Published: Sunday, Nov. 27 2011 12:00 a.m. MST
Already a way for people to square themselves with the laws, go home and come
back legally. When will the Deseret news start telling people to
come here legally so we don't face the same problem in the future?
We have had guest workers in this country for decades, they are called visa
workers. Let's not create a sub class of workers to satisfy business interest.
He is talking about letting those that have been here for 25 years a
chance to stay, that would mean deportation of 90% of those here illegally. It
was a mere 25 years ago that we had our last amnesty. When people come here
illegally for 25 years to work, and we allow them to stay and work, that is
amnesty. Any parent who has raised a child knows that you don't
reward bad behavior.
I am not willing to discuss what is to be done with those already hear until the
border is secured.NOBODY is talking about mass deportation. If you
take away incentives, people will leave on their own. If you can't get a job,
you'll have to leave on your own accord.So it is okay if they have
been here 25 years - what about 20? How can we verify how long they have been
here? Sure, they might have been paying taxes (sales). If they have
been paying income taxes, it is because they have committed ID theft, something
for which if I or any other citizen did, we'd go to jail.
This article SOUNDS so moral, faithful, and true.But so does Satan,
disguised as an angel of light, when he speaks. There are several
problems with this editorial. First, it is fundamentally false to
assert -- in the name of family -- that we should not enforce the law.
Americans who value the Constitution and the rule of law know that the
institution of the family faces a far greater threat in an environment of
lawlessness. For this reason, we never assert that because it might result in
family separation, U.S. citizen burglars (for example) should not be prosecuted
or incarcerated. Nor do we, as a nation of laws, unjustly imply
that such separations are the fault of a law-abiding society. Rather, we
rightly place the blame for such separations squarely where it belongs: on the
criminal who chose to break the law. And the notion that families
are "destroyed" as a result of deportation, is false. Sure it may be
inconvenient, but the fact is, deportees are free to take their families with
them. Family members likewise are free to join them. Lastly, family
members routinely are left behind -- separated -- at the time of illegal entry
(continued) The notion that legalization is "moral," and
"only fair," certainly is disingenuous. A 25-year criminal who
disdains America, its laws, and its Constitution, and who almost certainly has
engaged in perjury, identity theft, and otherwise lying, cheating, and stealing,
as a way of life -- should not be rewarded with legal residency while BILLIONS
of respectful, would-be immigrants continue to wait in line politely. It is
grossly unfair AND immoral, and Americans know it. And how truly
"humane" is it to relegate millions to a 2nd-class existence of
indentured servitude -- which is EXACTLY what "legalization that doesn't
necessarily lead to citizenship" would amount to. Other
"core principles?" How about the principle that this is a country of
laws and that without the law -- and RESPECT for the law -- the U.S.
Constitution cannot survive, and that without the Constitution, there is no
safety for families, nor freedom of religion, which enables the family-promoting
churches to even exist. There is only one way for them to
"square themselves with the law:" turn themselves in to ICE -- or, at
least, avoid prosecution, put their affairs in order, and return -- with their
families -- to their home countries.
How much does Deseret management being a chairman for the Salt Lake Chamber of
Commerce affect your viewpoint on illegal immigration?The lack of
compassion towards Utah's workers and taxpayers tends to show the true
motivation, and I don't think it has anything to do with humane.
When someone comes here illegally and works, anything that allows them to stay
and work is amnesty. The Orwellian double speak doesn't register with anyone but
those supporting cheap illegal labor. Our current immigration laws
are fair and just. Coming here illegally is a fine, jail, and deportation. The
US has not fined or given jail time in years, and our laws are more humane than
any other industrialized country. When did we lose the right to deport those who
come here illegally? As far as breaking up families, when people
come here illegally, they know they can be deported for breaking the law. Each
generation that comes here has to decide whether they will come and break up
their extended family, or remain and keep it together. Those here illegally made
the decision to take the chance of having their family split up when they chose
the illegal path and not the legal one. Have we given up on
employing the 10%? out of work? Alabama's law has proven that immigration
enforcement returns Americans to work.
Bachmann pointed out a "2004 letter to the Wall Street Journal in which
Gingrich endorsed "paths to permanent residence to enable more workers to
stay, assimilate, and become part of America."It's more
Same old message.....Yawn!
While the hardliners in the Republican party may not agree with this, I think
the majority of Americans are in accord. I am a hardline conservative
Republican from Texas and fully support what Perry and Newt are doing to bring
common sense to the immigration issue.
This is an editorial that is right on. We need to get away from the knee-jerk
reactions that usually characterize this debate and recognize its complexity.
There are people who have lost jobs, even though they are low paying jobs, to
illegal immigrants. On the other hand, there are industries here at home that
would fall to foreign competition if it were not for the illegal immigrants
working here in the U.S. Immigration can make this country stronger but we need
to deal with the very real issues it brings in an intelligent and human way if
we are to realize those gains. I hope we can elevate the debate beyond the
entrenched bickering between the federal and state governments and the partisan
politics of individuals who refuse to see multiple sides of a complex issue.
Great moral courage Newt! You now have my vote. Has anyone ever considered the
economic impact of removing almost 12 million people from this country. It
would be a disaster to take 12 mission consumers out of the market place. It
would be a disaster to have 6 million new housing vacancies. Crops rotting in
the field like we just had in Alabama would happen nationwide and food prices
would go through the roof. These people have been woven into the fabric of our
society and like it or not, we should carefully consider how mass deportations
would damage this country and our economy. We used to own a
business in the Hispanic area of Tucson, AZ. The day after the first
anti-immigration prop. passed, our business fell off a cliff. All of the
businesses in the area experienced the same disaster and almost half of them,
including ours are now closed. Our recession started the day the first Arizona
anti-immigration law was passed.
We are forgetting the Humane treatment of the US Citizen. Teenagers and college
students have lost jobs due to illegal immigrants and wages are depressed. The
American man has lost there trade jobs due to illegal immigrants and wages are
depressed. This article is siding with the business man who is looking for cheap
labor at the expense of the American worker and middle class citizen.Illegal Immigration is responsible for the collapse of middle class America
along with the practice of shipping jobs to other countries.Illegal
Immigrants along with their children need to be deported back to Mexico that has
a 4 percent unemployment rate due to jobs being shipped there.The middle
class taxpayer needs the expense of illegal immigration taken off of there backs
and they need jobs with wages that fit with inflationary times.Jails need
to be empty of illegal immigrants who commit crimes, another thing that causes
high taxes.Drugs need to be stopped at the border and not allowed to walk
in to be sold. Cartels are terrorists and they are here among us. Humane
treatment for Americans is what we need now.
And they joined the service to get to stay in the country themselves. How many
people should ride those coattails?
In the 80's I supported amnestry but I feel that it didn't work. I am all for
law and order, but I got this deep down feeling, (I don't care what the ACLU
thinks) it is my conscience and it says that the scriptures teach that we need
to be kind to strangers.But, I am sure in favor of putting up a
fence and having border enforcement.
If we are going to have a line for people to come to this country, you can't
reward those that bypass the line. They need to be sent to the back of the line.
That doesn't mean you should stop treating them like people.Do you
remember when you had to wait in line to buy tickets to a movie, and then wait
in line before going in? If you came to the theater and the show was full, you
could buy a ticket to a later show. That was before you could order them at
home, and know then where your seat was and what time to come to the theater.You can't let everyone show up for the same movie or there would be no
place to sit, and you do need some reasonable security and rules.Why
do we make immigration more complicated?We have a new law. Lets use
it. The sponsoring principle of 2011 HB 469 provides a limiting factor of how
fast immigrants can come, makes sure they do not place a larger burden than we
can handle, and is more like co-signing a friends car loan.
This editorial makes the flawed assumption that sending someone home is somehow
inhumane. It is not. Most often that "home" is Mexico. Is Mexico
listed as a refugee nation? No. Do we send missionaries to Mexico? All the
time.To put a finer point on it, most of the illegal aliens from Mexico
come from well within the interior in Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacán, San
Luis Potosí, and Zacatecas. That's far from the border violence.So
sending them home is not bad at all.And the policy Newt Gingrich and the
Church seem to endorse is a slap in the face to our minority citizens who are
out of work as well as those waiting to immigrate legally.Then you must
deal with the concept of rewarding bad behavior; never a good idea.Lastly,
what message are we sending to the 165 million third world inhabitants that
Gallup (2009) tells us want to live in the United States?If this concept
were viable, the 245i program would have been a success. It wasn't.
Remember the old soft shoe? Well here it is again. Give the lawless legality?
And then down the road after a few years of the old soft shoe the then legals
will want citizenship and Politicians who see a gain for themselves will be
selling citizenship instead of just legality. Giving the lawbreakers legality?
Who will still pay for the costs of having them here? Not the employers who
benefit from their cheap labor, but the taxpayers. And don't tell me then they
will be paying taxes because the cheap labor will allow them tax credits!If
they are not working at cheap labor they will be competeing with citizens for
better paying jobs ie construction,manufacturing etc. This is a scam where
business, churches, and politicians benefit. Bonafide citizens lose again!
What is the statue of limitations on border hopping?
I believe that we do need to secure our borders, but at the same time we don't
need to be rewarding the law breakers, if you are here ilegally they should be
deported and made to enter this country the legal way. When you marry someone
and you know they aren't legal here, then you too are breaking our laws and
should be accountable for all the actions that are there. I am not against
breaking up families,but lets get real about the ilegalls and say enough is
enough. Most do put a strain on the system and it's already costing alot of
taxpayers money, and I aam getting tried of my tax dollars going to support
them. Money that is made in the U.S.is being sent out to support their famlies
in other countries and they should have to pay an added fee for that.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments