Monday, April 22, 2013
The Boston Bombings and Immigration Reform
Unlike his almost obsessive desire to have legislation on gun control leading to his complete defeat at the hands of his Democrat-controlled Senate, President Obama's goal of enacting immigration legislation appeared to have a clearer path to passage. Considering the growing political power of Hispanic voters, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama in the November election and the effort of Florida GOP Senator Marco Rubio to find a compromise path to immigration reform, it also becomes clearer why some Republicans have recently reversed their opposition to an immigration bill that could grant citizenship to millions of people living in the US illegally. But that GOP reversal may have been cut short by the Boston Marathon bombings. When it was revealed by authorities that the bombing suspects were immigrants, even though there is no evidence that the men entered the US illegally, some Republicans seized on the events in Boston to raise questions about the existing immigration system and the proposed legislation. Despite the administration's desire to move on in the face of the Boston bombings, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer warns, "the smartest thing the White House can do is pause....they need to give it time and space to let the events settle." But Fleischer, who served in the White House during the September 11 and anthrax attacks, said putting on the brakes could prove difficult for the Obama White House, which began the year with a bold domestic agenda that they want to accomplish before mid-term congressional elections and the 2016 presidential race take center stage. Do the events in Boston suggest that President Obama is headed toward another major defeat? It's far too soon to judge. But with the specter of immigrants who moved to America only to seemingly become enmeshed in Islamist causes and undertake a senseless murder spree of innocents, and with the likelihood that the FBI was warned about one of the suspects and appears to have mishandled their investigation, Americans may have legitimate questions about how safe they really are with millions of illegal immigrants already in their country. These questions might also lead them to ask whether legalizing these illegals would make Americans safer or less safe. One thing is sure - the immigration reform and its proposed "path to citizenship" are in for harder times in the aftermath of the Boston bombings, and Obama's immigration reform efforts may well end like his gun control effort - thwarted by a GOP-conservative Democrat coalition in his own Democrat-controlled Senate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, at least 278,000 illegal aliens from terror-supporting or terror-friendly countries live in the U.S. They are among an estimated eleven to fifteen plus million illegal aliens who have crossed our borders illegally, overstayed visas illegally, jumped ship illegally and evaded deportation orders illegally. More than 500,000 illegal alien fugitives, including 16,000 from the Middle East, remain on the loose despite deportation orders. Last year, at least 475 foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement received U.S. visas because of lapses in a new background check system. There is still no systematic tracking of criminal alien felons across the country. Sanctuary for illegal aliens remains the policy in almost every major metropolis. And “catch and release” remains standard operating procedure for untold thousands of illegal aliens who pass through the fingers of federal immigration authorities every day.
ReplyDeleteThe following is the pledge that ALL immigrants take when obtaining their US Citizenship:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Patriotism surged after the September 11 attacks, but not among some ethnic advocacy groups. Hyphenated leaders who favor lax immigration policies characterized attempts to protect our borders from all enemies, foreign and domestic, as an unnecessary “backlash”: Arab-American leaders complained that Arab-Americans were being singled out by the feds, Hispanic leaders complained that Hispanics were being singled out by the feds, etc. Meanwhile, at American airports, grandmothers and Medal of Honor recipients actually were being pulled aside and singled out by the feds.
These ethnic complainers were joined by profit-driven immigration lawyers, university officials and corporate executives, as well as vote-driven political strategists in both major parties, who refused to put the national interest above their own narrow interests. Contrary to their misguided claims, the demand for a more discriminating immigration policy—one that welcomes American Dreamers and bars American Destroyers—does not stem from fear or hatred of foreigners, but from self-preservation and love of country.
We must constantly remind ourselves, however, of the historical fact that constitutional democracy has existed only in the nation-state, and that the demise of the nation-state will almost certainly mean the demise of constitutional democracy. No one believes that the European Union or similar organizations will ever produce constitutional government. Indeed, the EU is well on its way to becoming an administrative tyranny. Nor would the homogeneous world-state—the EU on a global scale—be a constitutional democracy; it would be the administration of “universal personhood” without the inconvenience of having to rely on the consent of the governed. The doctrine of birthright citizenship and the acceptance of dual citizenship are signs that we in the U.S. are on the verge of reinstituting feudalism and replacing citizenship with the master-servant relationship. The continued vitality of the nation-state and of constitutional government depends on the continued vitality of citizenship, which carries with it exclusive allegiance to what the Declaration calls a “separate and equal” nation. Unless we recover an understanding of the foundations of citizenship, we will find ourselves in a world where there are subjects but no citizens.
ReplyDeleteWe - The USA - had the best opportunity to take control of the immigration problem that we knew had - directly after 9/11/2001. At that place in time we had the legal, moral, and duty to get a handle on the free flow of illegal aliens into and circulating within our sovereign borders.
ReplyDeleteDirectly after 9/11 we had a 'conservatively" estimated 8 to 10 million illegal aliens, undocumented immigrants, law breakers,foreign felons, whatever term best suits your descriptions roaming our land and availing themselves of our medical care via "emergency room" visits for non- emergency cases thereby bankrupting our medicare system. They collect food stamps. they work in the "grey" employment market, get paid in cash, pay NO TAXES. In plan and simple terms they robbers of our good will and decency.
They also bring the worst of their own society - the GANGS, the DRUG DEALERS, the RAPISTS, the THIEVES ... the TERRORISTS that invaded their country to get to ours via our essentially unprotected borders.
This flocking to the US started long before 9/11. The organized terrorists of varying nationality and Muslin sects quickly learned that we had open door policy for anyone. They could lie about why they wanted to come here or simply sneak across the border one night and then melt into the society while they planned their dastardly deeds. Of which they still are only in greater number than any "official" wants to admit in fear we don't re-elect them.
Had this occurred in the days when my Grandfather came to the US we would have had a large neon sign at Ellis island in NYC saying something to the effect ... " Give me your derelicts, your law breakers, your unwanted citizens - ALL are welcomed" My Grandfather may have turned around and went home.
So what's the solution ... SIMPLE. just as after 9/11.
CLOSE THE BORDERS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME ... GET CONTROL OF WHO IS HERE ALREADY ILLEGALLY ... INVESTIGATE OR RE-INVESTIGATE THE IMMIGRANTS FROM SELECT OTHER COUNTRIES (Oh my gosh "profiling")... DEVELOP A FAIR AND LEGAL PROCESS TO HANDLE THE NEW IMMIGRANTS. We should welcome all who want to play the rules and turn away those that are quit simply BAD PEOPLE
Birthright Citizenship—the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship—is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system. But this is simply not true.
ReplyDeleteThe framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of “birthright subjectship” or “birthright allegiance,” never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a “debt of gratitude.” According to Blackstone, this debt is “intrinsic” and “cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered.” Birthright subjectship under the common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.
America’s Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that “the good People of these Colonies. . . are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.” According to Blackstone, the common law regards such an act as “high treason.” So the common law—the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance—could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e., republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain!
James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention as well as a Supreme Court Justice, captured the essence of the matter when he remarked: “Under the Constitution of the United States there are citizens, but no subjects.” The transformation of subjects into citizens was the work of the Declaration and the Constitution. Both are premised on the idea that citizenship is based on the consent of the governed—not the accident of birth.
This is a magnet that draws even the most honorable into coming here illegally instead of entering the USA via the in place process.
It needs to be at least adjusted or better yet done away with.
Immigration reform must be executed on the bases of what is good for America and Americans ... not what is good for citizens of various other countries.
ReplyDeleteBirthright needs to be gone. Birthing expenses needs to be understood to that of the parents. And Quarterly check ins for 'students", prolonged visitors, "business people" ... quit simply anyone here on a Visitor or Student visa.