16 million is a false figure. More on the level of 50-53 million here. I am a retired Border Patrol Agent and and have been watching the influx for over 50 years.
I married a foreigner. When she earned her citizenship we petitioned her mom & dad, 2 of her brothers and 2 sisters to immigrate here. The whole process took 10 years, about $15,000 in 1970's dollars. I was their sponsor, the guarantor of their economic wellbeing. All 6 of them knew they'd be deported if they became green card parasites. They never took any government welfare. They assimilated...total success stories.
That's the way it used to be. That's the legal way. Amnesty for the people who broke the law to sneak across the border, to not assimilate, not learn English, not get a job and pay taxes, to stay off welfare? No! Go back home and apply for a legal entry. No reward for line jumping or breaking the law. BFYTW. Anything but deportation is unacceptable.
My wife's other sister married an American and came here legally. Her eldest brother joined our Navy, served in Vietnam and retired after 26 year's service. That's 9 in her family who came here legally. Everyone one of them an asset.
I love your plan for denying amnesty for various things.
Personally, I don’t think there should be an amnesty to begin with. Kind of like letting someone who burglarized my house keep all the stuff he stole from me and dropping all the charges. Because “he stole all your stuff but only wanted a better life for his family”
Can we at least deport 1 flaming liberal for every illegal alien who gets the amnesty? Liberals claim they want to leave the U.S. if like to help them do it. Permanently.
Permanent Resident status, NOT Citizenship. If they want to be Citizens, they can get in the proper line (open that line for them) and jump through the same hoops as everyone else it's granted to.
Also, draconian laws in regards to the hiring of 'undocumented' *SPIT* workers, aimed at the employers. If they can't provide reasonable documentation for someone, THEY get the major penalties and the worker gets a ride 'home'.
I'd like to see substantial reform of the immigration processes as well, while I'm asking for a rainbow unicorn...
This game only works if this is the last time it happens.
One problem is that the line is so convoluted, delayed, red-taped, and nonsensical that it takes ages and ages for those who in good faith are trying to do the right thing.
I've got an American missionary friend who's been married to a Canadian for over 25 years- they have 3 kids with US Citizenship. However, the USG has only recently acknowledged that marriage after a year and a half of paperwork and red tape.
They still have miles to go.
One principle of good government is that doing things the right and legal way shouldn't be difficult. I suspect that it is long and complicated on purpose, as illegal immigrant workers are a whole lot easier to exploit and control.
I am always skeptical of anecdotal stories like this. Not to impugn you, but I have a friend who taught overseas for two years, married a local woman, and they are applying for GC status for her. The whole process is taking about two years. A one year automatic "come back and see us in a year to make sure it's real", and now six months after that, an interview in February. She will most likely have her GC by March. I doubt that paperwork has been sitting for 25 years. More likely they didn't actually bother to apply until a year and a half ago.
They've been married for @25 years, not applying for @25 years. Also, they are missionaries in the South Pacific, so the 'not bothering' hasn't been a thing they do.
In fact the GC problem hasn't been one until recently- they just normally visit family in the US and Canada during furlough every 5 years of so. And until recently, it was never a problem to make short visits. But now it's a problem (it really shouldn't be), and they weren't told of the change until she was turned away at the US border.
And note- as the parents of 3 US Citizen children, they've been in regular contact with the US State Department for passport sightings and so on- one would think that the government would have informed them of new entry requirements.
But, ignorance, tons of useless red tape & processes that makes no real sense in practice is what we've come to expect from the government.
That makes more sense but odd that she would have been turned away at the border. Agreed on the tons of red tape, etc, but with the history of open borders, could be a bit of overreaction.
Reagan's problem was that he could not fathom that the democrats were negotiating in bad faith.
Now the way I see things is that items 2 and 3 on that law were never nullified and the current Administration is enforcing that. Had this been done back when the original law was signed, a LOT of problems we are dealing with now would never have happened.
Even bigger problem: HW didn't learn from Reagan's mistake with the Amenesty and walked right down the same path when he though he cut a deal with the D's on the budget, hence the "No New Taxes!" statement immediatly nullified by the D's in Congress, rather than cutting the budget as "promised, so help us Ghu!"
Part of Reagan's issue was that in 1986 he was starting having problems comprehending a lot of things (dementia). And, I don't think Nancy had really started running things yet.
Does this look like a man with advanced dementia? He took questions for a full 30 minutes and it's clear that he's speaking from the heart, without notes, without autocue. Biden could not have made that speech at all, let alone take the Q&A session, during his entire presidency.
More generally, look at how much we have lost: the ability of those who purport to lead us to speak lucidly and to lay out an argument, grounded in history, seems to have been entirely lost. :-(
Three things to never do: 1. Believe a Democrat, 2. Believe Republicans are less corrupt than Democrats, and 3. Re-read 1 and 2. Politics corrupts people. People who practice politics, regardless of their alignment, (left, right, up, down) are corrupt because they're politicians and never even attempt to really do something about the swamp.
Your terms and conditions are quite reasonable. But the Progressives will find a way to allow all "those fine people" to stay. And we will be facing another influx to satisfy their desire to pack certain Congressional Districts with people to ensure they maintain power politically. We need to change the Census rules to only count Citizens, not people.
"We need to change the Census rules to only count Citizens, not people."
100%. Non-citizens should not count for Congressional representation, nor should they count for district-level entitlement spending appropriations since they do not qualify to receive it. (Looking at you, Minneapolis.)
To clarify, this is a word-for-word repeat of deciding Congressional representation following the Civil War and emancipation of the slaves, and leading to the "Three-Fifths Compromise." The issue: Newly-emancipated slaves weren't full citizens and could not vote, but Southern Democrats wanted them fully counted in the census for Congressional representation.
If emancipated slaves had been counted fully, to a person, but lacked the recognized right to vote on their representatives (as was usually the case), the Southern pro-slavery states would have gotten such an overwhelming majority in Congress that we would NEVER have been able to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments. The Northern states saw this coming and objected, not out of racism (as often portrayed by the Left), but out of pragmatism; they WANTED to free the slaves but knew it wouldn't happen if the black population counted fully for representation but still couldn't vote.
I firmly believe this is what Democrats are trying to do now, just with non-citizen immigrants instead of emancipated slaves. They want massive populations of non-voters in Leftist-run "Sanctuary States" counted for representation in Congress, so they can get an unassailable majority. History may or may not repeat, but it certainly does rhyme.
The simplest and most Constitutional solution is to only count American citizens for Congressional representation. And since federal entitlement programs are intended for American citizens (with a few exceptions), we can use that same formula for appropriations, too.
(And can we talk about the irony at play here? The DEMOCRATS -- the so-called Party of the People -- want representation and power on the backs of people who have no say in the matter. They call themselves "Progressive" but haven't changed one bit since 1865.)
Amnesty under 245 I is still on the books, and could be re-activated.
I also favor a return to the Ellis Island style ports of entry, but that would eliminate the under class of illegals that folks like Chaz Bono like to use to clean their homes.
One Modest Proposal- any anti-ICE advocate can offer to swap themselves (and their poly group) for an immigrant family. They get to go live in a place where Evil Western Imperialism & Capitalism isn't a thing, and the immigrants have a legal spot to make it in the USA- all of Ian's conditions are in place, however.
I think we'd be better off for it if we could swap out a few blue haired screeching womyn's studies hippos for some Iranian beauties.
With the added benefit that the exported Progs would quickly discover that everywhere else in the world will not accept their lack of assimilation. They will get treated as dirt for not fitting in and learning the local language.
(BTW, let's add a requirement that where they go has to be within one country border of where their protected would be sent. They can't pick Switzerland if their swap-mate is from Sudan.)
If their swap-mate is from Sudan, to Sudan they go. If from Teheran, to Teheran they go. Hope they were serious when they talk about how 'liberating' and 'feminist' the hijab is.
All they care about is importing enough votes to blow out the next 2 elections, after which point they'll nuke the filibuster and pack the courts and "fortify" the election process to make sure they can never lose again. This isn't tinfoil hat shit, they are saying this openly.
If the immigrants started voting Republican, you can bet Chucky & AOC would be down at the border with fortification blueprints tomorrow, and Mandami would be personally leading ICE raids in NYC.
“Republicans Cross Aisle, Work With Democrats (Fill In Shitty Progressive Idea Here)”. How many times have we read that headline? Hundreds over my lifetime.
I shall repeat my mantra here: “Republicans love being the minority party…all the grift, none of the responsibility!”.
16 million is a false figure. More on the level of 50-53 million here. I am a retired Border Patrol Agent and and have been watching the influx for over 50 years.
I married a foreigner. When she earned her citizenship we petitioned her mom & dad, 2 of her brothers and 2 sisters to immigrate here. The whole process took 10 years, about $15,000 in 1970's dollars. I was their sponsor, the guarantor of their economic wellbeing. All 6 of them knew they'd be deported if they became green card parasites. They never took any government welfare. They assimilated...total success stories.
That's the way it used to be. That's the legal way. Amnesty for the people who broke the law to sneak across the border, to not assimilate, not learn English, not get a job and pay taxes, to stay off welfare? No! Go back home and apply for a legal entry. No reward for line jumping or breaking the law. BFYTW. Anything but deportation is unacceptable.
My wife's other sister married an American and came here legally. Her eldest brother joined our Navy, served in Vietnam and retired after 26 year's service. That's 9 in her family who came here legally. Everyone one of them an asset.
I love your plan for denying amnesty for various things.
Personally, I don’t think there should be an amnesty to begin with. Kind of like letting someone who burglarized my house keep all the stuff he stole from me and dropping all the charges. Because “he stole all your stuff but only wanted a better life for his family”
Can we at least deport 1 flaming liberal for every illegal alien who gets the amnesty? Liberals claim they want to leave the U.S. if like to help them do it. Permanently.
No amnesty. Ever. Out they go. Screw the 'empathy'. It's been weaponized to a suicide machine. And those advocating it should be thrown out with them.
Permanent Resident status, NOT Citizenship. If they want to be Citizens, they can get in the proper line (open that line for them) and jump through the same hoops as everyone else it's granted to.
Also, draconian laws in regards to the hiring of 'undocumented' *SPIT* workers, aimed at the employers. If they can't provide reasonable documentation for someone, THEY get the major penalties and the worker gets a ride 'home'.
I'd like to see substantial reform of the immigration processes as well, while I'm asking for a rainbow unicorn...
This game only works if this is the last time it happens.
One problem is that the line is so convoluted, delayed, red-taped, and nonsensical that it takes ages and ages for those who in good faith are trying to do the right thing.
I've got an American missionary friend who's been married to a Canadian for over 25 years- they have 3 kids with US Citizenship. However, the USG has only recently acknowledged that marriage after a year and a half of paperwork and red tape.
They still have miles to go.
One principle of good government is that doing things the right and legal way shouldn't be difficult. I suspect that it is long and complicated on purpose, as illegal immigrant workers are a whole lot easier to exploit and control.
Brother’s wife of 13plus years just got her citizenship last year. The system is broken.
I am always skeptical of anecdotal stories like this. Not to impugn you, but I have a friend who taught overseas for two years, married a local woman, and they are applying for GC status for her. The whole process is taking about two years. A one year automatic "come back and see us in a year to make sure it's real", and now six months after that, an interview in February. She will most likely have her GC by March. I doubt that paperwork has been sitting for 25 years. More likely they didn't actually bother to apply until a year and a half ago.
They've been married for @25 years, not applying for @25 years. Also, they are missionaries in the South Pacific, so the 'not bothering' hasn't been a thing they do.
In fact the GC problem hasn't been one until recently- they just normally visit family in the US and Canada during furlough every 5 years of so. And until recently, it was never a problem to make short visits. But now it's a problem (it really shouldn't be), and they weren't told of the change until she was turned away at the US border.
And note- as the parents of 3 US Citizen children, they've been in regular contact with the US State Department for passport sightings and so on- one would think that the government would have informed them of new entry requirements.
But, ignorance, tons of useless red tape & processes that makes no real sense in practice is what we've come to expect from the government.
That makes more sense but odd that she would have been turned away at the border. Agreed on the tons of red tape, etc, but with the history of open borders, could be a bit of overreaction.
Reagan's problem was that he could not fathom that the democrats were negotiating in bad faith.
Now the way I see things is that items 2 and 3 on that law were never nullified and the current Administration is enforcing that. Had this been done back when the original law was signed, a LOT of problems we are dealing with now would never have happened.
Even bigger problem: HW didn't learn from Reagan's mistake with the Amenesty and walked right down the same path when he though he cut a deal with the D's on the budget, hence the "No New Taxes!" statement immediatly nullified by the D's in Congress, rather than cutting the budget as "promised, so help us Ghu!"
Part of Reagan's issue was that in 1986 he was starting having problems comprehending a lot of things (dementia). And, I don't think Nancy had really started running things yet.
The story that he spent most of his second term non compos mentis has been thoroughly debunked.
This was Reagan's speech at the Moscow State University at the end of May 1988.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lutYGxMWeA
Does this look like a man with advanced dementia? He took questions for a full 30 minutes and it's clear that he's speaking from the heart, without notes, without autocue. Biden could not have made that speech at all, let alone take the Q&A session, during his entire presidency.
More generally, look at how much we have lost: the ability of those who purport to lead us to speak lucidly and to lay out an argument, grounded in history, seems to have been entirely lost. :-(
Three things to never do: 1. Believe a Democrat, 2. Believe Republicans are less corrupt than Democrats, and 3. Re-read 1 and 2. Politics corrupts people. People who practice politics, regardless of their alignment, (left, right, up, down) are corrupt because they're politicians and never even attempt to really do something about the swamp.
Other than changing out the gators, that is.
Your terms and conditions are quite reasonable. But the Progressives will find a way to allow all "those fine people" to stay. And we will be facing another influx to satisfy their desire to pack certain Congressional Districts with people to ensure they maintain power politically. We need to change the Census rules to only count Citizens, not people.
"We need to change the Census rules to only count Citizens, not people."
100%. Non-citizens should not count for Congressional representation, nor should they count for district-level entitlement spending appropriations since they do not qualify to receive it. (Looking at you, Minneapolis.)
To clarify, this is a word-for-word repeat of deciding Congressional representation following the Civil War and emancipation of the slaves, and leading to the "Three-Fifths Compromise." The issue: Newly-emancipated slaves weren't full citizens and could not vote, but Southern Democrats wanted them fully counted in the census for Congressional representation.
If emancipated slaves had been counted fully, to a person, but lacked the recognized right to vote on their representatives (as was usually the case), the Southern pro-slavery states would have gotten such an overwhelming majority in Congress that we would NEVER have been able to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments. The Northern states saw this coming and objected, not out of racism (as often portrayed by the Left), but out of pragmatism; they WANTED to free the slaves but knew it wouldn't happen if the black population counted fully for representation but still couldn't vote.
I firmly believe this is what Democrats are trying to do now, just with non-citizen immigrants instead of emancipated slaves. They want massive populations of non-voters in Leftist-run "Sanctuary States" counted for representation in Congress, so they can get an unassailable majority. History may or may not repeat, but it certainly does rhyme.
The simplest and most Constitutional solution is to only count American citizens for Congressional representation. And since federal entitlement programs are intended for American citizens (with a few exceptions), we can use that same formula for appropriations, too.
(And can we talk about the irony at play here? The DEMOCRATS -- the so-called Party of the People -- want representation and power on the backs of people who have no say in the matter. They call themselves "Progressive" but haven't changed one bit since 1865.)
I can hear liberal heads exploding from here! My wish list is your wish list.
The left lies without shame. Because their only value is to win, "by any means necessary."
No surprises here.
Amnesty under 245 I is still on the books, and could be re-activated.
I also favor a return to the Ellis Island style ports of entry, but that would eliminate the under class of illegals that folks like Chaz Bono like to use to clean their homes.
One Modest Proposal- any anti-ICE advocate can offer to swap themselves (and their poly group) for an immigrant family. They get to go live in a place where Evil Western Imperialism & Capitalism isn't a thing, and the immigrants have a legal spot to make it in the USA- all of Ian's conditions are in place, however.
I think we'd be better off for it if we could swap out a few blue haired screeching womyn's studies hippos for some Iranian beauties.
With the added benefit that the exported Progs would quickly discover that everywhere else in the world will not accept their lack of assimilation. They will get treated as dirt for not fitting in and learning the local language.
(BTW, let's add a requirement that where they go has to be within one country border of where their protected would be sent. They can't pick Switzerland if their swap-mate is from Sudan.)
If their swap-mate is from Sudan, to Sudan they go. If from Teheran, to Teheran they go. Hope they were serious when they talk about how 'liberating' and 'feminist' the hijab is.
All they care about is importing enough votes to blow out the next 2 elections, after which point they'll nuke the filibuster and pack the courts and "fortify" the election process to make sure they can never lose again. This isn't tinfoil hat shit, they are saying this openly.
You can't give them an inch.
If the immigrants started voting Republican, you can bet Chucky & AOC would be down at the border with fortification blueprints tomorrow, and Mandami would be personally leading ICE raids in NYC.
I’d give them six feet.
“Republicans Cross Aisle, Work With Democrats (Fill In Shitty Progressive Idea Here)”. How many times have we read that headline? Hundreds over my lifetime.
I shall repeat my mantra here: “Republicans love being the minority party…all the grift, none of the responsibility!”.
*Does anyone honestly think our immigration system is “fixed”?*
If it is, it's only in the veterinary sense.
You and Stephan Miller.... Way too nice