Trump is Meting Out Retribution to New York for the Green Light NY Program

Trump is denying the Trusted Traveler Program to residents of New York because they instituted the Green Light Program.

The Trusted Traveler program is a program established by DHS to pre check and clear travelers that frequently fly.

The Green Light Program is a New York program that provides driver's licenses to all residents regardless of their citizenship or immigration status.

Application for the Trusted Traveler Program does not require a driver's license; passport or proof of resident is all that is needed.

Since the Trusted Traveler program doesn't require a driver's license, it appears that the Trump Administration is meting out retribution for the Green Light Program.

Trump continues to wield the power of the Executive Branch well beyond the authority that the Constitution, Congress or the courts have allowed.

Trump in this case, has no authority to issue the suspension of the Trusted Traveler Program to the residents of New York.

                        

DHS Trusted Traveler Program

https://ttp.dhs.gov/ 

Green Light NY Program

https://greenlightnewyork.org/

DHS suspends Global Entry, Trusted Traveler Programs for New York residents in response to sanctuary law. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-global-entry-trusted-traveler-new-york-ice-sanctuary-law

Children in Concentration Camps

As a rationalization of taking children away from parents at the border, Trump and his henchmen and women have stated that if I was convicted of a crime, my child would be taken away from me. Therefore, it is no different when the children of people at the border are taken away. 

I strongly disagree.

First, at the border, the people that arrive there have not been convicted of any crime.  Without a conviction in a court of law, the people at the border are not criminals.  So, the children should not be taken away from their parents. 

Furthermore, under United States’ and International Law, asylum seekers are not criminals.  They are people seeking an escape from a dangerous situation in their home country.  Their status must be reviewed by a court that is fair and impartial.

Even if I was convicted of a crime, my child would not be taken away from me.  They would still be my children and they could come and see me at anytime while I am in prison.

My children would be with family members, guardians or others that would be responsible for their care and treatment.  They would not be placed in concentration camps.

This is inhumane treatment of children and their parents.

This must stop.

Trump's Immigration Speech

Trump telling what I will do,
instead of inviting me

If President Trump would like to start a conversation with me about anything and especially something as important as immigration reform, don't start out by insult me and my fellow compatriots, the Democrats.  

Trump lost me at the first insult.  And then, he continued till the end.

Compromise comes from being inviting, not insulting.

I will support none of it.  Not till Trump at least is more inviting.  

Then we will at least start the conversation.  

How Can an Immigrant Mother Loose Her Child in Court?

I can provide hundreds of links to the Republican Party that states they are the party of families.  We all know the mantra of the party.


So, how is it possible that immigration, the courts and the adopted parents can allow a five year old child to be kept away from his mother?


What you say?  Read this link.

From the article, "A Missouri judge ruled the boy should stay with the Missouri couple, Melinda and Seth Moser, who took him into their home five years ago while his mother was in federal custody, where she attempted in vain to oppose the adoption proceedings."

Full disclosure here, I am an adopted child.  I was forcible taken from my mother at birth and given to another family.  The reason for the removal of my mother's parental rights were all lies provided by people that didn't want my mother to raise me.  (Yes, I have documents about the case.  I now know who my mother was and she was not as they said she was.)

In this woman's case, because she did not have proper representation at hearings, she lost her rights.

Shame on immigration for not keeping families together.

Shame on the courts for allowing such a thing to happen.

Shame on the adopted family for not supporting keeping families together.

Shame on you President Trump for allowing this to happen. 

Thanksgiving

Last week was Thanksgiving.  The lore of the holiday is that the native Americas and the recent immigrants sat down to share a meal.  It was done when the harvest was completed and the food was stored away for a long winter.  It is not for this post to explore the issues of the day.  But, it is to examine how our own myths about the holiday have more meaning than the reality.  Here are two groups of people that should have more to fight about than to share, sitting down peacefully at the dinner table – the quintessential symbolism of mutual trust and brotherhood.

To those invited, the only requirement to sit at the table was not to harm anyone.  They brought their own religious views, their own cultural mores and dressed as each did in their own homes.  At the table, there may have been passionate discussion about each side’s point of view, as is common at many Thanksgiving feast throughout the land.  But, in the end, everyone was able to be themselves.

The myth the symbolism portrays is that it should be part of the human experience to sit with our antagonist to share and talk.  By sharing a common human experience we can then begin to understand how many things beyond dinner we have in common.  We all have families, loved ones and dreams of a better life.  Of working with the world and creating a paradise for all to prosper.

That myth doesn’t always get expressed in the real world.  In our communities we have competing forces that work against each other.  This rivalry is not based on the things we have in common, but on our differences.  While we pretend to provide an open and free community, the restrictions that the patriarchal majority place on the minority are based on the differences between the two.  The restrictions should, instead, be based on the one requirement that the first Thanksgiving had, to not do harm.

The myth of Thanksgiving suggests that we shouldn’t care about the religion, political beliefs, gender, race, marriage or anything other differences of those that are sitting at the table.  What matters is that we invite all to break bread, to use a religiously loaded term.

Thanksgiving is a time when we should reflect on our achievements, even if they are only partial achieved.  One of our greatest achievements is the myth that all in the community can come together at the same table and share the bounty.  Existentialism tells us that while the Thanksgiving myth is only partially achieved in our community, to keep striving is the purpose.

With reflection on the true meaning of the Thanksgiving myth, we can come as close to the fully actuated myth as possible.

The protection of the Constitution applies to all that live by it

An immigration case out of Chicago, Chaidez v USA (1), makes us question who shall receive the benefits of Constitutional justice and how the community should respond when justice isn’t applied.

The case is about a woman from Chicago, Roselva Chaidez, who was born in Mexico.  She has lived in the United States since the 1970s.  By many accounts Chaidez was the unwitting participant in an insurance scam.  The many details of the case are less important than the resulting issues, but it is clear that she was not involved in any violence and even the fed’s let her plead guilty and let her off with a fine.

Her lawyer worked the deal for Chaidez, encouraging her to tell the truth and end the case.  He did tell Chaidez about the direct punishment she could expect by pleading guilty.  What he didn’t tell her is that it would not allow her to apply for citizenship.  It isn’t clear if the lawyer knew that or not.  It should be expected that if a lawyer makes a strong suggestion that someone like Chaidez should plead guilty, he would inform her of all the collateral damage that would result.  That is the reason an expert is hired in any field, to help understand the short and long term consequences.

When Chaidez did apply for citizenship, she was picked up for deportation.  She was able obtain another lawyer to challenge the case in the courts.  It has found its way to the Supreme Court.

Chaidez’s new lawyer has built the case on a ruling by the Supreme Court after Chaidez’s guilty plea and conviction.  At the base for her case is Padilla v Kentucky.  In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that non-citizens that are not advised that pleading guilty to a felony means automatic deportation were deprived of their Sixth and Fourteenth amendment rights to effective counsel.  Chaidez’s is the same situation, but since she pleaded guilty before the Padilla case, the United States is asking that the conviction stand.  The court is being asked if the ruling only applies to cases after Padilla or should it be retroactive.

The Obama administration is taking a hard stand on the issue.  The administration said that, “[it] will have a significant impact on the federal government’s efforts to enforce this nation’s immigration laws against those who have become removable as a result of pre-Padilla criminal convictions.”

Groups siding with Chaidez have taken an equaling strong stand in opposition.  “The lack of remedy,” the groups assert, “[for pre-Padilla ineffective counsel] imposes harsh consequences on countless non-citizens facing detention and deportation as a result of wrongfully procured plea-based convictions.” (3)

Whatever the legal arguments are, there are four practical issues for the community to consider.  First, the community can’t tolerate ineffective counsel for defendants when charged with a crime.  Second, while prosecutors have a responsibility to pursue their cases as aggressively as possible, they also have a responsibility to keep defendants, who are presumed innocent until proven guilty, aware of the full consequences of the charges applied against them.  Also, there can be no finality to a case when Constitutional rights come to light after convictions, such as Supreme Court rulings that apply directly to the defendant’s case.  Finally, being a non-citizens living in the country doesn’t mean that that you are not protected by the Constitution. 

The right to counsel is a Sixth Amendment issue.  It clearly states that we all have the right “to have the Assistance of Counsel for his [her] defence.” (4)  To believe any other way means that people could be picked up and sentenced to prison with no trial.  After all, if they are guilty until proven innocent, let’s just get them off the street right away, no need for a trial. 

An innocent person has all the rights and privileges of the community and should expect that the community will defend them against all threats to their life, safety and freedoms.  So, if people are innocent until proven guilty, the logical responsibility of the community is to assure that they are properly defended and understand all the consequences if they are found guilty.  The community must be certain that the lawyer the defendant hires, or is provided, is competent enough to understand the obligations of providing a proper defense. 

As for the prosecution, we expect the prosecutor to aggressively pursue their case against a defendant.  Our system has provided this right to the prosecutor.  But, for every right there is an equally important responsibility.  The responsibility here is that the prosecutor will insure that the accused is fully aware of his consequences if convicted of the crime he or she is charged with. 

Once convicted, no matter the circumstances of the conviction, the case can only be final to factual issues not Constitutional issues.  If a person is convicted under a law that made his action criminal and is later changed, the convicted is to receive the benefits of the change.  This prevents laws from being enacted that make an action criminal just to jail someone, then changed once they are convicted.  Why should it be any different for Constitutional issues?  When the Supreme Court makes a ruling on an issue, it needs to have the same effect as changing a law.

Perhaps the most difficult issue for many is the non-citizen status of Chaidez.  The argument may be that since Chaidez is a not a citizen, she doesn’t have an automatic right to receive the full benefits of the Constitution.  (There is a question as to Chaidez’s immigration status.  It is not clear that she is here “illegally?”  But, it doesn’t matter because of the of the amnesty legislation that has been passed since Chaidez’s arrival.  The only issue that is important to this case is her non-citizenship status.)  All the time that Chaidez was here, she was expected to follow all the laws that the Constitution allows.  Yet, as soon as she runs in to trouble with the law, she is not given the full benefit of the Constitution.  In this case, she didn’t receive a proper defense as dictated by the Constitution.

This is not the intent of the authors of the Constitution.  They intended the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution to apply to all.  It is simple to say this because of our own interpretation of the words of the document.  But, this time the proof comes from none other than a founding father. James Madison said, “But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that, whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed that, as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage.” (5)

According to Madison, when someone has the responsibility to live under the laws of the country, they also have the right to the protection of the Constitution.  This is the very essence of a Responsible Community; a balance between rights and responsibilities.  You can’t have one without the other.

(1)  Chaidez v USA (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/chaidez-v-united-states/ )

(2)  Obama administration response (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/05/06/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Opening-the-gate-to-criminal-alien-appeals/UPI-91941336289400/ )

(3)  Response to the administrations statements (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/05/06/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Opening-the-gate-to-criminal-alien-appeals/UPI-91941336289400/ )

(4)  Sixth amendment to the United States Constitution

(5)  James Madison, Debates to the Several State conventions on the adoption of the Constitution (http://books.google.com/books?id=OL3MdoqSb0QC&pg=PA555&lpg=PA555&dq=If+the+banishment+of+an+alien+...+be+not+a+punishment,+and+among+the+severest+of+punishments,+it+will+be+difficult+to+imagine+a+doom+to+which&source=bl&ots=9pGFIPFT-4&sig=t01lRxRxpUI2iT3G8x7C0-EB0EQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PpKmT-2vHYqXgwe88cTPAQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=If%20the%20banishment%20of%20an%20alien%20...%20be%20not%20a%20punishment%2C%20and%20among%20the%20severest%20of%20punishments%2C%20it%20will%20be%20difficult%20to%20imagine%20a%20doom%20to%20which&f=false )

Immigration

It can’t be said that there are many parallels between Newt Gingrich’s political philosophy, if it can be collected into one coherent philosophy, and the structure of the Responsible Community. But, we do need to give Gingrich his due when he is right, even if not for the same reasons.

Today is Florida’s Republican primary and immigration is a big issue because of the large amount of immigrants, both legal and illegal. Mitt Romney, Gingrich’s biggest rival in the presidential primary, has developed his “self-deportation” plan that has some truth at the core. He believes that as a country, we need to somehow remove the illegal immigrants from the neighborhoods of America and return them to their home country. There, they can apply to come to America legally. He would do this by cutting off the jobs the immigrants obtain when here. This is the truth at the core of his plan; we would have much less illegal immigration if there weren’t jobs going unfilled here.

But, Romney is not likely to be willing to go up against business owners and fine them for hiring illegals. Remember, he is a pro-business candidate, having run a capital investment firm very successfully. It just can’t be seen how the pro-business, less regulation candidate is going to stop businesses who need cheap docile employees.

If Romney wants to remove the illegals from our neighborhoods, he will have to drive the padding wagon down the street, dragnet style. He will have to round them up and send them home.

Gingrich doesn’t think that is such a good idea, nor do I. Gingrich has said something like rounding up someone’s grandmother that has been here for many years to deport her is against humanity and, besides, can’t really be done. (Gingrich is right on both points. Can you image removing 10 to 20 million people from the country? Panic and chaos would be pandemic. There would be riots and armed conflict in the streets of our towns. Our courts would be filled with backlog cases for many years, if not lifetimes.)

These people are here because we needed them to fill jobs that went unfilled. While they may have taken jobs that legal immigrants could have filled, it is not as bad as it seems. Once here, they created a synergy that created more jobs. Economically, they hold entire communities together. They rent houses and apartments, buy food for their families, entertain themselves and buy shirts from JC Penny. By removing about 10 to 15 percent of the population, if it could be done, would send us into another recession. The jobs it is said the illegals took would be gone along with all the other jobs that were created from the goods and services they purchased.

That is not to suggest that we should not do a better job of keeping illegals from the country in the first place. A blog post from May 2010, End Illegal Immigration in Five Steps, outlines five steps to end illegal immigration without ten foot concrete walls around the country. Let’s make sure every person has a national identification card so we know who is legal and who isn’t, that every business knows that there will be severe consequences if they hire undocumented workers, manage our borders not control them and build the economies in the home countries. We also need to provide a path for documenting workers that aren’t currently legal instead of deporting them.

Solutions for problems like illegal immigration come from practical community based solutions not from politically motivated ideological double speak. Romney is suggesting that we get tough by cutting off the supply of jobs at the same time he says we need to get rid of regulations and help business. This is Romney’s double speak. Gingrich at least is defining the issue in practical terms.

-----

Right is right until it interferes with business in Alabama

The legislature in Alabama, prodded by the attorneys general of the state, is looking at making some changes to the strict immigration law that was passed earlier in the year. In the court of world public opinion, all negative, it catapulted Alabama ahead of other states in the country with immigration laws that run counter to the role of state government.

Why is this happening?

Part of it was a backlash from big business – mind you, not everyday citizens, but big business – after two executives from Honda and Mercedes were stopped for not carry proof of their immigration status. The governor of the state responded very quickly with an apology to the individuals and the companies. This didn’t look good in a state that is seeking foreign investment. The executives were released without charges even though they broke the law. How about all the other everyday citizens that have been stopped, detained and charged with not carry proof of their immigration status?

But, at the core of the issue is a position a pro-business organization has taken. The Birmingham Business Alliance expressed that the law was damaging Alabama’s image around the world. Plus, (I love this one) “it is a burden for business and local government.”

Immigration and citizenship is a responsibility of the federal government. It says so right in the Constitution. If every state, county and city in the country were to enact their own immigration laws, it would be confusing to even to the local hardware store that hires kids in the neighborhood. We could never be really sure who has the right to be here.

But, Alabama seeking to change the law in response to big business complaints is especially disturbing. Their response makes it very clear that from the start this was just political. If it wasn’t, why was it right to place all these restrictions in the law in the first place then back out of parts of the law because big business complained? The legislature was told about the law being in violation of the Constitution. Many parts of the law have been placed on hold by the courts. Individuals lobbing to stop the law told them that citizens and immigrants in good standing would be negatively profiled. But, they didn’t listen because they wanted to make a political statement that they were hard on illegals.

Business, and the bigger the more responsible they are, is the biggest trouble maker with illegal immigrants. They hire those that come to this country seeking jobs with little or no identification checking. A blind eye is turned as long as they get docile workers that don’t complain and just do their job, no matter how little they are paid. By stopping illegals from getting jobs, those crossing the border without permission would slow dramatically.

As a country, we do need to work on immigration. But, that is the job of congress and the president not individual states. The Constitution makes it their responsibility. It also means that there will be one set of rules for everyone instead of 50, or more if counties and cities get in to the act like many already have.

Congress needs to act.

-----

One way to solve the illegal immigration problem

Grigg Box Company in Detroit was raided by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations a few days ago. After a long investigation by HSI, it was determined that the company had a possible 30 or more undocumented workers employed. The owner of the company will soon be charged in court with the crime.

Brian M. Moskowitz, HIS special agent in charge, said when questioned about the raid, "Employers who evade the law not only fuel the demand that is responsible for much of the country's illegal immigration, but their actions also hurt lawful workers who are seeking jobs in this challenging economy.” Moskowitz continues, "Criminal prosecutions are just one of many tools HSI is using to reduce the demand for illegal employment and protect job opportunities for the nation's lawful workforce."

In the Responsible Community’s blog post, “End illegal immigration in five steps” the second point of five to end illegal immigration was:

2) Enforce the law about employing the undocumented worker. This must be done on the national level, not the local or state level. Unless every employer understands very clearly what they need to do to make sure their work force is legal, they will make mistakes at the very least and ignore on the most flagrant level.

Employers, small and large, must also believe that I.C.E. (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) could arrive at any moment for an employee audit. Employers must be obligated to document that each employee is legally employable in this country. If they can’t, they must pay a fine that is far greater than the risk of being caught.

We can’t fence off the world. No fence can be built high enough to stop those that are driven to find a way over, around or under. What we need to do is stop the incentive illegal immigrants have for finding their way here. If they knew they would not find work, it would stop one of the biggest reasons they come. (Another is freedom, and who could blame them for that.)

While we talk about ending illegal immigration, we always point fingers at other countries and the individuals that find their way here. But, rarely have we looked at ourselves. If we continue to blame others for our problems, we will never solve the problem.

Continue with these raids at an accelerated rate.

-----

No religious test for illegal immigrants

In Tuesday night’s debate of the Republican Presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich said he would give amnesty to immigrants that are currently living in the United States with some conditions. In part, he said:

"If you've been here 25 years and you've got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out," he said.

The part of the answer that says, “…you belong to a local church…” is the most troubling. The United States has offered amnesty to illegal immigrants since the early 1800s. The latest offer from Gingrich to provide amnesty to those living here in good standing is nothing new. I also, don’t believe, like Gingrich, that we should tear apart families and the lives of others by booting them out of the country.

But, by adding the local church part, Gingrich is appling a religious test that clearly shouldn't be a part of the conditions. In the Constitution it states in very clear words that there should be no religious test given to anyone that will hold office or a position of public trust. Why, then, should a religious test to be applied to illegal immigrants that would be allowed to stay in the country for all other reasons? Church of course, means a Christian religion. Why shouldn’t it apply to Jews that join a synagogue, Muslims that join a mosque or, how about atheists that join a humanist temple? The religious affiliation, or lack of, should not be part of the selection criteria for people that would be allowed to stay.

Gingrich is wrong to think that a religious test of any kind should be given. That applies illegal immigrants that will be granted amnesty or anyone else that will arrive at our shores.

-----

Right idea, wrong target

The Republicans in congress would like more aggressive workplace raids to find undocumented workers. That is one the steps to solve the illegal immigration problem that The Responsible Community supports. (End illegal immigration in five steps) But, those they want targeted in the raids will make a political statement and do little to solve the overall problem. 

Under the Obama administration, work place raids in search of undocumented workers have reached new heights. Republicans, with their new majority in the house, are pressing for even more raids. But, they want the raids to seek out undocumented workers to send them back to their country of origin. They aren’t suggesting that the employers of those raids be punished. But, if the raids would focus on the employers, there would be very few undocumented workers taking jobs away from legal workers.

Raids should be conducted to enforce employment law. This must be done on the national level, not the state or local level. Unless every employer understands the risk they take when they use undocumented workers, they will make mistakes at the very least and ignore laws on the most flagrant level.

If raids are focused just on the workers to send them back, then it will be a political statement that will be a mere inconvenience to employers. Perhaps winning votes for the “get tough” Republicans, but doing little to stop the problem. If undocumented workers can’t get a job, they won’t come to the country seeking work.

Let’s have more raids. But, the focus of the raids should be on the employers.

-----

Gun rights should be the same every where

In New Jersey, a man from Utah man, Greg Revell, was traveling through a New Jersey airport on his way to somewhere else. In his baggage he had an unloaded hand gun. He told the airport security where he was coming from about the weapon when he checked his bags. He was allowed to check his bags and was just changing planes in New Jersey. His connecting flight was cancelled, so he retrieved his bags and spent the night at a hotel. The next morning he arrives at the airport and does the honest thing and tells airport police about his gun. He is then arrested and spends ten days in jail.

The Supreme Court will decide on Wednesday to hear his case.

If the Fourteenth amendment did anything, it made this one country. Until the amendment was ratified, each state operated nearly independently of all other states and of the federal government. At the time, 36 states had 36 different sets of laws. Some states went as far to not just violate the rights of individuals, but to take them completely away. The Supreme Court supported the right of states to take such action because the Constitution, according to the court, applied only to the Federal government and not to the states. If it hadn’t been for the Civil War and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, they may never have been given back.

It was the intent of the Fourteenth amendment to ensure that the rights of any person in the country was the same as any other person. That just as the Federal government must respect the rights of people so must each state. This passed all the way to local governments because they were set up by states.

Gun ownership is a right as documented in the Constitution. Reasonable regulations can be adopted to ensure that the ownership and use of a gun doesn’t harm anyone, but it can’t be denied. But, there are fifty three different sets of regulations in the country about gun ownership. That includes all fifty states, D.C and Costa Rica. Perhaps more it you count other protected lands and other jurisdictions.

It sounds like Greg Revell hales from a state that allows him to own and carry a gun. After all, if he was not legal, why would he say anything to airport police. Also, Revell was allowed to check his luggage with the gun in the baggage in Utah. The gun didn’t get him into trouble until he spent the night in New Jersey. Of course, that one night turned into ten and now a gun charge on his record.

It is time we federalize gun laws to protect the rights of people that own guns in every state. We are no longer fifty states (or 36 at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment) that operate independently of each other. The rights of every person in this country should be protect from the patch work of laws that may or may not allow an individual who is legal in one state to be legal in another.

Like immigration and plenty of other issues, gun laws needed to be apply to all in the country and not just each state. It is time to move in that direction so we can all live without fear of our rights.

-----

Courts should not do what congress should

Whenever the courts are asked to do what the congress and president should, it is a sloppy and irrational business. Of course, that is to suggest that the way they make laws and set policy is any better.

President Obama a month ago asked the Supreme Court to place a stay on a lower court ruling that ordered the military to stop enforcing the “Don’t Tell, Don’t Ask” policy on gays and lesbians in the services. He wanted time for congress and his office to come to terms with the certainty that the court would rule in favor of gays and lesbians. The court agreed, at least for a while, but now there is a deadline for action. If Senator John McCain gets his way, it will be back into the courts when the deadline passes.

Working its way through the court system are a few other issues that would not be there if congress was working properly. One of the biggest issues, yes bigger than “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, is immigration. Decisions from various jurisdictions will leave a confusing and disruptive policy that will not work.

As an example, Arizona, wishing to solve a overstated problem there, is being challenge on a host of immigration laws in the courts. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007. It states that businesses that knowing employee undocumented workers could have their license revoked by the state. It is being called the business death penalty by opponents. The United States Chamber of Commerce and the Obama administration are challenging the law. They say that immigration is a federal issue, so that states should not be able to take action.

Businesses that hire undocumented workers is at the core of the issue. That is why Arizona enacted and is enforcing a law like the Legal Arizona Workers Act. If there are no jobs available for undocumented workers, they wouldn’t be arriving. In a post to this blog in April, End Immigration in Five Steps, one of the steps suggested was to enforce laws at the federal level that require employers to make sure every employee was properly documented. Plus, employers must learn to fear I.C.E. (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) by unannounced audits of businesses on a national and local level.

But the creation and enforcement of immigration laws must made at the federal level. Each court, like with any issue, will make decisions based on individual cases and circumstances. Overlapping and overreaching decisions will create a loose policy that will confuse employees and employers. This will waste resources in an attempt to meet various standards from all across the country.

The reason we have government is to enforce a consistent set of rules that we can all agree on. Congress needs to act on immigration reform and many other issues. Then, allocate money to enforce the laws. If not, individuals and businesses will be caught not knowing what to do.

-----

There Arizona goes again

There Arizona goes again…


In Arizona, they are proposing a law that would deny birth certificates to children born of parents that are in the country illegally. This is an indirect assault on the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States. It doesn’t specifically deny citizenship, but does prevent a birth certificate from being issued that would be needed to prove that someone was born in the country.

When Arizona passed the last illegal immigration law, directing law enforcement to determine the citizenship of people that are in custody (as it was amended), it brought plenty of attention to the state from both sides of the argument. This one is sure to make things much more complicated for everyone from the hospital that births the child to the federal government.

But, it should still not change anything as far as a child being granted citizenship.

Right now, there are two ways to gain citizenship; you are born here or you are granted citizenship through application. Many feel that just because a child is born in the United States while the mother is in the country illegally, the child should not be given automatic citizenship. But, the Fourteenth Amendment states that children born in the United States are citizens. It states, “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.” Because a birth certificate will not be issued doesn’t mean the child is not born here. (for more details about why the Fourteenth Amendment was created see blog post, “Citizenship as Birth Right”)

As was the position of the Responsible Community when the previously law was enacted, so it is with this one. The responsibility of citizenship and immigration rest with the federal government. It was given to the national government by the Fourteenth amendment. The lawmakers in Arizona are either making a cheap political statement on the backs of children or are attempting to force the country to address the immigration issue in America. Seems that it is a little of both.

As a country, we may decide to make some changes in the way citizenship is granted. That would take a change in the Fourteenth amendment, or, perhaps a challenge to the interpretation of the amendment by the Supreme Court But, until then, birthright citizenship is there for everyone born in the country.

As a nation of immigrants, we should not change what has made us strong.

-----

End illegal immigration in five steps

We can end illegal immigration with 5 difficult but worthwhile steps. These are not solutions from the moment. These are what have be gleaned from years of research from all sides of the political spectrum. But, be careful, we will need to support these solutions with a functioning budget of people, time and money.

1) Enact a national identification program that is real and tough for everyone. Until we are sure who is here legally we can’t expect anyone to up hold the law. That means that every one that lives in the country must have documents that prove they are a legal worker or a citizen. This has received very strong opposition from all sides. There is the fear of the government intruding on our lives and a severe loss of privacy. But, that is the cost that must be paid.

2) Enforce the law about employing the undocumented worker. This must be done on the national level, not the local or state level. Unless every employer understands very clearly what they need to do to make sure their work force is legal, they will make mistakes at the very least and ignore on the most flagrant level. If each state has different rules, employers will have a huge bureaucratic problem.

Employers, small and large, must also believe that I.C.E. (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) could arrive at any moment for an employee audit. Employers must be obligated to document that each employee is legally employable in this country. If they can’t, they must pay a fine that is far greater than the risk of being caught.

Now comes the hard part, but these solution must also be developed otherwise the first two will not work.

3) Manage the border, not control it. Let them in if they can prove who they are. After all, we let thousands if not millions in everyday so they can vacation in this wonderful country. This will mean the United States must work with other countries to insure that all parties are properly documenting everyone. If they can’t get a job because of point two, what will they do? They will spend money, see relatives and go home.

This also means that those that are already here will be able to return to their host country with the knowledge that they can return. Right now, the illegal worker doesn’t go home occasionally or at the end of the work season because they may not be able to return. So, instead they stay.

Additionally, the people who now patrol the border trying to control it, will be able to do the real work of keeping the bad guys out.

4) Provide a path to legalizations. Every generation since the turn of the last century has done this. The only way the illegal’s will come out of the shadows of black market employment is by the security of knowing that they will be able continue to live and work in America. With other measures that are enacted, they will receive pressure from their employers to turn legal. This will be in the best interest of companies to help their employees since enforcement from I.C.E. will mean heavy fines if they don’t.

5) Finally, build the economies of the host countries. People don’t leave their families, their communities and their countries unless they have to. Some do leave for wonder lust or political reasons, but for the most part people want to be successful at home, not somewhere else. People from poor countries will always want to migrate to rich countries for work. Migration will not be stopped until they feel they can provide for their families where they are.

None of this will be easy. It will cost money that some people in this country will not be willing to support. They will continue to believe that they are easier solutions, such as just through the bums out. Then, to keep them out will take a far greater investment by controlling the border then by managing it.

Success at anything doesn’t come easy. We have to invest and work hard to be successful. If we make the investment in these solutions there is no reason to believe that the pay off will not be a much better community for everyone.

-----

Going Backwards Because of Immigration

In 1787 The United States Constitution was adopted. Before that, the country was operating under the Articles of Confederation. The reason the Articles of Confederation was replaced because it wasn’t working. States had all the power to create their own laws without regard to other states or the national interest.

Last year there was 222 laws and 148 resolutions passed by state legislatures governing immigration. This doesn’t include all the laws that were already in place. Many states are taking a hard look at immigration and devising their own plans in an attempt to address the problem. All of this because the elected officials of the national government have not been able to find consensus on the issue.

This is beginning to look like the Articles of Confederation again.

States do have the right and responsibility to enact legislation that will provide for their citizens. But state laws should deal with issues that are local or state wide in scope and not national issues. National issues are the responsibility of Washington. This is especially true for an issue like immigration that effects each and every citizen in some way in America.

With each state developing its own laws to deal with immigration there is going to be a very wide set of rules and regulations. This will create an incredible amount of confusion in the country. Legal workers and immigrants that move from state to state will be unsure of what documents they may need to prove their status. Employers that hire workers across many states will need to developed employment policies for each state. Virtually every private and public service agency; local, state and national; will need individual sets of procedures to just do their job.

Immigration is a national issue and states need to stay out of it. But, they are acting because the federal government is not. It is time for the federal government to act.

Citizenship as a Birthright

Senator Harry Reid (D-Utah) is being quoted as saying that immigration reform is not on the agenda. Well, as soon as a politico says such a thing, it usually means it is.

When immigration does come up again, many will be talking about changing the way citizenship is granted in America. Right now, there are two ways, you are born here or you are granted citizenship through a long application process. Many feel that just because a child is born in the United States while the mother is in the country illegally, the child should not be given automatic citizenship. But, the Fourteenth Amendment states that children born in the United States are citizens. It states, “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.”

Those opposed to citizenship as a birthright argue that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed only to insure slaves would be citizens. This would deprive the southern states from enacting legislation that would only allow citizenship to those whose birthright goes back many generations. Therefore, preventing many former slaves from voting.

Assuring citizenship to former slaves was important. But, there was something else going on in America at the time. By the end of the Civil War there were large immigrant populations that had arrived over the last 20 years. As chronicled in both, “A Different Mirror” by Ronald Takaki and “The Party of Fear” by David H. Bennett, these immigrant populations were not well liked. One of many reasons is they were having an impact on the politics of the still young country. These populations represented large voting blocks in many northern states.

Before the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was granted by the state you lived in. If states didn’t grant citizenship, chances are you were not a citizen of the country. The southern states knew that all they had to do was pass state laws sharply restricting citizenship to former slaves to prevent them from voting.

This was of great concern to the immigrants in the northern states. Many were born elsewhere, or were the first born here. If the northern states started doing the same thing, many of the new immigrants from European countries could lose their citizenship. So, the northern states supported a clause of the Fourteenth that would automatically granted citizenship to all people born in the country.

As a country, we may decide to make some changes in the way citizenship is granted. That would take a change in the Fourteenth amendment, or, perhaps a challenge to the interpretation of the amendment by the Supreme Court (the subject of another post at a later date). But, until then, birthright citizenship is there for everyone born in the country.

As a nation of immigrants, we should not change what has made us strong.