Still Favor Amnesty, Still Disgusted With Obama

As those who read this little blog regularly know, I’ve been in favor of amnesty since 2007. Let me recap why:

Given the large number of illegal immigrants we have in this nation and the long period of time many millions of them have resided here, it is just not practical nor merciful nor just to deport them all. It is not practical because that many people would take massive resources to detect, arrest and move back to their home nations (they aren’t all from Mexico, after all). It is not merciful because ripping people from homes they’ve lived in for years is just not something that I, as a Christian, could ever support. It is not just because, in the end, we invited these people in. Sure, it was with a wink and a nod. Sure, many people have long been opposed and some tried hard to change the system – but on the whole not only was no real effort made to get them out, but plenty of efforts were made to entice them in.

Because of all that, I have favored amnesty – my basic idea was that if a person has been here for a number of years (5, 7, take your pick) without breaking any laws other than (a) crossing the border and (b) those laws which an illegal has to get around to stay here, then I figure we should allow them to stay. No fines. No going to the back of the line. Just have them come forward boldly and accept their green cards. If they stay a further five years and go through the citizenship process, then they become citizens…if they don’t, then back home, indeed, they go (I don’t want a class of people in this nation who refuse to become citizens – become American, or go back home). Anyone who has been here less time who is a criminal will be immediately deported (if not jailed for their crimes), those who have no criminal background will be provided with funds for transportation back to their place of origin, plus a bit extra – I’d want to entice such people to come forward for what amounts to voluntary deportation. That is the amnesty. Now, on to the rest of it:

The reason we have had all these illegals coming here is because our Ruling Class wants them here – those most concerned with politics were looking for a permanent underclass who could be bribed via welfare to vote Democrat; those most concerned with economics were looking for a permanent underclass who could be made to work for less than their labor is worth (I’ll never forget that time I saw illegals working on house construction on Christmas Day…no American would ever agree to that; but Big Corporation has no problem with a sub-contractor hiring illegals who can be made to work on Christmas…). If we are to amnesty, then we must make certain that the injustice of importing a political and economic underclass is never, ever repeated. And that means very strict border security – border security both in the sense of making the border physically secure, but also coming down like two tons of bricks on anyone who crosses the border illegally and, more important, on anyone who employs – directly or by the ruse of using a sub-contractor – illegal labor. I’m talking 6 months in jail for the illegal, 10 years in jail for the employer (6 months in jail is quite enough punishment to deter illegals who aren’t coming across for criminal activity – it just won’t be worth it for them to make the attempt in service of the goal of money-making if they’ll spend 6 months in jail making no money).

All Obama did yesterday – aside from a bit of Constitution-shredding – is do the bidding of the political race-baiters and those business elements who want cheap labor. It isn’t just or merciful – its a bit of liberal nonsense dressed up in false words of morality. Obama has ensured that the scam continues – and, worse, because now without border security, another 12 million are already lining up to come here, to be the drudges of labor, and the eventual votes for a corrupt political party. After having 24 hours to ponder over it, I’ve found that I am very angry over the whole thing. Disgusted. Nauseated that a President of my nation could do such a cynical, horrid thing and then claim that he’s on the moral high ground.

We’ve got our work cut out for us, good people. We do have to undo Obama. It can be done – but let us keep eyes on the prize. Don’t get distracted. Victory in 2016 is where we can start to restore our Republic, not in getting in a dog fight with someone like Obama. We must endure him for a bit more than two years – that is all.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Still Favor Amnesty, Still Disgusted With Obama

  1. Retired Spook November 22, 2014 / 8:55 am

    The problem we’re faced with today is what happens when you leave your border open and you let 12-20 million people illegally cross it over a period of years. The solution is going to gore someone’s ox. I don’t pretend to have a good solution — I’m not sure there is one, But I do know that I have close to zero confidence that our federal government will fix the problem. More likely is that states, southwestern states in particular, will simply utilize their perfectly proper and constitutional rights of sovereignty and nullification, and deal with the problem themselves.

    • M. Noonan November 22, 2014 / 2:00 pm

      My solution isn’t perfect, but none is. Amazona has some very valid points – but I do think we should offer citizenship as having a class of non-citizens in country is not a good idea in the long run. My main desire is to end the ruthless exploitation of these people – and, remember, the drug gangs are the worst exploiters and they control the border right now as we refuse to.

      • Amazona November 23, 2014 / 10:30 am

        “…..having a class of non-citizens in country is not a good idea in the long run”

        If I thought that being handed citizenship after breaking our most basic laws regarding even being IN this country would somehow, magically, convey with it respect for the country, I might agree with you. If I thought this might be seen as anything but a cruel and hateful insult to the many millions who DID follow our rules, I might agree with you.

        I think it is far more important to have a firm, unyielding message that we ARE a nation of laws, that we agreed to modify a few of them out of humanitarian concerns for people who were actually contributing to the country even though they did break some laws, but that there are still some penalties for breaking those laws. We removed the fine, we removed the intent to return them to their homeland, but we will not act as if their crime never occurred. It did.

        I think it far more dangerous to have a whole demographic growing up in this country with the belief that the laws are selectively applied, and that they are above the law. I am much happier with the scenario of a child asking why his grandfather can’t vote and being told that although the United States allows him to live here and work here, because he broke the law he waived any future claim on citizenship.

        We have to take the stand that citizenship in this country is a precious thing, something of value, and it has to be EARNED. Those who wanted to become citizens went through the process. Those who just wanted to take advantage of what the country has to offer bypassed the process, and by doing so they bypassed the outcome of going through the process. We cheapen the very idea of citizenship here by handing it out so freely..

        In addition to that, handing out citizenship to those who did bypass the process would be a major slap in the face to every person who struggled to obey our laws and showed their respect for the country by putting in the time and energy and paying out the many many thousands of dollars necessary to go through the process. I would much rather have some people sulk because they didn’t get citizenship on top of all the other concessions handed out to them than to tell those who did respect the country and paid the price we asked that our word is worth nothing.

        If we start handing out citizenship so freely, then I think we have to go back into the records and repay every single penny ever spent by every single person who showed respect for this country in his or her struggle to prove to be worthy of becoming a citizen, along with an apology for betraying them later and some sort of compensation for the other costs they incurred along the way. We will never be able to overcome the message we will be sending these people: “The United States of America cannot be trusted, and its word is worthless.”

  2. Amazona November 22, 2014 / 10:56 am

    I have been, to a great extent, in agreement with your basic ideas, with the very large objection to any road to citizenship for anyone who broke our laws.

    Amnesty is, at heart, merely the waiving of a penalty. The penalty for being here illegally is so meager, I have no problem in waiving it—-therefore, in granting true amnesty.

    Amnesty is not rewarding people for breaking a law. It is merely the waiving of the penalty for doing so. Therefore, true amnesty would not include any path to citizenship at any time nor would it include free food, housing and medical care, or the right to compete with American workers for American jobs. We can agree to not apply the legal penalty for breaking our laws, but we absolutely should NOT reward the breaking of those laws.

    My own solution would be to engage in TRUE comprehensive reform, which would have to begin with passing a law making it a felony to be here without proper permission from our government, and establishing serious penalties for breaking this law.

    Then, in a bill that would have to pass at the same time, we would establish a timeline, such as 90 days, for illegals to register. This would involve filling out a questionnaire, answered under penalty of perjury, dealing with how long the person has been in the country, if he or she is employed, where and for how long, has he or she ever been arrested, when and where and for what, has he or she paid taxes on his or her income, etc. We could agree to waive penalties for not paying taxes, even for using someone else’s SS number or ID, if we were serious about getting true answers.

    Upon registration, the illegal immigrant would receive a TEMPORARY visa, clearly identified as such and conditional upon certain things, such as not committing a crime. This visa would be only for the duration of the investigation into the person’s history and claims. Anyone with fingerprints on file for an arrest for which he or she did not appear in court for a hearing or trial or even sentencing would be deported. Anyone without proof of employment would be deported. Anyone caught after the registration period who has not registered would be punished according to the new law and then deported. As you can see, the deportation process would be specific to certain violations, and gradual, not all at once, as it would take place as violations are discovered. (I believe that many would return home voluntarily when the registration period ends, rather than risk being detained and face the mandatory penalty for being here without the approved temporary visa.

    The fine for violating the law and just being here without papers would be waived—-therefore, amnesty.

    When a person has passed the investigative process, he or she would be issued a provisionary work permit, conditional upon attending classes in how to function in America and achieving at least a basic understanding of English. Not to be offensive, but those of us who have been exposed to large numbers of illegal immigrants have learned that for the most part they refuse to flush a toilet, preferring to fill it to overflowing with human waste, and throw soiled toilet paper on the floor. If they want to live here, they simply MUST agree to live as we do, which means finding doctors or clinics for health care and not depending on hospital emergency rooms, using toilet facilities properly, and so on. Their choice—–do it or go home.

    Upon passing the classes in how to function in this country and proving a basic English proficiency the person would receive a work permit for a long period of time—-say 10 or 15 years—-which is conditional upon being employed and not committing crimes. In the last few years of this work permit period, the person has to make a decision—–go home when it expires, or apply for permanent residency.

    He or she can never become a citizen. Ever. This is the one penalty that should never be waived.

    Children who do not speak English must be educated in English-immersion classes separate from mainstream classes, until they achieve the proficiency to participate in regular classes without hindering the education of other students.

    English is officially declared the OFFICIAL LANGUAGE of the United States, and those who lie and claim it this is an English-ONLY law must be immediately and loudly called out for being liars. We have let them get away with this for far too long.

    And we have a strong border, one that actually stops people from entering illegally.

    As for future immigration from Latino nations, we have to halt it, until immigration from other nations has achieved a balance of national origins. Our prior immigration laws, the ones that MADE us a productive nation of productive immigrants, had quotas for different parts of the world, to make sure that no one ethnicity or language or culture could dominate the immigrant portion of our nation. They were also expected to assimilate. These were the cornerstones of an immigration policy that worked, and made this a thriving nation of productive people who thought of themselves as American.

    Membership in anti-American groups such as Aztlan and La Raza should not be given work permits or visas. No one expressing anti-American sentiments should be allowed to stay.

  3. Amazona November 22, 2014 / 11:07 am

    I believe one of the problems we face, that of large poor Latino families huddled in Latino ghettoes and speaking no English, comes from the abandonment of the old bracero program.

    I lived in the mountains, and saw many terrified young mothers, often pregnant and with young children, poorly dressed and unable to deal with the bitter cold, totally out of their depth. I often translated for these people in stores and fast food places. There was a time when young men would come to the United States for seasonal work, live many to a room or apartment, keep their own expenses down, and send money home to wives and family. This allowed the families to have a higher standard of living in their native countries, and the young men could work hard for several months a year and then go home to tend the homes or farms their American money had bought and be with their families in comfort, on their own land or in their own houses. These young women could continue in their traditions, being close to mamas and aunties and friends as they rear their children, go through pregnancy, give birth, deal with illness, and go through the stages of life.

    When a young man has to bring his wife and children with him, they are forced to live in abject poverty. Not only do they have a much lower standard of living, they no longer have the ability to become property owners in their own countries.

    I believe that reestablishing a seasonal worker program, and then paying for the return tickets for the families that have been brought up here, would be the most humanitarian thing we could do. We would allow these families to live well, to acquire property in their own countries, to live in their own cultures, and at the same time accommodate the needs of businesses that need seasonal workers here in the United States.

    • M. Noonan November 22, 2014 / 1:58 pm

      A guest-worker program must be part of any rational immigration reform – and, you’re right, by shoving these people into slums we’re doing no one any favors…except race-baiters, of course.

  4. tiredoflibbs November 26, 2014 / 8:53 am

    Obame (pronounced obey-me, for you slow witted leftists out there) admits to exceeding his Constitutuional authority with his executive order….. So much for a “Constitutional scholar”.

    ““What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.”

    He replied to pro-amnesty hecklers at his press conference errrr……. speech.

    Now to you mindless drones, this pResident or any President for that matter has NO authority to change ANY law. That authority lies with Congress. So again, obame bypasses Congress. These are actions of a king or dictator and not a President of the United States.

  5. Amazona November 26, 2014 / 9:27 am

    But it’s not just making new laws regarding illegal immigration. King Obama has been a very busy king. (emphasis mine)

    http://www.redstate.com/2014/11/25/amid-ferguson-thanksgiving-obamas-rolling-3415-new-regulations/

    The Daily Caller explains that Obama’s Unified Agenda for Fall 2014 “includes some 3,415 regulations– more than the last regulatory agenda, and one that includes 189 rules that cost more than \$100 million.” So what exactly is in the list of over 3,400 new regulations? The highlights include some controversial new EPA regulations that continue the agency’s power grab. As the article explains:

    One of the most contentious rules is the Environmental Protection Agency rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing power plants. According to the agenda, these rules will be finalized in 2015.

    They have been criticized by Republicans and the coal industry for accelerating the demise of coal-fired power and for setting the stage for increases in electricity prices. Republicans, who are set to take control of the Senate next year, have vowed to fight EPA regulations.

    A more pressing EPA rule set to be finalized is the so-called coal ash rule for coal-fired power plants. A final rule will be issued by Dec. 19, and could be bad news for the power sector, which will bear the brunt of $20.3 billion in compliance costs.

    But probably the most fought-over rules to be finalized by the EPA next year will be its redefining of the “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. The EPA will issue its redefinition next year, according to the agenda

    • Retired Spook November 26, 2014 / 10:06 am

      But probably the most fought-over rules to be finalized by the EPA next year will be its redefining of the “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. The EPA will issue its redefinition next year, according to the agenda

      One would hope that a GOP House and a GOP Senate will put the clamps on any such action. If the EPA is allowed to control every stream, ditch and farm pond in the U.S., I think that would be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back in terms of public push-back.

      • Amazona November 26, 2014 / 11:38 am

        The first time I was aware of the EPA overreach and power grab was when Clinton issued a presidential edict late one Friday afternoon concerning the Heritage River policy, in which the feds assumed rights previously exercised by states regarding management of rivers in those states by claiming national interest in what are called “Heritage” rivers. This allowed the feds to arbitrarily include pretty much any river in the country in this designation, stripping the states of authority over them or their water.

        Right now anyone who has a patch of land that sometimes retains water and has some plants that tend to prefer wetter land is running the risk of the feds coming in and calling it a “wetlands” and taking over. I ran into this in Wyoming—–I had a large hay field that had been damaged by spillage from the uphill neighbor’s badly maintained ditch system, and the feds said I couldn’t drain it to reclaim it for agriculture as it was now a “wetlands”. I pointed out that there is a difference between wet land and wetlands, and that this field had never been adjudicated as a wetlands, and they finally mumbled that they could make that determination if they wanted to.

        The EPA has become a branch of government, not through the Constitution but by presidential edicts during Democrat administrations.

  6. Retired Spook November 26, 2014 / 1:59 pm

    What do you think’s going to happen the first time a property owner responds to an EPA order with “piss off”, and the EPA sends in a SWAT team? Unless the GOP Congress can seriously defund the EPA, I can easily see such a scenario in the near future.

Comments are closed.