In Response to ATI
Arkanabar T'verrick Ilarsadin queried my post on the USCCB's collective attitude toward illegal immigration. ATI's is curious, if I could write law and policy what would I write. It is a good question. I will attempt to provide a framework of what I would do in form of law only. Policy would take much more time to develop as it includes actions for implementation, monitoring, prosecution, and defense. Basically it is as follows:
1. The act of encouraging/assisting immigrants to illegally cross our borders is a treasonous act against this nation, and should be prosecuted immediately and punishment to the extent of the law. This includes providing employment or safe haven of any kind (aiding and abetting).
2. All persons wishing to immigrate to the USA must do the following; renounce citizenship in the country they are immigrating from, learn the English language, pass a basic citizenship test, have employment lined up, and can not apply for government assistance in their first five years as a citizen.
3. If you are or have ever been a member of a Socialist, Communist, or other Dictatorial governments or organizations you will not be granted citizenship, or temporary work visas...EVER.
4. You must wait until your application for citizenship is approved before you can relocate.
5. Children of illegal immigrants carry the same status as their parents regardless of where they are born.
6. Once you have citizenship, if you immigrate to another country your American citizenship is permanently revoked and will never be granted again.
In my opinion citizenship in this country is of high market value. People of this country throughout history have given their lives, fortunes, and talents to bring it into existence and develop the only truly free society that man has ever known (besides Eden of course). We have done our best to screw this up in recent history, and part of that problem has been the unwillingness to secure our borders. We are not opposed to immigrants we are opposed to those who choose to take by passive force that which does not belong to them.
It is correct that immigrants have helped to build this nation, and that is because they WANTED to be here and be American. They did not come here to take away what ever they could, they came to contribute to be a part of something grand. The days of hyphenated nationalities and celebrations of other cultures should come to an end because all it does is create divisions. There is only one thing above America and that is God.
posted by Simplex Vir at
10:30 AM
9 Comments:
Standing, applauding and whistling in approval. Have you ever thought of running for office? You'd have the Mom vote.
I echo "aka the Mom" !!!!!
I'm not so sure about the member of a socialist govt. Seems like we are called upon to forgive, and allow others to repent. Perhaps if there were an oath of some kind renouncing prior sins. I'm just not sure that we should condemn the poor choices of one's youth.
TCN, none of what I wrote spoke to the salvation or moral health of a persons soul. The kind of forgiveness you speak of only the Catholic Church can forgive through the office of Holy Orders.
I fully believe in forgiveness in that manner for the most grievous of transgressions. However even if our Lord forgives a sin, this does not mean that we must now ignore what lead to the sin. This is tantamount to forgiving a child abuser who shows contrition and then allowing them to run a daycare. There are just somethings that your actions will void. One of them should be citizenship when you practice ideology that attacks God's proper order. Socialism, communism, and other forms of dictatorship all attack God's order for man which is freedom of the will so that we may fully come to know and love the Lord with all our heart and soul.
I understand your sentiment, but forgiveness can be given, which has its own reward.
I think the issue is the employers. They are knowingly hiring these people. No jobs, many do not come. Those that do still come are obviously here for evil reasons and thus can be rounded up and put in jail for centuries if they do not die in a shoot out.
Give a reward of $250,000 to anyone reporting an employer hiring illegals. If discovered to be true, the employer goes to jail and pays a huge fine that will cover the cost of the whistle blower reward. This is fast and easy and is not racist in any way as it is now illegal to hire those here illegally. The jobs would go away in a couple months.
Once you have the border secure. look to see what type of immigration would be needed to meet job needs after citizens are given the opportunity to work, and increase or decrease legal immigration to meet our needs.
Then kick in the posts suggestions for those coming into our country.
Wow. SV, you've just marked yourself as far more serious than ... far too many people with whom I try to enter discussions. I both am and am not surprised. Here's my take on your suggestions.
1. This strikes me as a bit harsh. If it can be demonstrated that those one aids in illegally entering are attempting to undermine or subvert our national interest, or make war upon our nation, then I'd agree it's treasonous to aid them. Otherwise, it's merely criminal. Depending on the nature of the agreement between the coyote and the illegals he aids, that could well be read as slavery. Ditto for the illegal's employer.
2. I don't know if I'd demand they have employment lined up. But I'd certainly forbid them to get taxpayer money of any sort, and for seven years. Somehow, I think that has more resonance.
3. This one suggests you do not believe that it is possible to renounce such an ideology. I've read your comment, and I'd like to remind you that converts are typically far more fervent than cradles; this includes converts to liberty. Requiring one to formally renounce collectivism is certainly suitable, and I would also have no problem requiring a minimum of seven years interval between leaving said organization/ government and applying for entry. Incidentally, I would also forbid those who have been jailed for criminal acts in the last 7 years (criminal != political dissidence, esp. in kleptocracies and dictatorships, collectivist or otherwise).
4. This one is entirely appropriate.
5. Anchor babies are definitely a bad thing, but nativity has a very, very, very long history in common and international law. I don't think I'm willing to chip away at it. However, I would agree that an anchor baby should not affect enforcement of items 2 and 3.
6. This is at first blush a tad harsh, but I can live with it.
I agree that those wanting citizenship ought to seek to be Americans, and that their loyalty to America and her institutions should take precedence over allegiance to their original culture.
Now for a different kettle of fish: how do you deal with those who enter legally, but overstay their legal welcome?
#5 is the key to fixing the current mess.
I would also add, ax the unions so we can hire American workers. We're too busy paying pensions, and everything under the sun to be able to afford American workers, kill the incentive to hire illegals, no jobs for the illegals, no jobs for the illegals, for the most part, they won't be here
Simplex Vir, would you mind (perhaps in another post) explaining your opposition to dual citizenship? My opinion on the matter leans towards permitting it, but I am interested in hearing your reasons against.
Also, I agree with the comments above that consider point 3 excessive. Perhaps someone who has been a member of a poisonous regime should be required to submit to more stringent monitoring or surveillance, or perhaps simply the discretion of a relevant authority, but a blanket prohibition on residence to me seems simplistic at best.
Point 4 would go beyond the accepted current practice of permitting legal aliens (permanent residents, working visas etc). I can't agree with it.
Point 5 is the same as our practice here in Australia - that citizenship is not afforded to any individual on the mere basis of being born on sovereign territory, but granted as a right of succession from citizen parents or granted as a privilege by naturalisation.
Point 6 strikes me as utterly ridiculous. First, what is "immigration" exactly? How long would one have to be outside the country? How could it be monitored without violating personal liberty? Would one have to report to the government every six months? Sounds a bit too much like the Eastern Bloc for my liking (though you're only revoking citizenship, not executing them).
Men like Abp Burke (who has permanently relocated to Rome) or Pope Benedict (who was in Rome for decades before his elevation) would under your rules be stripped of the citizenship of their homeland. Can you abide this?
The outside world is not your enemy - in fact, most of us are your allies! As an Australian visiting the USA last year I didn't know whether to laugh or sneer at the treatment given to foreign visitors, especially visitors from your allied countries. To subject your own citizens to such measures would be even crazier.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home