skip to main |
skip to sidebar
On May 3, 2007, President George W. Bush attended a meeting on immigration and assimilation Asamblea de Iglesias Cristianas, Centro Evangelistico in Washington, D.C. It has been a major issue among the current presidency to act in some way or another on this issue of immigration. It seems as if little, if anything, has been done. Little progress has seem to be made and has disappointed its Republican supporters and immigrants. President Bush has a little over a year and half in office before someone new takes over the administration. Action needs to be taken now by the President and Congress with regards to this issue.
At this meeting on May 3, President Bush said,
"I'm looking forward to working with both Democrats and Republicans to get a comprehensive immigration bill done this year. We have a good chance to get it done. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand comprehensive immigration reform is in the nation's interest. And I'll continue working with members of Congress to encourage them to do the hard work necessary to make sure a system that is not working is reformed in a way that meets our national needs and listens to our national heart. After all, America is a land of immigrants. Immigration helps renew our soul. It helps redefine our spirit in a positive way."
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/immigration/)
April 9, 2007, President Bush visited the Arizona border to discuss his plans for implementing a new immigration reform. He proposed 5 key steps of his plan:
1. Securing the Border. There needs to be an increase of manpower, infrastructure, and technology along the border. 18,000 Border Patrol agents will be in active service by 2008.
2. Creating A Temporary Worker Program. This will take pressure off securing the border, according to President Bush. People will be less tempted to cross the border by illegal means if there is an incentive to go through a proper legal process.
3. Holding Employers Accountable For The Workers They Hire. President Bush wants to rise the levels of accountability of employers to accurately report to the government who they are hiring. Many employers violate the law and hire illegal immigrants at lower wages and do not pay the appropriate taxes.
4. Resolving The Status Of The Millions Of Illegal Immigrants Already In The Country. It is very difficult to track the number of illegal immigrants who cross into the United States each year. So many have already established homes and families and have secured careers. President Bush, however, opposes the idea of granting immediate amnesty to these people who have not gone through the proper legal process to live in the U.S. legally. He believes that in order for an illegal immigrant to remain in the U.S. he or she must pay some kind of penalty, pay legitimate taxes, acquire a job, and learn English.
5. Finding New Ways To Help Newcomers Assimilate Into Our Society. President Bush it is essential that there is a positive assimilation of immigrants into American society.
These five parts of President Bush’s immigration reform are nothing new, but may be soon put into action. This is what the President foresees as being the best solution of the immigration issue in the U.S. as a way to maintain justice and rule of law.
A major aspect to the immigration debate that is constantly in debate at Congress and that has been addressed in my previous blogs are immigrant rights. According from the Census Bureau and Homeland Security, in 2005 approximately 1,122,373 people obtained legal resident status in the United States. Over one million people! 53,378 people arrived as refugees in 2005. On a different note, up to 1,291,142 people were found and deported in 2005. All these numbers go to show the massive amounts of people who enter the United States. With so many people entering, their rights need to be protected.
One of the organizations whose goals are to protect immigrant rights is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU has four missions it identifies on its website (http://www.aclu.org). These are to protect:
• Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
• Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
• Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
• Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
With regards to immigrant rights, ACLU has published on their website this statement:
"It is true that the Constitution does not give foreigners the right to enter the U.S. But once here, it protects them from discrimination based on race and national origin and from arbitrary treatment by the government. Immigrants work and pay taxes; legal immigrants are subject to the military draft. Many immigrants have lived in this country for decades, married U.S. citizens, and raised their U.S.-citizen children. Laws that punish them violate their fundamental right to fair and equal treatment.
As considered guardians of freedom, the ACLU stands firm to protect the rights of immigrants who are currently living within the United States to the same standards of any other U.S. citizen based upon the liberties and freedoms granted by the Constitution."
The ACLU has contributed to many of the debates facing the immigration issue in current news. Recently the ACLU has questioned the U.S. government why Dr. Jorge Bustamente, Special Rapporteur of the United Nations, was denied access to inspect the Hutto immigrant detention facility that is located in Texas. ACLU argues it is an essential component to ensuring that fair and equal treatment is giving to these prisoners and also that international visitors be allowed to see facilities like Hutto.
ACLU is an organization that any immigrant can refer to for their rights when living inside the United States. They work to ensure that the civil liberties of all people are protected, which are given by the Constitution. There are many opportunities to engage in politically that are organized by the ACLU to ensure protection of immigrant rights.
I recently came across a special report done by the show mun2 News Specials on iTunes called, “Immigration Special.” These series of shows produced by mun2 concentrate on important issues affecting Latino youth and their families.
The episode on immigration focuses on the current situation facing the United States that could “create everyday people into criminals.” H.R. 4437 Provision was passed on December 16, 2005, stating that “Undocumented presence in the United States would be considered a felony.” This resolution also stated, “Anyone assisting an undocumented individual to reside or remain in the United States knowingly would be liable for criminal penalties and up to five years in prison.” Additionally, H.R. 4427 would have provided government funding to build border fences costing $3.2 million a mile. (source: Library of Congress)
On May 1, 2006, in Los Angeles, CA, young adults took to the streets in reaction to the amendments taking place in Congress by carrying Mexican flags, shouting “Si se puede,” and holding a banner saying, “We also want to be Americans.” These protestors wanted to stop proposition H.R. 4437 from being passed.
Many students living in the United States are children of immigrants, illegal and legal. The resolutions debated in Congress will have a profound effect on their education and future life goals. This episode follows the life a student protestor named Fermin Vasquez. He does not have legal documentation to live in the United States and wants to support those students who want to attend college, but do not have the proper documentation to do so. They are not able to apply for financial aid and cannot afford a higher education. Fermin Vasquez says that many high school students have immigrant parents and they feel as if they are being prevented from going to school because of their parents illegal status and lack of documentation.
Tuition rates all over the nation are rising at colleges and universities. AB 540 is a California law that “allows qualified immigrant students to pay in-state college tuition instead of out-of-state tuition.” (source: California State Legislature).
A Student Led Immigrant Rights March was held to promote amnesty for illegal immigrants currently living inside the United States. The resolutions debated in Congress will affect these students if their parents are deported. Many parents fled their countries to escape from war in their home countries and to escape political persecution. Most of these parent’s children are U.S. citizens. What will happen to the children if their parents are deported?
The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) is an organization to fight for immigrant rights for all kinds of immigrants. They organize marches, contact the press, and mobilize people to act. They want to pass the American Dream Act that states, “Qualified undocumented students would be eligible for college funding and gain a path to legalization” (Library of Congress).
This episode continues to follow the life of Fermin Vasquez and demonstrates how he participates as an active member of CHIRLA. They show him preparing for the AP exams, dressing for prom, accepting a scholarship, marching in the streets, and meeting politicians in Washington, D.C.
Fermin’s family background is very common for a Hispanic student in America’s public school system. He does great in school, but is unable to attend college. This is a common occurrence for many students from all parts of the world, not solely the Hispanic community. The youth and education of these students is what groups like CHIRLA are fighting to protect. As the debate continues today in Congress over immigrant rights, it is important to remember that a vast majority of immigrants are in the public education system. These students are part of American culture and society and will one day contribute to their knowledge and skills to the American economy and working class.
In the finals words of Fermin in this special produced by mun2, “This is my story. This is who I am and I can’t change that.”
A great part that has attributed to American culture is immigrants. Many would say all Americans are either descendents of immigrants or are themselves first generation immigrants. Walt Whitman has said, “Here is not merely a nation, but a teeming nation of nations.” Most of us can trace our families to the day they first arrived in the United States in records found at Ellis Island in New York. Unless we are pure Native Americans, we each come from some different place in the world.
The poem by Emma Lazarous titled, “The New Colossus,” can be found engraved on the Statue of Liberty. It has been used by many as an identification point for those who have arrived to the United States through New York.
“Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Do these words still hold the same valuable meaning for today’s immigrants to the United States?
There are many reasons why people seek to live in America. Many people have fled their native homelands due to political, ethnic, or religious persecution. Additionally, many seek a greater opportunity offered to them by the United States in contrast to their country of origin. During the time of the great American Frontier, land was cheap and easy to find which attracted many people to the United States. What continue to be the driving forces of immigrants today? The U.S. continues to draw people because there are still higher wages available and many continue to immigrant due to political and religious inequalities.
There are three primary characteristics of American life that appeals to many people wanting to come to America. These are political freedom, religious tolerance, and economic opportunity. Also because the U.S. is considered a “nation of nations” many people coming to the United States have found it easier to assimilate into American culture compared to other countries.
Referring back to the question posed after Emma Lazarus’s poem, it seems as if her words give the same meaning for today’s immigrant. The Statue of Liberty remains to be a symbol of freedom, hope, and opportunity. The case for today’s uprising debate of immigration, however, is no longer about providing a home for the tired and poor, but the issue at stake is centralized around providing equal opportunity and the struggle of illegal versus legal immigrant.
The immigrants of today are primarily of Hispanic origin. They come from all over Central America and South America for an equal opportunity to live as a United States American. It is evident that these people are not pleased with the policy initiatives set forth by the current Bush administration. Immigration remains a major issue of U.S. and Latin American Relations. According to Michael Shifter at the Inter-American Dialogue, the U.S. must develop a new foreign policy response to Latin America as a way to decrease the strain that has been forming. There has been a distancing between the U.S. and Latin America. Many Latin American countries are developing stronger connections with other countries besides the U.S. for economic and other political purposes. On one hand, however, immigration remains a top priority of the U.S.-Latin American relationship. The building of the wall along the U.S.-Mexican border is a major concern among Latin Americans. It poses as a humiliation to Hispanic countries as if to say, “We don’t trust you. We don’t want you.” Michael Shifter believes that a major cause of these ideas is because the U.S. is only concerned about its domestic policies and creates immigration policy only for its own interest.
The wall that may be built along the U.S.-Mexican border will not serve as a symbol of opportunity and freedom like the Statue of Liberty serves to those coming to America from across the Atlantic Ocean. In this sense Emma Lazarus’s poem will not serve the same symbolic meaning for Hispanic immigrants.
The rights of illegal immigrants. Wait, do people who cross into a country illegally without proper documentation, do they even have any rights? Surely they are not allowed to share the same kind of privileges and liberties that a legal immigrant or a native citizen are allowed to exercise and celebrate.
The other night I put on my favorite cable news channel and the news story that caught my interest was of a man, who entered the United States illegally, suing the United States government because he felt that his basic rights were being violated. The basic right he was fighting for was the right to marry his U.S. citizen fiancé. Read the article at http://www.timesleader.com/news/20070427_27marry_tmb_ART.html for more details about this case.
This immigrant marriage case is very common in today’s society. It’s nothing new that the issue of marriage has been on the “list of things to do” for lawmakers all over the nation with regards to same sex marriage. You have probably heard tales of people crossing the border so that they are able to become a legal U.S. resident or citizen and soon after their commitments of love are suddenly broken. Can illegal immigrants legally marry in the United States?
To find out about your local area’s procedures of marriage between a U.S. citizen and an alien, the best thing to do is call your county clerks. These procedures vary area to area and different documentation may be required to acquire a legal marriage certificate.
According to the United States Immigration Support website (www.usimmigrationsupport.org/), a spouse of a U.S. citizen is able to apply for a green card. “Every year over 450,000 thousand United States citizens marry foreign-born individuals and petition for them to obtain a permanent residency (Green Card) in the United States. Spouses of U.S. citizens are considered "immediate relatives" under immigration laws, therefore they are excluded from all numerical quota limitations. This means that there is an unlimited number of Green Cards available to foreign nationals who marry U.S. citizens.” Keep in mind, however, these are aliens/foreign nationals who have gone through the proper procedures and are legal immigrants and did not enter the U.S. through illegal means.
On the other hand, what happens to an illegal alien seeking marriage? According to WikiAnswers.com:
“An illegal alien does not automatically become legal through marriage. The US citizen spouse must initiate the process, which could take anywhere from a few months to a few years. If the illegal alien entered the US without inspection (snuck in) s/he will not be able to become legal without leaving and once s/he leaves, s/he will have the 10 year bar to deal with. The spouse will have to file for a waiver of that bar.”
In 2005 the House of Representative debated the Immigration Reform Bill. In this bill there was a section about immigrants and marriage that was discussed by Congressman Gary Miller.
“Penalties for Marriage: Sets penalties — including fines, up to 10 years imprisonment, or both— for knowingly misrepresenting a marriage in an immigration document or during an immigration proceeding, and provides fines and sentences of between two and 20 years for individuals who enter into two or more marriages to evade immigration laws, as well as those who facilitate or arrange such marriages.”
There are efforts in Congress to modify marriage laws that many believe are necessary and a way to help solve the negative effects of illegal immigration inside the United States. Marriage should be protected for all U.S. citizens and immigrants, but this is a right that should not be granted to those who illegally immigrant into the United States and expect to then be recognized as legal residents.
As part of the requirement to successfully complete my blog, I have chosen two articles from a book called Same Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum.
“The Bells Are Ringing…Marriage, Marriage, Everywhere” by John O’Sullivan
In this article, John O’Sullivan from the National Review, Inc., discusses his viewpoints against same sex marriage. O’Sullivan identifies various elements of the politics of culture. The first of these elements of culture are the private and public sectors that are affected by same sex marriage. O’Sullivan refers to the public institution of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the New York Times, the social movements of the 1964 Civil Right Act, family, and the identity of the entire Western world. With regards to the forms of the elements of the political culture, O’Sullivan relates to the “construction and naturalization of discourses” of the ideology of gay marriage. He argues that there will be two revolutions of the discourse of marriage: there must be a religious revival and limitations placed on judicial review.
“A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage” by Jack McKinney
In his article, “A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage,” Jack McKinney is arguing in support for gay marriage. His main arguments lie within various elements. First, McKinney refers to a Virginian statute that at one point in history forbade interracial marriage. He believes there is a discrimination against sexual minorities. He argues that marriage is a civil right and he blames the church for the denial of such a basic civil right. He refers to the biblical lives and messages of Jesus Christ and Paul the apostle to show that . . . . .. To summarize even more briefly, McKinney is taking a very religious viewpoint on the “yea” side of the line to same sex marriage. He is co-opting the religious claims of the orthodox and making them liberal.
The dominant frame here is that of a religious argument. One is saying that there must be a religious revival to sanctify marriage within the political system while the other is arguing that in religion there is no discrimination.
McKinney makes several references to the past and religion, citing the Bible. For example, Jesus and Paul symbolized equality and non-discrimination of all types of people during their lifetime, which is also prophesized in the Bible. He relates this religious view from the past to today’s struggle of discrimination against race, ethnicity, and, now, sexual orientation.
O’Sullivan offered a solution to the debate of same sex marriage. He suggests that society and government will then have created three recognized types of “marriage” institutions. The first is the traditional church marriage that is not from the government and only between a man and a woman. The second type of institutional marriage is a civil marriage, which would be open to any combination of genders between two people. The third result from legislation would be household partnerships that would permit any number of people to have a partnership. O’Sullivan suggests that these are the results if “gay marriage is to be forced on us by nondemocratic bodies,” meaning from the changing of societal norms.
So what is the moral decision to make on this issue? Is marriage defined in religious terms only between a man and woman or is it another forum where discrimination exists? It is obvious that in today’s society there is a changing marriage trend additional to the debate of same sex marriage. Divorce rates are increasing and the traditional family ideal is evaporating as there are more and more single mothers raising their children. The problem we face is the difficulty of defining what is a marriage and there must be pressure placed upon legislatures to conitue the fight to define marriage between a man and woman. Otherwise, the conventional term of marriage must be abolished. I foresee an eventual deterioration of what marriage is suppose to be and the family.
March 1, 2007, to March 3, 2007, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference was held at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C. I was in attendance and saw various speakers in the large ballrooms. I had gone out to lunch and heard a motorcade pass by, sirens flaring loudly. Who was it? Former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani. I had missed his surprise visit by 10 minutes!
The events at CPAC and Giuliani’s visit were all pertinent to the arising Republican presidential prospects 2008. This conference was where conservative political activists had the opportunity to debate and express their ideas about current issues facing our nation and our world. These are the people who will influence the candidates for president and will have a major impact on politics in the future.
One of the topics hotly debated during the conference was the issue of immigration. Some of these exhibitors included:
• American Foreign Policy Council• National Center for Public Policy• National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation• Partnership for America• ConservativesBetrayed.com• Cato Institute• American Civil Rights Institute• National Legal and Policy Center• Center for Equal Opportunity• Hudson Institute• Center for Immigration Studies
These organizations only represent the few in attendance who play some kind of role with regards to the issue of immigration.
The panel I attended at CPAC on immigration was called, “On the Border: A Report Card on Immigration Reform in the States.” The speakers on the panel included: Chris Simcox, Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.; Senator Nancy Schaeffer from Georgia; Representative Steve King from Iowa; and Helen Krieble, Vernon K. Krieble Foundation. Helen Krieble began the panel discussion by identifying that the current crisis the nation is facing is border security and the temporary worker situation. She addressed a concept of a worker program that would only permit a certain number of visas based upon the number of jobs available. This would be a market-based response to the immigration problem. Krieble also proposed that there would be a use of private enterprises to help pay for migrant workers, not federal employee appropriations.
The next panelist was Steve King. He argued that the federal government must maintain some accountability. King also argued that the reason there are problems with migrant worker programs because of powerful business interests, companies have been taking advantage of lack of enforcement, and there are people who will always break the law. He states that 4.7% of the working force is consisted of illegal immigrants. He believes America is “sacrificing the rule of law for cheap labor.” He claims that the price for illegal immigrants are American lives as a result of recent violent actions along the U.S. and Mexican border.
Senator Schaeffer from Georgia stated in her time at the panel that there are not jobs in the United States Americans do not want. She does not support the idea of a guest worker plan. She claims there are large numbers of illegal immigrants in public schools. They are draining public annual funds.
The last panelist was Chris Simcox who gave a report from the border on the front lines. He referred to the drug cartels that are swarming the borders. Simcox emphasized that many of the murders and other crimes committed along the borders are from actions of illegal aliens. 17 murders in Phoenix, Arizona, were a result from drug trafficking by illegal immigrants, according to Simcox. He strongly believes that in order to stop these crimes, there needs to be a strong enforcement of immigration laws.
It’s clear that the issue many of these speakers have addressed is the issue of illegal immigration versus immigration as a whole. They have highlighted that the problems of illegal immigration affects the economy and the public school system. Additionally, the problem of illegal immigration occurs at the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, which needs better enforcement. In other words the primary issue the conservative side is grappling with is the problems of illegal immigration and what function of government should handle it. What should the states do to enforce illegal immigration? Is this a problem to be solved by only the federal government? What is the best way to act?
