Amnesty Memo Surfaces

[orangestorm]

The problem as I see it is on one hand the WH has stated a preference for "comprehensive immigration reform" and that it doesn't want to take any individual steps (e.g. controlling the border) until all the steps are agreed to in one big bundle. In short, they've repeatedly passed the buck to Congress to make law before any action takes place.

On the other hand, they are working behind the scenes to take an individual step of de facto amnesty - more than likely primarily as a voting block move more than any thing else. Once again actions and words don't sync from this WH.

WRT to Reagan, he did sign an amnesty bill under the promise that along with it the borders were to be controlled. It was presented as a situation where those here can stay but no more illegals could come in. Well we see now that without border security, the rest of immigration policy is virtually worthless. My guess is that Reagan if still around would NOT do it this way again and would be a "borders first" guy.

I've stated many times that in principle I support comprehensive immigration reform including guest worker programs and a pathway to citizenship. However, securing the borders is a necessary first step.

Backdooring amnesty is the absolute worst move possible (not surprising this WH is considering it).

Nobody on either side wants to secure the border. It will be super expensive and they do not want to look like they are locking the border down. The Republicans will not do it because the illegals help business, and the Dems will not do it because they count on Hispanic votes. There will be a lot of talk but little or no action about border security.

There will be also nothing done about the millions of illegals living in America now. INS will not go around and round them all up and ship them back to Mexico.

Nothing will happen to them and nothing will get done. Anybody talking about it, is just trying to get votes.

 

[gsvol]

I'd have to look more deeply at the pros and cons but right now I lean against it (assuming parents were illegal).

I really don't know all the details but on the surface I'd say that being born to citizens should make you a citizen (regardless of where you are born) while being born to non-citizens likewise makes you a non-citizen. Basically, geography of birth is overrated IMHO.

American Thinker Blog: The question of 'Birthright Citizenship'

Although Graham talked about "changing" the Constitution to outlaw the practice, many experts say the Constitution as written, does not authorize birthright citizenship in the first place.

American Thinker: A Hole in the Fence of Immigration Reform

"More than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to mothers who are here illegally."

Graglia added: "Nearly half of illegal-immigrant households are couples with children, 73% of which have an American-citizen child. Illegal immigrant parents also benefit ... from the welfare and other benefits to which their citizen child is entitled."

According to [Constitutional expert Dr. John] Eastman, the real shift in popular perception began to take root in the late 1960s, when the idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status. "I have challenged every person who has taken the opposite position to tell me what it was that led to this new notion," he said. "There's not an executive order. There's not a court decision. We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough."

Eastman attributes some of it to our nation's loss of an intrinsic understanding of the language that the framers of the 14th Amendment spoke and used in that era, ergo a century later the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" has been watered down in the collective American consciousness to require little more than an adherence to traffic safety laws.

The AT article further noted:

Another important consideration in any sort of "guest" or "temporary" worker program is the children born to these workers while in America. If these children receive automatic citizenship, the unintended consequence of such a program could be the addition of millions more permanent citizens and, by extension, their families.

In 2005, a Congressional hearing on "Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty" was held before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, although it received scant media coverage. Dual citizenship, although now tolerated, is specifically disallowed by the oath of allegiance required for naturalizing citizens.

Dr. Eastman's testimony at the hearing included the remark: "The notion that we can have dual allegiance, that we can expect some of our citizens to actually take up arms for countries that might one day be engaged in war against us means that now is the time to revisit this." None of the hearing participants affirmed that either birthright or dual citizenship were constitutional -- merely that both were commonly accepted practice.

This is especially true of those immigrants, both legal and illegal, who propose that America should be subject to the authority of an international islamic caliphate.

Then too there are the 'reconquista' adherants.

Does the U.S. Constitution require ?anchor babies?? | Alan Keyes is Loyal to Liberty

 

[gsvol]

Gateway Pundit

On June 11, 2010, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council and its constituent local representatives from around the nation, acting on behalf of approximately 7,000 ICE officers and employees from the ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), cast a unanimous “Vote of No Confidence” in the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Morton, and the Assistant Director of the ICE Office of Detention Policy and Planning, (ODPP), Phyllis Coven.

This is unprecedented in American history that all field officers cast a unaimous vote of no confidence in thier leadership, of any agency of the US federal government.

It should be front page headline news and the hotest topic on the six o'clock news of ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC.

• While ICE reports internally that more than 90 percent of ICE detainees are first encountered in jails after they are arrested by local police for criminal charges, ICE senior leadership misrepresents this information publicly in order to portray ICE detainees as being non-criminal in nature to support the Administration’s position on amnesty and relaxed security at ICE detention facilities.

• The majority of ICE ERO Officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing United States immigration laws outside of the institutional (jail) setting. This has effectively created “amnesty through policy” for anyone illegally in the United States who has not been arrested by another agency for a criminal violation.

What is happening is that ICE, while not enforcing the law themselves, rescue illegal aliens from local and state authorities, release them until a deportation hearing that may or may not occur and if it does it will be at least two years or maybe more later.

Meanwhile the illegal alien not only avoids local or state charges and is free to roam the streets of America.

Many ask to be turned over to ICE because they are aware of what is going on and brag that even in the unlikely event they are deported, they will be back within weeks across the unprotected border.

We have a total disregard of the law by illegals with the cooperation of the obambi federal authorities.

 

[Lexvol]

I love the transparency!

 

[gsvol]

I love the transparency!

Johnny Cash said it best:

"The truth can walk around naked but lies always must hide behind something."