Skip to comments.Splitting the Difference on Illegal Immigration (They can stay, but they can't become citizens.)
Posted on 02/24/2013 8:22:30 PM PST by neverdem
In the controversy over illegal immigration that has roiled our politics for decades, the image of "living in the shadows" has been invoked by all sides. For immigrant advocates, "the shadows" are where the undocumented are harassed by overzealous law-enforcement officers and exploited by unscrupulous landlords and employers. For many other Americans, "living in the shadows" conjures vaguely sinister intruders using public services to which they are not entitled and preying on law-abiding Americans through illicit activities and crime.
Yet regardless of one's views on the issue, this imagery is profoundly misleading. It helps to perpetuate the myths and exaggerations that have made our immigration debate so fruitless. Undocumented immigrants are hardly mere victims of economic or political forces beyond their control. But neither are they dangerous criminals or public charges lurking on the fringes of our society. Rather, they are responsible agents who have made difficult choices in a complicated and risky environment an environment for which all Americans bear some blame.
These choices produce both beneficial and negative consequences for the nation and for the immigrants themselves. And our policies must contend with both sets of effects. If we are to find our way to a solution, we must examine the genuine predicament of the millions of illegal immigrants in our midst without ignoring the legitimate concerns millions of Americans have about their presence.
If we succeeded in removing the hyperbole and stereotypes from the immigration debate, our politics might open itself to a balanced approach to the problem: legalization for as many undocumented immigrants as possible, but citizenship for none of them. Under this proposal, illegal immigrants who so desired could become "permanent non-citizen residents" with no option of ever naturalizing...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalaffairs.com ...
What part of “illegal” are these people having trouble with?
No, not a good idea. All of them have to be deported.
The argument from the left is that they are difficult to ‘track’.
Newt said it best: “The USPS, FedEx and UPS track 23 million packages per day while the packages are enroute and we can’t find 14 million people?”
I vote for making them very uncomfortable and deporting them when we catch them.
Last summer here in Michigan we ended up giving migrants welfare due to the lack of work caused by the drought. Now the farmers are claiming they need more migrants because the ones who got welfare have scattered.
OK, last time:
THEY DON’T WANT TO BE CITIZENS!!!
The desire of the illegals is to get a paper saying they can stay here legally. That ENDS the process for them. No going back of the line. No paid fines and taxes. CERTAINLY no speeka da Ingles. I would be amazed of .1% of the new recipients of amnesty will even TRY to become citizens.
I will be amazed if fewer than 75% of them DO NOT vote, irrespective of legality.
Just like the did last year.
Oh, and by the way, they want to vote too.
Either way it equates to surrender.
So....they can stay here and not be citizens BUT at the same time the American citizens will pay for their healthcare and every other “free” need they might have!!!
Really, why would they want to become an American citizen and actually have to pay their own way when they can CONTINUE to freeload off from us?
Meaningless...so long as every baby they pop out (and they pop out a ton) are automatically U.S. citizens - making the entire family immediately eligible for a host of social services and welfare, as they are right now.
How long will it take a liberal court to say that second class status is unconstitutional and give them blanket citizenship?
The Democrats and the professional ethnic grievance groups will never accept that. And John Roberts might not either.
Plus, the issue of anchor babies and birthright citizenship would still leave the legalized non-citizens able to produce millions of future Democrats.
But this idea might be worth considering if, and only if, the legalized non-citizens were not allowed to ever sponsor relatives for family-based immigration. That way at least the threads of chain migration wouldn’t be greatly expanded.
How about the opposite...they can become honorary citizens, but they have to return to Mexico...never to return.
Give em a little pin or something.
I give it about 8 months before the Supreme court gets it and rightly makes them citizens.
I say that not because I want it to happen but because I don’t see how the supremes could rule otherwise. Its kind of like the fantasy that they could become non voting citizens.
If they stay, they will become citizens with all the rights of citizens. And in 15 to 20 years we’ll be electing a president for life who prefers to be called “General” like every other marxist latin American hell hole.
"Legal permanent residents are also not eligible for all social programs. For example, since 1996, they have been ineligible to receive Medicaid benefits during their first five years in the United States, after which time their coverage is at the discretion of individual states. Similarly, legal permanent residents who have contributed to Social Security and are otherwise entitled to benefits may have them suspended if they remain outside the United States for more than six consecutive months."
You should have read it. The article didn't mention Medicare, Obamacare or welfare. I don't know where states are getting the money.
Not only deport hem, but refuse to let them mooch welfare and other goodies!
That’s the ticket. Tattoo bar codes on their foreheads.
"Finally, legal permanent residents cannot obtain U.S. visas for immediate family members outside of established quotas."
This country is on national suicide watch and is determined to carry it out.
I don't think anything would pass Congress without addressing anchor babies.
Yes, thanks for point that out. If ‘established quotas’ weren’t increased, then again it might be worth considering. But in the fantasy where Democrats would go along with something like this, I envision the quotas for family-based immigration being greatly increased.
They’re already entitled via Obamacare. And the fines don’t apply to them, just us citizens.
Illegal aliens broke the law. They should be awarded citizenship for it? There are plenty of resident aliens in the U.S.
That's not how it works here in Washington state.
No proof of citizenship or legal residence is required to get Food Stamps.
I believe that's true everywhere since the USDA is running TV ads in Mexico and border states (multiple postings here at FR) that explain how to sign up.
Also, Permanent Residents are instantly covered 100% for pregnancy and child birth.
Also, Permanent Residents are instantly eligible for AFDC.
Also here in Washington state, Permanent Resident children are instantly eligible for Medicaid.
PR adults are instantly eligible to file for SSI Disability after arriving in the USA, and they are instantly eligible for Medicaid while their claim is being adjudicated.
PR children may instantly file for SSI Disability.
PR families are instantly eligible to file applications for federally subsidized housing, but the waiting period can sometimes be years.
Let's face reality - it's only a matter of months before some Federal judge confers automatic citizenship on this new “class” of special Americans.
Did I mention that 80% of new immigrant citizens vote for the Democrat Party?
Forgot to mention one thing....
In Washington state NO adult - citizen, PR, or illegal - is eligible for Medicaid unless he is completely disabled or has an active disability claim.
Anything other than deporting Illegal Aliens is Amnesty. Its like dealing w a 2yr old at nap time with all these different Amnesty ideas
Deport Deport Deport
You miss the last two elections? We have already arrived my friend.
We could just enforce the law as it is? - 12 years of repeating this.
I say I’ll support amnesty, if those that are given a pass this time and in future grants, that they are NOT allowed to vote for 25 years...
Then watch the feathers fly...
That’s no damn good, if they are allowed to work it’s just as bad as giving them citizenship.
They register and vote now, get welfare, food stamps. etc. so citizenship meams nothing to them.
I gather the writer is of the opinion that if a robber,a la illegal immigrant, comes into my house ,known or unknown, and helps himself to food in my kitchen along with other uses of the house I must first think of why he would do such acts. If my house is too narrow of a consideration just think of an apartment building. To close the matter I must think of a means to make the intruder feel good about/after his actions. NONSENSE
“How long will it take a liberal court to say that second class status is unconstitutional and give them blanket citizenship?”
About 10 seconds.
Use asset forfeiture on the foreign nationals who chose to squat here because they feel like it
The prospect of losing the wealth that they acquire while while being here illegally will inspire them to return to their own countries.
And those who don’t leave on their own get deported. It’s the law.
Why is it impossible to get the political hacks we elect to enforce our laws? Since when do they get to ignore the law because they think it will win them votes?
Actually it’s not.
No thanks, I don’t think they should be allowed to stay because they have broken so many laws, they don’t give a dam about the charge they are on every body else and they are an immoral people. I could go on.
When is the treatment of American citizens in Mexico and their rights vs US treatment of Mexicans going to be an issue when we discuss amnesty ?
THIS question; Should Mexican citizens when in the US be given the same rights American citizens are given while in Mexico has yet to appear on any US legislator’s questionaire from either chamber. Ask your congrressman/senator why it isn’t. What makes it necessary for US to subjugate our sovereignty because of available cheap labor ?
Ever hear of reciprocal aggrements ? These are arranged to protect the rights of American citizens working or living in other countries.
Why is it when it comes to citizens of other countries we are required to offer them the same privledges as we do to US citizens? But when it comes to US citizens who get in trouble or attempt to do business in other countries they do not get the same treatment their citizens get.
Americans cant own coast land in Mexico. And get no title to it elsewhere. If they run out of cash theyll get unceremoniously sent back or put in jail untill some relative comes up with the fresh. Thats just for starters as for granting them voting privledges yea lets give Mexican citizens that right when American citizens vote in their elections .
You are NOT going to deport them. Too many are part of households where legal residents lives. Too many are protected by business interests. Too many are protected by Democratic politicians who will not enforce the law.
That is the worst of both worlds.
We end up a huge class of disaffected individuals lacking the status of citizens or even legal immigrants. Can you say “uprising” and “insurrection?” How ‘bout “vote fraud” and “identity theft?”
I knew you could!
I’ve got a better idea. They can stay but we get to hunt them like the vermin they are. If they manage to survive for 15 years then they can go to the end of the list to be naturalized. If they further survive until they get sworn in then they are citizens. (of course once they go on the list their names, addresses and photos get published as well as their illegal status)
Some talking points (to form the basis of a rational discussion - recognizing that may be an oxymoron in the leftist vocabulary):
- Close the borders (that way criminals will not emigrate here, deported criminals will stay deported, and illegal immigration will be minimized - without this, no other immigration reform makes any sense, but this is already the law, so it’s should only be a matter of enforcing it)
- Eliminate the provision of anchor babies automatically becoming citizens (they get in line with all others seeking to emigrate)
- Deport illegal criminals
- Don’t allow non-citizens to vote (this should go without saying, and it is not the law in several states, but, without voter ID, it cannot be enforced - the argument that it is difficult for some to obtain an ID is an excuse)
- Don’t allow non-citizens to obtain free social programs (this would eliminate people staying here or coming here who are only looking for a handout)
It equates to reality. They’re never going to be mass deported. They are too integrated into our economy. So the next best politically feasible outcome may be a permanent residency without any citizenship, but with fines and limitations, etc.
We’ve got a current welfare burden that needs to be managed. You won’t get deportation. Now what?
When laws are enforced the illegals self deport. How do you think they got here? You are playing into the statist gloBULList hands. Are you employing illegals right now? What are your motives for that ludicrous statement?
They can leave and can’t become citizens.
It's called political reality. Ping me when you've passed your solution to illegal immigration. I want to head downtown to watch the deportation of all the illegals in Chicago.
Conservatves need to figure out how to maintain their standards while achieving politically realistic goals. This is how we lose power. It's short-sighted and immature - despite your age.
enforce laws = illegals self deport. It is that simple.
You are wrong and I see no reason why you cant find a home at the DU. I noticed you didn’t answer my question do you employ illegals or otherwise make money off illegals? Well do you?
OK, get your law passed and enforced. It’s that simple.
You think I am wrong? Your next sentence is too long and should read, “I can see no reason”. Have you ever been to DU?
They hate ideas, thinking and free speech. If you don’t agree with them they say inane things like “Are you a FReeper?” or “Why don’t you go post at FR!” and I left out all the swearing and vulagarity.
Did you notice I didn’t answer your question, again? Conspiracy? I think not!