Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Eighteen Illegal Alien solutions that are better than any Amnesty
January 7th, 2003 | Sabertooth

Posted on 01/07/2004 8:25:32 AM PST by Sabertooth

Well, today’s the big day, if the leaks and reports coming from the Bush Administration are true. The President is supposed to announce a new direction in America’s immigration policy that would result, among other things, in some sort of legalization for millions of the Illegal Aliens currently in our country, violating our laws. This, of course, would be nothing less than Amnesty by another name.

We’re told by handwringers and the political and media elites that there is really no workable solution to the Illegal Alien problem, so we might as well legalize them so we can get track of them. Thouughtless people on both sides of the debate jawbone about silly ideas like building a wall at the Mexican border, or house to house searches, as though they were viable solutions, or the only alternatives to Amnesty ore the status quo.

It’s disappointing, frankly. There is a great disconnect when people claim that while we can put men on the moon, or win the Cold War and the War on Terror, there is no reasonable or cost effective means of solving the Illegal Alien problem without infringing on the civil liberties of all Americans.

Nonsense, this nation is plenty capable of solving any problem we decide to solve, and poll after poll shows that the American people want the problem of Illegal Aliens solved, and that Amnesty isn’t a solution to us.

Dealing with Illegals doesn't have to be the enormous burden on resources many imagine, not would it have to infringe on civil liberties.

I've posted this on a few threads, but today seems like a good day for a revised reposting of as a stand-alone thread.

This problem is no harder to solve than wanting to solve it. We can get rid of Illegals rather effectively, by rolling up our sleeves and getting the Illegals to get rid of themselves.

The first order of business, of course, is to enforce existing laws on the books against Illegals and those who employ them. Also, politicians must be held to account when they pander otherwise.

Then...

The list above is by no means comprehensive, and can be adopted piecemeal or in a single package. That said, incrementalism is probably going to be the way to go, especially politically.

These measures would provide a little carrot and lots of stick for Illegals already here to get themselves out. Some of them will need to be tested in the courts, which is another reason to adopt them piecemeal, so that an injunction against omnibus legislation can't stall the whole effort.

We ought to be looking initially at easy, politically safe legislation, like the new accounting for family reunification, Border Security/IRS cooperation, English speaking citizenship requirements, and a few others. Our politicians are a trembling, timid bunch, and need to gain a little self-confidence before they'll tackle more difficult issues.

Note a few things that aren't on my list: troops or walls on the border. I think they are a futile diversion from cost effective solutions. The best possible wall at the border is to let foreigners know that we respect our sovereignty, and they had best do the same.

Note that their are no house to house searches.

Note also that I don't call for an immigration moratorium, though others may. I think their position is within the respectable mainstream of a dialogue about immigration, and while it's possible that I might change my mind later, but I am not currently persuaded that an outright moratorium is or will be necessary.

The main problem is multimillion-strong mass of Illegals, and the secondary problem is how we currently select legal immigrants for rapid assimilation into American society. I believe my proposals adequately address both situations, but there is certainly room for debate on the back end.

Note also that I have a guest worker program that is actually honest and responsible, and not an Amnesty by another name. My program would ensure that law-abiding foreigners are background-checked before entry, rather than rewarding lawbreaking Illegals after the fact.

All of the above could be adopted while allowing politicians so-inclined to chant the "compassionate conservatism" mantra.

A few final thoughts...

My proposals will cost money and require an expansion of the federal government in certain areas. However, this expense and expansion is all well within the legitimate, Constitutional responsibilities of the federal government. There will be a greater expense initially, as we ramp up to deal with the backlog of Illegals, but a number of my proposals are at least partially self-funding. Also, success in these endeavors will eventually reduce the need for them, and as many Illegals would leave on their own. There will be future savings, it should be noted, as the population of Illegals is dwindles and their net drain on our resources is reduced.

In contrast, there would be also be an increased expense and expansion of the government if there is an Amnesty, as checking backgrounds and processing 8 to 12 million Illegals wouldn't be cheap. However, such increases and expansions would only serve to reward the lawlessness of Illegals and the cowardice of politicians, thereby encouraging more of the same in both, unless there were also enforcement proposals like mine in effect for the American Interior.

But, if we strengthened and enforced our laws consistently within our borders, then we don't need the phantom solution of Amnesty anyway.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Arizona; US: California; US: New Mexico; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: aliens; amnesty; illegalaliens; illegals; immigrantlist; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-171 next last




Revised and updated for today's announcement.

Feel free to add your own!


1 posted on 01/07/2004 8:25:34 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
mega bump! you da man Saber :>
2 posted on 01/07/2004 8:28:53 AM PST by KantianBurke (Don't Tread on Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CheneyChick; vikingchick; Victoria Delsoul; WIMom; kmiller1k; mhking; rdb3; Travis McGee; Shermy; ..




FYI


3 posted on 01/07/2004 8:29:26 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: *immigrant_list; A Navy Vet; Lion Den Dan; Free the USA; Libertarianize the GOP; madfly; B4Ranch; ..
ping
5 posted on 01/07/2004 8:31:25 AM PST by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Hear, Hear!! I like the way you think.
6 posted on 01/07/2004 8:31:50 AM PST by RiflemanSharpe (An American for a more socially and fiscally conservation America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
"Mexico must open up to American investment by allowing the sale of real estate to us and guaranteeing property our rights. Getting Mexico to fix its economy is crucial. "

I always put this first. It's such a basic reciprocal item.
Heck, they'd probably have to limit immigration of Americans if we could buy land there.

7 posted on 01/07/2004 8:35:31 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Righter-than-Rush
You may want to change your screen name to Righter-than-Genghis.
8 posted on 01/07/2004 8:37:35 AM PST by Coop (God bless our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
4: Beef up Border Security with manpower, resources, and a Volunteer Reserve, if necessary. No troops, and no messing with posse comitatus, this should be a civilian effort.

The Legislature has a Constitutional power to provide for calling forth the militia to repel invasions, per Article I Section 8, and the Federal government has a Constitutional duty to protect each of the states from invasion under Article IV Section 4.

Why does this need to be a civilian effort given these facts? It seems to me that the State of Arizona should file a suit against the US Government under Article IV Section 4.

9 posted on 01/07/2004 8:38:33 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Agree with your suggestions for fixing the problem -- they need to be sent to all of our Congressmen and Senators IMO. Since Congress has the final say, every Freeper should be sending these and their own comments to their Congressional people.
10 posted on 01/07/2004 8:39:02 AM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Support Bush-Cheney '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
If we really started cracking down I dont think there is alot of employers who would be willing to risk jail or losing their businesses. Maybe we should throw in a bounty to illegals who turn in their own employers as well.
11 posted on 01/07/2004 8:39:45 AM PST by PuNcH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
Why does this need to be a civilian effort given these facts?

"Invasion" has a specific meaning in law, particularly with respect to international borders.

Unless you are saying that this is an actual invasion being conducted by the Mexican government, it's a civil law enforcement issue, and the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the military for civil law enforcement.

12 posted on 01/07/2004 8:41:50 AM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Karl Rove is Grima Wormtongue.
Is President Bush King Theoden?
Will Tom Tancredo accept the role of Gandalf?
Ron Paul as Aragorn?
AAARRRGGGGHHHH!!! Sauroman has poisened the RNC's tiny weak brain!!
13 posted on 01/07/2004 8:42:40 AM PST by Xthe17th ("What is the use of being elected or re-elected unless you stand for something?" - Grover Cleveland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
The Legislature has a Constitutional power to provide for calling forth the militia to repel invasions, per Article I Section 8, and the Federal government has a Constitutional duty to protect each of the states from invasion under Article IV Section 4.

Why does this need to be a civilian effort given these facts? It seems to me that the State of Arizona should file a suit against the US Government under Article IV Section 4.

Because the invasion is civilian, not military, and because we civilians are perfectly capable of accomplishing the task.

Troops on the borders and walls on the borders are examples of unrealistic, unnecessary, and counterproductive rhetorical overkill. We can solve the problem of Illegals asymmetrically.

The biggest problems with border enforcement are in the interior, not at the border. Enforce the law beyond the border, and the border will become more secure, as the incentive of a safe zone for Illegals will be removed.


14 posted on 01/07/2004 8:43:42 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Revised and updated for today's announcement. Feel free to add your own!
I don't think there is anything to add. Nice post, thanks.
15 posted on 01/07/2004 8:43:54 AM PST by wjcsux (DemocRATS, out of touch with America, out of touch with reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Thouughtless people on both sides of the debate jawbone about silly ideas like building a wall at the Mexican border, or house to house searches, as though they were viable solutions, or the only alternatives to Amnesty ore the status quo.

Exactly! Even if those ideas worked, there are much easier ways to stop this attack on our borders and our sovereignty.

This invasion of our country could have been stopped years ago, easily.

But unfortunately, the political elite in DC have no desire to implement these solutions. It' not part of their agenda, not part of their plan.

16 posted on 01/07/2004 8:44:20 AM PST by Joe Hadenuf (I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Of course Mexico stole property from Americans
in 1934.
They nationalized all American assets in Mexico.
FDR did nothing about this, in fact he would have
nationalized American land and companies if he had
dared.
17 posted on 01/07/2004 8:44:43 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (A little knowledge is dangerous.-- I live dangerously::))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
I have one:
 
SABERTOOTH FOR PRESIDENT!!!
 

Owl_Eagle

" WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
DIVERSITY IS STRENGTH"


18 posted on 01/07/2004 8:45:32 AM PST by South Hawthorne (Fly Eagles Fly, On the Road to Victory! Fly Eagles Fly, Score a Touchdown One Two Three!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
With you all the way on this. You could append #12 by saying that no child born in this country will automatically become a citizen of the U.S. unless one of the parents is themselves a citizen. The other parent must at minimum legally able to reside here. If not, then the child reverts to the citizenship status of the non citizen parent.
19 posted on 01/07/2004 8:45:34 AM PST by SpinyNorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Yesterday's White House press release was posted here in Illegals proposal focuses on work as reported in the Washinton Times. That thread has gotten little attention so I'll post my replies to the White House here.

Illegal immigrants who can prove they have jobs can stay in the country legally for three years.

And those who can't will just keep doing what they are doing.

In that period, they can bring family members to the United States and enjoy rights now reserved for Americans and for foreigners with permanent-resident status, including Social Security benefits.

They already bring their family members and legal status means paying taxes. This will be a step down for them.

"It will protect the rights of illegal workers who now live in the shadows and are fearful of coming out of the shadows for fear of deportation," a White House official said yesterday.

With only 130,000 deportations a year these 10 million illegals have little to fear and they don't live in the shadows.

Mr. Bush's guest-worker proposal, which Congress must approve, would be "temporary in nature. One must go home upon conclusion of the program."

Sounds like a major disincentive to sign up for the program. But wait ...

During the three-year period, the aliens would have permission to leave the country and come back as needed, and could renew their three-year involvement in the program, the official said.

I see; so they'll be permanently temporary!?!

But the official said the two programs -- temporary-work status and permanent residence -- essentially will be "two separate doors" foreign workers must walk through.

No problemo. They are already skilled at jumping fences to avoid walking through doors.

"The temporary-worker program is a way to work here legally short of the United States citizenship, under a certain set of conditions. ... And then door number two is the normal naturalization process, which includes permanent legal status. We're trying not to blur those two things together."

You're doing a bangup job of it for not trying.

While acquiring a green card can take as long as six years, the official said illegal aliens can re-enroll for the new Bush program, which means that many will be able to remain in the United States until they get permanent-resident status.

Ahh! Now I see why you say you're not blurring the line. You're obliterating it!

Illegal aliens who enroll in the program will have no fear of deportation and can come and go between the United States and their country of citizenship "as they wish," a White House official said.

They already do. I think this White House official needs to take a walk and clear his head.
May I suggest Ft. Marcy Park?


20 posted on 01/07/2004 8:47:47 AM PST by TigersEye (Regime change in the courts. - Impeach activist judges!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-171 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson