Published: Monday, Dec. 17 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
I disagree. E-verifiying should be applied mandatorily for new immigrants and
to establish whether previous hires are legal. Also school registration should
annually establish the citizenship or legal residency of all students. You have
to do that to obtain work in many companies, whether you are Hispanic or
anything else. To obtain welfare and other benefits such a check could also be
made. Illegal immigrants might then voluntarily repatriate since they need to
work. In that respect I agreed with Mitt Romney's approach; I think it
makes sense. You need a social security number to obtain social
security; that's a logical check since all employees are to be enrolled
into that system until it is phased out. Don't tell me it can't be
done since it IS done in so many cases by many employers. Why the
heavy handed approach of the editorial? (Basically : "There is only ONE
approach that will work and here it is readers".) That appears to be
nonsense and looks like an attempt to silence discussion, one that on past
experience will never succeed).I'd love to be able to welcome
immigrants into this country knowing they were here legally.
I'm not holding my breath that BO will keep any of his campaign promises,
Immigration reform included. It's not in the best interest of the
Marxist/progressive movement to take down the United States.
"I'm not holding my breath that BO will keep any of his campaign
promises"How can he? Anything and Everything he proposes is
blocked by the right.Heck, Mitch McConnell even filibusters his own
legislation when the Dems agree to it.
This editorial says, "Apprehending, detaining and deporting what amounts to
4 percent of the population is not even remotely feasible, and allowing those
people to exist in a state of perpetual limbo makes no sense in any humanitarian
or economic context."This editorial never mentions in any
humanitarian or economic context the citizen and legal residents who are already
looking for work in America. Is anyone really naive enough to believe that
increasing the supply of labor at this time is good for America?
Seven reform/amnesties, and they never solved the problem, but became part of
And the US government did a study in 2007 that showed the cost to deport 12
million would be 94 billion. A one time cost. Compare that with the 113 billion
taxpayers pay each year for them to use our partial services. They
work cheap, that's why they have jobs. Once citizens they will be laid off
and the next wave of illegal aliens will take their place. Our new citizens will
mostly end up on welfare.We know it doesn't work, it just puts
off true enforcement. It does provide cheap workers for our business community.
Our only option is enforcement. Amnesty doesn't stop the law
breaking, or the drain on taxpayers. Compassion for Americans before Christmas
would be a great gift after what we have went through. Amnesty will tear us
apart, as the honest fight for our country and constitution.
Which amnesty stopped illegal immigration? •1986 for 2.7
million aliens, the amnesty to end all amnesties. •1994 section
245(i) rolling amnesty of 400,000•1997 section 245(i) extension•1997 Central American Relief Act that gave one million Central
Americans amnesty •1998 Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act a
amnesty for Haitians 125,000 •2000 Late amnesty an amnesty for
400,000 that claimed they should of been included in the 1986 act. California
courts were back up for years by the claims, finally we gave up. •2000 Life act amnesty a continuation of the 245(i) act 900,000 (approx)
60,000 still being given it each year (ave). Which one offers proof
that amnesty is a deterrent to future law breaking?
I both agree and disagree about citizenship. The families I know who have been
here a long while and have American kids would probably like citizenship but I
think would settle for legal residency. Perhaps that is the penalty - they pay
fines and cannot be citizens due to their illegal entry. But we allow (over
time and with proof of "citizenship" - sorry no other word) they can get
permanent legal residency.Our focus on citizenship should not (at
least now) be the adults but the kids who have been here most of their lives and
often have little brothers or sisters who are citizens. They need a clear path
forward.Anything else is just fooling ourselves. Also, we have no
national interest in creating a permanent underclass.If we do these
things, THEN (in coordination with them) I am fully behind a strong border and
We should just pass a new bill each week.Then, the illegal aliens
could just pick which one they like best.If/when they choose none;
well that's allright too, they can just keep ignoring ALL the illegal
enforcement bills.Kind of like what they do now.
...immigration reform, funding medical care, fiscal solvency and effective gun
control. He needs to spend some of his valuable time acting as leader of the US.
Previous Amnesties have not been effectively enforced. We could start with the
enforcement. When a country is lax in their enforcement of immigration it
creates a subclass. The main issue I would want addressed is the interpretation
of babies born in the U.S. by illegal immigrants becoming auto citizens. This
has been misinterpreted by the courts.
Before we can settle the problems with immigration we must settle the problems
of JOBS.If the government favors business, workers will be harmed.
If the government favors workers , business will be angered. Our society needs to take back the windfall profits provided to business
by technology, automation and the increase in the world population. Not because
the large profits are bad, not because big business is bad, not because rich
people are bad, but because the future of civilized human beings is in danger.
As we eliminate the need for workers, we are also eliminating most
the consumers. It may be possible to have a world of businessmen and women
devoid of workers but that seems very far away. “The
government should hire every unemployed person needing and wanting a job at a
living wage. There are millions of jobs that can be done for the welfare of the
general public. The wages paid to these workers would be funded by a
general tax on private enterprise.”Without the fear of
unemployment, immigration would not be a problem. More people would simply mean
more workers and more consumers.
Sorry. I left out a word in my prior post. It should have read:But
we allow (over time and with proof of "good citizenship" - sorry no
other word) they can get permanent legal residency.
"I'm not holding my breath that BO will keep any of his campaign
promises, Immigration reform included. "So then why are repubs
so angry at him?If he isn't accomplishing his campaign promises
(like ending the Bush tax cuts or passing Health Care Reform) why are repubs so
angry at him?Hilarious!Either Obama is getting stuff
done or he isn't! It's like the GOP accuses him of doing nothing and
then accuses him of doing so much! If he hasn't done anything
then why are you folks so angry? Because he continues the Bush administration
policies? If he is doing so much then why do you accuse him of not
fulfilling campaign promises?Talk about double standards!Here's a lil fun fact that the GOP ignores, under Obama deportations have
drastically increased. Also, if the GOP was really looking for
immigration reform, why did they suddenly turn on their own baby, the Dream
Act?If the GOP was really looking for solutions, they'd
actually come up with some rather than blaming everything on Obama and
obstructing every single solution proposed. Come up with some ideas
GOP! If you cannot then STOP COMPLAINING!
I believe the poll mentioned here only refers to the children that fall under
the Dream Act and does not refer to the many millions of other ILLEGAL
immigrants. Polls consistently show that Americans prefer cutting off the jobs
link so illegals will begin to go back home. This article skews the truth and
hopes we will all fall for the typical false spin. Our culture is at stake and
so are our JOBS!
It's kinda funny that the one thing the Deseret News is to the left on is
the same thing that I lean farther right on. The candidate whose immigration
plan I most agreed with in the campaign was Newt Gingrich whose plan allowed for
people to stay but not citizenship.
Exactly Maverick.The GOP controlled the house and the senate under
GW Bush and did nothing about immigration.Complete govt control for
about 6 years. Not even an attempt at immigration reform.I
guess they find it much easier to criticize what Obama does than to put forth a
plan when they have to power to implement it.In the words of Clinton
"It takes some brass...."
Way to go DN. In a June 12, 2002 Zogby International Poll, ‘… 58
percent of Mexicans in Mexico believed that the American Southwest belongs to
them and 57 percent believed that they do not require U.S. permission to enter
this country.” In 1997, then-President Zedillo proclaimed that “I
have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory
enclosed by its borders. Our superior intellect and ambition will allow us to
rule the nation to the north.” Zedillo has stated that Mexico will retake
the Southwest through population. Sound like that might happen. Where was the
vote decided for Obama. With weak knee do gooders like we read here it is on its
@mohokat"Where was the vote decided for Obama"Pennsylvania appears to be the state that got him to 270 if you rank them from
largest to smallest winning margin.
No Deseret News, Americans are still paying attention. NO AMNESTY IN ANY FORM
FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS!!!! It is so funny that you America-hating liberals want to
take away close to 100 million "assault" rifles but, you think it is
impossible to deport a measly 12 to 25 million illegals!!!But, do
not worry, those of us who love America are still here; and, in the immortal
words of Captain John Paul Jones: "We have not yet begun to fight!"
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments