Part 2 Solutions
IMMEDIATE ACTION ITEMS
1. Secure the Border
Build the fence or the wall on the southern border and increase Border patrols to stop the influx.
2. Defund Sanctuary Cities; Stop Catch and Release; Cease aiding and abetting illegals; Discontiniue programs encouraging more illegals.
3. Deport Illegals in Custody
A no- brainer – deport every illegal in a state or federal prison. No problem rounding them up; they’re already apprehended. I have not been able to ascertain an accurate total. I did find General Accounting Office report estimating it to be at least 350,000 in 2009-2010:
The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), .... GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate criminal aliens in federal prisons and SCAAP [State Criminal Alien Assistance Program] reimbursements to states and localities ranged from about $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal years 2005 through 2009." http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf
And I found this more recent information:
"American taxpayers paid approximately $1.87 billion to house imprisoned illegal immigrants in fiscal year 2014, and almost all of that financial burden was shouldered by the states..."
4. Halt the Influx of Muslim refugees
Immigration procedures have been by- passed to settle Muslim refugees in 190 American cities.
The Administration has ignored Europe's experience: jihadists masquerading as refugees.
An Islamic State commander said in an interview over an encrypted data service.“We have sent many operatives to Europe with the refugees...Some of our brothers have fulfilled their mission, but others are still waiting to be activated.”
President Obama announced in September that the U.S. will allow up to 10,000 Syrian refugees, Republicans criticized the plan for its potential to allow an influx of ISIS-trained militants posing as refugees. The FBI concurred that there could not be adequate screening in the time allowed.
"As President Obama rolls out the red carpet for Middle Eastern refugees, he totally ignores the fact that militant-Islamic killers lurk among this bedraggled population. Obama replied to ISIS’s March 22 mayhem in Brussels, Belgium, by reasserting 'our openness to refugees fleeing [ISIS]’s violence.' How excruciatingly ironic that one of the men who brutalized Brussels — killing 32 innocent people (including four Americans) and wounding 300 more — was one of the same 'refugees' to whom Obama promises 'openness.' ” http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434218/refugee-crisis-terrorism-muslim-jihadists-have-entered-west-refugees
QUESTION: With the United States burdened with more than 19 Trillion dollars of debt, why is it, at great expense, taking in Muslim refugees?
Why not Iran, flush with 150 billion dollars released to it by Obama, or why not oil-rich Saudi Arabia.
Why not Egypt, Turkey, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Libya, et al .?
Let them take in their fellow Muslims, Shias to Shia countries, Shiites to Shiite countries.
5. Pass No- Anchor-Baby Law
Can one imagine a more idiotic policy than declaring babies born of illegal aliens in the United States automatically become citizens? How's that for an incentive to break the law? The policy is based upon a myth: that the 14th Amendment requires that result.
The 14th Amendment was passed for the sole purpose of clarifying that freed slaves were indeed American citizens. It was NOT passed to grant citizenship to an illegal immigrant’s child.
The pertinent language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” [Emphasis added.] The author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, was explicit: “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.”
And that is how it stood for 114 years. In the interim, two Supreme Court cases ruled in keeping with that intent.
In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Court held that the 14th Amendment did not confer citizenship on American Indians because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction:
"The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which 'no person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,' and 'the Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.' Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was ...to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization.
The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. 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..." [Emphasis added.]
and in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court noted noted that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and not employed by a foreign government, would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment.
Then came a case, Plyler v. Doe, a 5-4 decision in 1982, where the Court held that illegal aliens were persons in the ordinary sense of the word and came within the Equal Protection clause. But it specifically excluded ruling on status under the immigration laws: "Whatever his status under the immigration laws..."
What gave birth to the myth was a footnote in Justice Brennan's Plyler opinion. it was this obiter dictum [judge's incidental expression of opinion, not essential to the decision and not establishing precedent]:
"As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."
The basis for that assertion? An article written by a layman in 1912 expressing his theories on exclusion and expulsion of aliens! Note the non sequitur in the conclusion: "...no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." How about this plausible distinction: one is legal and the other is illegal.
There is no need for a Constitutional Amendment. Congress can pass a law that prevents the children of illegals from becoming an American citizen. United States Constitution, Article One, Section 8.
ACTION ITEMS GOING FORWARD
A plan for those illegals remaining here
I have researched numerous plans which have sought to accomplish 2 goals: to avoid mass deportation of the illegals in the country who have not been guilty of any other crime than their illegal entry, and to require some penalty for having violated our laws. IMO, the columnist Derek Hunter came up with an innovative, just and effective solution that meets those goals: the Purple Card. He explains it.
"... a “Purple Card” to be offered to those here illegally who can prove they are employed. ... It will allow them to continue to work legally for a set number of years, after which it can be renewed if no crimes, not even misdemeanors, have been committed. If convicted of a crime, you’re out, no matter what.
Illegal aliens will have one year after the border is sealed to apply for a Purple Card. They must provide fingerprints that will remain on file permanently and be accessible to law enforcement. There will be a processing fee. If they can’t come up with it, they add so little to the country that they should not qualify.
After they ...receive a Purple Card, they are free to work in this country for the specified number of years, renewable in perpetuity, as long as they are law abiding. They must verify they are working six months of every year. If they are unemployed for more than two months in any given 12-month period, they’re out. ...By accepting the Purple Card, they receive the right to work and freely move about the country, as well as to leave and return. But they never, ever can obtain U.S. citizenship. Their children, guests in our country just as they are, cannot become U.S. citizens, even those born here during their Purple Card time. We will educate them, but they are not Americans. For that they must go through the legal process in their home country.
... They will pay all taxes owed from their earnings, including all FICA taxes. But they will be barred from ever collecting Social Security, qualifying for Medicaid or enrolling in Medicare. That is the price of admission, the price for violating our laws.
If, ... reform is about getting people “out of the shadows,” this does that. If...they’re only here to work and help their families, this does that too. If it’s about something else, like creating voters who will undercut Americans’ votes, this will be opposed....This must be coupled with an expedited deportation process. Anyone not willing to meet the criteria ...[has] made a choice, and that choice must have consequences. Committing a crime is another conscious choice, Americans must be protected from guests who would do them harm, in any way....Citizenship, or even the right to live here on a temporary basis, is too precious to be handed out like Halloween candy."
If parents do not meet the standards and are forced to leave, no doubt there will be cries of a lack of compassion, complaining the result will be to “break up families.” The argument is fallacious: there need be no “break up”, the parents can take the children back with them. This is not unreasonable. The parents knew they were illegal and they assumed the risk that they could be deported. They have no right to complain when the risk materialized, particularly if they do not meet the generous terms of the Purple Card.
Other Steps
Facilitate legal immigration of STEM students here on visas to obtain advanced degrees from our universities. [STEM is a curriculum in 4 specific disciplines: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.]
Implement e-Verify nationwide. E-Verify's most impressive features are its speed and accuracy. E-Verify is the only free, fast, online service of its kind that verifies employees' data against millions of government records and provides results within as little as three to five seconds. http://www.uscis.gov/e-verify/what-e-verify
Require fluency in English as a condition for citizenship and make English our official language and the only language for our ballots.
CONCLUSION
How did we ever buy into the Left's propaganda that enforcing our borders was evil? And the Left continues to vilify those who want our country protected.
Example? Here's a classic.
Two term Arizona two term Governor Jan Brewer signed a Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, enforcing the border. The Act made it a state misdemeanor crime for an immigrant to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law, authorized state and local law enforcement of federal immigration laws, and cracked down on those sheltering, hiring and transporting undocumented immigrants.
The owner of the NBA Phoenix Suns blasted her for supporting an anti-immigrant measure. Note, no distinction is made between legal and illegal immigrants
Governor Jan Brewer
Her response was perfect:
What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected. Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?
http://talk.baltimoresun.com/topic/171415-jan-brewer-responds-to-phoenix-suns-owner/That puts it in perspective. Let's leave the Non-Sense and return to Common Sense.
That puts it in perspective. Let's leave the Non-Sense and return to Common Sense.
President Reagan, in 1986, signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized about 3 million undocumented immigrants. The law was supposed to be a comprehensive solution with provisions intended to enforce border security and so prevent future problems. Those provisions were never implemented, and the subsequent explosion in illegal crossings resulted in some 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States today.