Image via WikipediaRelated source » Gingrich and Immigration: 'via Blog this'
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
“There is no inherent right to come live in the United States, in disregard of whether the American people want you here. Nor does the passage of time confer any such right retroactively. […] You don't have to launch a "manhunt" when a known criminal is also a known illegal alien. What many local policies have done has been to virtually put illegal aliens in a witness protection program. […] At one time, immigrants came to America to become Americans. Today, the apostles of multiculturalism and grievance-mongering have done their best to keep foreigners foreign and, if possible, feeling aggrieved. Our own schools and colleges teach grievances. […] If Democrats win Congress and the White House in 2012, amnesty is virtually certain, along with other disasters.” [emphasis added]
— Thomas Sowell, Nov 29, 2011 (townhall.com)
I truly believe that one of the aspects of American exceptionalism has been, and continues to be, its welcoming immigration policy. As a naturalized American citizen, I have had the great privilege of American immigration bestowed upon me and my parents more than sixty years ago. To this day, I still celebrate the anniversary of my arrival in New York Harbor on an American troop ship that had been converted for peacetime operations, including the transport of displaced persons to American shores, after the end of World War Two. It goes without saying that our immigration was in accordance with American statutes at that time.
I fully support legal immigration. It continues to be a great privilege for people who seek to establish American citizenship for themselves and for their descendants. It is not, nor was it ever intended to be, an entitlement for everyone in the world at large. The United States is a sovereign nation and as such, its immigration policy is established by acts of Congress with the concomitant approval of the President. Any entry into the United States by illegal means is a violation of Congressional acts, and, therefore, constitutes a federal offense.
At this time there are millions of people living in the United States who did not arrive by legal means. These people are fugitives from the law, though many of them have been law-abiding residents since the time of their illegal entry. It is the scale of this state-of-affairs that presents such consternation to the millions of American citizens who have conflicting opinions about what should be done about the so-called "illegal aliens" living among us.
It seems to me that a common-sensical approach to resolving the controversy surrounding this major issue is available. Suppose that the federal violation of illegal entry into the United States had an associated statute of limitations, as most non-capital offenses do have. Then a procedure for dealing with people who have been revealed to have entered illegally could be outlined as follows:
There would not be an active "manhunt" for any illegal aliens. But, in the course of any arrest procedure subsequent to an alleged crime having been committed, the law-enforcement agency could investigate whether or not the alleged perpetrator was a legal resident of the United States. If not, that person would be subject to deportation, if the prosecution deemed that to be the appropriate remediation under the circumstances. If, however, the perpetrator's illegal entry had exceeded the statute of limitations, then an alternative to deportation could be offered, namely, that person could accept a green-card, as if he had immigrated legally at the time of his arrest. Subsequent to the fulfillment of all the prerequisites for naturalization (which include five years of continuous law-abiding residence in the United States, as of receipt of the green-card) naturalized citizenship would be granted to the individual.
The above described process is not perfect, and would not satisfy everyone who has a stake in these matters. But it does have the advantage of being neither a too-lenient general amnesty, nor a too-harsh strict deportation for all illegal aliens.
Post 1,735 Due Process Extended
I fully support legal immigration. It continues to be a great privilege for people who seek to establish American citizenship for themselves and for their descendants. It is not, nor was it ever intended to be, an entitlement for everyone in the world at large. The United States is a sovereign nation and as such, its immigration policy is established by acts of Congress with the concomitant approval of the President. Any entry into the United States by illegal means is a violation of Congressional acts, and, therefore, constitutes a federal offense.
At this time there are millions of people living in the United States who did not arrive by legal means. These people are fugitives from the law, though many of them have been law-abiding residents since the time of their illegal entry. It is the scale of this state-of-affairs that presents such consternation to the millions of American citizens who have conflicting opinions about what should be done about the so-called "illegal aliens" living among us.
It seems to me that a common-sensical approach to resolving the controversy surrounding this major issue is available. Suppose that the federal violation of illegal entry into the United States had an associated statute of limitations, as most non-capital offenses do have. Then a procedure for dealing with people who have been revealed to have entered illegally could be outlined as follows:
There would not be an active "manhunt" for any illegal aliens. But, in the course of any arrest procedure subsequent to an alleged crime having been committed, the law-enforcement agency could investigate whether or not the alleged perpetrator was a legal resident of the United States. If not, that person would be subject to deportation, if the prosecution deemed that to be the appropriate remediation under the circumstances. If, however, the perpetrator's illegal entry had exceeded the statute of limitations, then an alternative to deportation could be offered, namely, that person could accept a green-card, as if he had immigrated legally at the time of his arrest. Subsequent to the fulfillment of all the prerequisites for naturalization (which include five years of continuous law-abiding residence in the United States, as of receipt of the green-card) naturalized citizenship would be granted to the individual.
The above described process is not perfect, and would not satisfy everyone who has a stake in these matters. But it does have the advantage of being neither a too-lenient general amnesty, nor a too-harsh strict deportation for all illegal aliens.
Post 1,735 Due Process Extended
