Fear Greets Immigration Accord
Posted in Bush, wordpress, Immigration, Tancredo, Kennedy, Kyl, Law, Justice, Sensenbrenner, Pelosi, Reid, Congress, Border Control, Legislation on May 18th, 2007 by Stanford Matthews 
The Seattle Post Intelligencer may or may not know it, but an article from them is a perfect reason to apply the crushing sanctions against employers who hire illegals and reverse the flow of illegal immigrants. At the same time a ‘comprehensive’ deportation effort for those not leaving voluntarily and denying any future application for citizenship for those requiring deportation. And if you read this far, you are of course in agreement with this or think I’m a racist or worse. The word is close, but I’m a realist not a racist.
The article I mentioned first features a Mexican man in his 30’s. He works as a welder in the US. He is not thrilled with the news from Washington today regarding the amnesty, yes amnesty proposal from President Bush and some member of the Senate. He and his family are from southwestern Mexico. He’s been here three years and while reading the story translated to Spanish and using a translator for the interview, he stated the 5000 dollar investment in citizenship was ‘mucho, mucho dinero’. He continued to complain about every element mentioned in the new proposal.
His complaints were echoed by La Raza and other special interest advocates. The remainder of the story repeated the typical rhetoric by both sides of the story. The last point to mention from the article is the 8 to 13 year waiting period for Zcard citizenship is the Achilles heel of the plan for illegal advocacy. The Zcard amnesty makes the illegal into legal immediately. But the waiting period does not begin until the border is secure and the ‘high tech’ employer verification system is completed. And we know what the chances are of that. So this plan truly is amnesty because illegal aliens will be made legal immediately and the required waiting period for citizenship may never start.
And yet people like the 30 year old man from Mexico wonder why people like me are not thrilled with them. He is from Mexico. He started a family. Perhaps he did not have the means to start a family but he did. He comes to the US illegally and takes a job. He did not learn English before coming here. He has been here three years and still uses Spanish translations and translators. But when held to account for his actions or accept the consequences of violating another country’s laws, he feels no obligation to comply but complain.
And I would like someone to try to convince me that I am wrong. How did his circumstances and his choices become the responsibility of the United States and its citizens? How does he feel no obligation to make things right? How does he knowingly enter the US illegally and when a proposal is given for him to gain citizenship, he first complains about the cost? How does taking no responsibility, violating laws, making choices you can’t afford and complaining about it make us responsible? I still recommend the actions in the first paragraph. This is not about a nation of immigrants or altruism. It is about money and how one gets it. That would depend on your part in the scam.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Fears greet immigration accord
Rights groups say proposal would tear families apart
By SCOTT GUTIERREZ
P-I REPORTER
The 31-year-old welder shook his head as he read the news Thursday of proposed immigration reforms that could affect him and the future of his wife and child still in southwest Mexico.He clicked a mouse and read the MSNBC.com story — translated into Spanish — on a computer at the South Park community information center. His eyes stopped when he saw he would have to pay $5,000 under the proposal to buy a path to citizenship. “Mucho, mucho dinero,” he said….
This is an open trackback linkfest. The Secure the Borders theme is held over another day. We have no reason to think it is necessary to provide any disclaimers, warranties, discounts or warnings. If you have any suggestions, criticisms, questions or just feel the need to communicate, trackback or let us know in the comments. Please donate a minute of your time for the QotD, you can answer the question of the day in the comments section.
The extreme peaceniks and others expressing less venomous opposition to the Iraq war often begin their arguments with reference to inherent characteristics of war as their central theme. Aside from the obvious death and destruction that accompanies armed conflict, they stress the loss of troops and civilians as their largest concern. But they will never accept the fact that this same expression of opposition has prolonged the war in Iraq by strengthening the determination of the enemy. In other words, opposition prolonging the war shares responsibility for the death toll that the anti-war crowd views with such disdain. How’s that for irony?
It may sound outragious to the casual observer or typical apathetic or bleeding heart version of American, but the laws against treason should have a section that addresses politicians who sell this country by accepting money from every special interest and who do their bidding regardless of the negative impact on this nation.
Why do some people believe that every person who enters this country illegally has this country’s best interests in mind? How stupid is that? It is equally stupid to think that this is not what open borders proponents think. Why? For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the assumed plight of illegal immigrants, those who favor amnesty and other perks for illegals continue to claim they are only looking for a better life. And how did they come to that conclusion?
Slow, methodical, managed and controlled immigration is necessary for protecting and securing this country while honoring the time tested tradition of an immigrant nation. Abandoning those safeguards because some criticize the time required to enter this country legally, is all the evidence you should need to understand the fallacy of the open borders crowd. Protecting this country trumps the interest of anyone wanting to enter this country. Saying immigrants have rights greater than the need to protect this country is more evidence to deny entry. Entering this country is a privilege not a right. To demand entry as a right is the strongest reason to deny entry because the entrant or applicant has put their own interests above that of this country.
So how did the United States Congress do in the first month of the 110th session? You be the judge. First, a little review of the fact that posts here have sometimes asked why we get so focused on what Congress does. After all, they legislate. That’s it. They legislate. The can pass laws. Whatever the House passes must be passed in the Senate also. So both Houses of Congress must pass the same version of a bill before it can become law. Then it goes to the President. He can sign it into law. He can veto it and send it back to Congress. He can pocket-veto at the end of the session. Or he can pretty much ignore it and it becomes law. All you expert legal types out there, feel free to refute this if you must.
So six bills and one joint resolution have the term “on passage” next to them in the voting record in the House. Being that it is joint and includes the Senate, that’s the only thing showing up on their completed list. Then there are the six bills. You’ll remember them from the daily reminder of the 100 hour agenda. Here’s a take on that.
One law was passed to rename a park. And the other bills have many hurdles to cross before they can become law. Even if they become law there is no guarantee they will have any positive effects. No one, with any regularity, will follow up on them. So the Congress has done nothing for one month. They have solved nothing. There is only one item as law and it is not critical. 21 Senators are worried about 2008 due to re-election. Other Senators are worried about running for President. And the rest have passed one joint resolution and participated in renaming a park.
