Saturday, July 31, 2010

Fallacy of "Immigration Reform"

I am mystified by the acceptance of the term "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" as a label by anyone (other than those in favor of amnesty for those in our country illegally) as a description of the discussion of the failure to secure our borders along with the questions posed by so many people in America illegally.

They are totally different questions and history has proven that they must be discussed and a workable solution found separately.

President Reagan got a so-called comprehensive reform package passed, but Congress reneged on the requirement to secure the borders. Those of us who remember this governmental failure and dereliction of a Constitutional duty will rebel if Congress were ever to try to con us again.

I do not know what constitutes appropriate action on the part of the federal government, but I suspect that most people feel that current law required the Federal Government to control our borders. The are not doing that. Seems to me some smart person who was also a lawyer (or knew of a smart lawyer) might bring a writ of mandamus to require the Federal Government to do its sworn job.

Same thing holds for those in the country illegally. Perhaps a writ to require that Federal Officials track down those in the country illegally and deport them and to track down those in the country who hire them and fine and jail them might be in order? I dare say that if all employers who hire those who are not here legally were fined and jailed, those who could no longer find jobs and were here illegally would leave or take whatever action our law required to become legal. So...exactly what is meant by "reform"?

And...what is with this "if your born here, you are a citizen" stuff. No other country in the world, as far as I know, allows this. Sort of akin to "if you break into the bank and give birth to a child while there, you will be arrested, but the kid can take whatever he or she likes...and later can get you out of jail." Seems just a tad illogical, doesn't it?

No comments: