Is this issue just being distorted, when amnesty was granted to illegals in 1986, and the laws were reformed ?

Question

If we do not enforce immigration laws when Congress changes them, which our country has not, why does anybody think new, more complicated laws will be enforced? Does anybody else think we just need to secure our border and enforce the laws we already have before we embark on new laws?

Rollo, we COULD secure our borders if that was our government's priority. I doubt that taxpayers would have to pay for deportation if fines and jail sentences were imposed on employers of illegals. However, the pay for deportation would be cheaper on the taxpayers in the long term, when we consider the cost of schools, medical, etc for illegals.

Koz: I think our government should answer for it if Reagan had people killed in El Salvador. However, the Hispanics in my state, close to the border, take our tax dollars for free food, medical, etc, while the husbands work mostly contract construction jobs. They do not pay taxes, and use fake SS#'s. This is plain wrong and abusing people who owe them nothing. One's own country should be fixed, and the solution is not leaching off America.

Koz: I think our government should answer for it if Reagan had people killed in El Salvador. However, the illegal Hispanics in my state, close to the border, take our tax dollars for free food, medical, etc, while the husbands work mostly contract construction jobs. They do not pay taxes, and use fake SS#'s. This is plain wrong and abusing people who owe them nothing. One's own country should be fixed, and the solution is not leaching off America.

Answer 1

Rather silly notion isn't it.

Answer 2

They have never enforced the laws they set when they granted the last amnesty. They were still processing people from 1986 as they were marching in the streets last year and it was a few thousand people to process and 20 years later it's not done? Either totally incompetent or vastly understaffed for the job. I'm going with vastly understaffed. The follow-through for their new proposal ,is in my opinion, is more impossible to do than to deport them. It's almost like if we smooth the ruffles feathers, go through the motions and ignore the problem.....maybe it will all just go away. They won't enforce the law now so what good is it 10-20-30 years from now when they catch-up with people and have to deport them then?

Obviously there needs to be reform but a blanket amnesty with more complicated things to follow through on isn't a rational answer when they "can't" enforce it in a basic form now.

Answer 3

The amnesty was partly for a war created and Fully funded by Ronald Reagan, he spent 1 million dollars a day to kill innocent women, children in El Salvador for over 10 years.

My family was forced out of El Salvador, we didn't want to leave. but it was either that or die.

There is no such thing as a revolt when you have a militaristic government.

Elections were done at Gun Point ! Literally. If the people voted for change those votes were later found in a stream or river.

No other country in the world runs the way this one does, you need to get out of your SUV's parked in your suburbs, to see the reality of things.

Here you can vote or not vote, or throw your vote away with the green party. but in most countries if you don't vote (or vote against the leaders) you / your family will get killed !

Most Immigrants do pay taxes, they are given an I-T-I-N number, it's an identification number, kinda like a social security card but without any benefits.

Now they cannot receive a dime back, but one of the requirements to become a legal resident is to pay taxes. this number allows them to do so.

My family is not the exception, it's the rule in Hispanic communities.

We never went to the Emergency Room (unless it was under coverage by Blue Shield).

We went to small Clinics and paid out of our pockets. just like all Hispanics, look in any Hispanic community and you'll see what i'm talking about.

We have paid taxes since the early 1980's, and haven't stopped.

We own real property (that means a House for you ignorant people out there).

We have our own business.

We are trying to provide help for communities back in El Salvador so that they aren't forced to leave their families and they can create an infrastructure so that even their kids won't have to leave.

Instead of just complaining that people should be kicked out, do something constructive and stop the problem at it's source.

What you people are suggesting is to stop a gas leak with a match, that is just a stupid concept.

I don't think anyone is seeing this small detail. so i repeat, Illegal Aliens do not go to Emergency Rooms.

They go to small clinics, in the case of Mexicans some go to Tijuana, because the medical system is cheaper and more efficient. then they come back.

My family still only uses the insurance carrier ( blue shield) for emergencies, other than that, we go to El Salvador. 'cuz even though we pay around $500 for the plain trip plus expenses, it's still cheaper and faster to get cured than it is with this bureaucracy the insurance companies have created.

If you see illegal aliens getting free money or government help, report the ones who are giving it out.

In order to receive Welfare, or these types of assistances, you need to provide Legal Documents, and if they are still getting them by "falsifying" then report the agency.

Or do some sort of expose. i'm sorry, but living on both ends of the spectrum I see things that don't make sense.

I will never call you Racist, or Ignorant. I will call your thought ignorant ( there is a huge difference).

Answer 4

i thought the amnesty in 1986 was given to refugees? I think there is a difference between ppl being forced to leave there country and those choosing to leave. Granted, mexico isnt the best country, but how is it going to get any better with everyone trying to leave? Mexico has a lot of beautiful land with lots of natural resources. Their problem is the corrupt government and police force and the drug cartels. There are supposedly about 10 million illegals here. If they all went back and tried to do something about it, maybe they would have a better place to live. I'm not against legal immigration, i am against illegals being paid under the table and tax free. We have to pay taxes to live here and they dont.

Answer 5

Ronnie gave amnesty because he felt guilty about his " I don't want Communism in our backyard" campaign in the 80's.The Contras,all in their effort to "stomp out Communism" were killing innocent people,I think they even raped a nun or two(what cowards).Many believe that the illegal immigration problem we have now,stems from that amnesty.They could very well be right.Most people come on this forum whining about Mexicans all the time.Where I live the majority of illegals are the cousins,brothers,in-laws,and,sisters of the same people Ronnie gave amnesty to over 21 years ago. It seems ironic how every time the USA is involved in a unnecessary war,we end up getting thousands of their refugees 10 years later,Just look at Vietnam ten years before (1976).I agree,we need to seriously enforce the laws we have.

Answer 6

Yes, I do agree with you that we only need to enforce our laws and that's it. We gave the illegals amnesty in 1986 and as you and everyone else can see, that did not work (and no, the illegals that were given amnesty were not refugees as some have suggested, they were mostly Mexican immgrants)!

We don't need to give illegals amnesty in order to solve the problem, how much sense does that make when it already didn't work? It will just lead to 25 million more people in the next 20 years that we are going to have to give amnesty to again!

Answer 7

Border security, though vital, won't do it alone. We'd also need to crack down on employers of illegals - which includes many private citizens as well as the usual 'big evil corporation
- and we'd have to rationalize our labor laws and currency exchange rates to reduce the excessive cost of American labor. That last is something we couldn't do via unilateral action, it'd take international cooperation to move all currencies towards purchasing power parity.

Answer 8

I am for securing the borders before any action on amnesty/guest worker programs are implemented.If not there will be millions more illegal aliens crossing the border to just sit and wait for the "next" amnesty. Why would there be any reason for them to even try to enter by legal means ? GWB is an imbecile.
The last amnesty was for illegal aliens.

Answer 9

I, myself, see a major crisis here with the influx of illegal immigrants entering into California, for example.

It's all about the abiltiy or lack there of for our state to be able to house, feed, educate, employ, cover unemployment costs, and cover medical costs for these individuals. This includes the costs for the millions of babies they rush to cross the border illegally to have here in our state. Need I not forget to mention the costs of housing these illegal immigrant violaters in county jails and federal prisons.

It is not an issue to take personally, like most of them seem to think through their voices at their useless amnesty related demonstrations. It's the law and it's already on the books, and should be enforced.

I say to these illegal immigrants to act like a decent person who really wants to be a citizen , respect our state and act like an American.

Don't drink your beer, drive drunk in your uninsured junky, hub cap missing cars without drivers licenses, urinate in the streets in front of respectable businesses, allow your children to commit crimes, and tag our neighborhood walls with grafitti. Maybe then you will get my vote.

Answer 10

When you say we "just" need to secure our border and enforce the laws we already have, do you understand that it might cost $200 billion to deport all of the illegal aliens here? And that if we did that a lot of them would leave their children behind, who are legally entitled to stay here, and who would take care of those children? And that you can't totally "secure" the border unless you want to shut down all the airports and seaports in this country? Since about half of all illegal aliens get here by simply overstaying their valid tourist visas.

The way to reduce the number of illegal aliens is to make them legal. That is what was done in 1986, and the reason the problem has increased since then is that we need to do something similar again. Even George Bush understands this.

Answer 11

I agree with those who say, regarding the illegal-alien debate in this country, that first we must secure the border, then – and only then – can we afford to debate what we do with those lawbreaking trespassers already in our midst.

But there is one related issue that needs to be examined as quickly as possible.

It doesn't need to be, as President Bush might suggest, part of a "comprehensive immigration-reform plan." It just needs to be examined, debated and resolved under the rule of law and through the will of the people – as all important public-policy issues should be dealt with in a free society.

I'm talking about "anchor babies."

What are anchor babies?

If you live in the Southwest, you know what they are. For the benefit of those in other regions of the country who are not yet immersed in the special lingo surrounding millions and millions of illegal aliens in America, anchor babies are children born in this country of illegal-alien parents.

Currently, by fiat, these children are treated as citizens of the U.S. simply because they were born here.

After all, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, in part: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

For many years, that was good enough for me. I saw no reason to challenge the Constitution, which seemed to be clear on the definition of citizenship for all those born in the U.S. – no matter the circumstances.

Yet, that is not the case. Under closer scrutiny, we find the U.S. Supreme Court – long before it turned to activist decisions in the modern era – had ruled the 14th Amendment was, by no means, absolute on this point.

Here, in fact, is what the court ruled in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case in 1898: "The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance. … The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because they were not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king."

Now I'm no lawyer, so maybe that's why I can read this clear Supreme Court decision and conclude that under this case law, children born in this country of illegal-alien parents are not citizens of the United States.

I don't think we need to change the law.

I just think we need to do what the American Civil Liberties Union would do if they liked this case – publicize it and demand that the "law of the land" be enforced.

Not only is the federal government neglecting its sworn duty to protect the citizens of this country by guarding the border, not only is the federal government neglecting its duty to deport millions of illegal aliens already here, but it is also neglecting its duty to recognize that hundreds of thousands – maybe millions – of people born in the U.S. to illegal-alien parents are not U.S. citizens because they and their parents were not under the jurisdiction and obedience of the government of the U.S. when that occurred.

Right after we close the border, let's turn to the issue of anchor babies. They are called "anchors" for a reason. Once they are born here, they anchor entire families of foreign invaders because of their natural attachment to the child. After all, it would seem cruel and heartless to attempt to deport the parents and siblings of U.S. citizens. The good news is anchor babies are no more U.S. citizens than their parents.