Pres. Bush Faces the Nation on Illegal Immigration
Monday, May 15, 2006 at 08:07PM Once here, illegal immigrants..use forged documents to get jobs,….. put pressure on public schools and hospitals … strains state and local budgets … and brings crime to our communities. These are real problems, yet we must remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life — but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law.
(having a flashback to the illegal immigration rally: "We are American". Actually, you are ILLEGAL) Would ILLEGALS be putting a strain on state and local budgets, schools and hospitals if we enforced the law?
We are a Nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We are also a Nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals — America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time.
First, the United States must secure its borders.
Enforcement of US law is priority one. If the United States doesn’t deem its own law meaningful and valuable enough to enforce and revere, why should we expect ILLEGALS to?
Second, to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program. The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country.
A Temporary Worker Program can ONLY work for aliens with (work) visas and passports. They will do anything?? Immigrants obeying the rules show that they respect and are willing to abide by American law. What ILLEGAL immigrants are doing in this country by demanding their "rights" (they have none) shows that they are NOT good candidates to be law abiding US citizens. Going through the proper channels is a great litmus test.
Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally.
This is the same supply and demand principle that is not applied to drug laws; that is, drug suppliers are held more accountable than the drug users. For maximum results, both supplier and users should be held equally accountable. This principle should apply to ILLEGAL aliens.
Fourth, we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully — and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration.
Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant — and that any proposal short of this amounts to amnesty. I disagree. It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently - and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law … to pay their taxes … to learn English … and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship — but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have just described is not amnesty — it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.
This must be the most offensive and problematic point of the speech. It’s the "they’re going to have sex anyway so let’s give them free condoms" ideology. It doesn’t work and it produces more problems than it prevents. How giving priority to ILLEGALS who have been in the country longer ILLEGALLY solves the problem is unclear. If ILLEGALS have set up camp and had children in America, let them decide to either leave with or without their children; tough times demand tough choices. If ILLEGALS have milked America ILLEGALLY to the point where there is no shame, to the contrary, there is pride, in marching down American city streets, stopping traffic, demanding their "rights", let them show their love and devotion for America by exiting to their natural country, where they will not be persecuted or jailed (as with Cuba, for example) and get in line. ILLEGALS don’t have money? It takes thousands of dollars to pay to be smuggled into America. It takes thousands of dollars to buy equipment like sophisticated lightweight ladders and blow torches to break through metal barriers, and these are routinely used.
Despite the President’s plan, ILLEGALS will not "have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law". They will instead remain in the United States benefiting from the medical, economic and secure advantages living like citizens while immigrants going through proper channels sit on the sidelines.
(sidebar: I am good friends with a teacher who has ILLEGALS in her classes. In fact, *awkward moment*, we ran into one at the ILLEGAL immigration rally downtown. Some cannot speak the language and some demand special privileges for medical needs, etc. ILLEGALS are not supposed to receive these benefits at taxpayer expense, so to say that they will be "getting in line" is a myth)
Fifth, we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one Nation out of many peoples.
Below are the requirements for legal immigration and naturalization in the United States:
General Naturalization Requirements
-Applicants must be at least 18 years old.
-Applicants must be at least 18 years old.
-Applicants must be at least 18 years old.-An applicant must have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Lawfully admitted for permanent residence means having been legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws. Individuals who have been lawfully admitted as permanent residents will be asked to produce an I-551, Alien Registration Receipt Card, as proof of their status.
-Generally, an applicant must show that he or she has been a person of good moral character for the statutory period (typically five years or three years if married to a U.S. citizen or one year for Armed Forces expedite) prior to filing for naturalization. The Service is not limited to the statutory period in determining whether an applicant has established good moral character. An applicant is permanently barred from naturalization if he or she has ever been convicted of murder. An applicant is also permanently barred from naturalization if he or she has been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Act on or after November 29, 1990.
-Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language.
-An applicant for naturalization must demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and of the principles and form of government of the United States.
Oath of Allegiance
To become a citizen, one must take the oath of allegiance. By doing so, an applicant swears to:
Pres. Bush’s speech, while politically correct, was a disappointment. For those law-abiding Americans who were born here, whose parents and grandparents were legal immigrants and who value and revere the Law, Seven amnesty laws for illegal immigrants were passed in 1986 and resulted in an increase ILLEGAL immigration. As VA Governor George Allen said, "Legalizing ILLEGAL behavior produces more illegal behavior."
ADDITIONAL:
Minutemen saddened by Bush speech - "sad, disappointing, political pandering and appeasement - while national security continues to be jeopardized."
Illegal Immigration: Fact Sheet (California Conservative)
OTHERS BLOGGING:
Expose the Left A Lady’s Ruminations All Things Beautiful The Sandbox Flopping Aces California Conservative Don Singleton Political Pit Bull Captain’s Quarters Michelle Malkin Stop the ACLU
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/490185
Bush, Immigration 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (35)
I too was underwhelmed by Pres. Bush's speech. In order to correct the decades of neglecting US immigration laws (including 1/2 a decade under the incumbent president), there should be at least 15,000-18,000 troops on the Mexican border enforcing the law. If Mexico has a problem with that too bad. If Bush were truly concerned about the problem of illegal migration, he would have mobilized troops prior to the speech tonight. Unfortunately, neither party has any leadership and to have meaningful enforcement of our laws we will have to continue to hold both Congress and the President's feet to the fire.
Remember, the Great Wall was built centuries ago. It can be done.
We already have an military bases right on or near the Mexican border (Ft. Bliss, TX; Ft. Hauchuca, AZ; US Army Proving Ground Yuma, AZ; White Sands Missle Range, NM; Camp Pendledon, CA; etc.). Why not use the troops that are already there to patrol the border (and I do not mean as support for the Border Patrol, this plan is a joke), and the bases as staging areas? Wouldn't this serve the dual purpose of training our troops to serve in desert conditions (necessary for Iraq) and stemming the flow of illegal aliens? How about using some of the DOD properties that have been decommissioned, but not yet sold off, as a staging area for deportation? How about instead of deporting the Mexicans back to their northern border, where they just entered our country illegally, we deport them back to their southern border so they cannot sneak back into the US later the same day? Oh, and by the way, since Bush is C-in-C, order this to take place immediately!
http://www.therealitycheck.org/StaffWriter/Illegal_ImmigrationFS.html
CLAIM: “Illegal immigrants do the jobs that Americans won’t.”
False: Americans will perform any legal job necessary to support themselves and their families. As an illustration, recently 70 US citizens were dismissed from an Alabama construction site by a foreman who said the dismissal was “because the Mexicans had arrived”. Linda Swopes, who operates Complete Employment Services in Mobile AL said: "I assure you it is not true that Americans don't want to work. We had been told that 270 jobs might be available, and we could have filled every one of them with men from this area, most of whom lost their jobs because of the hurricane." The identified Mexican illegal immigrant workers were simply willing to work for less money than were US citizens.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060410-123506-1297r.htm
CLAIM: “Illegal immigrants help the American economy.”
False: Illegal immigrants to the US cost the country at least $10 billion more than they contribute to the economy. The CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) advises that if amnesty is put into place, these costs to the American economy (and the American taxpayer) will triple. The average illegal immigrant family uses $2,700/year more in services than it pays in taxes. In 2002, this amounted to a $10.4 billion drain on the federal budget. Some of the greatest federal costs included: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html
CLAIM: “Illegal immigrants are just hard-working people who want jobs.”
False: The US Justice Department reported that in 2003, alone, 270,000 illegal immigrants had served prison time. The Federation for American Immigration Reform reports: "In March 2000, Congress made public Department of Justice statistics showing that, over the previous five years, the INS had released over 35,000 criminal aliens instead of deporting them. Over 11,000 of those released went on to commit serious crimes, over 1,800 of which were violent ones; including 98 homicides, 142 sexual assaults, and 44 kidnappings. In 2001, thanks to a decision by the Supreme Court, the INS was forced to release into our society over 3,000 criminal aliens who collectively had been convicted of 125 homicides, 387 sex offenses, and 772 assault charges."
The Federal Bureau of Prisons estimates that fully one-third of current prison populations are comprised of non-citizen illegals.
Islamic terrorists, including Mexicans with terrorist ties, have entered and are continuing to enter the US via our unsecured borders.
The violent MS-13 Salvadoran gangs have illegally immigrated across the US-Mexico border. MS-13 has also vowed to kill local police, Border Patrol agents and US citizen-members of the Minutemen project, within the US.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml?s=ic
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid%3A60078
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7244879/site/newsweek/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-05-gang-grows_x.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050328-125306-7868r.htm
CLAIM: “Illegal aliens help keep cost of goods down”
Misleading and false: Although marketplace agricultural products are estimated to be somewhat lower than they would be if US citizens were performing the jobs illegals carry out, the cost to US taxpayers in free services to illegals vastly outweighs any savings to the US consumer. And illegal immigrants are no longer solely operating in agriculture but, have expanded out into multiple industries. In Los Angeles, 49-year old construction worker Michael Williams (jobless for 3 months) said outside of a Home Depot: "You have a lot of illegal aliens here. It takes food off the table." The spread of illegals into other industries is increasing geometrically.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2006-04-10-immigrants-economic-impact_x.htm
CLAIM: “Illegal immigrants are being denied [their] civil rights”
False: Civil rights pertain ONLY to citizens. The Merriam-Webster online Dictionary defines civil-rights as: “The nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially: the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress.” If one is not a citizen of the country, civil rights do not apply.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/civil%20rights
CLAIM: “Illegal immigrants are law-abiding citizens”
False: First and foremost, by the very nature of illegal immigrants being in the country “illegally”, they are neither following nor abiding by US law. Also, illegal immigrants are increasingly using bogus or stolen Social Security numbers. The crime of Identity Fraud being affected by illegal immigrants has become a growing and sever problem. Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) commented: "If the government bothered to look, it could find abundant evidence of illegal aliens gaming our system and the unscrupulous employers who are aiding and abetting them.”
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/14411281.htm
CLAIM: “Illegal immigrants only want to become US citizens’
False: Although many illegals are demanding US citizenship, and to be given special consideration ahead of those who have applied legally, a marked number of Hispanics do not want it. But, they do demand the “same rights” as US citizens. Many Hispanic groups, including (but not limited to) MEChA, the Mexica Movement and LULAC, are supporting and working toward the re-conquest (“reconquista”) of the United States. These groups are, also, becoming increasingly militant.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:zb7zb5AZ1w8J:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/31/ldt.01.html+Reconquista+movement&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=20&client=firefox-a
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060416-122222-1672r.htm
CLAIM: “Illegal aliens are honest and contribute little to crime”
Misleading: Many are hard working. However, in Los Angeles, alone, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens. “A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal.”
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
CLAIM: “The claim that illegal immigrants drain US services is a myth”
False: From the L.A. Times and Rice University’s Professor Donald Huddle: “Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare.” And as far back as 1997, according to Huddle, the cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer was a net (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $69 Billion.
http://www.freedomalliance.org/view_article.php?a_id=642
CLAIM: “Illegals do not drive down US workers’ wages”
False: As already presented, illegal immigrants from Mexico are working for far less money than US citizen workers and on a regular basis. An 18 April 2006 article in WSJ by Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University George J. Borjas (“For a Few Dollars Less”) quotes Paul Samuelson: “…an increase in supply [of workers] will, other things being equal, tend to depress wage rates." Although Samuelson’s conclusions were, for years, disputed, recently they have been proving to be accurate.
Borjas writes: “My Harvard colleague Lawrence Katz and I recently examined the impact of the 1980-2000 immigrant influx (and particularly Mexican-origin immigration) for U.S. wages. The results are that, in the short run -- holding all other things equal -- immigration lowered the wage of native workers, particularly of those workers with the least education. The wage fell by 3% for the average worker and by 8% for high school dropouts.” He further concludes: “These effects imply sizable reductions in annual earnings for low-skill workers. In 2000, the typical high school dropout earned $25,000, so that immigration reduced his earnings by $1,200, even after all capital adjustments take place. Mr. Katz and I also examined how much was due to Mexican immigration. We calculated what the wage effects would have been had there been no Mexican immigration between 1980 and 2000. We found that Mexican immigration, which is predominantly low-skill, accounts for all of the adverse impact of immigration on low-skill natives.” In NRO (National Review Online), Borjas continues with: “In fact, immigration may have depressed the wages of low-skilled workers by 5 to 8 percentage points.”
Note: WSJ article is via “subscription only”.
http://www.nationalreview.com/issue/borgas200604250622.asp
2. Pres. Bush is indeed culpable for allowing this problem to spin out of control under his administration. He of all people should know the answer seeing he was a two-term governor of the Republic of Texas.
3. Any plan that does not target businesses that hire illegals and identity fraud will fail.
4. The President's poll numbers are dangerously low. he cannot govern against the popular consensus now without enormous risk to his party. He is in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't position now.
5. It is illegal to use combat troops for domestic law enforcement. That is why they can only support the border patrol.
6. Whatever the economic value of illegals may be, that is immaterial to the discussion of law and order. Either change the law or enforce it. We tried this in 1919 (Prohibition of Alcoholic beverages) but found it unenforceable and regulated alcoholic beverages more strictly beginning in 1933. Sometimes you have to punt.
7. DON'T let the democrats off the hook! They are sitting on the sidelines doing absolutely NOTHING but trying to cash in on the problem. ANYONE who thinks the dems have a clue about what to do is sadly mistaken. They are crying "BORDER CONTROL!" out of one side of their mouth while lining up to register the future citizens to vote democrat.
Personally, I favor the wall, a stringent and demanding path to citizenship, and stiff penalties for hiring illegals and even stiffer ones for identity fraud. You can NOT hold the illegals guilty alone; they came for jobs, and OUR citizens hired them. As Amy said, you must address this at the supply and demand level.
I was disappointed too. While I applaud President Bush for having the courage to even make the speech, it felt like there were too many soft measures in there.
Face it, a fence is the best option for keeping illegal aliens out.
Active duty troops can absolutely NOT be used for border control. While it sounds like killing 2 birds with one stone, it would be an illegal use of US military. It simply is not in their jurisdiction, from what I understand. Nat. Guard are different because they are back up. I'll try to locate some military documents to autheniticate the missions of each.
The law referred to banning the use of the US military for border control is the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385), which was passed in response to abuses by federal troops in the South after the Civil War. It seems to me that there is a clear differentiation between using the Army for Reconstruction post-Civil War and the broad interpretation of banning searching, arresting or spying on illegial aliens by federal troops. If indeed this law is problematic, I think it would be easier to change this than amend the 14th Amendment prohibiting illegal aliens who give birth here from having their children instantly becoming citizens.
According to 18 USC 1385 (available at the Legal Information Institute @ Cornell University - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001385----000-.html):
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 67 > § 1385 Prev | Next
§ 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
It seems to me that Art I Section 8 of the US Constitution ( The Congress shall have power to ... provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions), in conjunction with Art II Section 2 (The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States) does expressly allow the army to be used to repel the invasion of the US by illegal aliens.
Michael, maybe it's just my stubbornness, but I find it hard to believe that current military practice is governed by Civil War era law. Surely there have been more updateable military doctrine on the subject since then.
I'll see what (if anything) I can find.
Even Pres. Bush is afraid to be tough on this issue, or maybe he has a soft spot for... ILLEGALS?? I don't get it. He gave quote after quote, "We are a nation of laws... so let's legalize, over time, ILLEGALS." Wha?
Where the heck is Tony Snow???????
If we had it to do over again, we would still obey the law. But there is a bitter taste in our mouths because the debate in Congress seems to be between the amnesty-for-almost-all-illegals crowd (President Bush & Republicans) and amnesty-for-all-illegals crowd (Democrats).
Law-abiding immigrants may as well not bother to apply. I think it was Rep. Tancredo who noted that Bush's plan has the effect of shoving legal immigrants to the back of the immigration line. Legal immigrants have to stay in their countries and wait for the incompetent bureaucrats to act, while illegals get to stay here and go on with their lives. This is fair? This goofy scheme sounds like something only a Democrat could have thought up.
Big business is precisely the reason why there are only two major parties contesting for office in America.
That being said, many Latino voters are feeling that they owe their heritage the right to enter this country by whatever means, due to their own prosperity. This is a flawed and dangerous belief. The gravy train WILL end as our government implodes to pandering.
The immediate short-term solution is to shut down the illegal border crossings. If this is not accomplished, no political act (law) will stop the flow. It is that simple.
I read yesterday that the Mexican Government is considering suing the US if our National Guard have any active role in apprehending persons and/or are abused, treated wrong, etc.
IMHO, this is a direct threat to our border by a neighbor State, and an in-direct threat of further action along the Mexico side of the border! Mexico has troops deployed all along their southern border and they are crying foul! Their entire southern border is heavily militarized. They do not want illegal immigrants… imagine that!
Just my two cents worth.
Max
Amnesties are all too common legislative efforts to forgive the breaking of immigration laws and to make it possible for illegal aliens to live permanently in the United States. Amnesties represent a system of federal rewards and assistance for illegal migrants, and they entice an even greater number of illegal migrants.
Immigration Reform and Control Act Amnesty of 1986:
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was enacted by Congress in response to the large and rapidly growing illegal alien population in the United States. The final bill was the result of a dramatic compromise between those who wanted to reduce illegal immigration into the United States and those who wanted to "wipe the slate clean" for those illegals already living here by granting them legal residence. As enacted, IRCA included a massive amnesty program for two main categories of illegal aliens:
1) those who could show that they had resided illegally in the United States continuously since at least January 1, 1982; and
2) those who had worked as agricultural workers for at least 90 days between May 1, 1985 and May 1, 1986.
As a "balance" to this huge amnesty, IRCA also included several provisions designed to: strengthen the enforcement of immigration laws (including sanctions for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens); increase border controls; and create a program to verify the immigration status of aliens applying for certain welfare benefits.
The IRCA amnesty has been tied to terrorism. Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was legalized as a seasonal agricultural worker as part of the 1986 IRCA amnesty. This allowed him to travel abroad, including several trips to Afghanistan, where he received terrorist
Amnesty first, border control 2nd DOES NOT WORK. It must be border control 1st, deportation 2nd.
It's sad for me that we disagree so much on this issue. On almost everything else, our opinions are consistent.
I doubt that anything I write will convince you or any of your commenters that the president has charted the best course for immigration.
Please consider one point, though. Professor Huddle may overstate the cost of illegal immigration. He includes the full cost of education in deriving his net $69 billion figure, I've read that this education cost alone is what moves the immigrants' contribution from positive to negative.
Consider a few thoughts about educating children of illegal immigrants.
First, children of illegal immigrants, whether citizens or not, are entitled by law to public education. That right has been established by the Supreme Court.
Second, our nation's interests are best served by educating these children. Whether it was a mistake to allow these children to be here is a different issue. For as long as they are here, it only makes sense they acquire the knowledge to become net contributors in the future.
Third, asking that illegal immigrants pay the full cost of their child's education is not fair. I doubt that any parent in America pays the full cost of his child's public education. In most states, public education is funded by property taxes collected from all households and all businesses. We all pay for education because it is a public good that benefits everyone.
A fair analysis by Professor Huddle would have included not the total cost per each child for education, but rather the average education tax paid per household.
The Bush proposal is almost a carbon copy of the 1986 bill. It promises enforcement after legalization. Based on past results, it won't work.
You said, "First, children of illegal immigrants, whether citizens or not, are entitled by law to public education. That right has been established by the Supreme Court."
What law is that?
I had/have no idea that this is true, but why WOULD ILLEGAL immigrants, whether child or adult, have an entitlement to anything in America? Illegals shouldn't pay taxes, they shouldn't be protected by US law, they shouldn't receive any benefit privileaged to US citizens. This angers many people because those of us who have played by the rules our whole lives feel taken advantage of by our own government.
What blessing do I receive for disobeying the law? None. It flies in the face of people who try to do right and encourages more people who want to do wrong.
I beg to differ. We pay taxes everytime we buy any sort of goods. We also pay fees and charges at school. We probably do cover the price of their education.
The right to education was very clearly established in the Supreme Court's 1982 ruling in Plyler vs Doe. Here's a summary of that ruling which explains not only the right of illegal immigrant children, but also the numerous actions which educators are prohibited from taking:
http://tinyurl.com/hvyya
Here's a more legal explanation of Plyler vs Doe:
http://www.tourolaw.edu/PATCH/Plyler/
You may find this ruling shocking, but it is a very legal interpretation of the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
I have read nothing to indicate this ruling has been modified, or that the current court would be inclined to reverse it.
I agree that we could deport 12 million illegal immigrants if we had the will to do so. But to complete the task in less than 20 years would require:
- sweeping changes to our laws which currently allow immigrants the right to individual deportation hearings and near-automatic appeals;
- tens of thousands more INS agents;
- a thousand or more additional immigration judges;
- at least 10,000 more lawyers trained in immigration law.
Even with all those changes, it would still require years to find all the 12 million illegal immigrants.
Furthermore, immigration judges do not have to order deportation of illegal immigrants. They are allowed to take into consideration the family ties of defendants and their work history before deciding whether deportation is best.
To give you an idea about the challenge: in 2004, the INS formally removed 202,842 foreign nationals. Even if that rate were possible for all the 12 million immigrants you wish to remove, the task would require 72 years. Quadruple the INS manpower, the number of judges, and the number of immigration lawyers and conceivably the task could be completed in 18 years. But I suspect that wouldn't be possible. Many deported aliens were exposed through criminal activity. Identifying those immigrants who do not commit crimes would be much more difficult.
Secondly, if ILLEGALS don't have to respect the law, why should I not DEMAND that the Supreme Court's 1982 ruling be overturned?
I didn't realize that link was an anti-Bush site. I could provide a dozen or more sites that say the same thing. Their explanation just seemed the easiest to read.
Whether or not you wish to take seriously the information I provided, the fact is that Plyler vs Doe is established law. Any teacher or education system choosing to ignore this law will probably face lawsuit.
You are certainly free to demand that Plyler vs Doe be overturned. I am a conservative Republican, and I agree with almost all your positions: on Bush, on right to life, on family values, on the Iraq war, on supporting our troops. But I will not support the particular demand that would treat certain children in America as undeserving - children who have no say whatsoever about where they live.
I think the distinction made by the Supreme Court is very important. They didn't assert any rights about illegal immigrant parents. They did assert the rights of their children - that all children who reside in a U.S. state are entitled to a public education if any children are so entitled.
As I understand it, the law is that anyone subject to deportation is entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge. The purpose of the first hearing is to determine whether or not the defendant is an illegal immigrant. After the judge rules the immigrant can be deported, lawyers may then appeal on a number of grounds. If the appeal is accepted for consideration, the defendant cannot be deported until after his or her appeal is heard.
One of the most common causes for appeal is referred to as the 7 year rule. Immigrants who can prove they have been here for 7 years are likely to be granted an appeal.
We cannot suspend the rights of people just because we suspect they are here illegally. Their status must be determined by an immigration judge.