Immigration Idiots and Amnesty Maniacs

 

GOP_ImmigrationComedian George Carlin asked, “Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot … and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?” Something similar is going on in the GOP’s immigration debate.

After a decade of failed — and often deceptive — Republican and Democratic efforts to enact comprehensive immigration reform, nearly everyone distrusts everyone else on the issue. A divide between the parties is expected, but more damaging is the intraparty battle within the GOP. Once President George W. Bush went all-in for an immigration package that proposed amnesty that wasn’t called amnesty and a fence that wasn’t actually a fence, conservatives understandably no longer assumed good faith in their party leaders.

Immigration and border enforcement have long been divisive issues, but there are a few areas of common ground. Nearly all voters believe we should expedite the processing of passports, and most believe that, say, a successful, America-loving businessman from Manila shouldn’t have to wait two decades to become a US citizen. But popular reforms like these have been consistently buried within 1,000-page omnibus bills that overhaul border security, the H1B visa program, and college financing for children of illegal immigrants.

Even the most conservative Republican lawmakers act like immigration hawks at election time and cave shortly after stepping into their limos at Reagan National. At the last GOP debate, Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly played video clips of Sen. Marco Rubio’s and Sen. Ted Cruz’s 2013 statements about the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill and compared them to their rhetoric today.

“Within two years of getting elected, you were cosponsoring legislation to create a path to citizenship — in your words, amnesty,” Kelly said. “Haven’t you already proven that you cannot be trusted on this issue?”

“I do not support blanket amnesty. I do not support amnesty,” Rubio said.

“You said more than that, sir,” Kelly said.

“No, I do not support blanket legalization,” Rubio said, shaking his head.

As Rubio supporters wondered if their candidate’s answer was convincing enough for primary voters, Kelly turned to Cruz’s 2013 amendment that he had claimed would provide a path to citizenship.

“Was that all an act? It was pretty convincing,” Kelly said after playing clips of Cruz saying that he “didn’t want immigration reform to pass.”

“The amendment I proposed is 38 words. It’s about one sentence, anyone can go on my website, tedcruz.org and read exactly what it said,” Cruz said, grinning slightly. “It didn’t say a word about legalization.”

“Ask people like Jeff Sessions and Steve King and Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin,” Cruz continued, “all of whom say — as Jeff Sessions said, responding to these false attacks just recently in Alabama — he said if it wasn’t for Ted Cruz, the Gang of Eight Rubio/Schumer bill would have passed. But because Ted stood up and helped lead the effort, millions rose up to kill it.”

Rubio wasn’t having it and called Cruz a fake conservative.

“This is the lie that Ted’s campaign is built on and Rand [Paul] touched upon it—that he’s the most conservative guy and everyone else is, you know, everyone else is a RINO [Republican in Name Only],” Rubio said.

“The truth is, Ted, throughout this campaign you’ve been willing to do or say anything to get votes. You worked for George Bush’s campaign. You helped design George W. Bush’s immigration policy. When you got to the Senate, you did an interview with CBS News … you said on the issue of people here illegally, ‘We can reach a compromise.’”

You can see why Trump ducked the debate, since he has been … less than consistent on the issue. Seven months ago he told CNN’s Dana Bash, “I would get people out and then have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal…. A lot of these people are helping us … and sometimes it’s jobs a citizen of the United States doesn’t want to do. I want to move ’em out, and we’re going to move ’em back in and let them be legal.”

Trump added, “I actually have a big heart.… I mean, a lot of people don’t understand that, but the DREAMers, it’s a tough situation, we’re going to do something, and one of the things we’re going to do is expedite — when somebody’s terrific, we want them back here, but they have to be legally.”

One reason the GOP’s immigration debate has grown so toxic is because conservatives no longer agree on the definitions of the terms used. Younger illegal aliens are euphemized as DREAMers, those opposing illegal immigration are called anti-immigrant, and talking heads debate whether an American child born abroad even counts as a naturalized citizen.

But what supporters of any candidate rarely admit is that their preferred nominee falls somewhere on a continuum. On the far right end of the line are a handful of voters who want no visas issued and the ending of all immigration; these are actual nativists. On the far left end of the continuum are the handful of voters who want all to abolish all borders between nations; this is the actual “open borders crowd.” The other 95 percent of Americans — which includes Trump, Rubio, and Cruz — fall somewhere between these two extremes.

Frankly, the difference between Rubio, Cruz, and Trump’s positions are relatively minor. All three would bunch tightly together on that continuum if you tracked their statements today or over the past few years. Sure, they have unique styles in speaking about the issue, but that’s mostly a matter of branding not policy. The marketing teams at Coke and Pepsi are at each other’s throats because they are selling nearly identical products. Pepsi doesn’t need to bash Toyota — the two aren’t vying for the same customers.

The bitter history of the immigration debate has magnified these small differences into chasms. If one Republican wants to let in 10,000 legal immigrants a year, he’ll call the guy who only wants 5,000 a hateful racist and nativist. But that lady who’s arguing for 20,000 is a shamnesty-loving, open borders zealot.

Much like Carlin pointed out in his freeway routine, those wanting to pursue immigration at slightly slower or faster rates are neither idiots nor maniacs; they are conservatives who want to arrive at the best solution for the country they love.

Published in Immigration
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 33 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    Perfect.

    • #1
  2. Commodore BTC Inactive
    Commodore BTC
    @CommodoreBTC

    Frankly, the difference between Rubio, Cruz, and Trump’s positions are relatively minor.

    Except for the whole citizenship/voting rights for 11+ million illegals thing, sure Jon.

    Rather than these proxy arguments in service of Rubio (in this case aligning with the campaign’s “muddy the waters on immigration” strategy), a better argument would be “Rubio is good on every other issue and more electable in a general election, but he’s wrong on immigration (or at least of a different view than most GOP voters)”

    I will vote for Rubio in the general if he is the nominee, but I have zero confidence he wouldn’t pursue Go8 style legislation as president.

    • #2
  3. David Sussman Member
    David Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    Nailed it Jon. Thank you.

    The Cruz campaigns’ commercials along with the Twitter Cruzers seem hellbent to hang their hat on parsing the word “amnesty”… A Clintonian, lawyerly effort that’s turning many of us off.

    His lies only further recalibrate together those against him.

    • #3
  4. Commodore BTC Inactive
    Commodore BTC
    @CommodoreBTC

    David Sussman:The Cruz campaigns’ commercials along with the Twitter Cruzers seem hellbent to hang their hat on parsing the word “amnesty”… A Clintonian, lawyerly effort that’s turning many of us off.

    no parsing necessary

    If you entered/overstayed illegally, and get to remain in country legally, that’s amnesty.

    • #4
  5. Chuck Enfield Inactive
    Chuck Enfield
    @ChuckEnfield

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.: Younger illegal aliens are euphemized…

    I’m all for border security, but euphemization sounds a bit harsh.  Can’t we just send them home instead of killing them?

    • #5
  6. MoltoVivace Inactive
    MoltoVivace
    @MoltoVivace

    Am I the only one who thinks a successful, America-loving businessman from Manila should have to wait at least 2 decades before becoming an American? Shouldn’t becoming an American be a long choice, with plenty of chances for us to say no?

    Personally I don’t think anyone but women and children should be allowed to immigrate here unless we have a pressing need for that specific person. Otherwise stay in your own country.

    • #6
  7. GFHandle Member
    GFHandle
    @GFHandle

    Commodore BTC: I will vote for Rubio in the general if he is the nominee, but I have zero confidence he wouldn’t pursue Go8 style legislation as president.

    I hear you.

    I think he says NOW that regularization and/or citizenship, and therefore voting, can and should be discussed AFTER we get and know we got control of the borders. I myself have no problem with that, as apparently Trump has not either. I think Rubio made a political mistake, thinking he could unite the conservatives, moderates, and even some Dems. He has been BADLY burned by that error. My sense is that he is smart enough to learn from his mistakes, so I would not have ZERO confidence that he would keep his word. And I still think Rubio is our best chance to win the general election, which is the whole enchilada. Cruz thinks he only needs conservatives to win. Would it were so. Trump excites some but disgusts others.

    As someone wrote in the National Review, Trump probably cannot win the general and Republicans cannot win without the Trump voters.

    So you hold your nose and vote for Rubio and I will hold mine and vote for Trump, if it comes to that.

    • #7
  8. Chuck Enfield Inactive
    Chuck Enfield
    @ChuckEnfield

    Commodore BTC: If you entered/overstayed illegally, and get to remain in country legally, that’s amnesty.

    Agreed, but is amnesty inherently bad?  We offer amnesty for many things, presumable because it’s in our interest to do so.  Under the right conditions, could there not be a qualified amnesty constructed such that the benefit of allowing certain people to stay outweighs the cost of deporting everybody who entered illegally?

    I’ll admit that I really don’t know.  In theory, such a plan seems possible.  In practice, the economics and ethics of immigration still confuse me, so I couldn’t say what that plan would look like.  All I can say is that I’ve been unable to support any proposed legislation that had a chance of passing.

    • #8
  9. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:But popular reforms like these have been consistently buried within 1,000-page omnibus bills that overhaul border security, the H1B visa program, and college financing for children of illegal immigrants.

    I believe there are about 21 guest-worker visa categories.

    CW-1
    E-1
    E-2 (two types)
    E-3
    H-1B
    H-1C
    H-2A
    H-2B
    H-3
    I
    L-1A
    L-1B
    O-1
    P-1A
    P-1B
    P-2
    P-3
    Q
    R-1
    TN

    How do feel about the ones besides H1B?

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:Frankly, the difference between Rubio, Cruz, and Trump’s positions are relatively minor.

    WRONG!

    Numbersusa.com gives the candidates the following grades on immigration:

    Cruz A, Santorum A, Trump A-, Christie C+, Huckabee C, Carson C, Bush C-, Paul C-, Fiorina D+, Kasich D, Rubio D, Clinton F, Sanders F-, O’Malley F-

    Rubio is closer to the Democrats.

    https://www.numbersusa.com/content/elections/races/presidential/2016-presidential-hopefuls.html

    • #9
  10. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    A vote for Rubio is a vote for amnesty. No doubt about it.

    • #10
  11. Xennady Member
    Xennady
    @

    Mike LaRoche:A vote for Rubio is a vote for amnesty. No doubt about it.

    I’m completely mystified as to just why this isn’t blindingly obvious to everyone, everywhere, all the time.

    His first big thing after getting elected was the Gang of Eight deal, which he dove into surely knowing the party would react exactly as it did. I figure he believed he could do the deal, yet remain popular enough to still be the next great hope of the gop.

    He could then rake in the donor cash, and what could the base do about it?

    Show up, as always. Oops. Doesn’t seem to be working out that way.

    Bottom line- yes, a vote for Rubio is a vote for amnesty, so I will not vote for him, period.

    • #11
  12. Ned Vaughn Inactive
    Ned Vaughn
    @NedVaughn

    Great post, Jon.

    What’s striking to me is how those who want the tightest immigration controls misunderstand their best shot at getting closer to their preffered outcome. The best way to achieve it, IMO, is to elect a widely supported conservative president who will optimize results down-ticket in November. If Republicans maintain a strong majority in the House and hold on to the Senate (much less gain strength), that sets up the best situation for immigration hardliners — provided they are correct about the broad will of the people on immigration and the political pressure that can be brought to bear. If they are right, they can use that pressure and the legislative process to create laws a Republican president won’t be able to veto without grave political risk. They might not get all the way to their desired solutions, but as far in that direction as possible.

    On the other hand, if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee I believe there will be serious problems down-ticket. I think that’s probably true to a lesser extent for Ted Cruz as well. If either is elected at the expense of weakening conservative influence in Congress, neither will be in a position to make good on their hardline immigration proposals… or much else conservatives care about, for that matter.

    • #12
  13. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Like most people, I have mixed feelings about the “path to citizenship” and amnesty.

    The numbers are interesting in and of themselves: We have approximately 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants in this country right now. Coincidentally, that is the same number of people–“displaced persons” or “refugees”–that have fled the war-torn Middle East and North Africa. The United Nations has dubbed this as the greatest refugee crisis that has occurred since World War II.

    If we were to expel our 12 million illegal immigrants over a two-year period, it would cause an international crisis, one that would look exactly like the crisis in Europe right now. Where, realistically, would our 12 million go?

    I would rather start with that group and say, We have to find jobs and housing for these people and create a path for citizenship, and because we are doing that, we are locking the door to all other forms of immigration until we have housed and found employment for and assimilated the ones we have right now. No H1B visas, no State Department placements, and no Middle East refugees. We have our hands full with the 12 million we already have. I would view it as our humanitarian contribution to the world stage for a few years–cut back on foreign aid since we are delivering aid within our own borders right now and use those funds to help our 12 million refugees live.

    That’s what I would do.

    • #13
  14. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    Kelly turned to Cruz’s 2013 amendment that he had claimed would provide a path to citizenship.

    Great post, Jon. One factual quibble with this sentence. Cruz’s amendment was designed to bar citizenship not provide a path to citizenship. However, it still allowed the bill to grant legal status to current illegals which was at odds with Cruz’s claims that he never supported legal status of any sort for illegal immigrants. The amendment Cruz offered didn’t try to bar legal status, it only barred citizenship. At the time the bill was being debated, Cruz said he wanted it to pass and that he wanted to improve it. If his improvements had passed, as he wanted, the resulting bill he claimed he wanted to support would have given legal status to current illegals.

    As far as Rubio wanting amnesty, the right is frankly guilty of abusing the language and engaging in demagoguery. What Reagan did in 1986 was amnesty. What every immigration bill recently proposed, and what even the most immigration-friendly republicans have pushed has never been amnesty. It has always involved paying penalties for breaking the law as well as any taxes owed. Immigrants also have to move to the back of the line in order to get citizenship. Paying fines and not receiving special consideration on citizenship isn’t amnesty. It’s a lessened penalty, but it’s not some pat on the back as it is commonly characterized.

    • #14
  15. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    MarciN:Like most people, I have mixed feelings about the “path to citizenship” and amnesty.

    The numbers are interesting in and of themselves: We have approximately 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants in this country right now. Coincidentally, that is the same number of people–“displaced persons” or “refugees”–that have fled the war-torn Middle East and North Africa. The United Nations has dubbed this as the greatest refugee crisis that has occurred since World War II.

    If we were to expel our 12 million illegal immigrants over a two-year period, it would cause an international crisis, one that would look exactly like the crisis in Europe right now. Where, realistically, would our 12 million go?

    I would rather start with that group and say, We have to find jobs and housing for these people and create a path for citizenship, and because we are doing that, we are locking the door to all other forms of immigration until we have housed and found employment for and assimilated the ones we have right now. No H1B visas, no State Department placements, and no Middle East refugees. We have our hands full with the 12 million we already have. I would view it as our humanitarian contribution to the world stage for a few years–cut back on foreign aid since we are delivering aid within our own borders right now and use those funds to help our 12 million refugees live.

    That’s what I would do.

    I think your plan is far more reasonable than anything we are likely to get, but there is one more 11-12 million coincidence.  It’s also about the number with no work or part time work who would like to have full time work.  Those people should replace the illegals in the work force.

    The reform I would really like to see is the simple enforcement of existing law.  That would prevent people here illegally from either working or receiving welfare, and under those circumstances they will start leaving on their own.  We know this is true because it already happened after the meltdown, when the number went from 12 million to 11 million.  And one of the Dems talking points right now is that there is a positive outflow the last couple of years.  Whether you believe that’s happening now or not, it’s certainly doable.

    Achieve a sustained positive outflow and the problem takes care of itself, without once again rewarding illegal behavior and giving the Dems a permanent majority.

    • #15
  16. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Judge Mental: I think your plan is far more reasonable than anything we are likely to get, but there is one more 11-12 million coincidence. It’s also about the number with no work or part time work who would like to have full time work. Those people should replace the illegals in the work force.

    Thank you. That is the part of the immigration picture I find most troubling.

    Thank you.

    That is so clear to me, but not to others. Sigh.

    • #16
  17. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Judge Mental: The reform I would really like to see is the simple enforcement of existing law. That would prevent people here illegally from either working or receiving welfare, and under those circumstances they will start leaving on their own. We know this is true because it already happened after the meltdown, when the number went from 12 million to 11 million. And one of the Dems talking points right now is that there is a positive outflow the last couple of years. Whether you believe that’s happening now or not, it’s certainly doable.

    That is true except that there are many teenagers and old people in those numbers now. We just can’t send them “back” to a place they have really never lived. (The group I am really upset with are the teenagers coming here to find their fathers who abandoned them in Central America. I’m not upset with the kids. It’s their parents! What kind of people abandon their children? Geesh.)

    We should have been enforcing the employment laws for the last forty years. That’s on us. And we should certainly start now.

    The illegal immigrant problem is sort of like the pollution problems that businesses created for communities. The businesses just folded up or moved away, leaving a horrific problem behind them. The businesses have done the same thing with this migrant workforce. And governments at all levels have ignored this. So we have now 11 or 12 million poor people.

    • #17
  18. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    MarciN:

    The illegal immigrant problem is sort of like the pollution problems that businesses created for communities. The businesses just folded up or moved away, leaving a horrific problem behind them. The businesses have done the same thing with this migrant workforce. And governments at all levels have ignored this. So we have now 11 or 12 million poor people.

    My plan would not result in every single one leaving, nor would that be the goal.  I don’t care about the grandma taking care of the kids in the afternoon while their parents work, if the parents are here legally, one way or another.

    If illegals can’t work or get welfare, you’re left with three groups.  The ones who no longer have a reason to be here, and will largely leave on their own.  The criminals, who won’t, but who can be dealt with through the criminal justice system.  And then the people I don’t care about because they aren’t a problem.

    • #18
  19. Commodore BTC Inactive
    Commodore BTC
    @CommodoreBTC

    offering amendments that would incrementally make a bad bill less bad does not imply he would then vote for the less bad bill

    • #19
  20. GirlWithAPearl Inactive
    GirlWithAPearl
    @GirlWithAPearl

    Very well put, Jon Gabriel. I am in that middle continuum for sure, and get so tired of the word amnesty being used as a conversation ender. immigration is the issue that began the GOP civil war while W was in office, and apparently rages on till this moment. Trump especially has seized on that issue to rally those on the far right side of the issue….although I have not heard him mention it lately? Ppl must know he is faking all that tough talk. Ppl must realize we have to find a workable and doable solution.

    • #20
  21. The Whether Man Inactive
    The Whether Man
    @TheWhetherMan

    MoltoVivace:

    Personally I don’t think anyone but women and children should be allowed to immigrate here unless we have a pressing need for that specific person. Otherwise stay in your own country.

    Okay, I’ll bite. Women and children? What?  What makes a successful female America-loving Filipina businesswoman more desirable to you than a man?

    • #21
  22. SParker Member
    SParker
    @SParker

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.: Much like Carlin pointed out in his freeway routine, those wanting to pursue immigration at slightly slower or faster rates are neither idiots nor maniacs; they are conservatives who want to arrive at the best solution for the country they love.

    But John Tamny makes the entirely reasonable argument that they’re not (principled) conservatives at all.  Personally I’m dropping the “crypto” from crypto-quasi-transnational-libertarian on my business card.

    • #22
  23. harrisventures Inactive
    harrisventures
    @harrisventures

    Judge Mental: The reform I would really like to see is the simple enforcement of existing law. That would prevent people here illegally from either working or receiving welfare, and under those circumstances they will start leaving on their own. We know this is true because it already happened after the meltdown, when the number went from 12 million to 11 million. And one of the Dems talking points right now is that there is a positive outflow the last couple of years. Whether you believe that’s happening now or not, it’s certainly doable.

    By definition, if you are here illegally, you have broken the existing laws. If you are here illegally and have a job, you have broken multiple laws, committed fraud with false documents, etc.

    I agree that if we just enforce the existing laws, most illegals will make their own way home.

    What I do not want to see under any circumstances is any illegal given a path to citizenship. They have already established that they will not be good citizens. Let them return to place of origin and apply for legal immigration.

    I say this as someone who has many relatives that have run the gauntlet to become naturalized citizens, and are proud to be Americans.

    The United States of America does not owe every single person in the world the right to free medical care and as much welfare as you can apply for.

    So, no. No amnesty, at all.

    • #23
  24. Ryan M Inactive
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    Wonderfully put, Jon.

    Now, how do those three candidates stack up on the other extremely important issues? Whoops, we’re not talking about that stuff because all we can discuss is immigration.

    • #24
  25. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Commodore BTC:

    Frankly, the difference between Rubio, Cruz, and Trump’s positions are relatively minor.

    Except for the whole citizenship/voting rights for 11+ million illegals thing, sure Jon.

    Even without any amnesty today. The offspring of these illegals will become legal citizens thanks to our birth right citizenship. Thus there has always been a pathway to citizenship of sorts. 11 million illegals now means at least another 11 million citizens down the line assuming just replacement rates of reproduction. In reality birth rates among illegals is probably higher so maybe 15+ million new citizens. Not in 7-10 years from a naturalization process but in 20 years.

    • #25
  26. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Sounds like the thoughtful superficially balanced counsel my grandfather would utter towards the end of a politically charged Thanksgiving dinner which papered over real differences in pursuit of “party” unity.

    Often worked until dessert.

    I have no reliable opinion on Trump, as he reinvents himself more often in one month than Neil Young has in fifty years.

    Differences between Rubio and Cruz are clear.  Rubio was the principal sponsor of a toothless amnesty bill which would have naturalized new Democratic majorities for Texas and Arizona by 2024.  He was by turns remarkably naive and panicky.

    Cruz offered up a smartly prescribed poison pill which put the lie to Rubio’s “out of the shadows” rhetoric.

    Granted on some issues, the difference between a Cruz and Rubio presidency may be guesswork.  I suspect President Cruz ratchets up the enforcement of existing laws and 3-4 million of the least embedded illegals leave the country.  I strongly suspect President Rubio will do little to enforce the medley of enforcement measures he listlessly lists in debates.

    On one critical issue there is little doubt:  Should the Democrats gain a majority (or working majority with CoC GOPers) a President Rubio will pronounce the American people “ready” for his comprehensive immigration reform; a near certainty after re-election.

    I don’t believe a President Cruz would ever sign an amnesty bill which extended voting rights to millions of illegals.  Cruz would also push for any legalization to be balanced by legal immigration quotas.

    • #26
  27. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I’ve been wondering if we are being too hard on Rubio’s Gang of Eight participation.

    Our entire immigration policy needs to reworked. It is just out of whack and inconsistent in many ways.

    And I really don’t think the American people are ever going to go along with a massive deportation effort. Eisenhower accomplished it in the days before we had the media coverage we have today. Today, once the media started publishing the hardship cases, the public would quickly lose its taste for deportation. And we’d be right back where we are now.

    I think Rubio was being practical. The only way to get needed reforms was to pass the bill as it was.

    On the other hand, I have read that Rubio is for increasing the H1B work visas, and I am really opposed to that.

    So perhaps he does represent the Chamber of Commerce rather than the unemployed American.

    Sigh.

    • #27
  28. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Let’s keep in mind that even if we end up with a President Rubio, he will not be in unilateral control of the immigration issue.  The Senate passed the Gang of 8 bill.  The House never even took it up.  I think this is solid evidence that the House, if it remains Republican, is not going to pass anything like a comprehensive package, and is not going to pass anything like amnesty.

    I have one caveat to this.  There are a few here, and at my recent post on the subject — #1 on the member feed right now, whoopee —  who think that the word amnesty describes anything short of a “deport-them-all-right-now” policy.  In my view, a serious penalty — say $5,000 to $10,000 — takes a proposal out of the amnesty category.  The Gang of 8 bill provided for a total penalty of $2,000 before granting permanent legal residence, which I think is enough to take it out of the amnesty category.

    The Gang of 8 bill had a number of other problems.  The worst of them, in my view, is the path to citizenship, to which I am opposed in almost all circumstances (I make an exception for those who serve in the military).

    • #28
  29. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    MarciN:Like most people, I have mixed feelings about the “path to citizenship” and amnesty.

    The numbers are interesting in and of themselves: We have approximately 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants in this country right now. Coincidentally, that is the same number of people–“displaced persons” or “refugees”–that have fled the war-torn Middle East and North Africa. The United Nations has dubbed this as the greatest refugee crisis that has occurred since World War II.

    If we were to expel our 12 million illegal immigrants over a two-year period, it would cause an international crisis, one that would look exactly like the crisis in Europe right now. Where, realistically, would our 12 million go?

    I would rather start with that group and say, We have to find jobs and housing for these people and create a path for citizenship, and because we are doing that, we are locking the door to all other forms of immigration until we have housed and found employment for and assimilated the ones we have right now. No H1B visas, no State Department placements, and no Middle East refugees. We have our hands full with the 12 million we already have. I would view it as our humanitarian contribution to the world stage for a few years–cut back on foreign aid since we are delivering aid within our own borders right now and use those funds to help our 12 million refugees live.

    That’s what I would do.

    What about the people born here who need jobs?

    • #29
  30. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Ryan M:Wonderfully put, Jon.

    Now, how do those three candidates stack up on the other extremely important issues? Whoops, we’re not talking about that stuff because all we can discuss is immigration.

    There is no more important issue, because this is about changing America by importing people from the third world.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.