Systematic Immigration Reform (STEP III)

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here in an effort to consolidate all articles in one location**
This is the Third and final part in a series outlining a strategy to address illegal immigration.  Please see Step One here and Step II, here.
Now that we have covered both stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and the regularization of those that are here; we can begin to discuss the accommodations for those caught up in the middle, through no fault of their own.  I am specifically talking about illegal immigrants that were children brought illegally to the United States by their parents.  You must separate the individuals into a two categories.

1. Those that are still minors at the time the legislation is passed.
2. Those that have resided in the United States since childhood but are now adults.

Documentation must be presented to determine into which category the individual will be placed.  This can be easily done with report cards from elementary, middle and high school.  If the individual cannot prove that he/she was brought to the United States as a minor he/she will be subject to the previously outlined conditions of the CERIC (Conditional Employment and Residency Identification and Card).
Regardless of Category everyone will be processed per the CERIC requirements to include fingerprints, DNA, and photo identification.  They must meet the conditions for the CERIC, i.e. they have no warrants, no felony convictions and other condition previously stipulated.   If they fail to meet the requirements they will be processed for deportation.
Category 1- Minor Children would be issued a CERIC.  If these individuals graduate high school and have no previous criminal record they will be eligible and may apply for permanent residency at age 21.  If they fail to graduate from high school they will continue under the CERIC until age 23 after which time they may apply for permanent residency. 
Category 2-  If the individuals in this category can show proof of graduation from US education through high school, they will have a two-year CERIC requirement and then will be eligible to apply for permanent residency status through existing procedures.  Those individuals in this category who did not graduate high school will have a five-year CERIC requirement and would subsequently be eligible to apply for permanent residency.
Other special conditions that should be implemented include the following:
Any person that is eligible for a CERIC and can meet the requirements for military service may enter into the United States Armed Services.  Upon honorable completion of a 4-year active duty commitment, those individuals will immediately be eligible to apply for US citizenship.
The last and final step to Immigration reform is to make the hiring of illegal immigrants prohibitively expensive in future years.  This would easily be accomplished by implementing one clear, precise and ironclad law for all businesses: If you knowingly or negligently hire an illegal alien, after the implementation of this program, you shall be fined $500,000 per incident.  This will make it prohibitively expensive to break the law.  No business in their right mind will risk the fine to save $2.00 an hour in labor costs.  This will protect the workers from exploitation and prevent future waves of illegal aliens from crossing the border looking for work.  If they know that there is a close to zero chance of finding a job because no business will hire them, they will cease to look north as a viable option.  Businesses will also benefit; businesses will be on an even playing field and competiveness will increase across many industries in the economy.  Because all the new CERIC card holders will be legal, businesses can no longer undercut the competition by using illegal laborers.  The net result will be a more reliable work force and safer working conditions for all workers.  This will all happen in the marketplace, on its own.  This can only be looked upon as a net positive. 
In order to facilitate the verification of workers, an E-Verify type system would be set up with the information from the CERIC.  Upon entry of the CERIC number the system would show the employer a photo of the owner of that number/card along with a physical description.  The employer could then be assured that the individual was in fact legally eligible to work in the United States. And, absolve him of legal repercussions should fraud be subsequently discovered.  This process must be simple and quick along with being inexpensive.  There are no technological reasons this cannot be done.  The only obstacles to establishing these policies for the employer are and will undoubtedly be political.
The underlying theme to SYSTEMATIC IMMIGRATION REFORM and the CERIC is that it is CONDITIONAL!  The conditions are straightforward, fair and achievable.  This is not and should not be misconstrued to be a “trap” to catch and deport anyone.  It is merely a method by which illegal immigrants can prove what they never tire of telling people: “I am law-abiding and I just came here to work.”  They must abide by the law, period.  If they break the law, by committing a felony crime, commit a third misdemeanor crime, or a 2^nd DUI, they will be processed for deportation.  It is not unreasonable to ask that these immigrants follow our laws as a condition for legal status in the United States; and I believe many of them would be happy to accept these terms and end the constant anxiety of being caught and deported.
I believe that this country is the greatest nation ever devised and established by man.  I wholeheartedly understand the manic rush of people to come to this great country.  They are looking for, what we as Americans sometimes take for granted; the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness.  But, while I may empathize with their motivations, I cannot condone their lack of respect for the rule of law.  I firmly believe that a great majority of Americans would be supportive of legislation that would adopt the concepts outlined in this series and would embrace a new wave of LEGAL immigrants, while at the same time forgive and give those who would necessarily be required to register themselves under this program an opportunity to prove that they are, in fact, law abiding and worthy of the chance to become US citizens.  The People of the United States have always been and continue to be the most open, understanding, and charitable people in the world; they only ask that the laws, borders and sovereignty of the United States be respected.
This road map is not a complete solution; obviously, many details would have to be worked out.  But if the general concepts were adopted and the conditions unambiguously established, it would make political, practical and common sense.  Whatever its final version, the key to its success is simplicity; adding another 1000 pages of regulation and bureaucratic red tape to the already dizzyingly complicated immigration statutes would serve no purpose and would only exacerbate the problems we face today.
Finally, I must reiterate that the first and most critical step in this Systematic approach is to SECURE THE BORDER.  Much like the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, you can send hundreds of skimmers and emplace hundreds of miles of barriers and booms and build all the sand levies you like, but at the end of the day they still had to stop the leak.  Stopping the leak is just the first step.  True recovery would have been impossible until the leak was stopped, and there is still a long recovery process forthcoming.  In the same way, all the laws and regulations for both immigration and enforcement at all levels of government that are enacted won’t solve the problem if you are unwilling to stop the leak.
I challenge any and all politicians to use this roadmap of ideas as a true guide to once and for all solve the illegal immigration problem in the United States.  But it will take intestinal fortitude and daring.  Those that are weak of heart need not apply.  The only way this problem is going to be solved it to tackle it directly and to ignore the petty political bickering and backbiting.  This will take determination and a concerted effort, but it can be cone and it should be done; not only because it will solve or many of the issues associated with illegal immigration, but because it is the right thing to do.

SYSTEMATIC IMMIGRATION REFORM (SIR) – STEP ONE

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here in an effort to consolidate all articles in one location**

This is an open letter to Conservatives. Please stop
engaging in debates on the subject of comprehensive
immigration reform. Conservatives and anyone with common sense should oppose, not only comprehensive immigration reform, but ANY legislation where comprehensive is part of the title. This includes comprehensive banking reform, comprehensive health reform (too late for that one), comprehensive election reform, and comprehensive energy policy.

I use the example of having an old 68 mustang in your garage. You can not and will never be able to comprehensively fix that car. It is impossible. Even if you had a garage full of ASE certified mechanics and restorers, and you told them all to begin it would be impossible.

Why? Because even then they would all  be eager to get started they would only get in each others way. One group would want to jack the car up. Someone would be taking out the dash, while still others would be trying to take out the interior. It would be chaos. Yet that is what the government did with healthcare, and now wants to do with the banking industry and immigration policy.

The real answer is systematic reform. In our example, the most logical thing to do is to check the frame and ensure that it can sustain and accommodate all the rest of the subsequent repairs and/or modifications. A rebuilt engine that runs great means nothing if installed on a bent or rusting frame. It is not until after the first step that you can move on to the engine and rebuild it, install fresh gaskets, and rings and anything necessary to get running well. Once that is done you pull the transmission, etc… Usually, you go through the restoration systematically to ensure each change progresses toward the ultimate goal. Occasionally, it is to be expected that some part doesn’t quite fit or needs to be rebuilt in order for the previous repair or change to work properly within the context of the restoration.

All these concepts apply to immigration reform. The reformation/restoration of immigration policy must be done systematically. The first step is to find the area in dire need of fixing and attack that isolated problem. It will do no good to try and fix everything at once. In the case of immigration reform, the number one most pressing problem is the actual border. That is what must be fixed before any other problem can be addressed, much like the frame in our example, it does absolutely no good to write policy without first addressing the issue that makes the policy necessary in the first place.

We must build a wall! Not a virtual wall, a real 20-40 foot wall that will serve as real deterrent to illegal aliens attempting to enter into the country illegally. I would even go as far as suggesting a double wall where the first wall and second wall create a “dry moat” along the border so that those that cross over the border are

trapped between the two walls which would give border patrol agents time to intercept and detain illegal border crossers. This wall, contrary to popular belief, would not stop ALL illegal border crossers, but it would deter a great majority of them. Obviously without a wall we will never know exactly how much the deterrent effect might be, but I would speculate that it could cut illegal border crossers by 65-75 percent. Many will argue that the fence will do no good. But in a Congressional Research Service report to Congress it was reported that “After the IIRIRA’s mandate for increased enforcement along the Southwest border
in 1996, including construction of the triple-fence, apprehensions dropped rapidly in the San Diego sector in the late 1990s — from 480,000 in FY1996 to 100,000 in FY2002. The reduction in apprehensions was even more marked in the areas where fencing was constructed within San Diego sector. The USBP’s Imperial Beach and Chula Vista stations saw their apprehensions decline from 321,560 in FY1993 to 19,035 in FY2004 — a reduction of 94% over the 12 year period.” Whenever someone makes this argument they should be immediately asked why they have doors and locks on their houses and fences around their property. Physical barriers work and are very effective, period.

In order to get this done, Congress must allow for the construction of the wall in National Parks and refuges along the border. For those that argue that this would destroy habitat and the natural beauty of the environment must only be shown pictures of the devastation of garbage left by illegal border crossers to understand what really causes the destruction of the natural beauty of the desert. Congress should allow for the construction of the fence, all other laws notwithstanding. Once Congress makes the necessary exceptions to allow the construction, it should immediately introduce legislation to appropriate funds for construction of the wall. This would have some very positive effects for the nation and the economy. First, companies would have to bid and hire workers to supply the materiel, rent or buy the equipment, and install the fence. Second, the mere action of building the wall and will project a perception that the United States is shifting from tacit approval of illegal immigration to a concerted effort to enforce immigration law; this will itself create an environment whereby illegal immigrants will sense a turning of the tides and many will ultimately make a decision to self deport. Third, this will allow the border patrol to use its resources more efficiently and concentrate on the remaining illegal border crossers which are more likely to be gun traffickers, drug runners, and human smugglers.

Along with the building of the border fence Congress should simultaneously increase the budget for the Coast Guard for additional personnel and equipment to include a drastic increase of boats. What is the reason for that? Because as soon as you complete the border fence, the easiest way for illegal aliens to cross into the United States will be by boat; off the coast of San Diego and in the Gulf of Mexico in Texas.

Once the American public is assured that the borders are secure with a genuine physical deterrent, they will be more receptive to the idea of regularizing the status of those that are left in the country; but not until then! The American public has learned its lesson and will no longer accept empty promises that the border fence will be addressed and that funding will be appropriated at a future date the way they did in 1986. Americans are tired of waiting on Congress to comply with and appropriate the funds for legislation which has been signed into law such as the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Through their actions, first by the State of Arizona as stated in the new AZ1070 law, and then through their will, as reflected in poll after poll, the American people want Systematic Immigration Reform, and they will accept nothing less.

So please… Stop allowing progressives and liberals set the conditions for the argument. The only way to fix a problem, any problem, is to do so thoughtfully, deliberately, and systematically. Building the border fences is STEP I. Nothing can proceed without accomplishing that first critical step. A thousand mile journey begins with a single step… Let’s get started.

Don't Call Them Drunk Drivers

Here we go again. In an “opinion” piece from June 23, Linda Valdez of the Arizona Republic re-enforces the tried (or should I say tired) and true method of the left; vilify Americans while at the same time beatify illegal immigrants.

If people want to make an argument for unfettered, uncontrolled, unmonitored immigration then they should just make it. But please stop glorifying illegal aliens as some sort of altruistic population of innocents who should be exempted from criticism because they are "trying to provide a better life" for their kids or family or by using the "we wouldn't have any onions, lettuce,oranges, etc... if it weren't for illegal aliens," meme. give me a break.

First you have to swallow the supposition that the people that cross the border, in violation of federal law, are "migrants." Well the cold hard fact is this: these people are illegal aliens, criminals; just because they are not violent does mean that they do not commit crimes.

Second, even if you recognize that they are illegal aliens, you must somehow absolve them of any wrongdoing once they are in the country. Notice how the illegal alien mother people love to imagine in these hypothetical scenarios, apparently, bears no responsibility for putting her own son in danger of being arrested for violating the law, just so she can get a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk. What kind of parent are we talking about here? How much more selfish could she possibly be? Here are all these illegal immigrants in this country and Ms. Valdez seems to believe that illegals should be allowed to come and go as they please without any fear of being arrested or deported. That there shouldn't be any consequences for there actions because they pick onions.

And finally you must delude your self into thinking that crossing the border illegally is the ONLY crime/violation of the law they have committed; never taking into account that illegals drive without valid driver's licenses, drive without insurance, present fraudulent documentation to get jobs, steal social security numbers and other identification, fail to pay taxes, and may even commit fraud in order to collect government benefits such as food stamps.

Let us, for a moment, imagine that we use this same logic on drunk drivers. But please, don't call them drunk drivers, call them inebriated chauffeurs. No wait! How about impaired vehicle operators. No, no, no. Stop being so judgmental! They are just commuters. They are just regular people trying to get to work so they can support their families. You shouldn't try to pass laws that further force commuters to go into the shadows. And if a 18 year old commuter is taking his mother grocery shopping he shouldn't fear being arrested for taking his mom to get milk; never mind that his blood alcohol level is .136 and he has been arrested twice before for DUI. Nope. He is just trying to get his momma some milk.

And if you support laws that would prosecute commuters then you must be prejudiced against them and you are only writing these laws to try and get them to stop commuting in your state. Because they aren't doing anything bad, they are just driving under conditions that your average American refuses to drive under. They shouldn't be punished for driving when others refuse to drive. Never mind that in addition to driving while intoxicated they run red lights, fail to yield, speed, fail to signal, and fail to maintain reasonable and prudent distance from the vehicle in front of them. Those are just harassment laws designed to persecute commuters. and putting breath-analyzers in cars is just pure persecution; no one should have to "prove" their sobriety before commuting. We shouldn't pass laws that would discourage commuters from driving. Leave commuters alone.

Silly? Absolutely!! But that is the argument from the left; it doesn't make any logical or common sense when applied to any other group of people or any other type of law, and yet they continue to make it.

How sad.

Why Somos (We Are) Republicans Aren’t

An acquaintance of mine sent me a link to an article titled “Somos Republicans” will not be endorsing Gabriela Mercer in which Somos Republicans expressed that they would not support Gabriela Mercer in a race against Raul Grijalva.  I have read about Ms. Mercer’s announcement to run in Arizona’s 7^th Congressional District, but I was curious as to why “Somos Republicans” won’t endorse her candidacy.  I didn’t understand why any Republican organization would immediately rule out an endorsement without even waiting to see how many candidates there are and which one best aligns with its values.  I didn’t know much about “Somos Republicans” so I went to their website and started to analyze it.  The more I dug in the more I believe that this group should not be called “Somos Republicans” (We are Republicans) rather “Apenas Republicans” (Barely Republicans).   How did I come to this conclusion? Well… 

First let’s discuss Somos Republicans’ Principles.  Let me just say that I also believe in the Right to Life; free market capitalism, low taxes, small government, the Second Amendment, and traditional marriage.  It isn’t until you get to the last “principle” that you begin to understand Somos Republicans’ real raise d’être; Amnesty!  Below is the final principle for “Somos Republicans”:
Humane Viable Immigration Solution. Tough immigration is not a conservative “value” but rather an issue.  This issue needs to be dealt with in a manner that directly affects the well-being of our community. We believe this issue has been largely ignored, and it has placed Republicans and our community in a predicament which is inconsistent with the economic realities of our Free Market Capitalism, labor demands, and humanitarian tradition. Therefore, it is imperative that we promote a viable solution to this dilemma that is in concert with our economic demands. Such humane and viable solutions ought to resonate with ideals of President Reagan, Bush, and Conservative Think Tanks–such as the Goldwater Institute, the Hoover Institution, and CATO–that, too, have argued that a solution to this predicament is long overdue.

I tried to ignore the incoherence of the statement and try to dissect what “Somos Republicans” is trying to say.  But this is tough, because as far as I am aware, Immigration is solved.  A person that wants to immigrate into the United States goes to their local consulate or embassy, gets in line and submits an application for entry into the United States, they wait for a visa and when they get it they are free to enter the country and proceed to apply to become a permanent resident and ultimately a US citizen.   I believe what they probably wanted to address in the “principle” is “a humane and viable solution to the illegal immigration issues facing our nation.”  So why don’t they say that?
“Somos Republicans” then states that “tough immigration” is not a “conservative ‘value’” but an issue; “tough immigration” isn’t an issue either, it is an adjectival phrase absent a noun to modify, but I digress.  I assume they are talking about tough immigration policy or laws or legislation or proposals.  Anyway, it isn’t tough immigration they are talking about; it’s really “tough anti-illegal immigration policy” that they are addressing.  And again “Somos Republicans” fails to use the word illegal.   Their “principle” then goes into some rambling about putting “our community” into a predicament. 

The bottom line is: There is nothing inconsistent with people wanting the law to be adhered to and enforced.  The fact that “Somos Republicans” addresses labor demands and economic demands in the statement proves the shortsightedness of the group; with the national unemployment rate over 9% there is no “labor demand.”  I know, I know, illegal immigrants do jobs that Americans won’t do, but if that was the case before it sure isn’t now.  “Somos Republicans” also talks a lot about being “humane,” and a “humanitarian tradition.”  Has anyone at “Somos Republicans” done some research on the Chinese when they came over to build the railroads or the Irish or the Italians to compare the “humane” treatment they received?  The only tradition that I know of is one of working.  People worked and they either found some measure of success or they didn’t.   And the most important part is that the great majority of immigrants prior to the 1960’s all came to the United States legally.  Illegal immigration as a policy issue is a rather recent phenomena.
Finally “Somos Republicans” throws around names like Presidents Reagan and Bush, sprinkle in the Cato and Goldwater Institutes, and the Hoover Institution and Presto! “Somos Republicans” has established its bona fides as a Republican entity. 

But let’s get back to why “Somos Republicans” won’t endorse Gabriela Mercer.  Well they NEVER TELL YOU!!  They mention Ms. Mercer twice in the article; once in the Headline and once in the first sentence when they mention that the Republican Party needs to find a better candidate.  This is a bloggers version of a drive-by shooting.  
“Somos Republicans” leaves the reader contemplating Ms. Mercer’s candidacy while they continue on with statistics from a Pew Hispanic Center survey trying to convince the Arizona Republican Party, and anyone else unfortunate enough to be reading the article, that 80% of Hispanics are against “SB1070 type of laws”.  (An assertion that is specious at best and dishonest at worst.) And, that no one should support any candidate that favors SB1070.

There is only one problem.  The Pew study that “Somos Republicans” diligently cites over and over again was conducted in 2008.  As a refresher, SB1070 was passed and signed by Governor Brewer in 2010.  So whatever questions were asked by the Pew Hispanic Center, they were not in regards to SB1070. 

In addition to this small, seemingly insignificant fact; is the fact that in the same Pew Study, only 44% of the over 2000 people that were interviewed, were US citizens and registered to vote. 
“Somos Republicans” then let’s their target audience, the Arizona Republican Party, know that any Hispanic who supports SB1070 is a “token” “yes-man” and that these Hispanics don’t know how Latinos really feel.  This is the tired old meme taken right out of the leftist book of tactics and is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize and silence anyone who disagrees with “Somos Republicans” view on illegal immigration: if you can convince everyone that pro-SB1070 Hispanics are “tokens” then they aren’t worth listening too because they are a super small minority. To discredit the people who disagree with you by calling them names is something worthy of a 4^th grade playground; How truly juvenile. 

Then… the coup de grâce!!  “Somos Republicans” tells the Republican Party that it must “prove to the increasing number of Hispanic voters that all Republicans are not a bunch of bigots who want to empty a clip on “illegals.” So, the burden of proof is on Republicans to prove they are NOT a bunch of bigots.  This can be accomplished by denouncing those that “Somos Republicans” says should be denounced. (For the Record: I do believe that Virgil Peck should be held to account for what he said.)  And then mention Russell Pearce, J.D. Hayworth, Tom Tancredo, and Steve King, so no one gets confused about who “Somos Republicans” considers extremists.  And finally…. the digestif to wash the whole thing down, “Somos Republicans” reminds everyone that they are Ronald Reagan Republicans and want to restore the Party of Abe Lincoln. 

First, to the Republican Party:  Be aware of what this group stands for: AMNESTY! If you are pro amnesty then you have found the right Latino group for you. If you chose to affiliate yourself with “Somos Republicans” be aware that you are taking the side of illegal aliens over law abiding immigrants and citizens (Somos is anti-SB1070 and Pro-Sanctuary City), you are taking the side of illegal students from foreign countries over US Citizens from out of state (Somos is Pro-DREAM Act), and you will be affiliated with the pro-amnesty movement. I am a Hispanic that believes in the rule of law and supports efforts such as Arizona SB1070 to control the illegal immigration crisis in the United States. I am one of the tokens of whom “Somos Republicans” speaks, but I am not alone. Ignore me at your peril. 

To Gabriela Saucedo Mercer:  I do not know you personally but, as they say; you can tell a lot about a person by who his/her “enemies” are.  And if Somos Republicans is your “enemy” then I support you in your efforts to unseat Raul Grijalva in Arizona Congressional District 7 as should every republican in the state.

The Nightmare that is the Dream Act

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location**
Keep this article in mind when you hear this Act is again before Congress for passage. RRB

The DREAM Act is a complete and utter disaster. The DREAM Act as it is currently proposed is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to pass amnesty to a vast number of illegal aliens.  This act does nothing to solve the current illegal alien crisis and should be opposed by all Americans who believe in the rule of law.  I went online and read the proposed act to see what all the hubbub is about.  First of all let me just say that I am not a lawyer, but fortunately you don’t need to be to understand what the DREAM Act is trying to do nor how it is trying to do it.  The surprise here is how overt liberals have become in telling the American public exactly what they plan.  The only catch is that the American public has to read the act and engage as necessary.  I am not writing this as an opinion commentary, this is a column to inform you of what is in the act.  If you don’t agree you need to get off you duff and start calling your senator and congressman.  You have no idea what this act allows for and the politicians advocating its passage don’t want you to know, because if you knew there would be a national uprising of indignation and disgust.  Here’s hoping for a little of that.

Before we get too far, there are parts of this act that might require a lawyer but I will only address those portions which I both think are egregious and are straightforward. There is no way that a congressman should be able to argue that he/she didn’t understand the language or that he/she wasn’t aware of the consequences, etc…   I have excerpted the part of the bill in question so you can see the language yourself.  So here we go!!!

SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF STATE OPTION TO DETERMINE RESIDENCY FOR PURPOSES OF HIGHER EDUCATION BENEFITS.

(a)   In General- Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) is repealed.
The federal law mentioned above prohibits illegal aliens from getting instate tuition. I would like to take the time to point out the irony that any state that allows illegal immigrants to get instate tuition is violating federal law, this would be the perfect example of Preemption, unfortunately the federal government won’t stop this practice.

SEC. 4. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF CERTAIN LONG-TERM RESIDENTS WHO ENTERED THE UNITED STATES AS CHILDREN.

(a) Special Rule for Certain Long-Term Residents Who Entered the United States as Children
(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security may cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, subject to the conditional basis described in section 5, an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States, if the alien demonstrates that–
(A) the alien has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act, and had not yet reached the age of 16 years at the time of initial entry;
This act would allow anyone who is 5 years plus one day who was brought into this country as a newborn to be eligible.  Later in the act it stipulates that the “alien” can be not older than 35 years old to apply.  Has anyone thought about how many people we are talking about?  And once all these people are rewarded with citizenship they can proceed to legalize all of their relatives.
(B) the alien has been a person of good moral character since the time of application;
This essentially forgives anything the alien has done up to the point of application.  So, technically an alien could apply and there would be no consideration of any previous criminality, this might also include DUI, and any other previous arrests and/or convictions.
(2)   WAIVER- Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the ground of ineligibility under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the ground of deportability under paragraph (1)(E) of section 237(a) of that Act for humanitarian purposes or family unity or when it is otherwise in the public interest.
DHS can waiver anyone and stop them from being deported.  Under the guise of family unity that would essentially include every single illegal “alien” that applies for the program. But in case that isn’t enough DHS can waive deportation if they can find some public interest as determined by DHS.
(d) Exemption From Numerical Limitations- Nothing in this section may be construed to apply a numerical limitation on the number of aliens who may be eligible for cancellation of removal or adjustment of status under this section.
There is no limit to how many people can qualify under this act.  If there are 13 million, so be it. People will wait for years to get approved and, as you will see later; once they apply they cannot be deported if they have pending application.
(f) Removal of Alien- The Secretary of Homeland Security may not remove any alien who has a pending application for conditional status under this Act.
ONCE AN ILLEGAL ALIEN APPLIES HE/SHE CANNOT BE DEPORTED!!!!

SEC. 5. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS.

(2) HARDSHIP EXCEPTION-
(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in the Secretary’s discretion, remove the conditional status of an alien if the alien–
(i) satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1);
(ii) demonstrates compelling circumstances for the inability to complete the requirements described in paragraph (1)(D); and
(iii) demonstrates that the alien’s removal from the United States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien or the alien’s spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
The DHS can determine a hardship and remove the conditional status of the alien, without the alien having either completed a degree or serving in the armed forces.  Notice that the hardship can affect anyone in his immediate family who is a US citizen.  This paragraph will essentially allow anyone who entered illegally as a child and subsequently had children to stay in the US.

SEC. 7. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.

(c) Employment- An alien whose removal is stayed pursuant to subsection (b) may be engaged in employment in the United States consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and State and local laws governing minimum age for employment.
Once the alien applies he/she is legally allowed to work. Fancy that! Who needs a guest worker program when all you have to do is go to school or join the army?

SEC. 9. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

(b)    Penalty- Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be examined in violation of this section shall be fined not more than $10,000.
I’m not completely sure but I think this is a clause that will prohibit the oversight of this program by anyone outside of DHS and the DOJ.  That means there is no way to see what is happening behind the scenes. Who is getting a waiver, who is a hardship, how many are in the program, how many actually completed the requirements.  It is unconscionable that the federal government would legislate that a federal program cannot be audited or examined.

SEC. 11. HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE.

Notwithstanding any provision of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), with respect to assistance provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), an alien who adjusts status to that of a lawful permanent resident under this Act shall be eligible only for the following assistance under such title:
(1) Student loans under parts B, D, and E of such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq., 1087a et seq., 1087aa et seq.), subject to the requirements of such parts.


(2) Federal work-study programs under part C of such title IV (42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), subject to the requirements of such part.

(3) Services under such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), subject to the requirements for such services.
The American Tax Payer will foot the bill for the education of all these Illegal aliens getting an education. YOU have to pay for it. You have to subsidize the failure of other governments to offer economic opportunity to their citizens.
There is more in this very short proposition, I recommend everyone read it. Then ask yourself what the hell is going on in this country when not only are we rewarding illegal aliens with the opportunity for an education but we may in fact end up paying for it.  Meanwhile law-abiding immigrants are essentially punished for following the law and trying to do things the right way.
Call your Senator.

LOCATION, LEGISLATION, AND IMMIGRATION: THE TRUTH BEHIND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Many people on both sides of the issue, as it relates to anchor babies and birthright citizenship, cite the 14th Amendment to support their particular view on the subject of illegal aliens and whether or not their children are citizens.  In Arizona the debate has intensified as the Legislature debates the passage of Senate Bills (SB) 1308, 1309, and 1611.  Additionally, there has been an increase in the debate of birthright citizenship and whether there is a method by which this can be changed.  There are various views of the argument; some argue that birthright citizenship is a Constitutional right and cannot be changed without a Constitutional Convention, while I would argue that, in fact, birthright citizenship is statutory in nature and the only requirement to change the status quo is for Congress to clarify the existing statutes through legislation.  That is the argument which I will lay out in this article.

First, here are some facts that should be taken into consideration when discussing the issue.

1.   The power of establishing naturalization statutes lies with the Legislative Branch under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...”

2.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed and became law in April, 1866; it redefined the requirements for citizenship eligibility as it pertained to slaves, former slaves and children of slaves and specifically excluded “Indians not taxed.”

3.  The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9^th, 1868. It was designed to codify into the Constitution the provisions passed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, giving citizenship rights and immunities to the newly emancipated slaves after the Civil War. 

4.  The 14th Amendment, through the jurisdiction clause, did not give citizenship rights to everyone born in the United States, and did not retroactively apply to all peoples in the US at the time. 

Now, let’s step through the events logically.

The Constitution clearly stipulates that naturalization is a power held by the Legislative Branch of the government.  As such, it is Congress that decides who can and cannot become a citizen, and under which circumstances citizenship can be granted.  Congress is responsible for the regulations of citizenship and modifications of those regulations.  If Congress is empowered by the Constitution to establish the “Rule of Naturalization” then it cannot be said that citizenship, whether it be birthright citizenship or naturalization, is a Right as set forth in the 14th Amendment.

The Civil Rights act of 1866 was passed two years before the 14th Amendment.  This means that Congress had granted citizenship to all emancipated slaves and their children two years before the 14th Amendment was ratified.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866 specifically excluded “Indians not taxed” to avoid giving citizenship to Indians who were members of tribes on reservations who were members of those sovereign “Indian nations.”   Indians born within the United States (boundaries) were not considered and were not extended citizenship rights; presumably because they did not have allegiance to the US, rather to their tribe.  The point here is that the determination of citizenship was statutory, since at the time of passage of the Civil Rights act of 1866 the 14th Amendment did not exist.  Again, this is evidence that citizenship is granted through statutory regulation rather than as a direct consequence of the 14th Amendment.

This begs the question: If slaves were already citizens why was the 14th amendment necessary?  I think it is safe to say that Congress wanted to codify into the Constitution the provisions passed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, giving citizenship rights and immunities to the newly emancipated slaves after the Civil War.   By codifying these rights into the Constitution it would prevent any future congress from changing the naturalization statutes in the future and void or jeopardize the rights of emancipated slaves by simple majorities.

During the debate over the amendment Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, defined who would fall within the "jurisdiction of the United States": [E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the phrase “Subject to the Jurisdiction.”   Sen. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland explained the jurisdiction requirement as: “[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power -- for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before -- shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”  Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois said that 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' meant subject to its 'complete' jurisdiction, meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

The very real and relevant point about the ratification of the 14th Amendment is that (there is no mention of slaves or Native Indians) it did not grant citizenship to everyone in the United States by edict.  Native Indians were not granted or considered citizens as a consequence of the 14th Amendment.  When the 14th Amendment was passed it made no mention of excluding Native Indians, nevertheless, it was plainly understood that Native Indians had not previously been citizens nor were they granted citizenship as a result of the 14th Amendment’s ratification.  Native Indians, although born in the territory of the United States were not considered US Citizens.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) the Supreme Court ruled that Native Indians were not citizens and that individuals could not become citizens merely by declaring themselves so: “But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law.”  The justices go on to point out that: “Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”  This case established the precedent on citizenship issues as they relate to birthright citizenship.   As a matter of fact, in 1919 Congress passed the American Indian Citizenship Act.  This act provided that American Indians who had participated in World War I and had been honorably discharged could apply for and subsequently be granted citizenship.  So even into the early 20th Century Indians, although born in the United States Territory, were not considered Citizens nor automatically granted that privilege under the law.  And it wasn’t until 1924 that Congress passed the Indian Citizen Act which granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States.  This was done through statute and passed by Congress, it was then that Native Indians gained birthright citizenship in the United States. 

Subsequent decisions are cited to support the idea that birthright citizenship is a Constitutional right, particularly US v. Wong Kim Ark.  But even though Wong was granted naturalization based on his birth in the United States, his parents were legally present in the country through a treaty with China, at least part of the decision rested on his perceived allegiance to the United States vis a vis China.  It can be said that Wong was wrongly decided since immigration and naturalization was expressly prohibited in the treaty with China at the time and it was understood that Chinese workers were still subjects of China.  But even this decision acknowledged the right of Congress to legislate naturalization laws. 

Additionally, the argument that you are citizen based on the physical location of your birth is not recognized by any other nation.  It is contrary to common law as it has been understood for hundreds of years.  A person’s citizenship is always based on his parents’ status.  This is why the US government has written legislation to accommodate children born in foreign countries and those born to Military servicemen overseas, among many others; because other countries do not automatically recognize the child born as a citizen of their respective countries unless one of the parents is a national of that country.  There was even an act granting citizenship to Mexicans who elected to reside in the US after the War with Mexico; otherwise those people would have remained Mexican citizens.  The presumption is that a child inherits his citizenship from his parents.  This idea is not new and it is disingenuous to believe or to argue otherwise.  Just because a child is born in Germany does not make him German, in order to be a citizen he must be born to parents who are subject to German law.  And one cannot ignore hundreds of years of jurisprudence because it suits his agenda.

All of the arguments notwithstanding look at the “jurisdiction” clause and ask yourself whether or not illegal immigrants in this country are truly under the jurisdiction of the United States.  To answer that question, one must wonder why illegal immigrants often call the Mexican Consulate for legal assistance.  If they are claiming citizenship for their children (because they are presumably under the jurisdiction of the United States per the 14^th Amendment), they would, by definition, have no allegiance to Mexico; why would they call a foreign diplomatic corps for assistance?  Probably because we all know instinctively that allegiance to your country, no matter who you are, is much more than the physical location of your birth.

Much, much more…

ANCHOR BABIES AND THE ATTEMPT TO SILENCE CRITICS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

This is a response to an opinion piece in the Arizona Republic by James Garcia.

“Anchor babies” are identified as such because their parents are illegally in the country.  And, these parents are fully aware that once the child is born he/she/they are immediately eligible for government handouts, among these are WIC subsidies, Food Stamps, housing assistance and welfare.  This term is used to quickly refer to the situation of these children while economizing words. This method of creating terms for people is quite common in society.  I don’t recall anyone ever objecting to the term “crack babies”; a term used to describe children who are born to mothers that are addicted to crack cocaine.  Is this a form of racial slur?  Is this a detestable label?  How about “welfare mother” or “soccer mom” or DINK (dual income no kids), or Yuppie (young upwardly mobile), or X-genner, Y-genner?  And what about the use of the term “Tea bagger,” is this also a detestable label?  This term is also meant “to punish, degrade and dehumanize.”  Has Mr. Garcia ever called for the end to its use? 

This indignation is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize and silence anyone who disagrees with his view on illegal immigration: if you use the term you are racist and therefore your ideas are not worth listening to.  

Mr. Garcia takes offense because his parents are Mexican; from what he indicates his parents arrived and spent their time in the US legally.  Kudos to them!  This does not, however, change the dynamics of the phenomenon we know today as anchor babies.   The United States is financially broke and indebted up to its ears; unfettered immigration is steadily increasing that debt as more and more illegal immigrants come across the border with the sole intention of giving birth to their children in the United States in an effort to abuse the system and to take advantage of the American taxpayer. 

Mr. Garcia then claims that birth-right citizenship is a constitutional right, when, in fact, Rule of Naturalization is a power given to the Legislative branch under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”  This would make it statutory, not Constitutional.  I’m sure that Mr. Garcia would then point to the 14^th Amendment as his Constitutional proof, but even Senator Howard, who wrote the 14^th Amendment explicitly stated that it was not intended to apply to aliens: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers”…   Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, elaborated: "What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means ... It cannot be said of any (one) who owes allegiance ... to some other government that he is 'subject' to the jurisdiction of the United States."  re foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministries."

If Mr. Garcia wants to stop these slurs he should support efforts to eliminate the situation which creates this category of people.  If illegal immigration is the root cause of what society calls “anchor babies” then the logical solution is to eliminate, as much as possible, illegal immigration.  But this is not part of Mr. Garcia’s agenda; he merely wants to squelch people’s right to express their opposition to illegal immigration by feigning indignation instead of talking about a real solution to the illegal immigration problem in the United States.