“Comprehensive reform can only occur if we proceed in an orderly and sequential fashion where certain parameters and benchmarks of success are met before moving forward. Logically, border security must come first. It is the cornerstone of any realistic reform. Once we establish security at the border and actually stop the leak in our boat, then we can move forward with a plan to address the consequences caused by years of inaction.
Cant have military 'defend' our borders---that would be like North Korea Large populations/communities that have VERY STRONG beliefs of/for their country---'protect' the borders
I ask what is our very strong/belief of our country?? What are the leaders leading with?? pandering? giving the people 'what they want' instead of 'what they need'? self indulgence? indifference? narcicism?
America is not a boat but a port......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Well, I know that our country is the best, it truly is blessed and is the land of opportunity, but it can surely come down just as fast as it went up. We need to protect what has been accomplished and given to us in the last couple hundred years. Of course 'all are welcome', we just want you to be productive, contribute to society AND be legal!! Is that too much to ask?
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
By JORDAN CARLEO-EVANGLIST, Staff writer Tuesday, July 3, 2007
NEW BALTIMORE -- Two illegal immigrants carrying forged identification documents were arrested early this morning on the Thruway in Greene County after troopers watched their car pull over to the side of road and discovered the pair were intoxicated, State Police said.
When troopers stopped to check on the men, they discovered both were allegedly intoxicated and admitted being in the country illegally.
Mario Veles-Francisco, 28, of Mexico City, was charged with driving while intoxicated and possessing a forged social security card, police said.
Edward Lopez, 26, of Malancha, Guatemala, was charged with possessing a forged resident alien card, police said.
The men were arraigned in New Baltimore and ordered held at the Greene County Jail with no bail and are also being detained on a federal immigration hold, authorities said.
The “immigration reform bill” is dead! But if Congress had been required to adhere to the truth in advertising laws with which we citizens must, the bill would have been titled “The Cheap Labor and Communicable Disease Importation Act.” JOHN FUGAZZI Scotia
E.J. Dionne Distrust in gov’t killed immigration bill E.J. Dionne is a nationally syndicated columnist.
The United States is a cranky nation in a crabby mood. To relieve our distemper, we need leadership we’re now lacking and a citizenry with greater hope in its democratic capacities. The defeat last week of the immigration bill is the most obvious manifestation of how economic anxiety and a loss of faith in the federal government’s competence have conspired to make it far easier for politicians to say “no” than “yes,” to reject compromise on difficult questions, and to assume that voters will respond to big initiatives with mistrust. Let it be said that while the bill suffered from disinformation campaigns and some ugly anti-Latino agitation, opposition to this well-meaning but ungainly immigration compromise was certainly not confined to mean-spirited nativists. As a matter of simple political math, the bill’s opponents were more mobilized and more ardent than its supporters. Concessions designed to buy conservative support won few converts among restrictionists, but drove down the enthusiasm level among Latinos, business groups and liberals favorably disposed toward granting a path to citizenship for some 12 million illegal immigrants. Under the circumstances, it was politically more attractive to make Lou Dobbs happy than to give President Bush a victory. Republican senators — three-quarters of whom voted to block the bill — seemed eager to declare their independence from Bush and to appease an angry part of the electorate whose votes they need next year. They will pay a price among Latino voters — a price these Republicans decided was worth paying. But there was a larger reason why this bill crashed. About two weeks before it died, I sat down with Sen. Evan Bayh, DInd., who up to that point had voted to let the bill go forward. Bayh was blue about the legislation’s prospects and his explanation had more to do with the political climate than with its particulars — although he cited some of those in explaining why he voted, in the end, to block a measure he called “a theoretical hodgepodge.” “The timing of this is all wrong,” Bayh said. “There’s a tremendous amount of middle-class anxiety in the country right now,” and anger over immigration reflected “the complete lack of a domestic agenda to address the needs of the middle class” in areas such as health care, pensions and education. When voters saw Congress directing its attention to 12 million illegal immigrants, he said, “they asked: ’When are you going to get around to me? Are you going to get around to me?’” Bayh himself strongly favors legalizing the status of the 12 million. He opposed some of the bill’s more punitive sections and sided with Latino groups in trying to strengthen the rules on family reunifi cation. But he said he understood why many voters weren’t buying immigration reform this year. “When people are feeling more secure about their own situations, they’re more willing to welcome others,” he said in a follow-up interview on Monday. “If we had moved first to address the middle class’ anxieties, we would have had a much better chance of success.” And the strongest arguments in the restrictionists’ arsenal played on a widespread belief that the federal government was too incompetent to enforce whatever tough provisions the bill contained. Bayh pointed to poor planning for the Iraq War and the failure to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina as leading inevitably to skepticism. “A government that’s going to permit that is suddenly going to know how to make an entirely new employment system work?” Bayh asked. The skepticism about government is currently directed against Bush, against conservatives and against Republicans. But this should give Democrats little comfort. As Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg argues in the current issue of The American Prospect, “there is a perverse consequence brought about by the scale of conservatives’ failure.” The problem, Greenberg says, “is that conservatives have failed in ways that have undermined Americans’ sense of collective capacity. Their failure has communicated not just their own incompetence, but also the message that government in general is incompetent. ”By failing so dramatically,“ Greenberg continues, ”conservatives have created a significant roadblock for Democrats: They have undermined people’s faith in the very instrument that we as progressives want to use to solve problems.“ The belief that government action is futile ultimately killed the immigration bill, and it could block large-scale reform efforts for a long time to come. A cranky nation rarely undertakes great tasks, especially when achieving them demands a degree of trust, and hope.
How about the fact that the bill was just a plain bad bill that would have let felons, child molesters, gang members, and the potential of doubling the immigrants in this country when they brought their families here to be with them. Also they would have been able to get SS, medicare, and numerous other benefits without paying a dime in taxes to get them. Why should we have to pay the freight so that the politicians could get the hispanic vote come November?
Shadow do you really believe that only illegal immigrants are crimminals??? Maybe they get the bigger headlines to "hide" the real problems.....
It's illegal to drink and drive in America and yet we pay every day via our insurance bills whether they be health, car, or house and dont forget about the taxes we pay for our public legal system.....we pay for all those illegal actions done everyday in America.....
Yes we are a land of laws but what are we willing to pay to rid us of these illegal crimminals??? Rotterdam doesn't even think investing into infrastructure is worth the increase in taxes.....who are we kidding,,,I'd say just ourselves......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
I should clarify my statement, we don't need any more criminals than we already have. Rotterdam officials are living in the past in their thinking. They don't want to improve the infrastructure because they'll have to raise taxes to do it and that'll cost them too many votes. The way we're going here in this town we'll all be dead b4 we ever see sewers put in. It's about time we get our town board to start bringing us into the 21st century with good infrastructure so that businesses will want to build here.
And I also agree that his whole proposed immigration bill, which clearly something has to be done, was a ploy for votes only. Votes were the motive here!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Immigration complexities lead to mushy moderation Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. Mona Charen
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” — Thomas Jefferson It was not his finest moment. Jefferson was writing from Paris and referring not, as is commonly believed, to the French Revolution (which was yet two years off) but to Shays’ Rebellion. Still, it refl ected his views on the French Revolution as well, as he would later write, “Rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated.” But while a tolerance for bloodshed in the name of liberty evokes a shudder, Jefferson’s insight that the spirit of liberty needs refreshing from time to time does recommend itself — and it is relevant to our current divisions over immigration. I’ve been quiet on this debate because I find myself in the unfamiliar position of moderate. I cannot rejoice with so many of my conservative friends over the defeat of immigration reform, yet neither would I have been happy to see the legislation passed in the form it was offered. I don’t think we have begun to deal properly with the immigration problem because I believe it implicates other questions, like those of education, welfare and national identity. I persist in feeling well disposed toward those who wish to become Americans (particularly Catholics from Latin America, as I believe these are eminently assimilable populations), and I do fret that the Republican Party may have inflicted serious political damage on itself by appearing to be antiimmigrant. I have heard nothing to convince me that the illegal immigration problem is not a reflection of legal immigration quotas that are too low. We have a full employment economy and a poor neighbor to the south. Is it any shock that employers are loath to turn away willing workers or that impoverished people are streaming across the Rio Grande? Are these low-skilled workers? You bet. Do we need them? Arguably yes. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, only about half of the population aged 25-29 in 1950 held a high school diploma. By 2000, the black high school graduation rate was 83.7 percent and the white rate was 91.8 percent. High school graduates tend not to seek agricultural, household, meatpacking or lawn work. On the other hand, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation and others who point out the heavy demands immigrants place on the social welfare system are very persuasive. They argue that with the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, education, health costs and other programs, each legal immigrant is actually a net drain on the public purse (and though few say so out loud, the obvious corollary is that illegals are actually a fiscal bargain, though this is hardly an argument for permitting widespread flouting of the law). Honest advocates of the failed immigration law, like economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute, acknowledge this and respond that we have a “welfare problem not an immigration problem.” I agree. But let’s be realistic. What are the chances of passing welfare reform when the Republican Party is ailing? And what are the chances of passing an immigration reform that would deny to new immigrants access to welfare when the Democrats’ criticism of the existing bill was that it was insufficiently generous? What then of Jefferson? The greatest benefit of immigration by far is not what it does for the immigrant (though that is huge) but what it does for America — assuring a steady stream of newcomers who do not take the blessings of liberty for granted but cherish them. Many opponents of immigration are worried about diluting our culture. I’m far more worried about the hollowing out from within. We scarcely teach our own children to love America, far less inculcate patriotism in immigrants. If I were writing the law all by myself, I’d increase the legal immigration levels, beef up border enforcement, establish a national ID card so that we could really know who is here, and reform welfare so that only those who truly want to work would be tempted to immigrate. I’d also reform education to convey the greatness of this nation (warts and all). So here I am, in the awkward middle.
Bear with me on my breakdown of this. Here's the last 2 paragraphs and my thoughts on them.
Quoted Text
What then of Jefferson? The greatest benefit of immigration by far is not what it does for the immigrant (though that is huge) but what it does for America — assuring a steady stream of newcomers who do not take the blessings of liberty for granted but cherish them. Many opponents of immigration are worried about diluting our culture. I’m far more worried about the hollowing out from within. We scarcely teach our own children to love America, far less inculcate patriotism in immigrants.
I couldn't have said it better.
Quoted Text
If I were writing the law all by myself, I’d increase the legal immigration levels,
I don't know if that would be so good, but possibly...as long as the rest of this comes first.
Quoted Text
beef up border enforcement,
Absolutely, after all, the last congress already passed a bill for a fence that is still yet to be built.
[/quote] establish a national ID card so that we could really know who is here, [/quote] I agree to a point, and besides, we just about have this already, between a state drivers license and your social security card.
Quoted Text
and reform welfare so that only those who truly want to work would be tempted to immigrate.
Hallelujah!
Quoted Text
I’d also reform education to convey the greatness of this nation (warts and all). So here I am, in the awkward middle.
Going to have to throw every single teacher you have in schools out of their job first, but it's quite a good idea.
By TRAVIS LOLLER, Associated Press Thursday, July 12, 2007
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A federal law that requires people to supply their Social Security number when applying for a marriage license has forced thousands of couples around the country, particularly illegal immigrants, to put their wedding plans on hold.
The law has been on the books for about a decade and was intended to make it easier to collect child support payments. But in some places it has prevented even legal immigrants and some American citizens from getting married.
Some couples are traveling to other states or other counties willing to issue them marriage licenses.
Jonadad Luque, a Honduran immigrant legally in the U.S., wants to marry his girlfriend, with whom he has two children, ages 1 and 5. But the county clerk in Nashville would not issue them a license because his girlfriend is in the country illegally and does not have a Social Security number.
"I have a Social Security number, a driver's license and permission to work," Luque said in Spanish. "We want to get married, but we'll have to wait until they change the law."
John Arriola, the county clerk in Nashville, said he would like to see the law changed, but for now he has to obey it.
Federal law requires states to record the Social Security numbers of all applicants for a professional license, driver's license, recreational license or marriage license. And Social Security numbers are not available to those who are in this country illegally or do not have permission to work.
But whether and how the law is enforced varies dramatically from state to state, and even from county to county, with some authorities interpreting the law as saying that only those people who already have Social Security numbers need to supply them.
Illegal immigrants are encountering less trouble getting married in places that have established immigrant communities. In Texas and New York City, for instance, officials ask for Social Security numbers but do not require them.
The Los Angeles County registrar's office says it does not require any proof of residency or citizenship status. And in North Carolina, people without Social Security numbers can present an affidavit stating they are ineligible for one.
The laws are often more strict in states where large immigrant populations are a recent phenomenon. In Tennessee and Alabama, for example, some county clerks are using the law to prevent illegal immigrants from getting marriage licenses.
Immigration attorneys say the law was not designed to keep people from getting married.
"There's a fundamental U.S. constitutional right to marry," said Charles Baesler, an immigration lawyer in Kentucky and chairman of the American Immigration Lawyers Association's Southeast chapter.
A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled last month that a county official could not require a man to prove he was legally in the country before issuing a marriage license to him and his American fiancee.
The Rev. Joseph Breen of Nashville's St. Edward Catholic Church, which has a large Hispanic congregation, said he became concerned about the number of couples in his parish, some with children, who had been unable to marry legally. So the church drove about 20 couples across the state line to Kentucky for licenses and a civil wedding ceremony before bringing them back to Nashville for a church wedding. "We call ourselves a Christian country, but you've got to go to Georgia or Kentucky in order to get married," Breen said. "We're supposed to be pro-family."
The Rev. Neil Pezzulo, a Roman Catholic priest in rural Arkansas' Scott County, said immigrant couples keep coming in with marriage licenses issued in a neighboring county with a more liberal policy.
Scott County Clerk Sandy Staggs said state law requires a Social Security number, but for people who don't have one, her office also accepts a birth certificate, translated into English, and a photo ID.
As for how the policy could differ from one county to the next, Pezzulo said: "My suspicion is it has to do more with religious and political agendas than an understanding of the law."
Logged
