Immigration

                The House of Representatives is balking on new immigration laws because the President of the United States cannot be trusted to enforce current laws.  House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) recently said, “Listen, there’s widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws.  And it’s going to be difficult to move any immigration legislation until that changes.”

                On January 30, 2014, the House released principles for immigration reform that would allow illegal immigrants to live “legally” in our nation.  They are, however, apparently backtracking on their plans.  Maybe their change of action came because they were called out on it.

                Derrick Morgan, vice president of domestic and economic policy at The Heritage Foundation, shot down the plan, claiming that “the framework is essentially the same as the Senate bill they say they will not go to conference with.  It includes everything from border security, to visa tracking, to employment verification and reform of the legal immigration system in additional to amnesty.

                “The standards follow the logic that it is best to address all immigration problems this session of Congress, even if in different bills.  The standards follow the Senate’s approach of promising border security and workplace enforcement (through typically meaningless `triggers’) in exchange for immediate amnesty of those here unlawfully.”

                Mr. Morgan reminded his readers that the United States tried amnesty in the 1980s when Congress passed a bill and President Ronald Reagan signed it into law.  The law was supposed to solve our immigration problems once and for all time.  It provided amnesty for about 3 million illegal immigrants while promising border security and workplace enforcement.  “Unfortunately, the promises were not kept.  Today more than 10 million unlawful immigrants reside in the United States.  Instead of repeating past mistakes, a truly step-by-step process would be to ensure border and workplace laws are being enforced, period.  The only real way to be sure that unlawful immigration has been stopped is to count the number of unlawful immigrants in the census.

                So many people are talking in circles about the immigration topic that I have a difficult time understanding exactly what they are saying.  I appreciate the following explanation given by Mr. Morgan:  “Some have confused the terms `amnesty’ and `path to citizenship,’ implying or stating that a new path to citizenship would be amnesty, but legal status is not.  Allowing those in the country unlawfully to stay and work in the United States, i.e. granting legal status, is amnesty.  Granting a path to citizenship is actually amnesty plus.  Others insist that because legal status is not automatic or has some conditions, it is not amnesty.  Some describe these proposals as `earned legalization.’  Their argument also falls short.”

                Mr. Morgan quoted other experts at Heritage to support his position.  In analyzing the term amnesty used in the 2007 debate over immigration reform, Heritage’s Matthew Spalding concluded that “the granting of legal status is still `amnesty’ even if it is conditional and not automatic or does not necessarily end in citizenship.”

                David Addington at Heritage explained the term “amnesty.”  “The term `amnesty’ is often used loosely with reference to aliens unlawfully in the United States.  Sometimes it refers to converting the status of an alien from unlawful to lawful, either without conditions or on a condition such as a payment of a fee to the government.  Sometimes it refers to granting lawful authority for an alien unlawfully in the U.S. to remain in the U.S., become a lawful permanent resident, or even acquire citizenship by naturalization, either without conditions or on a condition such as payment of a fee to the government or performance of particular types of work for specified periods.  Amnesty comes in many forms, but in all its variations, it discourages respect for the law, treats law-breaking aliens better than law-following aliens and encourages future unlawful immigration into the United States.”

                I believe that amnesty in any form is wrong for our nation.  How can we be a nation of laws when our own government rewards those people who break the law?  We should have learned from the amnesty program in the 1980s that amnesty does not work but in fact makes the problem worse.  I believe that our nation must stop granting citizenship to the children of those who come to our nation illegally.  If the parents are illegal, then the children should be considered illegal; therefore, the entire family should be deported.    If we insist on granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born on our soil, then we should still deport the entire family and allow the children to come back when they become adults and can prove they are capable of providing for themselves.  I believe that our nation must start using our brains to solve this problem and stop letting emotions make our decisions.  My bottom line is that we should enforce the immigration laws now on the books before we even consider new laws.

Kill the Immigration Bill

                The Senate of the United States passed the immigration bill last month, and the U.S. House of Representatives is now discussing various aspects of immigration.  All we hear is that our immigration system is “broken” and must be fixed.  The system is not broken, but the enforcement of our present laws is “broken.”  If our current laws were enforced, we would not need a brand new law; we would need only some minor tweaking of the current laws if anything at all.

                William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, are two conservatives who rarely agree with each other about immigration; however, they both agree that the immigration bill passed by our Senate “is a comprehensive mistake.  House Republicans should kill it without reservation.”  The two men authored an article entitled “Kill the Bill” which explained why they think the bill is a terrible mistake. 

“There is no case for the bill, and certainly no urgency to pass it.  During the debate over immigration in 2006-07, Republican rhetoric at times had a flavor that communicated a hostility to immigrants as such.  That was a mistake, and it did political damage.  This time has been different.  The case against the bill has been as responsible as it has been damning.

“It’s become clear that you can be pro-immigrant and pro-immigration, and even favor legalization of the 11 million illegal immigrants who are here and increases in some categories of legal immigration – and vigorously oppose this bill.”

The authors listed the “fatal” deficiencies in the bill.  1) “It doesn’t solve the illegal-immigration problem” but is “riddled with exceptions, loopholes, and waivers.”  [This sounds like Obamacare!]  “The CBO looked at the bill and concluded that “about 7.5 million illegal immigrants here in ten years.”  2) “Everyone professes to agree that our system should be tilted toward high-skilled immigration, but the Gang of Eight bill unleashes a flood of additional low-skilled immigration.  The last thing low-skilled native and immigrant workers already here should have to deal with is wage-depressing competition from newly arriving workers.”  Our nation does not need more poor people receiving entitlements!  3) “Finally, there is the sheer size of the bill and the hasty manner in which it was amended and passed.”

The authors elaborated:  “Conservatives have eloquently and convincingly made the case against bills like this during the Obama years.  Such bills reflect a mistaken belief in central planning and in practice become a stew of deals, payoffs, waivers, and special-interest breaks.  Why would House Republicans now sign off on this kind of lawmaking?  If you think Obamacare and Dodd-Frank are going swimmingly, you’ll love the Gang of Eight bill.  It’s the opposite of conservative reform, which simplifies and limits government, strengthens the rule of law, and empowers citizens. 

“There is no rush to act on immigration….”

The article concluded:  “House Republicans may wish to pass incremental changes to the system to show that they have their own solutions, even though such legislation is very unlikely to be taken up by the Senate.  Or they might not even bother, since Senate Democrats say such legislation would be dead on arrival.  In any case, House Republicans should make sure not to allow a conference with the Senate bill.  House Republicans can’t find any true common ground with that legislation.  Passing any version of the Gang of Eight’s bill would be worse public policy than passing nothing.  House Republicans can do the country a service by putting a stake through its heart.”

The Washington Post reported that Democrats are targeting Republicans in the House.  “If there is a vote on comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship in the House, it will pass with a bipartisan majority.  If all but a handful of the House Democrats vote yes, and at least 20 Republicans from the list below come along, reform can easily clear the 218 necessary to pass the lower chamber.  Looking at the list of 99 House Republicans below, it’s clear that capturing those 20 or so Republican votes is well within reach.”

The “target list includes several different groups of Republicans.”  1) “Republicans with growing numbers of Latino and Asian constituents…..”  2) “Republicans with agricultural or high-tech interests in their districts….” 3) “Republicans who understand the need for the Party to tackle immigration reform for its own future….”

Alaska’s own Representative Don Young is one of those Republicans that have been targeted.  Alaska’s numbers of Latino constituents is apparently “growing” and has reached the huge number of 5.50% of Alaskans.  Since both our Senators voted for the Senate immigration bill, Alaskans would be wise to contact Congressman Young and make sure he knows how you feel about the Senate bill.

The Heritage Foundation  listed ten problems with the Gang of Eight bill.  1) “Grants amnesty to 11.5 million illegal immigrants, encouraging more law-breaking in the future.”  2) “Border security `triggers.’ [The bill] authorizes billions of spending with no guarantee of border security.”  3) “Cost to taxpayers.  Trillions of dollars go to government services for those who get amnesty.”  4) “Spending.  [The bill] worsens our entitlement spending and debt crisis.”  5) “Bureaucracy expansion.  [There will be] more government offices, task forces, and commissions.”  6) “Sweeping powers for Homeland Security [are] hidden in the 1,000-page bill.”  7) “Unfair.  More than 4 million people are waiting to come to U.S. legally.  8) “Disregard for federalism.  [The bill] hinders states from meeting local needs.”  9) “Special interests and ear marks. [The bill contains] pork project and [is] a boon for lawyers.  10) “Fails on opportunity.  [The bill] fosters dependence on government.”

                There are many reasons why the Gang of Eight bill passed by the Senate should be killed by the House of Representatives.  We must let our representatives know that we do not like the bill and ask them to vote against it.