Comments Posted By Ed Harder
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments
LOOKING FOR MIDDLE GROUND IN THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE
I agree with the notion that let's not sacrifice border security over the idea, as to whether or not the estimated 11 million illegal aliens will be legalized. Looking at the bigger picture and by choosing the lesser of the evils, we have the opportunity to keep the bad guys (i.e. terrorists) out, while relieving some pressures off of our local law enforcements, by giving the illegal aliens, who complies with the requirements of the new immigration reform act, the opportunity to legalize their status. What difference does it make, when perhaps, your neighbor, co-worker, a friend of your friend, whom you have known for many years, happens to be illegal? Nothing. He or she is still the same person that you know and have known, and perhaps liked. Rather than expending all our energy in condemning them, why not focus, with vigilance on a neighborhood watch, looking after these radical religious group trying to harm us. In addition, if there needs to be a middle ground between the House and the Senate Bill, I suggest the following:
1) Split it in the middle: Instead of the 5 years and longer group that the Senate wants to grant legalization, make it 10 years or longer for the first year. The remainder to follow on the second year. The rest must leave as it is now provided in the bill.
This will reduce any backlog and will provide time for thorough review of applications.
2.) In addition to the background check, pay back taxes, etc., give priority to the ones who are educated and will less likely or become a public charge, rather a benefit to our economy. Immigration is a previlege and not a right. America has the right to choose who she wants and when she wants.
3.) Dependents will only be limited to spouse and children, even if they have acquired their U.S. citizenship in the future. Parenst may come, but will not be entitled to any entitlements.It is also worth noting that the American Heritage dictionary defines the following cross-referenced words, to wit:
1.) Amnesty - an general pardon.
2.) Pardon - to release from punishment; exempt from penalty.
3.) Penalty - a punishment established by law or authority for a crime or offense; something, especially a sum of money, required to forfeit an offense.Deportation is a (civil) penalty. However, even Mr. Sensenbrenner is not in favor of massive deportation, let alone practical. Therefore, it leaves with one possible penalty - an imposition of a fine (sum of money). Since the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill carries a hefty fine, it does not therefore fall within the meaning of the word amnesty. It may be a penalty in its reduced form, but still a penalty and no one is exempted. Again, we can debate this, but just for a moment compare this to the necessity of having a stronger border security. Which is the lesser of the evils?
Comment Posted By Ed Harder On 23.06.2006 @ 23:29
