Illegal immigration. Is it a crime or not?

posted at 8:31 am on February 16, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

The President has been back out on the road again, spinning heartwarming tales and pushing for his second term agenda, as you’d expect any recently reelected leader to do. I’ll confess that I had a hard time paying attention to a lot of it, what with asteroids crashing to Earth on poop filled cruise ships and all, but there was one theme which caught my attention. He’s going all in on the hot new fad of comprehensive immigration reform.

President Barack Obama told a group of Senate Democrats Wednesday that Congress must move forward with comprehensive immigration reform, or else he will propose his own legislation on the hot-button topic…

In a description of Wednesday’s meeting, the White House said Obama “reiterated the key principles he believes must be a part of any bipartisan, commonsense effort, including continuing to strengthen border security, creating an earned path to citizenship, holding employers accountable and streamlining legal immigration.”

Everyone seems to be talking about it these days, and not just Democrats. Republicans from Marco Rubio to John McCain have their own proposals, many of which involve some form of what the President is talking about. You can call it a “path to citizenship” or amnesty or Expedited Entry… whatever you like. But for some reason there are still quite a few of us who hear proposals such as these and get an uneasy feeling. For some of us, it may even be hard to quantify exactly what’s wrong. But if you harbor any such qualms, of course, you will be immediately labeled… say it with me…

A racist.

Whatever. But as I considered the question this week, I realized that there might be a better way to describe exactly why this sounds troubling. And to understand it, you really need to talk about the story of Ray Bowman and William Kirkpatrick. Those names might not be familiar unless you lived in the Pacific Northwest in the 90s, but they were something of a legend. In a career spanning more than 16 years they robbed 28 banks around the country for a total of more than $7 million. I’m not going all anti-hero worship on you here, but you’ve got to admit… in terms of raw focus and mission attention, these guys were good. They stole a LOT of money without getting caught.

But the law finally caught up with them, and in 1999 they went to trial and were sent to lengthy stretches in the Crowbar Motel. Now here’s the thing about their story… during the trial, not one person – not in the media, the public, the courts or the government – not one single person stood up to say anything remotely like the following:

You know, yeah… okay.. they stole the money. But they’ve had it for a really long time now. And their families are depending on it for retirement and the kids’ college. Some of it is invested in various places and we’d have to draw it out. Maybe, after all this time, we should just let them keep it.

Why did nobody say that? The answer is because they broke the law and they got caught. This applies for virtually any other law you could name… except for illegal immigration. As things stand now, crossing the border without the proper authorization and paperwork is a crime. Beyond that, continuing to stay here without said credentials is also a crime. If you do this, you are committing a crime each and every day that you are here. But for some reason, we seem to be reaching the point where we’re fine with treating this as more of a game of Red Rover Red Rover. Yes, it’s a crime to come over the border uninvited, but if you make it to home base, maybe we’ll just forget about it.

Now, before the inevitable, hollow argument comes flying back at me here, I’m not talking about anything resembling the statute of limitations. (Why we have a statute of limitations is a debate for another day.) Bowman and Kirkpatrick kept committing crimes all through their run. And people who are here illegally continue to break the law every single day by the simple fact of being in the country. If you want to have a discussion about a statute on illegal immigration where people can leave for seven years and have it dropped from their record… fine. We can have that debate. But it doesn’t apply to this situation.

Allow me to also answer the second, inevitable question which crops up every time we have this discussion. No, I have no idea what to do about the five million or twelve million or twenty million illegal immigrants currently breaking the law every single day in this country. I have not even the beginning of a hint as to what should be done about it. I also don’t know what to do about the 90% of robberies that go unsolved each year. But I’m pretty sure that the answer isn’t to decriminalize theft.

I’ve had some conflicting feelings about this immigration question myself, I confess. But America either is or it is not a nation of laws. If we are to change our system so that entering our nation without permission is no longer a crime – or at least not that serious of one – then lawmakers need to make that clear. But don’t tell us you’re doing it just because you can’t figure out how to stop people from breaking the law. And if keeping control of our borders and retaining management of who does or does not enter is still an important priority and a criminal matter, that should be made clear also. What we’re getting out of Washington now is static, clarifying nothing and selling a feel-good product which doesn’t seem to address any of these questions.

Discuss.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Like I said, when you’re reduced to crying racism, you’ve probably lost the argument. And you have.

xblade on February 16, 2013 at 3:31 PM

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck….

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 3:43 PM

That laborer was equal to two of us in terms of energy and work ethic — after all, we knew we will get the job done by sundown, and we started off easy. We have to dig out old concrete footings that go almost three feet into the ground — and this guy who looks like he’s 60 years old is having at it like his life depends on getting each one out of the ground.

unclesmrgol

And at night, when cowardly Americans have retired to the safety of their homes, this laborer dons a cape and a mask to hide his identity as he fights the crime that Americans won’t fight. He actually has the strength of 10 men, not 2, and he can leap tall buildings in a single bound.

LOL….

xblade on February 16, 2013 at 3:44 PM

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Not sinning is a far cry from actively subverting the law which is what you are advocating.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck….

unclesmrgol

Yeah, we got your surrender the first time. Now quack off, amnesty shill.

xblade on February 16, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Just my view.

Liam on February 16, 2013 at 2:23 PM

The liberals have taken ownership of the “free immigration” side of the debate — when, in reality, that’s a conservative position, if we judge by the words of Abraham Lincoln which I’ve used over and over in debate on this topic. Those words never grow old and they never lose their meaning.

The original American Dream was that anyone could come to America, work hard, and have an amazingly better life for their efforts. Now, were the Know Nothings — the nativist party of Abraham Lincoln’s time — for or against this ideal? And what was Abraham Lincoln’s response to being nominated as the Presidential candidate of the Know Nothings?

An amazingly better life was Bak Gong’s reason for coming — the relatives in China would have starved if he weren’t working here and sending money home from the Gold Mountain. He paid a terrible price — he never saw his wife again. Now, the reason he never saw her was partly choice, but partly because of immigration laws which saw him and his as unwelcome people not fit to be Americans. Best to stop the heathens from breeding and perhaps overrunning our country…

And so, when I hear excuses as to why we should be obeying this law, and why we should be shipping these people out as fast as we can catch them, I remember paper sons and the Chinese Exclusion Act and all the things of the past which were decidedly unAmerican in both outlook and implementation, but which are amazingly similar to the viewpoints being discussed here today.

Every once in a while, it’s the putative conservatives who get stuck on denying basic individual rights because it’s politically convenient to do so. “They’ll all be suckers at the Government teat” “They’ll all be Democrats” They, they they. How much more liberal than that?

Bak Gong never spent a day on welfare. He paid his taxes. He did everything right. And yet his wife could not come over.

That’s the bucket these people are putting themselves into, in my estimation. Excuses for something that cannot be excused.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Yeah, we got your surrender the first time. Now quack off, amnesty shill.

xblade on February 16, 2013 at 3:47 PM

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck….

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Not sinning is a far cry from actively subverting the law which is what you are advocating.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM

In this case, they are equivalent.

If you want to go implement the law, you can do so now — just go over to the local Home Depot, take that picture, bring it to the nearest INS office, and bang on the table demanding action.

Even better, go over to Mr. Obama’s aunt’s apartment and protest in front of it.

You have lost — you have lost the battle, you have lost the war — because these people have been here long enough to have children and those children are reading your every word — and voting against you.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 4:11 PM

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck….

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Then you must be a liberal. Because you are sounding and arguing just like one.

You’ve returned to the same old lame charge of racism, just like liberals and lefties do.

When someone starts flinging charges of racism on the flimsiest of evidence it is because they’ve got little else. And when some one starts quoting the Bible to back up their argument they are resorting to the oldest of tactics scoundrels use. There are thousands of Christian sects and denominations all of which vary in their interpretations of the Bible. Not to mention the many billions of people on the planet who do not recognize any interpretation of the Bible as an authority.

Appeals to Biblical authority do not cut it in US courtrooms and nor are they used in US legislation. Not even when liberal and leftist Christians might want to use them.

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 4:14 PM

And at night, when cowardly Americans have retired to the safety of their homes, this laborer dons a cape and a mask to hide his identity as he fights the crime that Americans won’t fight. He actually has the strength of 10 men, not 2, and he can leap tall buildings in a single bound.

LOL….

xblade on February 16, 2013 at 3:44 PM

I assume that he sleeps soundly every night, while you pickle these red herrings for our consumption.

And, with that thought in mind, if I knew where he was, I’d hire him over you in an instant. Denouncing another person’s work ethic implies no work ethic of your own.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 4:14 PM

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck….

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 3:43 PM

You’re a simpleton. Thanks to you this country’s laws have been made a joke. Go f yourself.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Uncledimwit… I love idiots like yourself. Most of us here love immigration when it is done legally and per the law. You’d rather make this about race. Lazy arse.

You celebrate law breakers subverting our laws. You should be crying. Eff off. You have a dog in this fight…who is it? Your spouse? Yeh you’re not arguing honestly. That is clear.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Appeals to Biblical authority do not cut it in US courtrooms and nor are they used in US legislation. Not even when liberal and leftist Christians might want to use them.

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Of course they don’t — but the blade cuts both ways, as I’ve pointed out in response to Mr. Shirrukin’s claim that we MUST submit to governmental authority in all things.

As for not being used in US legislation, well — isn’t that a claim of liberal leftists — that only the first portion of the religion clause in the First Amendment applies — and not the second? That laws that have any basis in Scripture at all are basely unConstitutional?

That’s the reasoning already used by one judge in the Hobby Lobby case — that submission to the Government causes no harm to the one who submits, for their employees should not be bound by the plaintiff’s religious views…

The Government cannot force me to turn in these people, and I’m not about to. As I’ve pointed out, you have ample opportunity to enforce the law as it stands, and you can do so without any interference from me.

On the other side, the Constitution permits an immigration law exactly like the one I support — there is nothing unConstitutional about it.

But if you want to enforce your law, don’t expect all those newly minted voters to follow you — because they obviously didn’t in this last election. They recognize hypocrisy when they see it, and, sadly, when that happens the baby — the good stuff our side brings to the table — gets dumped with the bathwater.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Goodness gracious.

Bmore on February 16, 2013 at 4:25 PM

I’ve pointed out in response to Mr. Shirrukin’s claim that we MUST submit to governmental authority in all things.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 4:24 PM

My point is that your attempt to justify your garbage with the bible is just that…a justification for what you were going to do in any case.

But if you want to enforce your law, don’t expect all those newly minted voters to follow you — because they obviously didn’t in this last election.

I don’t think anyone except perhaps you, is expecting them to obey the law because they clearly aren’t law abiding people.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Most of us here love immigration when it is done legally and per the law. You’d rather make this about race.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 4:19 PM

That’s another tactic libs and lefties use. They try claim that opposition to and criticism of illegal immigration means opposition to legal immigration.

The US was built on legal immigration, not on illegal immigration.

Not to mention how dishonest it is to put words in other people’s mouth and claim they mean something they clearly do not. Another lib and lefty tactic.

If it talks like a duck and argues like a duck…

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 4:28 PM

But if you want to enforce your law, don’t expect all those newly minted voters to follow you — because they obviously didn’t in this last election.

This SHOULD UPSET You…what the eff is your problem?

CW on February 16, 2013 at 4:31 PM

As for not being used in US legislation, well — isn’t that a claim of liberal leftists — that only the first portion of the religion clause in the First Amendment applies — and not the second?…

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 4:24 PM

You are trying to change the subject, and doing a poor job of it at that.

Religious freedom has nothing to do with citing Biblical authority in legislation. Quite the opposite, actually.

And I’m pretty sure I’m with you on the issue of Obamacare, health insurance, and forcing religion owned institutions to buy something against their beliefs. That is clearly an issue of religious freedom. Illegal immigration, OTOH, clearly is not.

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Unclesidiot tell me: What laws do my legally immigrated wife and her family get to break? So if they do it in great numbers and become a large voting block we should support whatever law they choose to break? Sheesh your logic is whacked.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 4:40 PM

But they’ve had it for a really long time now.

That is a total non sequitur. Living and working here without papers is not like robbing banks.

AshleyTKing on February 16, 2013 at 4:46 PM

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Are you a Liberation Theologist?

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 4:47 PM

But they’ve had it for a really long time now.

That is a total non sequitur. Living and working here without papers is not like robbing banks.

AshleyTKing on February 16, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Neither is stealing cars but they all have unlawful behavior as the common element. I guess the OWS crowd now owns those parks because they happened to set up a tent there?

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 4:49 PM

That is a total non sequitur. Living and working here without papers is not like robbing banks.

AshleyTKing on February 16, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Easier for you to go there than the issue at hand I see.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 4:52 PM

No, I have no idea what to do about the five million or twelve million or twenty million illegal immigrants currently breaking the law every single day in this country. I have not even the beginning of a hint as to what should be done about it.

HERE is what to do about it — attrition through enforcement.

It is a winning strategy as a popular policy – over 60% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats, and even 40% of Hispanics favor attrition versus amnesty of some sort. When offered the choice!

And here is how it works — from the “horse’s mouth”, if you will.

If we strictly enforce workplace laws, such as the twice-ignored SAVE Act under Pelosi (no vote held, even with 200+ cosponsors), and the recent HR 2885, which Boehner and Republican “leadership” sabotaged with Dave Camp refusing to hold a vote in his Ways and Means committee last Congress; if we force IRS and Social Security to share info; IF we give a damn — they will gradually leave on their own.

As the illegal alien explains in the video above, “If I can’t get a drivers license and I can’t get a job, I’m going home” (and taking his family with him).

No benefits, rewards, no free education or non-emergency medical care, no in-state tuition, no nuttin’ — they can only exist by living off their legal relatives or friends, who might get tired of the burden soon. No mass deportations, no fuss, no muss — but thorough and even-handed strict law enforcement is required. I can “dream”, can’t I?

But the Democrat and Republican establishments have colluded on this massive theft of American jobs and American tax-paid benefits trough at the expense of American citizens.

In what sane universe would you REWARD the criminals with their ill-gotten goods (residency) and expect the crime wave to be solved???

In what sane universe would you expect calling the incoming seawater to be “cargo” a solution to a sinking ship?

fred5678 on February 16, 2013 at 4:52 PM

[unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 1:59 PM]

Hey, I appreciate your answer. I don’t think it addresses the unjustness of my proposal, per se, and I think you concede that from if only by omission. But let’s put that aside, because I am well within your philosophical and emotional bases. I do cringe at times with some of the things said while arguing against amnesty, some I’ve made, too, out of anger/frustration at the seeming casualness in which the pro-amnesty folk treat the idea of rule of law. I give them some slack just as I did you with your charge, opting instead to both stick to the point and understand you’d say it because you usually are pretty reasonable.

My ex-wife was from China. We had tried to get her mother to visit a couple years after she arrived here. She was denied a tourist visa, since, in the opinion of the US government she lacked the requisite string in China to go home when her visa expired. Why do you think that was if not because we don’t enforce that rule? So, we got screwed because the government doesn’t enforce that rule.

Back when Bush tried to pass Shamnesty, Linda Chavez noted the wait for Mexicans trying to come in by following the rules was up to something like 40 years. So, my sympathy for those who cut in line, who made others doing it the legal way wait longer because it depressed the desire/belief/need that we should increase immigration quotas, is very low as a result, despite how nice these illegals immigrants might be.

I’m not to happy with current immigration rules, either, with all the emphasis on letting in the valuable people, mostly because the only basis is ability to pay, or their credentialed education levels, etc, which in most countries more often wasn’t attained by merit, but by connections. And I have a special affinity towards Ben Franklin’s characterization of America as being a Happy Mediocrity, because that Happy Mediocrity, those subsequent teeming masses, that wretched refuse, as much as the now esteemed ‘valuable’ aliens are what made this country great.

I also have an affinity for James Monroe’s response to the frantic opposition immigration during the 1819 recession which went something like ‘we invite no one and will turn away no one, and their ability to prosper here will be as a result of their own efforts, like everyone else.’ Unfortunately, the latter part is now subsidized to such a level that we can’t allow the former anymore.

As for your, “but I’m not about to say “Go home. The United States is not a dumping ground for the unwanted. We have too many problems of our own to handle yours”, that is not why I say all should go home. First off, I’m not saying to the other countries, I’m saying it to the individuals. Second, it has nothing to do with them being unwanted. I’m saying you broke the rules and doing so, you’ve taken the places of those who’ve waited in line. It is now their turn to take those places. I’m not saying it out of malice, but in fairness with an eye towards eliminating the need to do it again and again and again, because I didn’t do it this time. I do not want 100′s of grandmas denied the opportunity to visit their grandson here because five or ten or twenty ruined it for them, because we didn’t uphold the law.

I’d want that if China was at our southern border, or India, or Germany or Ireland, not because I have an animus towards Mexicans who are there or by advantage of land bridge other Latinos who can take advantage of that connection or of any of those races or ethnicities (the last two being mine) but because of whichever one is there, is screwing our ability to be fair to the others, including in one way or another someone’s Bak Gong.

If we don’t demand adherence to the rules for legally immigrating now, the problem will never be solved. And about this point, here’s an analogy that comes to my mind whenever this is discussed. Some twenty years ago a friend of mine had bought a lakefront summer place a few years before 100% valuation went into effect, so his property taxes were based on his purchase price and were sky high in relation to most others on the lake. That sucked for him. But the method was eventually deemed unconstitutional and 100% valuation went into effect. It took a while to put into effect but it happened and when the meetings were held to explain it, those whose assessments had hardly changed in 20 or 30 years had big hikes in their taxes while his went down some. They were complaining like crazy that it was unfair and his response was yeah, it was unfair that they’d had a free ride for 20 years at the expense of others and now it’s set right.

I appreciate that the illegals have been here a while and have settled in. But they’ve had a free ride at the expense of Bastiat’s invisible others, if you will, and nothing will be set right or solve the problem for the future except by saying the free ride is at an end. It sucked for those who couldn’t some sooner for too long and it was a travesty for those screwed because the government let the free ride fester for twenty years. It sucks for the illegals who placed a bet on being able to stay if the problem was big enough. I don’t think it’s right to reward them for that bet because of a misplaced altruism. Your Bak Gong’s ancestral home is a sty and there is someone there who might be here, if not for our ignoring enforcement of the our immigration laws.

If we can come to agreement on that, I’m all for easing the problems associated with illegals having to go home, including giving them a chance to come back at some time.

Dusty on February 16, 2013 at 4:53 PM

That is a total non sequitur. Living and working here without papers is not like robbing banks.

AshleyTKing on February 16, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Your post is a non sequitur to the entire argument at hand. Sheesh this is tiring.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Sorry for it taking so long to respond, but there were a lot of interruptions while I wrote my, what, novelette? Sheesh, I can be verbose.

Dusty on February 16, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Heh.

When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Buh-bye…..

Solaratov on February 16, 2013 at 4:56 PM

You celebrate law breakers subverting our laws. You should be crying. Eff off. You have a dog in this fight…who is it? Your spouse? Yeh you’re not arguing honestly. That is clear.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 4:19 PM

My spouse’s maternal grandfather died after he was mustard gassed in France in WWI. My side didn’t make it into the US until after 1900 — the second time — just before the US passed restrictive immigration laws limiting immigration from Italy (my maternal grandfather was Sicilian). He worked in the coal mines of Pennsylvania (as did most Sicilians — they were quarrymen and miners in the old country) until he got the black lung and had to retire. His wife was an American citizen — the child of another Sicilian who’d arrived a generation earlier.

I do have to admit — my paternal grandmother was an illegal alien, having snuck across the border from Canada to marry an American laborer. But I guess she can be forgiven, because one of her sons died a United States Marine at Iwo Jima, and she built P-39′s at Bell’s aircraft factory in Buffalo. Both my father and his other brother served — my father in the Navy (he was at Iwo when my uncle died) and my other uncle in the Army in Europe (he went ashore on D-day). My paternal grandfather died of tetanus in the 1920′s from injuries he suffered while building the Peace Bridge.

Now, that grandmother was the descendents of Loyalists kicked out of New York after the War of 1812, so, if you want to rag on my disloyalty, there it is. However, my great great grandfather was a spy for the Union — he took contraband goods into the South and sold them at a handsome profit. He was captured by the Confederates and managed to convince them that he was a sympathizer, in spite of his Canadian accent which sounded sort of like a Yankee accent. His load of contraband was his cover — he reported on Confederate troop movements and dispositions to Washington.

Now, the guy I’m talking about as having been personally affected by bad immigration law is my wife’s paternal grandfather — who came over here around 1905. I personally know him, heard his stories, was there to see his grief when his wife died, and was there when he died. I met his children left in China when they came over in the early 1980′s, and witnessed what I’ve described.

As for arguing honestly — arguing from experience is about as honest as one can argue. Having a dog in the fight is even more honest.

My wife was born in the United States and is, obviously, an American citizen.

We have extended family which was affected by FDR’s executive order 9066, which is why having a Democrat in the family is quite disconcerting — everyone of my age or older are Republicans, including my wife, who started out a Democrat but learned wisdom.

Now, as for “effing off”, I respectfully decline. Have never shrunk from a fight, and never will.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Sorry for it taking so long to respond, but there were a lot of interruptions while I wrote my, what, novelette? Sheesh, I can be verbose.

Dusty on February 16, 2013 at 4:55 PM

That can happen when someone hurls the race card at you.

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 5:00 PM

. Have never shrunk from a fight, and never will.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Actually you already have and you revel in it. You snicker as you we are seeing the children of illegals voting against us. This should p-ss you off but you prefer to let them have their way. You quit. You’re a p*ssy.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:03 PM

TEST

Solaratov on February 16, 2013 at 5:04 PM

PASSED

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:04 PM

hurls the race card at you.

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Yes the sign of someone with a weak argument.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Now unclesmgrl you still have not told me: What do my wife and her legally immigrated family get? What laws do they get a pass to break? Heck for that matter what law do I get to break? Do tell.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Just In:

Breaking:
A TODAY obtains draft of White House immigration proposal, plan for illegal immigrants to become residents.

White House immigration bill aims to get process moving
Alan Gomez, USA TODAY4:52p.m.
EST February 16, 2013
**********************

The legislation is being developed as members in both chambers of Congress are drafting their own immigration bills.

WASHINGTON — A draft of a White House immigration proposal obtained by USA TODAY would allow illegal immigrants to become legal permanent residents within eight years.

The plan also would provide for more security funding and require business owners to check the immigration status of new hires within four years. In addition, the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants could apply for a newly created “Lawful Prospective Immigrant” visa, under the bill being written by the White House.

The draft was obtained from an Obama administration official who said it was being distributed to various agencies. The official requested anonymity because he was not authorized to release the proposal publicly.

The bill is being developed as members in both chambers of Congress are drafting their own immigration bills. Last month, four Republican senators joined with four Democratic senators to announce their agreement on the general outlines of an immigration plan. In the House, a bipartisan group of representatives has been negotiating an immigration proposal for years and are writing their own bill.

In his first term, Obama often deferred to Congress on drafting and advancing major legislation, including the Affordable Care Act. He has openly supported the efforts in Congress to move immigration legislation, and just this week met with Democratic senators to discuss their proposals.

But two weeks ago in Las Vegas, while outlining his immigration plans, Obama made clear that he would not wait too long for Congress to get moving.

“If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away,” he said.

White House spokesman Clark Stevens said Saturday that the administration continues to support the bipartisan efforts ongoing in Congress.

“The president has made clear the principles upon which he believes any common-sense immigration reform effort should be based,” Stevens said. “We continue to work in support of a bipartisan effort, and while the president has made clear he will move forward if Congress fails to act, progress continues to be made and the administration has not prepared a final bill to submit.”

According to the White House draft, people would need to pass a criminal background check, submit biometric information and pay fees to qualify for the new visa. If approved, they would be allowed to legally reside in the U.S., work and leave the country for short periods of time.

They could then apply for legal permanent residence, commonly known as a green card, within eight years if they learn English and “the history and government of the United States” and pay back taxes. That would then clear the path for them to apply for U.S. citizenship.

A major requirement for many Republicans is enhanced border security. The bill calls for an unspecified increase in the Border Patrol, allows the Department of Homeland Security to expand technological improvements along the border and adds 140 new immigration judges to process the heavy flow of people who violate immigration laws.

The draft also expands the E-Verify program that checks the immigration status of people seeking new jobs. Businesses with more than 1,000 employees must begin using the system within two years, businesses with more than 250 employees within three years and all businesses within four years.

The draft also requires the Government Accountability Office to study the program every year.

The draft obtained by USA TODAY does not include sections that would alter the nation’s legal immigration system to adjust the future flow of legal immigrants, which is expected to be a critical component of any immigration overhaul.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/16/obama-immigration-bill/1925017/

canopfor on February 16, 2013 at 5:13 PM

I’m saying you broke the rules and doing so, you’ve taken the places of those who’ve waited in line.

Dusty on February 16, 2013 at 4:53 PM

I ask the following questions:
a) Why is there a line?
b) Why are there rules to be broken?

Lines and rules are the basis of all previous very bad immigration law.

Once upon a time, one could make application to our embassy, get a visa allowing one to work in a matter of days, board a ship, transit the ocean, enter our country, and then, after paying the debarkation fees, walk freely into one’s new land. After a few years, having proven oneself to be of sound character, one could obtain citizenship.

Now, after the restrictive laws, one could do all of the above, or, if already here, obtain citizenship if one wasn’t (name favorite ethnicity one thinks can’t ever be an American because they’ll never ever understand us), but otherwise one was out of luck.

Growing up in Buffalo, there were Polish neighborhoods, and Italian neighborhoods, and even Jewish neighborhoods (which were primarily Polish Jewish neighborhoods). In these neighborhoods, one saw signs, not in English, but in Polish or Italian or Yiddish (which looked sort of like German). I was a stamp collector as a kid, and the best stamp shop was run by some Jewish guy in the Polish neighborhood — he spoke Yiddish and I spoke English, but the prices were numbers and every once in a while he would GIVE me a stamp — always some mint condition piece of Americana that I would treasure — in fact, the Immortal Chaplains stamp I mentioned some number of comments ago in another post was given to me by him.

Now, when someone complains about Mexican flags and Spanish, I have one thing to say — this too shall pass. I go back to Buffalo every once in a while and all those old neighborhoods are gone. Nobody speaks Polish or Italian or Yiddish in the streets any more — nobody!

Hell, I can’t speak Italian although I heard it every day in my Grandparents’ house….

But I remember how they were treated, both good and bad, and I use that information to inform my politics.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM

We all know how this works. They pass the law and the only thing truly enforced is amnesty and then in another 20 years we do it again.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Its a crime no one any longer knows crime when they see it, feel it , are affected by it, or do crime.

Now if you were to have been around to ask Mangus Colorados of the Apache Nation if he thought the unlimited illegal immigration from Mexico/Spain was a crime he would have thought a moment and ask back at you, “Why do you think I risk my life, my family’s life, my brothers and sisters lives the lives of all the Apache to try to stop the advance of Spanish/Mexicans into our land?”

Without borders enforced by laws, without limits on immigration, then why have any laws, why have a constitution, why have elections if at this point a few on their on, who act from lust for votes and or low wage workers make things up as they go along.

It is real simple, they two party evil money cult in Washington D.C. with others now test U.S.. They want to see if we will allow this crime, if so more will follow, a greater test more evil comes next, the next, and then they are on our necks for sure.

Just ask any Apache what comes from unlimited illegal immigration and acting only with lust for others gold and lands.

You, We, all of U.S. are the new Apache.

Will we fight as Mangus Colorados did as long as hard as the Apache?

He with hot irons to his feet at 80 years old rose up and did fight one last time. To late to old, to many traitors gone “scout” for the other nations attacking his home land.

What will you do is the question now.

Clear it will be best to fight now, before we are to weak, to old, to broke, to disgusted, just to tired of the lies and fraud

Stand our ground. If it is our ground fight. If not just look away, grab for your share, do not think of the ones to come after us, be like the money cult in Washington D.C. look out for yourself first.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 16, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Now unclesmgrl you still have not told me: What do my wife and her legally immigrated family get? What laws do they get a pass to break? Heck for that matter what law do I get to break? Do tell.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:06 PM

They are here, and they get all of the rights that presence allows to them.

The game is not zero sum.

And you get to break any law that you find offends your morality, and you get to suffer whatever punishment Caesar meets out to you for that breakage should he choose to punish you.

I’ve pointed out that us Catholics are obligated not to obey laws which we find offends the natural law (the laws of God). Now, that may run counter to your “rule of law” ideas, but there it is.

Allahpundit is going to be upset if a Jazz post gets too many comments. He’d better get some more red meat up quick.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Now, when someone complains about Mexican flags and Spanish,
unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM

You have a hard time with honest debate.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:20 PM

They are here, and they get all of the rights that presence allows to them.

And you get to break any law that you find offends your morality, and you get to suffer whatever punishment

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:19 PM

But wait, are you going to be there to support me and demand that my government turn its back on said law? Or only if enough of us do it to be a pain in the butt politically?

Again what laws do they get to break and get a free pass?
Quit with the gibberish .

Lame dude. Really lame.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Without borders enforced by laws, without limits on immigration, then why have any laws, why have a constitution, why have elections if at this point a few on their on, who act from lust for votes and or low wage workers make things up as they go along.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 16, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Because our Constitution allows it?

Just because the Apache didn’t know judo doesn’t mean we have to not know it either.

You use circumstances to your benefit. We need cheap unskilled labor, and here it is. In a few years, the children of those unskilled laborers will be adults and voters, and there you go.

Woe be to the ones who oppressed their parents, for they will remember. The Apache are not considered the smartest people on the planet, for they did resist — mightily and bravely. Or, as I would put it, brave but dumb — brave but dumb.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Ask Ted Cruz.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 16, 2013 at 5:26 PM

But wait, are you going to be there to support me and demand that my government turn its back on said law? Or only if enough of us do it to be a pain in the butt politically?

Again what laws do they get to break and get a free pass?
Quit with the gibberish .

Lame dude. Really lame.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM

The People will determine what laws they can break and get a free pass, just as they are this time.

The laws have already been broken, the breakers are getting a free pass, and their children are starting to vote.

Checkmate.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Ask Ted Cruz.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 16, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Mr. Cruz actually has a chance of winning because he has a force multiplier — the filibuster.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:28 PM

As things stand now, crossing the border without the proper authorization and paperwork is a crime. Beyond that, continuing to stay here without said credentials is also a crime. If you do this, you are committing a crime each and every day that you are here.

Jazz Shaw,

I think you’re operating on a faulty premise.

First, entering the United States without inspection is a misdemeanor (much like many jaywalking or open container offenses). (See INA s. 275.) Your comparison between committing a single misdemeanor offense and committing 28 bank robberies (which were all felonies) is ridiculous on its face.

Second, continued presence in the US without a lawful immigration status isn’t a crime, in and of itself. And continued presence certainly doesn’t mean you’re “committing a crime each and every day that you are here.” Entering without inspection makes you deportable, yes. But deportation is a civil, rather than criminal proceeding.

Now, you may think that none of this is a big deal, but your entire post is premised on the fact that “we’re a nation of laws” and illegal immigrants are on the same footing as felony bank robbers by violating those laws each and every day. In light of the above, would you mind writing an update/correction?

righty45 on February 16, 2013 at 5:28 PM

unclesmrgol

better shorter

“mongrel”

You needs are lawless, you are cheap, in a few years some one will be paying the cost of the children you lust to put into the wage slave camps.

You are luckey your a coward and unknown.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 16, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Checkmate.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:26 PM

So you quit and like I said you’re a p*ssy and you ran from the fight.You lied. Enjoy your liberal world because you’re insane if you think they are going to vote anytime soon for anything but bigger government.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:30 PM

It’s a crime in most countries who have immigration laws that prohibit unwelcome entrance!

We have such laws and until Congress changes them they are just like breaking and entering someones property!
Ignoring the act does not change the legality of the act!

Should all laws exclude actions because some wish they did not apply to certain people? Jessie Jackson Jr. thought the laws should not apply to him also.

PhillupSpace on February 16, 2013 at 5:30 PM

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Are you a Liberation Theologist?

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 5:31 PM

The Apache are not considered the smartest people on the planet, for they did resist — mightily and bravely. Or, as I would put it, brave but dumb — brave but dumb.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:24 PM

How revealing.

You are advocating conquest by immigration and want to be on what you think will be the winning side.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Second, continued presence in the US without a lawful immigration status isn’t a crime, in and of itself. ….

righty45 on February 16, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Nice dance.

Without the word games you whackjobs would have nothing.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:36 PM

mongrel,

Take your lust for crime to say Mexico.

I’m sure the drug cartel supported goverment down there would go along with your lawless ways as that is their way after all.

Understand you go there without a gun.

Understand the drug cartels have the zeta head choppers for people who mouth off like you do.

Clear it is that Obama, Holder, the fast and furious wrecking crew have no use for our laws or constitution sort of like you,,, .

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 16, 2013 at 5:36 PM

The Apache are not considered the smartest people on the planet, for they did resist — mightily and bravely. Or, as I would put it, brave but dumb — brave but dumb.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:24 PM

How revealing.

You are advocating conquest by immigration and want to be on what you think will be the winning side.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 5:35 PM

In other words uncle is a p*ssy.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Its a liberal, they are never wrong, just ask President Smirk.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 16, 2013 at 5:40 PM

In other words uncle is a p*ssy.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:37 PM

His cowardice is dressed up as religion so that in his eyes makes him holy.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 5:40 PM

The Apache are not considered the smartest people on the planet, for they did resist — mightily and bravely. Or, as I would put it, brave but dumb — brave but dumb.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:24 PM

How revealing.

You are advocating conquest by immigration and want to be on what you think will be the winning side.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 5:35 PM

In other words uncle is a p*ssy.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Pretty much. By his logic, he should still be in favor of burning heretics at the stake.

ebrown2 on February 16, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Yo,

mongrel,

I will be over east from my home tonight, at a deal where Ted Cruz will be. He and I will talk of you and your kinds lust.

He is sort of a later day Mangus Colorados, not as tall, but just as smart and he will not back down to thugs like you or President Smirk.

Have a nice half assed life.

awk

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 16, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Clearly, the real question here is, is it a crime to call someone an “illegal immigrant,” and if not, why not?

Also, what kind of crime would it be? Just a regular, plain-vanilla crime, or a Hate Crime?? Perhaps even a Thoughtcrime???

And what would be an appropriate Punishment?

RedPepper on February 16, 2013 at 5:45 PM

His cowardice is dressed up as religion so that in his eyes makes him holy.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Hmmm I wonder about his opinion on the federal government’s involvement in welfare. I seriously doubt his ‘conservatism’.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:45 PM

righty45 on February 16, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Entering the country illegally is a crime the first time it’s a misdemenor reentering after deportation is a felony punishable by imprisonment.

Illegals are also required to register with the selective service. Failure to register is a felony punishable by five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The illegal would also be barred from citizenship. We are a nation of laws. Will illegals be punished for all their crimes. Or are only legal immigrants and citizens subject to the law?

Hera on February 16, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Hmmm I wonder about his opinion on the federal government’s involvement in welfare. I seriously doubt his ‘conservatism’.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:45 PM

I have my doubts as well.

Even so, there are many Catholics who voted for Obama despite their social conservatism. That he didn’t answer the Liberation Theology question makes me think that may be where he is coming from.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Ohio’s illegal immigrant population costs the state’s taxpayers an estimated $879 million per year for education, medical care, law enforcement, social services and other government services. The annual fiscal burden amounts to about $200 per Ohio household headed by a U.S. citizen.

Unclesturd cries “victory”.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:53 PM

(In Ohio) The U.S.-born children of illegal aliens generate an additional burden of about $81 million annually in social welfare outlays.

Sounds like conservatives in the makings…

///

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:54 PM

In other words uncle is a p*ssy.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:37 PM

…with a yeast infection!

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2013 at 5:57 PM

I ask the following questions:
a) Why is there a line?
b) Why are there rules to be broken?

[unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM]

I don’t understand why you ask those. Are you suggesting that we should allow unrestricted migration to the US? Are you implying you have no objection in having 100 million people move here this year? Or another 200 million move here in 2014.

Dusty on February 16, 2013 at 5:57 PM

(In Ohio) Medical services for illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children account for a fiscal burden of $84 mi

Peanuts.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:58 PM

I guess sticking tax payers with the costs of illegal immigration is the new definition of “Fair”.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 5:59 PM

“It depends on what part of illegal is…ummm… illegal..”- Former President Bubba

workingclass artist on February 16, 2013 at 6:12 PM

This country is chock full of pansy ass do gooders, that is why some don’t see it as a crime.

GhoulAid on February 16, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Do-gooder(ness) is, for most, a function of comfort. Remove the comfort and you’ll remove much of the do-goodieness. Everything that has happened for the last couple of decades has been supported by expansion. Everybody’s share of the pie increased so we all just overlooked all the insanity emanating from Washington like a beacon of crazy, but now that resources are shrinking that’s all going to change. It’s going to get much worse before it gets better.

DFCtomm on February 16, 2013 at 6:27 PM

One side is in charge they want to get all the legal guns off the streets

Vs.

One side is in charge they to get all the illegal trespassers off the streets.

tjexcite on February 16, 2013 at 6:28 PM

I support the Maha Rushie compromise with the left: Amnesty but no vote for 25 years.

petefrt on February 16, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Very late to the debate, but a judge would strike down the 25 years part.

El_Terrible on February 16, 2013 at 6:31 PM

I ask the following questions:
a) Why is there a line?
b) Why are there rules to be broken?

Lines and rules are the basis of all previous very bad immigration law.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM

I’m with you, but you have to take care of one, small, thing before you can impose your immigrant utopia, and that’s do away with the welfare state. You take care of that little problem and I’ll go open borders, but until you accomplish that STFU.

DFCtomm on February 16, 2013 at 6:33 PM

I don’t understand why you ask those. Are you suggesting that we should allow unrestricted migration to the US? Are you implying you have no objection in having 100 million people move here this year? Or another 200 million move here in 2014.

Dusty on February 16, 2013 at 5:57 PM

That’s nearly exactly where I’m at. The restrictions should be on matters of character — rapists and murderers need not apply.

I think you overestimate the numbers of people who want to immigrate — and the resources they have to perform the act.

But for those who do… all the more power to them.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 6:39 PM

That’s nearly exactly where I’m at. The restrictions should be on matters of character — rapists and murderers need not apply.

I think you overestimate the numbers of people who want to immigrate — and the resources they have to perform the act.

But for those who do… all the more power to them.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 6:39 PM

What are you going to do when they come over at 65 and sign up on social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, obama phone, section 8 and utility assistance?

DFCtomm on February 16, 2013 at 6:43 PM

I’m with you, but you have to take care of one, small, thing before you can impose your immigrant utopia, and that’s do away with the welfare state. You take care of that little problem and I’ll go open borders, but until you accomplish that STFU.

DFCtomm on February 16, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Let’s deconstruct this using the dichotomy you’ve set.

Suppose the welfare state is done away with first. Then the question of what cost the new immigrants will have on us is moot.

Suppose the welfare state is not done away with. Then the new immigrants will overload its facilities and burn it out. After that, the question of what cost the new immigrants will have on us is moot.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Suppose the welfare state is not done away with. Then the new immigrants will overload its facilities and burn it out. After that, the question of what cost the new immigrants will have on us is moot.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 6:45 PM

I’m sorry I thought you might be advocating an open borders nation with no welfare state. I didn’t realize you were advocating death and destruction.

DFCtomm on February 16, 2013 at 6:51 PM

will have on us is moot.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Yes because the damage done by that point would have no effect.
/

You’re an idiot.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 6:55 PM

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Are you a Liberation Theologist?

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Why so quiet Unclemrgkl?

CW on February 16, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Even so, there are many Catholics who voted for Obama despite their social conservatism. That he didn’t answer the Liberation Theology question makes me think that may be where he is coming from.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Liberation Theology is founded upon the premise that the right government can produce social justice.

I believe that governments are incapable, no matter how will intentioned, of producing social justice. In each place where government meddles in choosing one group over another, distortions which cause harm — more harm than good — occur in society.

We saw that in our original Constitution — which allowed one man to own another. We had to fix that following a bloody civil war, and we did. The cure is not quite as bad as the disease, but that’s because we had many governments who couldn’t quite get the idea that the old times were gone, and that there were new times in which every citizen of every color was allowed the same basic rights. The 14th Amendment was the result — in which a strong central government would guarantee the liberties and freedom of everyone.

Well, now we’re fighting over what those liberties and freedoms should be.

Look at our own government — where monetary attempts at uplifting blacks have produced a culture which no longer prizes marriage (because the state provides more if you don’t marry) and which kills 30% of all black babies every year (so the parents can, ostensibly, lift themselves out of poverty).

Social justice happens at the hands of individuals performing private acts.

Hence, the rule of minimum government prevails — the government which governs least governs best.

There is nothing in the Constitution which requires restrictive immigration laws, and there is nothing in the Consitution which says we cannot have them.

But there’s something really strange when a country founded on immigration — a country filled with the progeny of immigrants — decides that the door ought to be closed — or, rather, closed far further than it was when their ancestors came here. And all this talk about rules and illegals and such is merely an excuse to close the door.

And whether the door is closed because the closers are selfish, or they are racist, or because the closers think that liberals wanting said doors open is prima facie a reason to close them — well, the motive is open to all of the above, and none of it is any good.

Again, you’ve lost both the battle and the war. The enemy has created a generation of voters, and they are not voting for you.

Checkmate.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:02 PM

It’s clear that this unclesmgol guy is a fanatic immigration worshiper, whose god Emma Lazarus.

The end of the US as a functioning nation state matters not at all to him, the rule of properly enacted and constitutional law does not, liberty does not, standard of living does not, nothing of any kind matters to him.

Only one thing does, and that is open borders, and amnesty, and the ability of any one people to usurp rule here, as long as they can hustle enough of them across the borders.

He’s a traitor, nothing less, like Honda V65 is, and may he get what he deserves.

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Again, you’ve lost both the battle and the war. The enemy has created a generation of voters, and they are not voting for you.

Checkmate.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:02 PM

And yet you support their endeavor.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 7:04 PM

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013

It dawned on me while eating dinner. You’re like a poster named Oakland who only posted on AGW threads….you only post on immigration threads. Are you incapable of showing any interest in anything else? My goodness you’re a pathetic bore.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 7:06 PM

If you are in favor of a secure border then I will assume you wish to protect the sovereignty of the United States,and equate crossing into our country illegally as a breach of that sovereignty.Apparently at least 11 million people have done just that,but in the eyes of the Dems and Repubs deserve a path to citizenship anyway.So why have a border at all?

redware on February 16, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Checkmate.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Page after page you’ve written, and all you had to say was “let it burn”. Oi.

DFCtomm on February 16, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Again, you’ve lost both the battle and the war. The enemy has created a generation of voters, and they are not voting for you.

Checkmate.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Just as the argument over nukes is a larger version of the argument for the right to possess personal arms…

So the right to move to another country free of any encumbrance is a larger version of who you are obligated to allow into your home.

You built your home, you purchased it, you own it. It’s yours. It’s no ones goddamned business who you allow, or refuse to allow to live with you.

No one may occupy your home, and use it as if it were theirs, without your permission.

This is the immigration argument. We have set laws to immigrate. Illegals break those laws and tell us we have no right to send them back.

Sorry, we can, and we will, and to those who we cannot for whatever reason, they can die here illegally, but we will never grant them permission to break our laws and claim ownership of our country.

Regarding the children of illegals, well, we had a civil war once, and we can damn well have one again.

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 7:09 PM

But there’s something really strange when a country founded on immigration — a country filled with the progeny of immigrants — decides that the door ought to be closed — or, rather, closed far further than it was when their ancestors came here. And all this talk about rules and illegals and such is merely an excuse to close the door.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:02 PM

The simplicity of your thought process should scare you.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 7:10 PM

No one may occupy your home, and use it as if it were theirs, without your permission.

….
rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Party at unclemrgls tonight and screw him if he tries to tell us we’re breaking the law.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 7:13 PM

You can forget trying to convert posters like uncle and Honda to the anti-amnesty side.

They are sold out lock stock and barrel to the left’s “wreck America” view, and they will not be corrected. They will use, as you see, endless leftwing arguments, of which the race card is the ultimate, to deride the patriot posters.

They are on the side of the jackals, and may they be torn to shreds by them soon, and may there be no help for them.

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 7:14 PM

But there’s something really strange when a country founded on immigration — a country filled with the progeny of immigrants — decides that the door ought to be closed — or, rather, closed far further than it was when their ancestors came here. And all this talk about rules and illegals and such is merely an excuse to close the door.

No there isn’t anything strange about it. Time moves on and so do national needs and priorities.

And whether the door is closed because the closers are selfish, or they are racist, or because the closers think that liberals wanting said doors open is prima facie a reason to close them — well, the motive is open to all of the above, and none of it is any good.

Again no. You choose to believe these things because they shore up your cheap excuse making for advocating such lawless behavior.

You want those who argue against you to be morally evil because that allows you to wrap yourself in a cheap cloak of righteousness.

Again, you’ve lost both the battle and the war.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:02 PM

A war is what you call it and one in which you have chosen the other side. You are a racist thug dancing on what you hope will be the grave of your own nation.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 7:17 PM

They are on the side of the jackals, and may they be torn to shreds by them soon, and may there be no help for them.

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Look at that. “Let it burn” grows every day. Maybe we should do t-shirts and coffee cups. Maybe one of those shirts that says ask me about my political beliefs, and then when you flip it up it says “let it burn”.

DFCtomm on February 16, 2013 at 7:20 PM

I ask the following questions:
a) Why is there a line?
b) Why are there rules to be broken?

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM

My word, you really *are* a simpleton.

Try asking this at the grocery store. Or an amusement park. Heck, try asking this to a remotely-intelligent 5th grader waiting to get their school lunch!

CanofSand on February 16, 2013 at 7:24 PM

[unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 6:39 PM]

Who said anything about them having the resources to come here. The Chinese government could provide free travel on cargo ships to 50 million Chinese men next year so as to solve their male/female ratio problem. Plus they could give each 2,000 Yuan to start them out. Total cost about $10B or less than 1% of our debt they hold. India could do the same to get rid of their poverty stricken lower castes, or reduce Muslim tensions, though maybe not as much of a stipend. Egypt might do it in lower numbers to reduce their food shortages.

I think your expectations of the consequences of what would or could happen are a bit fanciful, at best. But even if there were no other consequences, except that a significant percentage of them didn’t measure up to your soundness of character, how would you handle that problem if it required deporting 5 million per year out of 20 million who come every year, much less identifying them? And how would you address the possibility that the country won’t take them back if it arises. Or would you be interested in setting rules ahead of time, like minimum assets to make it through five years without government assistance, pre-qualification on soundness of character, checks on criminal history and then telling everyone who wants to come here to get in line?

Dusty on February 16, 2013 at 7:25 PM

By the time the SSTF is projected to go into fiscal deficit in 2037, the additional drain from an amnesty on the retirement system would have soared to an additional 935,000 beneficiaries who worked illegally in the above-ground economy plus a similar number who worked illegally in the underground economy. Those amnesty beneficiaries would be receiving benefits of more than $42 billion annually.

Again, you’ve lost both the battle and the war.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:02 PM

And Uncle tells us we’re wrong. Truly an idiot.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 7:30 PM

But there’s something really strange when a country founded on immigration — a country filled with the progeny of immigrants — decides that the door ought to be closed — or, rather, closed far further than it was when their ancestors came here. And all this talk about rules and illegals and such is merely an excuse to close the door.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:02 PM

WTF?

You did it again. No one here is arguing to “close the door” on “legal” immigration. The kind we had throughout the century spanning the late 19th and most of the 20th century.

They are arguing against “illegal” immigration.

You are a dishonest POS parading with a great big righteous “Christian” badge. I am done here.

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Dusty on February 16, 2013 at 7:25 PM

And what’s wrong with Chinese men?

As long as we’re into fake reductio ad absurdum arguments, I’ll go there….

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:39 PM

A country can’t exist with defacto open borders and a massive, unfunded welfare state. It’s either one or the other. This is economics 101.

It makes no difference where the illegal aliens come from, what they look like, or what language they speak. No civil society can absorb a perpetual flow of uneducated, unskilled people. Again, economics 101. This is why every industrialized country on earth, except the US, has closed borders and immigration enforcement.

Finally, that being said, the US -still- currently absorbs more legal immigrants than any other country in the history of human civilization, about 900,000 per year last I checked.

visions on February 16, 2013 at 7:41 PM

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:39 PM

You’ve been spewing logical fallacies all day. You’re a master.

See:

You did it again. No one here is arguing to “close the door” on “legal” immigration. The kind we had throughout the century spanning the late 19th and most of the 20th century.

They are arguing against “illegal” immigration.

You are a dishonest POS parading with a great big righteous “Christian” badge. I am done here.

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 7:38 PM

CW on February 16, 2013 at 7:45 PM

And what’s wrong with Chinese men?

As long as we’re into fake reductio ad absurdum arguments, I’ll go there….

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:39 PM

50 million horny Chinese guys? You did it again. You used nineteen words when all you really needed to use were three. You know the three. Say it.

DFCtomm on February 16, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Finally, that being said, the US -still- currently absorbs more legal immigrants than any other country in the history of human civilization, about 900,000 per year last I checked.

visions on February 16, 2013 at 7:41 PM

Yeh that is lost on the idiots.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7