immigration

Who Said Let Them In? Immigration and America

Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children’s children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.- Theodore Roosevelt

Since when does a country not have the right to set its own laws?  I thought we were a country made by the people for the people.  Yet we cannot even discuss real immigration reform because apparently America is owned by immigrants and not the American people.  Somehow clinging to what made America exceptional in the first place is now labeled as  being intolerant of other cultures?  In what freaking universe?!

The real truth is that the only bonds that last are those based off ideology, shared borders, and shared customs. And when a people have all that in common guess what they create?  A country!  Guess what they’re called when they have pride in that country?  Nationalist!

And what does that have to do with immigration?

Well any people with sense and pride in their country will have standards for who they let into their country.  Just like a virgin waiting for her wedding night, America won’t just let anybody into our sacred land.  The best way to build a great team is to develop talent through the draft, but your team still needs to sign star power free agents.  But you don’t sign the scrub with the bad attitude. No you sign that amazing wide receiver that loves his team and has a great work ethic.

The Importance of Nationalism in Immigration

Nationalism has become a dirty word automatically associated with Nazis.  Leaders around the world today warn against the perils of Nationalism that will automatically lead us to war.  They’re fools, insisting on throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  It is not Nationalism that is the problem, it is the people that use Nationalism for their own selfish purposes.  Pride in ones country is never shameful.  Any more than pride in oneself is shameful.

The roots of Nationalism are based on the right of self-determination and national unity.  Nationalism is thus a natural outcome of and in complete harmony with individual rights: “The formation of [liberal democratic] states comprising all the members of a national group was the result of the exercise of the right of self determination, not its purpose.”

How dare anybody bemoan Nationalism but pretend that the most oppressive instances of colonialism and imperialism transcend any border.  If we must sacrifice our Nationalist pride at the alter of a borderless corporatist economy then we are submitting the whole world to be conquered.  Not by a country but by globalist leech intent on stealing that which they have not earned.

The truth of it is nationalism is not a defining feature of fascism; that’s a lie and it can easily be shown to be a lie by simply looking at people around the world who were or are nationalists. So, for example, I’m originally from India; Gandhi was a nationalist. Mandela was a nationalist in South Africa. The American founders were nationalists. Winston Churchill was a nationalist, so was de Gaulle in France. All the anti-colonial leaders were nationalists. Now, obviously all these men were not fascists. So it’s simply if ultra-nationalism were to define fascism, then they would be so the notion that fascism is nationalism is clearly erroneous.-Dinesh D’Souza

It is imperative with any notion of private property that a person has the right to grant or deny entry on to their property.  The same exists in a country.  No country is King when some outside source dictates it’s laws.  In America the people are King and the government is accountable to the Constitution.  This means that any attempt by non American’s to dictate our laws is a direct challenge to the sovereignty of the American people.

We cannot set our immigration policies based on the needs of non Americans.  It is just a fallacy and a cage to call any restriction on immigration immoral.  America has had the luxury of a relatively innocent childhood.  We are like the youngest child that was often ignored and thus incredibly free, we never had to face the do or die immigration scenarios that a lot of older countries had to face.

So where do we go now?  How does a country determine when it is ready to receive immigrants and when it should bunker down and be weary of the rest of the world.  We need to know when to open our t doors and when to close them.

Abraham Lincoln said it best, a house divided cannot stand.  Inviting someone in when your roof is caving is just not good for anybody.  When I speak of Nationalism I’m speaking of the lighthouse that guides the ships safely to shore or the North Star pointing sailors to their destinations.  Nationalism is the backbone of society and it is the glue that holds a people together.

40 Years of Kick the Can and We Still Haven’t Fixed Our Immigration Issues 

We have spent a lot of time getting nowhere with immigration.  Just like everything that gets more difficult with time, our immigration ant hills have become immigration mountains.

The number of foreign-born people residing in the United States (an estimated 40 million) is at the highest level in our history and, as a portion of the U.S. population, has reached a percentage (12.9%) not seen since the early 20th century.  Of those foreign-born, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) are on some kind of welfare (compared to 30 percent of non-immigrants).

Immigrant households also payed an average 11 percent less than native households, or about 89 cents for every dollar native households pay.  To make matters worse about half of illegal immigrants, who are about one-fourth of all immigrants, are paid “off the books” and do not have taxes withheld from their paychecks.  The combination of more welfare but less taxes are not a good look America.

Chart with Welfare Usage
Use of Welfare

There is no sense in this being an ever lasting issue and it is even more foolish that we can’t address it seriously as an issue.  When prioritizing immigrants that speak the same language as you is controversial, you know your country is on some delusional crap.  It doesn’t help that our past Presidents loved to lead the charge to nowhere.  It is so funny that America is so divided, but our Presidents are just the same.  This is particularly true for immigration where RINOs and Democrats alternate on who is the biggest jackass.

Clinton

The Clinton-Bush-Obama hydra of regurgitated talking points has been a delightful 18 year of flip flop with no progress on immigration.  Politicians use bluster to hide their true intent, it’s the perfect formula.  Say one thing, plant a dissident, claim your hands are tired and do what you always intended to do anyways.  Leave with what you want and your constituents never knowing what hit them.

Prior to the Clinton years Congress passed an immigration reform bill that would be the framework for every immigration reform after.  The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) signed into law by President Reagan would focus on three main components:

  1. Amnesty for the estimated million or so aliens who were illegally in the U.S.
  2. Strengthened border controls to keep more aliens from entering the U.S..
  3. Sanctions on employers to prevent the future employment of illegal aliens.

The amnesty promised by the sweeping overhaul gave legal status to up to 3 million illegal immigrants that came to the U.S. before 1982.  The law did not grant amnesty for spouses or children that didn’t qualify.  This was seen as particularly horrendous, but hey at least they attempted to draw a line somewhere.

If the plan was to insure that illegal immigrants worked under the table, the plan worked.  Despite penalties up to a $3,000 fine and six months’ imprisonment, employers loved their cheap labor and illegal immigrants came pouring in the years following the 1986 law and they must work somewhere.

I know Clinton switches positions like a Yogi but what was his immigration stance at the time?

It’s wrong to condone illegal immigration that flouts our laws, strains our tolerance, taxes our resources. Even a nation of immigrants must have rules and conditions and limits, and when they are disregarded, public support for immigration erodes in ways that are destructive to those who are newly arrived and those who are still waiting patiently to come.-Bill Clinton

Perhaps President Clinton’s hands were forced, after all the 90s were a tough time for him with Democrats and Republicans alike were gunning for his head.  It’s possible that his public stance had to closely align with the hard nose Republican’s at the time or he wouldn’t accomplish anything.

Merit based immigration has always been publicly endorsed, after all not many people can come out swinging against the idea of a system that rewards ability. In the 1990s, a bipartisan blue-ribbon commission chaired by former Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-Texas)  called for a for a merit-based immigration policy that was widely endorsed, including by then-President Clinton.

Whatever plans for immigration reform came to a halt with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the passage the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which legislated special deportation hearings for noncitizens accused of committing terrorist acts along with mandatory deportation of immigrants convicted of a slew of non-violent crimes. Combined with the 1994 crime bill, this legislation placed many immigrants who previously would not have been deported for minor, non-violent offenses into deportable categories.

Further the call for tougher border patrol by doubling the budget for the Immigration and Naturalization Service and increasing Border Patrol agents by about 45 percent.  President Clinton then deported about 25,000 more illegal immigrants in the 1996 fiscal year, than anytime previously.  If you look at the pattern of behavior you would see the Clinton tried to have it both ways.  He wanted to appease his Latino voters by speaking of amnesty and against such requirements as mandatory English, but he also wanted to appear strong on National borders. He had his hands in half of each pie and so we ended Clinton’s Presidency with an exacerbation of the same problems we found in the beginning.

Bush

It is painful speaking on Bush.  In some ways he is worse than Clinton and Obama combined because he promised to be so much more.  He took everything conservatives believed in and stabbed us in the back.  Whatever Newt Gingrich Republican revolution that happened was promptly shot in foot before it could even make any sort of change.  Bush gave the left wing the ammo to shoot us, practically waiving the white flag screaming “Just shoot me!”

Bush was from Texas, if anybody knew anything about the perils of immigration it was supposed to be him. Yet the population of illegal immigrants grew by more than 2 million under the Bush administration with even larger growth under Clinton.

Shortly after his inauguration as President of the United States, George W. Bush announced on January 25, 2001, that his first trip out of the country would be to Mexico to meet with Vicente Fox, that country’s recently elected President. Bush’s explicit goal was to make good on his campaign promise that if he were elected President he would forge a “special relationship” with Mexico, akin to that which the United States has long enjoyed with Britain.

Then 9/11 happened and any plans on immigration were put on hold.  It wasn’t until 2005 that the great RINO John McCain and Senator Ted Kennedy came together to create The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033), a.k.a. “McCain-Kennedy or McKennedy Bill.”  This in turn morphed into the the Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (S. 1438), a bill proposed in July 2005 by Senators John Cornyn and Jon Kyl, sometimes referred to as the “Cornyn-Kyl Bill.”

Just like the previous two immigration bills it never made it to the President’s desk, but at least this one made it through the Senate.  The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611), sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter, would have created a new class of visa, the “Z visa.”

This Visa would be given to everyone who was living without a valid visa in the United States on Jan. 1, 2010.  It would give its holder the legal right to remain in the United States for the rest of their lives, and access to a Social Security number. After eight years, the holder of a Z visa would be eligible for a United States Permanent Resident Card (a “green card”) if they wanted to have one; they would first have to pay a $2000 fine, and back taxes for some of the period in which they worked.

While it granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, it also attempted to simplify our immigration laws and create a merit based immigration service.  He even pushed for the English requirement for immigration to the United States.  As you can see Bush was also a plan that rewarded breaking the law, did nothing to dissuade future illegal immigrants, and punishes immigrants patiently waiting for a chance to immigrate.

Further it integrated the DREAM Act (acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors)  that would first grant conditional residency and upon meeting further qualifications, permanent residency:

  • Must have entered the country before the age of 16;
  • Must graduate high school or obtain a GED;
  • Must have good moral character (no criminal record); and
  • Must have at least five years of continuous presence in the US.

The bill tied tough border security and workplace enforcement measures to a plan to legalize an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, most from Latin America, and to create a temporary worker program sought by business groups.

How dear and charming that something so beloved about Obama was pushed by George W. Bush.  For someone so vilified people sure love him today. RINOs are disgusting, they exist to be loved by liberals and forget the ones who got them into office in the first place.

Nevertheless Bush’s immigration hopes were dashed by his own Party.  Republican’s simply were not feeling such a blanket amnesty based on some artificial date that did nothing to solve the larger problem.  And he left office with an increase in immigration, no reform, and no viable plan for reform in the future.  At least Bush advocated for immigration only if it came with assimilation.  There is no way you can maintain a National pride if you do not.

Obama

Like everything Obama did, he tried to have it both ways.  He wanted to unconstitutionally expand the power of the Executive to make sweeping immigration reform, yet simultaneously punish illegal immigrants.  All without making any serious headway into a long term lasting solution.  He was simultaneously the carrot and the stick, gaining Latino voters with the carrot while beating them back across the border with a stick.

The audacity of this president to think he can completely destroy the rule of law with the stroke of a pen is unfathomable to me.  It is unconstitutional, it is cynical, and it violates the will of the American people.-  GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa

President Obama started the infamous “catch and release” policy that pleased absolutely no-one.  thousands of people, mostly from Central America, crossed the Mexican border illegally — and made no effort to escape apprehension, asking for a “permiso” to stay — the border authorities would briefly detain them, give them a date to show up in court, and let them go.

However immigration court statistics gathered by the Center for Immigration Studies (a group which favors tighter immigration restrictions), reveal that 84 percent do not show up in court.  Another problem came through waiting for a conviction before even beginning what could be a lengthy removal process.

It wasn’t long before Obama tried to revive the previous failed Bill pushed by Bush.  The Senate bill would increase border security, provide a pathway to citizenship for many of the estimated 11 million immigrants illegally in the country, expand the highly skilled worker program and set up new guest worker arrangements for lower-skilled workers and farm laborers.  If not for House Republican’s this would have had a chance.  I think it’s telling that the legislative body closest to the people are the strongest critics of the immigration bills being pushed by two Presidents.

That clever Obama had a new plan, if Congress wouldn’t go for his immigration reform he would mandate it through an executive order.   And thus DACA was created, which gave more than 800,000 young undocumented immigrants known as DREAMers a lifeline, with temporary work permits and protection from deportation.

Oh Obama the man of the people, lover of all things below the border, our peace broker, our messiah can anyone truly replicate your goodness in this world?  What’s that? You mean Obama wasn’t some Mexican Messiah forcibly removed more immigrants from the United States than any other president. More than 2.8 million undocumented immigrants have been deported over the last eight years.  So what is the truth, amnesty for immigrants or the forceful removal of millions of illegal immigrants?  It would almost be better to have a President that says a thing and does the thing.

Obama expanded a Bush-era program called Secure Communities (S-COMM), mandating that local police departments to cooperate with the federal government on deportation.   Let’s not forget the recent troubles with police officers.  How has such a conflict been allowed to flourish…it makes me wonder.  Obama has been a huge contributor to the federalizing local police departments.  If there is a conflict between the people and the police there is a direct correlation with the distance between the people and the police.  Adding a huge bureaucratic layer and bundles of red tape has cut off police from the people they are supposed to be accountable to.

In 2015, President Obama replaced S-COMM with the Priority Enforcement Program, whereby the federal government primarily targets serious offenders.  The Obama administration has expanded detention in jail-like conditions for many of the roughly 231,000 children asylum seekers since 2010.

Even when Obama won he lost as he found himself at the end of a lawsuit quite often.  His latest plan was blocked by a federal appellate court and the Supreme Court let the ruling stand in a 4-4 split decision last year.  In late August 2012, ten U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents sued Janet Napolitano, saying the directive forces them to break the law and ignore their duties.  As of January 2017, 740,000 people have registered through DACA.

For as loved as he is by liberals, Obama’s take on immigration was just an exaggeration of Bush’s plans (which seems to happen a lot).  Just like his two predators Obama will go down in history as a failure for immigration reform.

Raise Act-Trump

And we reach the current notorious administration.  Difficult discussions have became even more difficult because we put off any decisions..  Instead of an action having a fraction of the consequences that it would have if we had acted earlier, now any action will be per se drastic and dramatic.  There is no avoiding the drama when we let a problem snowball and that is exactly what has happened with our immigration.

First, how do you make immigration reform when we don’t even enforce our current immigration laws?  There is no accountability or reliability when there is no guarantee that the government will act in the ways it says it is going to act.  Nobody will respect our laws if we do not respect our laws.

Further how can anyone argue that our immigration system is fair when when the good majority of our immigrants are coming here from Mexico. Nothing wrong with my Mexican compadres, they cool people, but there is nothing wrong with my Camaroonians or my Ghanians either.  That means the number of legal immigrants we could take is reduced by the number of migrants that move here illegally.  When Jim Acosta angrily accused the new Raise Act as racist, he failed to explain how a policy that heavily favors Latinos is not ‘racist’ to the long line of people trying to get to America from other countries.

We claim nepotism is the downfall of meritocracy in America, yet we base our whole immigration platform on familial relations.  In fact nepotism is widely detested in America and is a huge part of our decision to move away from traditional monarchies. Nobody feels good when we don’t think our efforts will be rewarded. It is a huge deterrent to good work when the best person is always the one that is the most related to the boss.  Nepotism is the opposite of a meritocracy.

So why would anybody criticize the sensible reform plan Trump is supporting that relies on Nationalism and respect for American laws and American citizens?

 

In a Rasmussen Reports poll, 44 percent of likely American voters want to move to a merit-based immigration system that only admits legal immigrants if their skills are needed in the U.S. Only 37 percent of likely voters want to keep the current legal immigration system which is based solely on family chain migration. Another 18 percent of likely voters said they did not know which system they would prefer.

It’s time everyone.  Time to embrace the RAISE Act (Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment).

The new competitive application process will favor those who possess skills that will benefit the U.S. economy, can speak english and are able to financially support themselves and their families.- President Trump

Under our current immigration system, admission as a family member is not limited to the traditional nuclear family. We allot immigration benefits to parents, adult children and siblings. All of these extended relatives and their spouses, in turn, are eventually eligible to invite their own extended family members to come live in the United States.

Of the approximately 1 million new immigrants who are legally admitted to the United States each year via green cards, about 60 percent enter for no other reason than that they have a relative ― in most cases a recently settled immigrant ― living in this country. Only about 15 percent of immigrants are admitted because of their skills, while the remainder are admitted on humanitarian grounds.  This family-based process means that every time we admit someone as an immigrant the line for future immigration gets longer, not shorter.

The RAISE Act would halve the amount of legal immigrants, create a preference for English speaking immigrants, eliminate the Diversity Lottery and establish a 50,000 refugee cap unbreakable by the executive orders of future Presidents.

The only way to truly fix our immigration is promoting Nationalism in America and encourage assimilation in any immigrant who wishes to settle here permanently.   The simpler we make our immigration laws the less assentive that people have to come here illegally.  That coupled with a strong National border and enforcing our immigration laws will ensure a healthy and peaceful America.

There has been only one President so far that is attempting real reform and that is Donald Trump.  Support the RAISE Act.

Like subscribe and share for more updates and I will give you my take (the honest take) on controversial politics.

I love you goodbye.