Can we agree on something? Immigration reform?
 

While the media reported that Eric Cantor's recent primary defeat was largely over immigration and orchestrated by the "anti immigration tea party", one polling result was particularly striking:

72% of voters in Cantor's district support the bipartisan immigration reform legislation on the table in Washington right now to only 23% who are opposed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...b_5483916.html

After reading that, I wanted to confirm how the poll defined "immigration reform". So, here's the way the poll asked the question:

There is bipartisan immigration reform legislation being debated in Washington. The bill would secure our borders, block employers from hiring undocumented immigrants, and make sure that undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. with no criminal record register for legal status. If a long list of requirements is met over more than a decade, it provides eligibility for a path to citizenship. Would you support or oppose this proposal?

http://www.americansunitedforchange....sults61114.pdf

Now, the way that question is asked, if I were participating in that poll, I would have been in the 32% that "somewhat supported it". The only part that I don't support, and most conservatives that I speak to don't support, is the "path to citizenship" part.

I don't believe that individuals entering this country illegally should be entitled to the benefits if citizenship. I would be in favor of a pathway to "legal status" that would allow these individuals to remain in the US conditionally. I think most conservatives would agree on this.

Here's the Democrat plan for immigration reform: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...63R5HP20100430. I agree with it, for the most part, with the exception of the "pathway to citizenship" piece.

My other issue is trusting that the government will enforce any agreement on immigration reform. We already have laws that are meant to control immigration that are being actively "ignored" (according to ICE officers and a Federal Judge in Texas). I also, for example, agree with the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers that the current flood of Central American refugees across our southern borders is no accident or coincidence, but it being orchestrated, possibly with the assistance of US authorities. (but that may be grist for another thread).

Anyway, two questions:

Is there agreement in this forum at all on what the components or basic principles of immigration reform should look like (I've articulated my thoughts above)?

Are there objective principles / measures of enforcement that we can agree on, and then in turn hold our elected officials and government entities accountable to?

As long as the Democrats want immigration reform for cheap votes and Republicans (more specifically, industry) want it for cheap and compliant labor, it's all talk anyway. Democrats benefit electorally from Republican intransigence, so much of their talk in favor of immigration reform is just that - talk.

As for a path to citizenship, the path has been made so arduous that it's more of an Outward Bound obstacle course. Those willing/able to go through these hoops are probably more deserving of citizenship than the xenophobic 'Baggers trying to stop it from occurring (while living in states that suck disproportionately from the Federal tit).

As for a "legal status" short of citizenship, it is a decidedly bad idea. The Germans did it with the Gastarbeiters (guest workers, mostly Turkish) and it brings with it a mechanism for continued exploitation. In short, it solves employers's desires for cheap and compliant labor (what the GOP wants), while treating the immigrants unfairly (not to mention not giving Democrats the votes they want). It's a non-starter.

Curious, what happens to the illegals with a criminal record? Deportation? Does anyone think they are going to simply register so they can be deported?

Check out this link: http://www.nafbpo.org/, and the section titled "There will be no background checks".

Honorable military or other worthy voluntary public services for eligibility for application to citizenship could be considered.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Immigration reform means a lot of things to different people.

I for one belief that any reform is meaningless unless our borders are
tightly secure since every reform is an incentive for more people to jump
the borders. That cannot be good for especially disease control, terrorist scrutiny.

Right now our Southern borders is so "open" Central Americans are dumping their children there.

Democrats have gone soft with respect to immigration. Illegals just in the
countries are openly dictating their own terms to the government.

It was embarrassing to watch an illegal heckle the president.

Why is there no high level pressure put on Mexico and other Central
American Govts to stem the systematic, organised movement of juveniles towards the US border.

Since the U.S. is the Mexican drug lords biggest customer base they are rather busy with other problems.

As someone who jumped through all the hoops and came in the legal way I still favour the "pathway to citizenship" idea as anything else will lead to exploitation.

Secure borders what a laugh, there used to be a border crossing between Vermont and Quebec a the end of the road that ran up a string of islands in Lake Champlain. They closed it every Labor Day and did not reopen it until spring. There was a sign that said "Please report to the nearest Customs" which would have been Plattsburg NY.

Just my opinion, but I think folks in the current administration - ICE / DHC / HHS who knows - are complicit in this movement. The journey from Central America through Mexico is long, difficult and dangerous in a whole host of different ways. It is far too unlikely that children can traverse this distance without a whole heck of a lot of help from start to finish.

Then, on this end, the US Gov't has been remarkably quiet about this: the silence is deafening. If this were happening in other parts of the world, the media would be all over this story and calling it something like a "humanitarian crisis" or some such tripe.

The Mexican drug lords have nothing to do with this, unless they're somehow profiting from the movement of these kids through across their turf.