Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (59811)	6/10/2007 12:23:07 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Why I was opposed By Mike Pence June 10, 2007 Last year, President Bush set out his views on immigration reform to the American people, saying there must be "a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation." I agree with the president that a rational middle ground can be found between automatic citizenship and mass deportation, but the amnesty bill that was defeated in the Senate was not the middle ground. I opposed the Senate immigration bill because of its core fallacy that millions of illegal immigrants could get right with the law without having to leave the country. For most Americans, and me, that is amnesty and I cannot support it. Different from last year's Senate compromise, this Senate bill included provisions that appeared to require illegal immigrants to leave the country, but that simply was not the case. Even several major news organizations characterized this "touchback" provision as mandatory. But the Senate bill only included a requirement that Z Visa holders return to the U.S. Consulate in their country of origin if they wanted to apply for a green card, which was strictly optional. Under the Senate bill, illegals could obtain a Z Visa, which was renewable indefinitely, simply by paying a fine and passing a background check. Z Visa holders never were required to leave the country to get right with the law. The purpose of requiring illegal immigrants to leave the country to get right with the law is not simply to do a quick "touchback." That is a gimmick. The purpose of leaving the country to get right with the law is to require people to apply for the legal right to enter the United States in the same way all other visa applicants apply to come into the United States. If a person applies from outside of the country and is denied, then the person does not need to be deported because he or she is already gone. If the person, however, applies from outside the country and is accepted, which would mean the person passed a background check and a health screening and has a job, that person has corrected his or her original illegal act and has been granted legal entry to America without amnesty. While I strongly opposed the Senate immigration bill, I am not against every version of immigration reform. Last year, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and I proposed a no-amnesty solution to the illegal immigration crisis, and I believe it still holds promise if Congress makes another attempt at immigration reform this year. Any future effort at immigration reform must reflect the following four-step process: Securing our border is the first step. As President Reagan said, "A nation without borders is not a nation." Therefore, we must make America a nation with borders. We must man the door. No temporary worker program should begin until border security measures are completed. The border must continue to be certified as secure for a temporary worker program to continue. The second step is to decide, once and for all, to deny amnesty to people whose first act in the United States was a violation of the law by requiring all illegal immigrants to leave the country to get right with the law. The third step is to put in place a temporary worker program, without amnesty, that will establish "Ellis Island Centers" outside the country where private sector employment firms can match employers with willing temporary workers who pass a background check and learn English. The final step is tough employer sanctions and an employment verification system that ensures a full partnership between American business and the U.S. government in enforcing our immigration laws. I opposed the Senate immigration bill because I believe we can solve the crisis of illegal immigration without amnesty or a massive new federal bureaucracy. Now that the Senate has defeated its flawed version of immigration reform, I hope the House will take a fresh look at the issue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced her desire to see a bipartisan immigration reform bill. If she is looking for consensus, I believe this four-part plan is a template for reform that those opposing amnesty can embrace. I believe this proposal offers a solution that those calling for humane treatment of the illegal aliens in our midst can embrace. And I believe this solution is one the American people can embrace. It is the real rational middle ground. Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican, is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (59811)	6/11/2007 4:22:45 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

<< "So, we could pass this bill and do all this, or we could stomp our feet and refuse to pass anything, and remain in the exact same position we are in today. I don't think doing nothing is a very good idea, but it appears that many on the angry, stubborn right do." >> Did the latest bill have some good measures to resolve the illegal immigration problem? I think so. Still, many on the "angry right" have good reason to "stomp our feet and refuse to pass anything" as you asserted. We know that the illegals take far more out of the system (social services, health care, welfare, education, etc.) than they put into it. We know they are straining many of these social services to the breaking point. We know that we have fallen into the same trap as we did with Prez Johnson's "Great Society". We've essentially created a class of people (illegals) who have become dependent upon the welfare state. They have become experts at exploiting the system without any incentive to fully assimilate into society & do their part to keep this country the great nation it is by becoming productive, law abiding citizens (And yes, many of these systems are already broken. But why should we allow illegals to be the straw that breaks the camel's back?). We know they don't have any choice since they are here illegally, they will always be illegal & that alone will keep them from ever being able to assimilate fully. Instead, they will remain dependent on the welfare state. We also know that any new bill that does not ensure rigorous enforcement* first & foremost is doomed to abject failure just like the current immigration laws have become. If the current laws were enforced there'd be no illegal immigration problem, so why should anyone believe that a new set of laws make any difference? We know that until there is rigorous enforcement there will be a myriad of new ways created to skirt the new laws. IMO, until we are assured that there is going to be rigorous enforcement of a set of laws designed to remove most, if not all incentives for illegal immigration & that over a reasonable time frame we will see a vast majority of illegals, voluntarily or otherwise removed from this country, many on the "angry right" will continue to "stomp our feet and refuse to pass anything", particularly anything that has a majority of liberal politicians adamantly clamoring for passage. * We know that "wild west roundups" is just a straw man argument meant to shut down rational debate about making rigorous enforcement a critical aspect of solving the illegal immigration problem. We know that rigorous enforcement means the removal of most of the incentives that make illegal immigration a highly desirable alternative to the status quo. When it becomes obvious to all illegals that anywhere they turn there is a real chance they will be identified & deported (at work, at school, the hospital, finding a place to live, etc., etc.) & when they learn there will be no access to the welfare state there will be little incentive to stay here illegally.