The Manhattan Project--2016 A to Z Theme

Always a work in progress--welcome to my blog...

Thursday, August 12, 2010

What Does Immigration Reform Look Like?

              The immigration controversy is big here in California and Arizona.   In fact, the issue of immigration is one of the major issues that Americans are most concerned about after things like the economy and unemployment.   The immigration law that was passed by Arizona has caused a furor among liberals with cries of racism and invasion of constitutional rights.   There are many calls for immigration reform.

              What does immigration reform look like?

             As usual words have been charged and falsehoods created to help raise emotions.  So before we start the debate let's clarify the issues and define the wording properly.  The issue is not immigration.  The real issue is illegal aliens coming into this country to establish themselves without going through the legal channels and often having no true respect for the values that are the foundation of the United States.  Letting the floodgates of immigrants flow across the borders unchecked has led to more drug opportunists, gang members, human traffickers,  and terrorists to come into the country blended into the horde coming here to take advantage of our great country.  We are allowing a dangerous trend to occur.

               These immigrants are putting a burden upon our law enforcement, social services, educational systems, and the job market.  Standards are being lowered in our society.  Schools are suffering as the education process is slowed for those with advanced learning potential who are held back by non-English speakers and those with a lower quest for education.  Recent statistics in California show the dropout rate at 46% with a whopping majority to be Hispanics.

             There have been indications of movements such as La Raza and Azatlan that would like nothing better than for certain parts of the United States to revert to Mexican rule.  Mexican flags and those of other Latin American countries are becoming common sights as disrespect for the flag of the USA grows. 

              The furor raised by the Arizona law regarding immigration is based on a sham fueled by liberal and Hispanic activist propaganda.  The Arizona law merely states that the police will actively enforce federal law.  What a novel concept!  The police enforce law?  Where did they get such an idea?

             I don't like what's happening.  And before you suggest that I am racist or anti-immigrant, keep in mind that my wife is from Latin American.   She and her entire family came to the United States through legal channels, completing all of the necessary processes and legal papers over many years to eventually become proud citizens of the United States.  Her daughter and nieces and nephews have been honor students and college graduates and have gotten good jobs.   They did it right and I have no problem with anyone who wants to take this approach to immigration.

              If people aren't going to respect our laws of citizenship, why would we expect that they would respect any other laws that were inconvenient for them?  The way I see it employers who are hiring illegals need to be penalized and the anchor baby clause of the constitution needs to be amended. 

              What to do with all of the aliens who are currently living in the United States illegally?   There are estimates of anywhere from twelve to twenty million.  How should these people be handled?   What about future immigration?   Are you happy with the flood of illegals or are you against it?    What is the upside?


  1. Thank you so much Lee for defining "Illegal." Am I happy about it, a "Resounding NO."

    I also worry about Social Security with many of these illegal's now holding SS cards.

    Very good points and I applaud you for this post.
    Trying To Get Over The Rainbow

  2. Here in the UK we get them being smuggled in lorries, ships but most get caught at Dover, I think immigrants should go about things through the proper channels so everything is up and above board,
    In one city Where I was brouhht up, married and had my three children there were immigrants from Jamaica, India, all over, I had reason to see my daughters teacher at the school (Which was a Church of England School;) to find my daughter was one of three white children in her class, also they stopped morning assembly because the immigrant religon did not agree with the schools.
    I am not predudiced far be it , I live and let live but needless to say I was not pleased with the situation. If a person becomes an imigrant they should abide by the laws of that place that has become their new home.

  3. You nailed it Lee - it's not about immigration! So many forget that. If I snuck into Canada without my passport, I'd expect them to send my butt back to the US. Why do so many think it's wrong if we do the same with those who enter our country illegally?

  4. Ugh. First, I am opposed to the Arizona law. Not because of any of the absurdities touted by the left, but because it goes against the Constitution. The federal government has been slacking on following through with one of things they're actually supposed to be doing (i.e. empowered to do) and passing all sorts of stuff they specifically are not empowered to do by the Supreme Law of the Land. Judge Napolitano did an awesome bit about the issue with the Arizona law and specifically about this point.

    The bigger problem, in my opinion, rests upon the why of people coming here. With the situation in Arizona it's easy to see it's drugs. You get rid of that market if you go Portugal's route in dealing with drugs (decriminalizing). Beyond that we lose nothing by making legal immigration easier. Of course this is less of an issue if we also don't have so many entitlement programs that make it so taxpayers are forced to pay into a fund that's badly managed AND pays out to people who simply pay nothing.

    Good topic, Lee. Thanks for "tossing it out there". :)

  5. I love that our country is such a melting pot, the diversity is what makes it so wonderful. The problem here, as Lee has pointed out beautifully, is that when it is easier to enter our country illegally than it is legally, the "immigrants" that we are going to get coming in are going to continue to be the dregs of society. The pimps, pushers and human traffickers who prey on others and whose greed knows no bounds.

    I'm not sure the Arizona Law is the answer and I don't have another suggestion but things are not right as they are now.

  6. r-LEE-b ~
    Good post, Brother! The only thing I would object to is that in one paragraph, you accurately state:

    >> "...So before we start the debate let's clarify the issues and define the wording properly. The issue is not immigration. The real issue is illegal aliens coming into this country to establish themselves without going through the legal channels..." <<

    But then your very next paragraph begins with this:

    >> "These immigrants are putting a burden upon our law enforcement, social services, educational systems, and the job market." <<

    In order to remain consistent with the point you made so well in the prior paragraph, I think you ought to change the words "These immigrants", in the following paragraph, to "These illegal aliens".

    I watched the Judge Napolitano YouTube video provided by Kimberly, and I will simply say that it's not the first time I've disagreed with Napolitano, although I do sometimes find him right on the money.

    And I will add, however, that I agreed with him entirely when he makes the statement about Arizona seceding. Things have gone too far in this country for it to be saved now, and any state that wishes to live free of Federal Totalitarianism would need to secede from the Union. Perhaps that would result in violent revolution, as it did once before. But then again, maybe not, because to fight the rebels, Uncle Sam would be required to bring the troops home from the foreign countries... where so much oil is.

    Of course, the real issues - beyond even Americans' desire for drugs - is that Mexico SUCKS! The majority of the illegal aliens are not involved in drugs and street crimes. The majority of them are cleaning office buildings and waxing grocery store floors at night. And why have they illegally snuck into our country for these low-paying jobs? I already told you. Because Mexico SUCKS!

    And the most important point - the one that Judge Napolitano didn't make (because somehow this always gets left out by the talking heads in the mainstream media every time they give us their so-called "expert" analysis of an American problem) - is that the big picture is not nearly so much about cheap labor for the Right and extra votes for the Left, as it is about creating a "New World Order". A New World Order in which national sovereignty and shared culture are scrapped by the Elites and replaced with One-World Government, in which we all live as one big, happy family under the thumb of Global Socialism in our Brave New World.

    But Americans would rather not know anything about that. Proven, of course, by the fact that I have 9 "Followers" of my political blog and 30 "Followers" of my non-politcal blog where I post mostly a bunch of bullsh#t.

    OK, I'm done. Rant over. What's on the menu for tomorrow?

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  7. the whole story reminds me of Serbia and Kosovo. When you let people come in great numbers with no rules (or you can't impose rules because the world doesn't let you due to their own opportunistic reasons), they can take over the land sooner or later (as in Serbia's case).

  8. I cannot for the life of me understand why there is an arguement on this issue to begin with. What part of "illegal" dont people understand. If someone is not here legally, they broke the law.

    Arizona law is only cut and paste of federal law. In order to enforce a federal law, the state has to adopt a law that is "at least as rigerous. And besides, all they wanted to do is hand over the illegals to the Feds...

    I think that all of those who are opposed to deporting illegals, and who want to provide them with the services they are now getting, should be required to say so on their tax form. Create a fund from these taxes to pay for welfare/health/education etc for illegals. Once money runs out, so do services.

    I wonder how many would change their stance on illegal immigration and providing them services if they were hit with additional taxes to support their cause.

    I opt not to pay.


  9. I think I am on the same page as you are. I don't have an issue with someone who wants to come to the US through the proper channels. What a sticky situation; I wish I had all the answers.
    Have a good weekend,

  10. Someone recently accused me of being racist for wanting immigration reform and supporting Arizona's law. My question in return was, "What race is "immigrant?"

  11. Thanks to all of you for adding your thoughts to this topic. Here are some specifically directed responses:

    Kimberly -- I agree that the drugs flow across the border and their is a problem concerning the drug laws. However, I do not think the most of the illegal immigrants are here because of the drugs. I think Stephen McCarthy hit it right on the nose.

    StMc -- I had considered my wording when I was composing this but I thought the relationship was close enough to be understood. And I guess you did understand what I was saying. I should have stuck with my "illegal immigrants" like you suggested, but I'm not going to go back to change it.

    Dezmond -- I think I know what you are saying. I was not happy about the stance that the US took on the Serbia / Kosovo issue and ultimately I don't know how much was solved.

    Sig -- Interesting proposal you suggest. Letting people vote with their dollars says a lot more than the idealism of the ballot box.

  12. Lee-

    Well said!

    We've got a Federal government trillions in debt and borrowing more every day, and the "immigration reform" people do not see that (1) "immigration reform" just means legalizing everyone here illegally and (2)we simple (as a country) do not have the cash to cover all of the social programs that would expand.

    Other countries enforce their laws, but our sound byte nation hears a talking head say Arizonans are like Nazis because of their bill, and they start protesting.

    I don't have children, so I guess I don't have to worry about what kind of country we're leaving for them.

    All of you with children should worry.

    Shameless self-promotion time...

    Lee, as you know I've done several posts on the Arizona bill on my "Back In The USSR" blog (not for the faint of heart)-here's a link for anyone interested in reading more:


  13. PART 1 OF 2:

    LEE ~
    I was pressed for time yesterday when I posted my comment here and therefore wasn't able to fully articulate my opposition to Judge Napolitano's view expressed in the video link provided by Kimberly (above).

    There are several things I could add here, but I will restrict myself to two points:

    1) As Sig accurately states, the Arizona SB 1070 law merely makes it obligatory for Arizona lawmen to ascertain the legal citizenship standing of a suspect when in the course of an otherwise normal law enforcement stop and the citizenship is questionable.

    Enforcing SB 1070 will undoubtedly result in more illegal aliens being turned over to Federal immigration agencies. What the American people really ought to be asking themselves is: "Why in the world is the Federal Government so opposed to state law enforcement officers upholding Federal immigration law? Why does Uncle Sam so strongly want illegal aliens to go unapprehended that Uncle Sam would actually file a lawsuit against a state that merely seeks to assist our good Uncle in doing his job?" THAT is something every American (especially those with conservative values) ought to be asking!

    2) In that video, Judge Napolitano makes the claim that SB 1070 should be overturned by the courts, and then when asked what action Arizona has available to it if the Feds refuse to secure their border and stop illegal immigration, Napolitano says they can threaten to secede from the Union.

    Well, that's easy for him to say, knowing damn good and well that it isn't going to happen. Seceding from the Union is a far more extreme action than is merely attempting to assist Federal immigration agencies with the passage of SB 1070. If Arizona is running into THIS much opposition from the government over something as simple as SB 1070, what might the state expect if it were to go as far as attempting secession?

    Continued below...

  14. PART 2 OF 2:

    But here's one of the biggest factors that Napolitano (no more a real conservative than is Glenn Beck) conveniently left out of his Constitutional assessment:

    The U.S. Constitution is a legally binding contract between the Federal government and the individual States. Article IV, Section 4 of that contract states that the Federal Government is required to "guarantee to every State in this Union, a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion..."

    One of the meanings of "a Republican Form of Government" is popular rule (i.e., political decisions have to be made by a majority - in some cases, a plurality - of voting citizens.

    Well, there is plenty of evidence that some elections have been polluted and affected by the voting of illegal aliens. In fact, I personally know one former Congressman who almost certainly lost his seat in the House due to the registering and voting of illegal aliens in his California district. A mass of illegal aliens will affect the maintaining of a Republican Form of Government.

    And if the number of illegals crossing into our country and taking up residence here does not constitute an "invasion" then I don't know the meaning of the word. An invasion does not necessarily have to be "armed" (although some of the actions of the Mexican drug cartels on our side of the border DOES fit the defintion of "armed invasion").

    Well, it should be clear to everyone with their eyes open that the Federal Government has not upheld its part of the contract (the U.S. Constitution) with the states. And what happens when one party does not honor its part of a legal contract? The contract becomes null and void. You don't require the second party to adhere strictly to the contract after the first party has broken its part of the agreement.

    So, for Judge Napolitano to maintain that Arizona is acting un-Constitutionally in its passing of SB 1070 is the height of disingenuousness.

    But then, of course, if Napolitano were a "real" Constitutional conservative, he wouldn't be regularly appearing on mainstream political programs. One can be sure that the so-called "experts" presented by the mainstream media to argue a point from either the Democrat OR Republican angle are never going to be genuine threats to the status quo and will tell the people selective truths but never THE WHOLE TRUTH.

    LEE, I just felt I ought to more fully explain my stance here, even though I know this blog bit is yesterday's news and now ancient history, not likely to be reexamined by anyone again.

    However, in the event any of yesterday's commenters should return here, I would also like to suggest they do check out Larry's "Back In The USSR" blog; he does post some good "stuffs" there that is well worth contemplating!

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  15. LC & StMc -- great conclusion to this debate. That was some great information and argument for the topic. The whole things a mess and looking at the big picture I don't see any way that the current stance (or non-stance) on immigration can make the U.S. a better place. I agree that there is a very subtle and underground invasion of our great nation that is far more insidious and dangerous than any invasion with armies with weapons. I hope someone in our government for standing up to it all and God bless Arizona for at least giving it a shot.

  16. I like how you present this. It's a HUGE problem in CA & AZ, but I'm sure also 1 in NM & TX. It won't be solved immediately. They can't all be deported. & they're not just from Mexico & Latin America, they're from Europe & Asia, too.

    The biggest gripe I have is that whether they're legal or illegal, they need to LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH. Fine, they can be bilingual & retain their culture, but if they want to be in this country then learn our language.

    It's gotten so bad that you can call anywhere in the USA & be instructed to press 1 for English. OK, end of rant!

  17. Lisa -- And it's worse than that. I have been unemployed for a while and nearly every job here in the L.A. area requires applicants to be bilingual. I would like to be bilingual, but it really grates on me that it is now a requirement for getting a job in the United States.

  18. Arlee,
    I feel so bad for you. Your English is perfect! While I understand that some jobs should be bilingual, the key word is SOME. It's really unfair to people like you who were born & raised in the USA to be discriminated against.

  19. Arlee,

    Thanks for the comment on thekingpin68. I shall reply.

    You have an informative blog.

    My brother and family live in Arizona, so I hope if I move there for work I will be allowed to stay.;)

  20. Kingpin-- Hopefully if you go you will go thru the legal channels and get the necessary paperwork. But my problem would not be so great with immigrants from Canada as those from Mexico. Canada is pretty similar to the U.S. while Mexico is like a very foreign country with different standards of living and moral outlook. If the U.S. were infiltrated by Canadians intent on changing the U.S. to their standards, we would not notice. Latin Americans, and Muslims for that matter, are coming here to make a change that would be very extreme. This is not a bigoted reaction, but an observation of what I have seen here in L.A. and elsewhere.

    Tossing It Out


Go ahead and say something. Don't be afraid to speak your mind.
I normally try to respond to all comments in the comment section so please remember to check the "Email follow-up comments" box if you want to participate in the comment conversation.

For Battle of the Bands voting the "Anonymous" commenting option has been made available though this version is the least preferred. If voting using "anonymous" please include in your comment your name (first only is okay) and city you are voting from and the reason you chose the artist you did.

If you know me and want to comment but don't want to do it here, then you can send me an email @ jacksonlee51 at aol dot com.