May 25, 2012
Governments have never been known to reform themselves and the current debate over immigration reform is no different than the notion that government will cut spending and clip its own wings. By reform, D.C. politicians mean, to make that which is currently illegal, legal.
Lawmakers have been stopped from passing amnesty for millions of illegal aliens living in America. But they have not been forced to enforce our immigration and naturalization laws and even when Border States attempt to enforce those laws, the federal government sues the state on behalf of illegal immigrants.
In a current piece issued by the Census Bureau, titled Minorities now surpass whites in US births, Bureau racial statistics chief Roderick Harrison states - "This is an important landmark." - "This generation is growing up much more accustomed to diversity than its elders."
Of course, most of those “minorities” are in the United States illegally. This is of no great concern to Harrison. But what does concern Harrison is this - "We remain in a dangerous period where those appealing to anti-immigration elements are fueling a divisiveness and hostility that might take decades to overcome," Harrison said.
For several years now, Americans have been wrongly accused of being “anti-immigration” just because they want their immigration and naturalization laws to be enforced. But calling someone anti-immigration because they oppose illegal immigration is akin to calling them anti-banking because they oppose bank robbery.
Like many sniveling liberals today, Harrison completely ignores the fact that we are talking about criminals here, people who have broken into our country illegally and make a career out of flouting our laws and undermining American sovereignty and security. Harrison is not at all concerned with these facts, he is instead worried about Americans “hostility” towards illegal invaders, as if Americans oppose immigration altogether.
America is an immigrant nation. But we are also a civilized society of laws. Under the false claim that Americas immigration and naturalization laws are just too stringent and unfair, progressives like Harrison spread false notions to support their call for immigration reform, otherwise known as blanket amnesty for all illegals and the end to American sovereignty and security.
Which unfair immigration and naturalization requirements should we get rid of?
Current U.S. Naturalization Requirements
Be at least 18 years of age (legal age)
2) Be a legal green card holder in good standing for at least 5 years prior to application
3) Have lived in the same U.S. jurisdiction for at least 3 months prior to application
4) Be physically present in the U.S. for at least 30 of 60 months prior to application
5) Physically remain in the U.S. from the time of application until naturalization
6) Be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics).
7) Be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States during all relevant periods under the law
Which of these seven requirements for legal immigration and naturalization should we reform in order to make our immigration and naturalization requirements more fair and less cumbersome for individuals seeking American citizenship?
Should we cut from seven back to only five or six requirements? Maybe eliminate the need to read and speak English, since we have already adopted a national policy of using Spanish as our second language?
No nation on earth has as simple and lenient immigration and naturalization laws, yet progressives claim that we make it too tough for immigrants to come to America legally. Why? Do these seven requirements look unfair or too tough to you?
Did you know that 27% of the U.S. prison population is non-U.S. citizens? Did you know that 18.4% are from Mexico alone? Do you have any idea what it costs the average American taxpayer to incarcerate illegal aliens, when deportation is actually what our laws call for?
addition, states like California that have totally embraced illegal
immigration, with illegals now nearing 50% of their population and bankrupting
the state by overloading state and federally funded social programs,
find themselves in a completely unsustainable circumstance.
Just how insane is the current immigration policy?
In August of 2011, an illegal immigrant was arrested in Boston on DUI (drunk driving) charges after rolling through a stop sign nearly running into a police cruiser. Most American citizens would have received the mandatory 30 days in jail and one year suspension of their driver’s license. But this illegal immigrant received a much better deal.
Instead of throwing the book at the drunk driver, the Boston judge cut a sleazy deal with defense council, agreeing to “continue the case without a finding for one year,” even though defense council admitted that there was sufficient evidence to convict. This allowed the drunken driver to avoid a guilty plea. He was to lose driving privileges for only 45 days, but that wasn’t good enough.
The drunken illegal immigrant filed for a “hardship license” citing his need to return to work to pay his bills. The hardship license was granted and the drunk was back on the road again, his DUI case continued out for a year… past the 2012 election.
Where does the drunken illegal work? At the local liquor store. Who is this drunken illegal alien with special privileges? None other than Barack Hussein Obama’s Uncle Onyango Obama, who remains on the road, working at a liquor store, while living in the U.S. illegally, occasionally driving around drunk bumping into cop cars.
Keep in mind that in many states now, illegal aliens can receive a driver’s license, even after busted driving drunk. Then, that state photo I.D. can be used as the sole validation for voting privileges.
Formal Amnesty has been blocked in congress several times now, but amnesty by default is already a reality and the story of Obama’s drunk Uncle demonstrates just how insane and criminal today’s immigration policies are.
It isn’t an isolated case either. Zeituni Onyango, the Kenyan aunt of President Obama, was also set free by a Boston judge to live and work in the U.S. illegally in 2010. Think the illegal Obama’s will be casting a vote for their unconstitutional nephew come November? You bet!
My question is, just how much are the American citizens willing to tolerate before they toss the entire cabal out on their ears?
Contrary to left-wing propaganda, this matter has nothing to do with racism or opposition to immigration. It has to do with a societies respect (or lack thereof) for the Rule of Law.
A nation in which there are no laws is a nation in anarchy. A nation in which the laws are created by people who live above the law is a dictatorship. A nation in which the law is unequally applied on the basis of political affiliations and political persecution is a nation in despotism.
How many crimes against America will the American people tolerate from non-citizens before they decide to rid themselves of that plague?
Will the American people boycott Obama on the DNC ballot in November, based upon all of his known anti-American views and policies? Why won’t they?
This is no longer about Democrat and Republican. It is about fundamental right and wrong, the rule of law and lawlessness.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
Are Americans no longer well-suited for the task of enforcing American principles and values in their representative government? If they are not well-suited for this task, then they are no longer well-suited for freedom and liberty, because such lofty ideals cannot exist in a lawless society run by despots.
Our laws require the arrest, detainment and deportation of illegal invaders no matter where on earth they came from and no matter what political ideologies they hold.
Are we a nation of laws or not? If the President and members of congress are lawless despots, how can the nation be a nation of laws? When only lawmakers and illegal aliens are exempt from the law but protected by the constitution, who shall abide by those laws?