," said the founder of the church in which Roger Mahony is a cardinal. He is the Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles, and he should heed the founder's admonition before accusing Arizonans of intemperateness. He says that Arizona's new law pertaining to illegal immigration involves "reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation."

"Our highest priority today," he says, "is to bring calm and reasoning to discussions about our immigrant brothers and sisters." His idea of calm reasoning is to call Arizona's law for coping with illegal immigration "the country's most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law." He also says that it is "dreadful," "abhorrent" and a "tragedy" and that its assumption is that "immigrants come to our country to rob, plunder and consume public resources."

The problem of illegal immigration is inflaming Mahony, who strongly implies, as advocates for illegal immigrants often do, that any law intended to reduce such illegality is "anti-immigrant." The implication is: Because most Americans believe such illegality should be reduced, most Americans are against immigrants. This slur is slain by abundant facts — polling data that show Americans simultaneously committed to controlling the nation's southern border and to welcoming legal immigration.

...

Today's liberals favor indignation over information, but lawyer Obama must know that since 1952 federal law has said: "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him."

Comment: Direct quote

Sec. 264. [8 U.S.C. 1304]

Excerpt:

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

Comment: Arizona acted because the Federal Government is feckless!

AZ: Simple immigration reform

New Arizona law pressures Latinos to move

Excerpt:

The Republican-controlled Legislature and Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano approved the law last summer out of frustration with federal efforts to curb illegal immigration. It took effect Jan. 1.

The law suspends or revokes the business licenses of violators and was intended to reduce the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak across the border. Illegal immigrants account for an estimated one in 10 workers in Arizona, which is the nation's busiest gateway for illegal immigration.

REAL ID is coming

Tighter driver's license rules coming out

Excerpt:

By 2014, anyone seeking to board an airplane or enter a federal building would have to present a REAL ID-compliant driver's license, with the notable exception of those more than 50 years old, Homeland Security officials said.

The over-50 exemption was created to give states more time to get everyone new licenses, and officials say the risk of someone in that age group being a terrorist, illegal immigrant or con artist is much less. By 2017, even those over 50 must have a REAL ID-compliant card to board a plane.

Among other details of the REAL ID plan:

1. The traditional driver's license photograph would be taken at the beginning of the application instead of the end so that should someone be rejected for failure to prove identity and citizenship, the applicant's photo would be kept on file and checked in the future if that person attempted to con the system again.
   
2. The cards will have three layers of security measures but will not contain microchips as some had expected. States will be able to choose from a menu which security measures they will put in their cards.
   
3. Over the next year, the government expects all states to begin checking both the Social Security numbers and immigration status of license applicants.
   

Comment: The "over 50" exception is enable phase in! More from Wikipedia

Updated:

New ID Rules May Complicate Air Travel

Excerpt:

Millions of air travelers may find going through airport security much more complicated this spring, as the Bush administration heads toward a showdown with state governments over post-Sept. 11 rules for new driver's licenses.

By May, the dispute could leave millions of people unable to use their licenses to board planes, but privacy advocates called that a hollow threat by federal officials.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who was unveiling final details of the REAL ID Act's rules on Friday, said that if states want their licenses to remain valid for air travel after May 2008, those states must seek a waiver indicating they want more time to comply with the legislation.

Chertoff said that for any state which doesn't seek such a waiver by May, residents of that state will have to use a passport or certain types of federal border-crossing cards if they want to avoid a vigorous secondary screening at airport security.
.....
By 2014, anyone seeking to board an airplane or enter a federal building would have to present a REAL ID-compliant card, with the notable exception of those older than 50, Homeland Security officials said.

The over-50 exemption was created to give states more time to get everyone new licenses, and officials say the risk of someone in that age group being a terrorist, illegal immigrant or con artist is much less. By 2017, even those over 50 must have a REAL ID-compliant card to board a plane.

English only and reasonable assimilation

English-Only Showdown: Does Nancy Pelosi really object to a common language in the workplace?

Excerpts:

Should the Salvation Army be able to require its employees to speak English? You wouldn't think that's controversial. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is holding up a $53 billion appropriations bill funding the FBI, NASA and Justice Department solely to block an attached amendment, passed by both the Senate and House, that protects the charity and other employers from federal lawsuits over their English-only policies.

The U.S. used to welcome immigrants while at the same time encouraging assimilation. Since 1906, for example, new citizens have had to show "the ability to read, write and speak ordinary English." A century later, this preference for assimilation is still overwhelmingly popular. A new Rasmussen poll finds that 87% of voters think it "very important" that people speak English in the U.S., with four out of five Hispanics agreeing. And 77% support the right of employers to have English-only policies, while only 14% are opposed.

....

Yet the public is ready for leadership that will forthrightly defend reasonable assimilation. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger won plaudits when he said last June that one way to close the Latino learning divide was "to turn off the Spanish TV set. It's that simple. You've got to learn English." Ruben Navarette, a columnist with the San Diego Union-Tribune, agreed, warning that "industries such as native language education or Spanish-language television [create] linguistic cocoons that offer the comfort of a warm bath when what English-learners really need is a cold shower."


Comment: Teddy had it right 100 years ago. See below:


Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Mexico has it right!

Driver's licenses for migrants? Not in Mexico

Excerpt:

The question of whether to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants ignited a national debate in the United States. But in Mexico, the largest source of U.S. immigrants, there's no question: Here, you must be a legal resident to get a driver's license.

All of Mexico's 31 states, along with Mexico City, require foreigners to present a valid visa if they want a driver's license, according to a survey of states by The Arizona Republic.

"When it comes to foreigners, we're a little more strict here," said Alejandro Ruíz, director of education at the Mexican Automobile Association.

Comment: Contrast the bonehead NY Governer's idea (since abandoned!): Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan

Spitzer changes his mind. Will Hillary flip again?

N.Y. governor abandons driver's licenses for illegal immigrants

Excerpts:

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer will withdraw a controversial plan that would have allowed undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses, a spokeswoman told CNN Tuesday night.
....
Critics have accused presidential hopeful and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton of failing to take a definitive stance on the issue.
....
Hillary: "We have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally," Clinton said. "So what Gov. Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.

John Fund: Why does Mrs. Clinton want driver's licenses for illegal aliens?

Excerpt:

Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked during a debate this week if she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. At first she seemed to endorse the idea, then claimed, "I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it."

The next day she took a firmer stand (sort of) by offering general support for Gov. Spitzer's approach, but adding that she hadn't studied his specific plan. She should, and so should the rest of us. It stops just short of being an engraved invitation for people to commit voter fraud.

The background here is the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as "Motor Voter," that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. It required all states to offer voter registration to anyone getting a driver's license. One simply fills out a form and checks a box stating he is a citizen; he is then registered and in most states does not have to show any ID to vote.

But no one checks if the person registering to vote is indeed a citizen. That greatly concerns New York election officials, who processed 245,000 voter registrations at DMV offices last year. "It would be [tough to catch] if someone wanted to . . . get a number of people registered who aren't citizens and went ahead and got them drivers' licenses," says Lee Daghlian, spokesman for New York's Board of Elections. Assemblywoman Ginny Fields, a Long Island Democrat, warns that the state's "Board of Elections has no voter police" and that the state probably has upwards of 500,000 illegal immigrants old enough to drive.

Comment: Read the full John Fund article for the true danger of driver's licenses for illegal aliens - voter fraud and .... worse ... terrorism!

Quote (Fund article): "After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote."

Updated: Clinton Says No to Licenses for Illegals

"I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal," Clinton said in a statement. "As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system."

Dick Lamm in immigration debate

Lamm stays tough in immigration debate

Excerpt:

Former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm and a Boston economist offered vastly different views of the impact illegal immigrants have on U.S. workers and the economy during a debate today at Metro State College.

Lamm, who was a leader in the movement to strip nonessential services from illegal immigrants, said the flow of cheap labor provided by illegal workers depresses wages and drains tax revenues to cover the cost of benefits such as education and health care.

Lamm faced free-market economist Benjamin Powell, an assistant professor of economics at Boston's Suffolk University.

----

Lamm said illegal immigrants offer business a cheap labor source that depresses the wages of those who are here legally. Because illegal workers pay little in taxes, Americans bear the cost of educating their children and for other services, he added.

"You don't pay your own way — you are subsidized by the taxpayers. I don't mind doing it, but I can't do it for the whole world," said Lamm.

Comment: Dick Lamm is the former Governor of Colorado. He is famous for this quote: ""We've got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life."

Importing Poverty

Importing Poverty: We can't ignore the facts. Only an act of willful denial can separate immigration and poverty.


Excerpt:

Why is it important to get this story straight?

One reason is truthfulness. It's usually held that we've made little, if any, progress against poverty. That's simply untrue. Among non-Hispanic whites, the poverty rate may be approaching some irreducible minimum: people whose personal habits, poor skills, family relations or bad luck condemn them to a marginal existence. Among blacks, the poverty rate remains abysmally high, but it has dropped sharply since the 1980s. Moreover, taking into account federal benefits (food stamps, the earned-income tax credit) that aren't counted as cash income would further reduce reported poverty.

We shouldn't think that our massive efforts to mitigate poverty have had no effect. Immigration hides our grudging progress.

A second reason is that immigration affects government policy. By default, our present policy is to import poor people. This imposes strains on local schools, public services and health care. From 2000 to 2006, 41 percent of the increase in people without health insurance occurred among Hispanics. Paradoxically, many Hispanics are advancing quite rapidly. But assimilation—which should be our goal—will be frustrated if we keep adding to the pool of poor. Newcomers will compete with earlier arrivals. In my view, though some economists disagree, competition from low-skilled Hispanics also hurts low-skilled blacks.

We need an immigration policy that makes sense.

Consider also: The Poor in America

How much would you have to be paid to pick lettuce?

U.S. workers will pick that lettuce -- for $1,000 a week

Excerpt:

Consider the strawberry farmer in Oxnard, California, who told CNN that not once in 25 years of planting and harvesting had an American citizen ever asked for a job picking strawberries.

Immigration restrictionists claim that Americans would line up for even the dirtiest and most distasteful jobs if only wages were higher. How much higher? A reader told me that he'd gladly go pick lettuce around Salinas, California -- for $1,000 a week.


My view: We need immigrant labor. The recent "punt" by congress on immigration reform makes the current broken system our "de facto" immigration policy. We need secure borders, legal immigration, and a solution to the 12-20 M illegals in the country today. Nothing will happen until after the 2008 elections!

Picture from Kent State photo essays.

Bush: No "E Pluribus Duum"

Comment: Good read on the President's view of immigration reform.

Latin Lesson: President Bush makes the case for immigration reform

Excerpt:

Say what you will about George W. Bush's plans for immigration reform, you can't accuse him of failing to understand what it is that inspires such emotion in this debate. Sitting among the optimistic yellows of the Oval Office, the president is quick to zero in on what has caused so many in his party to reject his efforts. "I think people worry that this round of immigration will create two Americas," he says, simply. Or, in his further explanation: "E Pluribus Duum."

...

President Bush spends much of the conversation explaining why ... conservatives of every stripe should see the value of immigration reform. On the economic side, Mr. Bush points out that this is "a free-market question. Absolutely." Studies have shown that immigrants add some $10 billion annually in net economic output. Meanwhile, our unemployment rate is about 4.5%; we created an estimated 130,000 new jobs in May. The president notes that "most of the immigrants coming are doing jobs Americans aren't doing." "Our economy thrives based on capital investment, kind of an entrepreneurship, good fiscal policy, but also willing workers who do jobs that, oftentimes, Americans simply do not want to do."

Comment: Wiki on E Pluribus Unum which means "Out of many, One"

Derby Line Vermont

line on the floor marking the U.S.-Canada border

A border runs through it: Tiny town worries feds

Excerpt:

DERBY LINE, Vermont (AP) -- Step through the front door of the Haskell Library and you're in the United States.

Walk across the carpeted floor to the circulation desk and you're in Canada. But if you sit down on the couch, you're back in the U.S.

Comment: Blogworthy because when one thinks about border issues, Mexico not Canada comes to mind. I definitely need to visit!

Map


Wiki

Poll shows support for Immigration Bill

Immigration Bill Provisions Gain Wide Support in Poll

National
Immigration Bill Provisions Gain Wide Support in Poll
By JULIA PRESTON and MARJORIE CONNELLY
Published: May 25, 2007
Americans want to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status and to create a guest worker program, a Times/CBS News poll found.

Comment: I think something should be done and I don't think mass deportation is a plan.

Peggy Noonan on Immigration

Slow Down and Absorb - Open borders? Mass deportations? How about some common sense instead?

Comment: Some common sense from Peggy Noonan. Noonan was a speechwriter for President Reagan and is an author an columnist.

Excerpt:

Here is the truth: America has never deported millions of people, and America will never deport millions of people. It's not what we do. It's not who we are. It's not who we want to be. The American people would never accept evening news pictures of sobbing immigrants being torn from their homes and put on a bus. We wouldn't accept it because we have hearts, and as much as we try to see history in the abstract, we know history comes down to the particular, to the sobbing child in the bus. We don't round up and remove. Nor should we, tomorrow, on one of our whims, grant full legal status and a Cadillac car. We take it a day at a time. We wait and see what's happening. We do the small discrete things a nation can do to make the overall situation better. For instance: "You commit a violent crime? You are so out of here." And, "Here, let me help you learn English."

Conservative voices on immigration bill

Comprehensively Bad: Faux immigration reform

Excerpt:

What the American people have “wanted for a long time” in the five and half years since 9/11 is for the Bush administration to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to “provide for the common defense” by securing the borders and interior of the United States of America — in this solemn duty the administration has failed miserably.


Practical Compromise

Excerpt:

How can we think of reforming something called Section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to solve our problems with absorbing 12 million illegal aliens when we have yet to solidify the southern border? That’s what irks about the long, Rube Goldbergian machinations of the proposed law. We can’t even make the current one work.


Myth Monopoly - Misleading amnesty advocacy

Excerpt:

The ease with which people can move back and forth between the United States and Mexico — as contrasted with those who made a one-way trip across the Atlantic in earlier times — reduces still further the likelihood that these new immigrants will assimilate and become an integral part of the American society as readily as many earlier immigrants did.

Claims that the new immigration bill will have “tough” requirements, including learning English, have little credibility in view of the way existing laws are not being enforced. What does “learning English” mean? I can say arrivederci and buongiorno but does that mean that I speak Italian?

Comment: I agreed the least with the above article!

Deliberating Senators - An immigration-bill honor roll.

Comment: Good Senatorial quotes!

Immigration inconsistencies

Excerpt:

Consider the current arguments about the immigration bill. For oh so long, the supporters of the bill have been making two points: 1) It is impossible for the U.S. government to actually identify and round up all the illegals in the country; and, 2) a fence on the border is bound to be ineffective as well as immoral. Indeed opponents of the fence have idiotically compared it to the Berlin Wall — although one protects a free country from illegal intrusion while the other kept enslaved people from escaping their slavery. Now, suddenly, these same people claim that the same previously nitwit bureaucracy will not only be able to find all 12 million (or 20 million) illegals, but will be able to flawlessly run background checks, and to positively identify each individual as well as monitor all American businesses to make sure no new illegals are being hired and the newly legal are in perfect compliance with their limited status.

New immig law? Enforce old ones first

Excerpt:

But do we really need another major law? The Bush administration still hasn't implemented various measures passed by Congress over the past decade and refuses to take other steps that are within its power. Given this neglect, it's hard to justify yet another bill - much less a piece of legislation that will run hundreds pages in its final form - on top of the existing pile. Let's look at a few of the initiatives already on the books that have languished in bureaucratic or political purgatory rather than getting done:

Comment .. read the entire article for the list!

Immigration debate - WSJ

Immigration Opening - The Bush-Kennedy proposal's vices and virtues

Excerpt:

On the plus side, the bill addresses the 12 million undocumented aliens living in the U.S. by providing a way for most to obtain legal status with minimal disruption to their lives or employers. In return for reporting to authorities, paying a $5,000 fine, passing a criminal-background check and making a "touch back" visit to their home country, illegal aliens would be eligible for a "Z" visa allowing them to keep working here.

Restrictionists are calling this "amnesty," but they were going to slap that label on anything this side of mass deportation. The public is understandably upset about the presence of so many illegal aliens in the U.S. But there is no evidence that voters want millions of foreign families--many of whom have been here for decades and have American children--uprooted and forcibly removed from the country. The restrictionist wing of the GOP simply wants no new immigration, and "amnesty" is merely a political slogan to kill any reform.

Comment: A better read than my posting from yesterday. Interesting that the O.J. calls it the "The Bush-Kennedy proposal". I agree completely with the O.J. comments on the "amnesty" label.

Immigration Deal ... How I feel

Major Provisions of the Immigration Deal

Excerpt:

CURRENT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

1. They could come forward immediately and receive probationary legal status.
   
2. Bill creates a four-year, renewable "Z" visa for those present within the U.S. unlawfully before Jan. 1, 2007.
   
3. Undocumented immigrants may adjust status to lawful permanent residence once they pay $5,000 in fees and fines and their head of household returns to their home country.
   
4. People under age 30 who were brought to the U.S. as minors could receive their green cards after three years, rather than eight.
   
5. Undocumented farmworkers who can demonstrate they have worked 150 hours or three years in agriculture can apply for green cards.
   
6. No green cards for "Z" visa holders can be processed until "triggers" for border security and workplace enforcement have been met, estimated to take 18 months. Processing of green cards for holders of "Z" visas would begin after clearing an existing backlog, which is expected to take eight years.
   

Comments:

1. I regularly am in contact with Hispanic immigrants. In the last two weeks: my yard was cleaned up by a yard service. Three Hispanic men did the work. Last Monday, we had our car washed at the Mermaid Car wash. Virtually all of the workers there are Hispanic. This week, our roof was replaced. There were 5 or 6 Hispanic workers here on Monday. I tried to have a conversation with several of them (offering one a coke, asking another his name) and none of them spoke English.
   
2. Our economy is highly dependent on immigrant labor: motel housekeepers, fast food workers, lawn workers, roofers, agricultural workers. There are low-paying jobs that would go begging if it were not for Hispanic immigrant labor.
   
3. It would be darn near impossible to round up and deport 12 million illegal aliens!
   
4. There has to be a solution. And it has to be a bipartisan solution. McCain and Kennedy pounded out a compromise that is a working start!
   
5. These issues have to be addressed:
   
   
   
   1. How do we address the problem of 12,000,000 illegal aliens currently in the United States?
      
   2. How do we promote legal immigration to supply needed jobs?
      
   3. How do we protect and police our borders?
      
   
   
6. In my view, the Senate / White House solution is a good one!