On Friday the Deseret News presents a "news" article, applauding the attempt of Salt Lake Catholic Bishop Wester "to tackle one of America's most contentious dilemmas: what to do about the country's undocumented workers and their families." On Sunday, the editorial staff says AMEN as part of its continuing crusade.
The "Migration" group (CCIR) the Bishop chairs reportedly decries the "un-Christian" treatment of immigrants and "hate speech" and "hate groups linked to the anti-immigration movement." Is it charitable for CCIR to use these terms against those with whom they disagree?
One can only wonder if these terms (hate, un-Christian, vitriol, extremist, etc.) can properly be applied to the majority of Americans who believe in protection of our borders. Those who believe that, yes, we should help our fellow man and work to relieve suffering, but the true helpers who believe in helping individually - not with the tax money of their fellow taxpayers.
Is it un-Christian to be considerate about those tens (hundreds) of thousands of people who are patiently waiting to come to this country of freedom - legally? Is it hate to say that THEIR rights, needs and opportunities should NOT be usurped by those who can relatively easily sneak across a porous border in the dark of night?
Should the problems be dismissed, out of hand, of the multitudinous victims of theft by the illegal aliens, of the very identity of American citizens? Is it racist that America has (and does) open its doors to multitudes of LEGAL immigrants?
Is it uncharitable to say that American taxpayers should not be required to pay for education of another country’s children? Is it really uncharitable to ask that the forced payment of costs be at least done in the language of THIS country?
I submit that there is a vast difference between migration and ILLEGAL immigration. Migration has such a benign aura, merely a movement from one place to another. Illegal or unauthorized aliens are in violation of Federal law
The solution is NOT to open the borders; - or, possibly even worse, declare AMNESTY for all the successful lawbreakers, then continue lip service to border control while we wait another twenty years for the next amnesty.
It is not zealotry, but patriotism, to believe in the Rule of Law. It is not hate, nor is it racism, to expect employers to obey employment laws. It is NOT uncharitable, nor is it bigotry, for American people to expect government, at ALL levels, to enforce laws against anyone who "conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such (unauthorized) alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation" (US Code Title 8-1324a)
Apparently the Federal Government is impotent in enforcing its immigration laws, due to the sheer volume of the problem it has allowed to happen. Rather than immigration reform (amnesty), it is time for States and local communities to step to the forefront and enforce those laws against what is now a virtual invasion.
In the meantime, we should all continue with our personal charitable acts towards all strangers within or midst while we work tirelessly and diligently towards protecting our sovereign country.
Regarding the "Migration" group (CCIR) that Utah’s Catholic Bishop Wester chairs reportedly decries the "un-Christian" treatment of immigrants and "hate speech" and "hate groups linked to the anti-immigration movement." Is it charitable for CCIR to use these terms against those with whom they disagree?
One can only wonder if these terms (hate, un-Christian, vitriol, extremist, etc.) can properly be applied to the majority of Americans who believe in protection of our borders. Those who believe that, yes, we should help our fellow man and work to relieve suffering, but the true helpers who believe in helping individually - not with the tax money of their fellow taxpayers.
Is it un-Christian to be considerate about those tens (hundreds) of thousands of people who are patiently waiting to come to this country of freedom - legally? Is it hate to say that THEIR rights, needs and opportunities should NOT be usurped by those who can relatively easily sneak across a porous border in the dark of night?
Should the problems be dismissed, out of hand, of the multitudinous victims of theft by the illegal aliens, of the very identity of American citizens? Is it racist that America has (and does) open its doors to multitudes of LEGAL immigrants?
Is it uncharitable to say that American taxpayers should not be required to pay for education of another country’s children? Is it really uncharitable to ask that the forced payment of costs be at least done in the language of THIS country?
I submit that there is a vast difference between migration and ILLEGAL immigration. Migration has such a benign aura, merely a movement from one place to another. Illegal or unauthorized aliens are in violation of Federal law
The solution is NOT to open the borders; - or, possibly even worse, declare AMNESTY for all the successful lawbreakers, then continue lip service to border control while we wait another twenty years for the next amnesty.
It is not zealotry, but patriotism, to believe in the Rule of Law. It is not hate, nor is it racism, to expect employers to obey employment laws. It is NOT uncharitable, nor is it bigotry, for American people to expect government, at ALL levels, to enforce laws against anyone who "conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such (unauthorized) alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation" (US Code Title 8-1324a)
Apparently the Federal Government is impotent in enforcing its immigration laws, due to the sheer volume of the problem it has allowed to happen. Rather than immigration reform (amnesty), it is time for States and local communities to step to the forefront and enforce those laws against what is now a virtual invasion.
In the meantime, we should all continue with our personal charitable acts towards all strangers within or midst while we work tirelessly and diligently towards protecting our sovereign country.
Showing posts with label DNews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DNews. Show all posts
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Monday, October 17, 2005
The DNews "Solution"
Editorial: The most pressing question about immigration
DNews learned little for their series:
" In the past, the Deseret Morning News has historically come out in favor of a guest worker program, much like the plan proposed by Rep. Chris Cannon. After putting together a definitive series of stories on the issue, we still feel the same. . . .
DNews learned little for their series:
" In the past, the Deseret Morning News has historically come out in favor of a guest worker program, much like the plan proposed by Rep. Chris Cannon. After putting together a definitive series of stories on the issue, we still feel the same. . . .
- The time for angry invective has now passed.
- The time for pressing to send all illegal aliens back home has passed.
- The time for pointing fingers, shaking heads and stomping feet has passed. It is time for America — and Utah — to adjust to a new reality. The Hispanic immigrant — legal and illegal — has become as much a part of society here as carrots in a stew. How we got into this predicament is a question for historians to ponder. . . ."
Comments:
Watch your "angry invective." replace it with reasoned rationales.
The time for pressing employers to obey the law and stop hiring illegals is here. The time for supporting and obeying US Law has been here for years.
The time for responsibility, nodding heads and measured paces is at hand.
As George Santayana said: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it!"
Did the 1986 amnesty solve the problem? No!
Will the new proposed Bush Cannon Hatch amnesty? NO!
Will the continuing tacit acceptance of illegality? Perhaps, if your goal is open borders and destruction of national sovereignty. (whoops, this might be considered angry)
Then I'll take my stew with potatoes, peas and okra (how about something new for a change) - thank you very much.
Friday, October 14, 2005
DNews Cost of Illegals
Continuing in the series on illegals, the Dnews brushes on (over) education costs to Utahns of illegals. "Providing illegal immigrants access to public education, health care and other social services costs Utah money. There's no question about that. The question is: How much?"
The first question that should be asked is WHY are we educating illegal alien children. The answer lies in a 1985 Supreme Court decision. Plyler v. Texas A briefer synopsis (and potential solution) can be found at Correcting Plyler Excerpt: "The answer to Plyler is political. The 14th Amendment itself says “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” [xx] Contrary to what most people today believe, the Supreme Court is not the sole interpreter of the Constitution. The Congress can and should pass legislation clarifying that the Equal Protection Clause cannot be construed to compel a state to provide discretionary benefits, including public education, to anyone who is not legally admitted into the United States. The legislation should specify that it is not subject to judicial review.
At one stroke, such a law would overturn Plyler v. Doe— and go a long way toward countering the growing belief that we have no choice but to pretend that illegal aliens are in fact American citizens."
Like the previously mentioned "anchor baby" interpretation of the 14th amendment, Congress could provide a legislative solution for this "unfunded mandate."
The first question that should be asked is WHY are we educating illegal alien children. The answer lies in a 1985 Supreme Court decision. Plyler v. Texas A briefer synopsis (and potential solution) can be found at Correcting Plyler Excerpt: "The answer to Plyler is political. The 14th Amendment itself says “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” [xx] Contrary to what most people today believe, the Supreme Court is not the sole interpreter of the Constitution. The Congress can and should pass legislation clarifying that the Equal Protection Clause cannot be construed to compel a state to provide discretionary benefits, including public education, to anyone who is not legally admitted into the United States. The legislation should specify that it is not subject to judicial review.
At one stroke, such a law would overturn Plyler v. Doe— and go a long way toward countering the growing belief that we have no choice but to pretend that illegal aliens are in fact American citizens."
Like the previously mentioned "anchor baby" interpretation of the 14th amendment, Congress could provide a legislative solution for this "unfunded mandate."
Monday, October 10, 2005
Deseret New Illegal Alien Series
The Deseret News has launched a seven part series on "undocumented workers" (politically correct term.) Regretably, it appears to be mainly a promotional, emotion laden propaganda piece apparently designed to prick Utahns' collective conscience to the plight of a few for the destruction of the principles and well being of many. In these United States, we either will have the "rule of law" or we will descend into the anarchy of no law at all followed by the tyranny of egalitarian results, open borders and eventual loss of sovereignty.
1 Note the error on automatic citizenship for children born in US as requiring Constitutional change; see HR 698-2005
This letter was submitted to the DNews to clarify the issue:
"As you purport to present "facts" in your extended series on illegal aliens, here is one error to correct. Rescinding the "right" to citizenship for those born in the US would NOT require a Constitutional Amendment. In fact, there is now legislation in Congress "To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens." HR698 currently has 45 sponsors (none from Utah), it presently languishes in the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, but did obtain nine new sponsors in September. Perhaps a polite communication to our representatives is in order."
This would be an ideal time to WRITE OR CALL all UTAH congressmen and request their support for and cosponsorship of HR698.
2 Perhaps even more egregious is this one 30 Year Illegal Deported
Excerpts: "Home is the United States, the country that threw him out a year ago to the day of this interview with the Deseret Morning News. . . . Though he had lived in the United States illegally for some 30 years, Fernandez-Vargas assured her everything would be fine. . . . A truck driver, Fernandez-Vargas climbed into one of the two semis he owns. . . . He has been deported at least three times. But other than immigration violations he has no criminal record, according to his FBI rap sheet. . . . In July 1970, the former INS apprehended him near Nogales, Ariz., driving 13 undocumented immigrants to Boise. He didn't drive them across the border, but he had climbed a border fence to pick up an employer's van at a pre-arranged spot. . . . In the early 1970s, he entered into a marriage of convenience with a 40ish woman in Wyoming, believing it would be a path to permanent residency. . . . He worked on a Ogden city maintenance crew and as a truck driver in the metal salvage business until buying his own rigs. He earned as much as $50,000 some years and has consistently filed an income tax return. . . . The government also claims Fernandez-Vargas misrepresented his immigration history on his 2003 permanent residency application, indicating he'd never been deported. He and his wife don't deny there was misrepresentation but blame it on an Ogden woman they found through a radio ad to do the paperwork. "
Granted he may have gotten a bad deal, but the question will eventually be decided in COURT where all matters of law are decided. One only has to ask if the DNews will be presenting a similar bleeding heart sob story about some who were NOT able to come to the US LEGALLY because they were not close enough to the border. I'm sure that are more than a few excellent examples cases. e.g.
1 Note the error on automatic citizenship for children born in US as requiring Constitutional change; see HR 698-2005
This letter was submitted to the DNews to clarify the issue:
"As you purport to present "facts" in your extended series on illegal aliens, here is one error to correct. Rescinding the "right" to citizenship for those born in the US would NOT require a Constitutional Amendment. In fact, there is now legislation in Congress "To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens." HR698 currently has 45 sponsors (none from Utah), it presently languishes in the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, but did obtain nine new sponsors in September. Perhaps a polite communication to our representatives is in order."
This would be an ideal time to WRITE OR CALL all UTAH congressmen and request their support for and cosponsorship of HR698.
2 Perhaps even more egregious is this one 30 Year Illegal Deported
Excerpts: "Home is the United States, the country that threw him out a year ago to the day of this interview with the Deseret Morning News. . . . Though he had lived in the United States illegally for some 30 years, Fernandez-Vargas assured her everything would be fine. . . . A truck driver, Fernandez-Vargas climbed into one of the two semis he owns. . . . He has been deported at least three times. But other than immigration violations he has no criminal record, according to his FBI rap sheet. . . . In July 1970, the former INS apprehended him near Nogales, Ariz., driving 13 undocumented immigrants to Boise. He didn't drive them across the border, but he had climbed a border fence to pick up an employer's van at a pre-arranged spot. . . . In the early 1970s, he entered into a marriage of convenience with a 40ish woman in Wyoming, believing it would be a path to permanent residency. . . . He worked on a Ogden city maintenance crew and as a truck driver in the metal salvage business until buying his own rigs. He earned as much as $50,000 some years and has consistently filed an income tax return. . . . The government also claims Fernandez-Vargas misrepresented his immigration history on his 2003 permanent residency application, indicating he'd never been deported. He and his wife don't deny there was misrepresentation but blame it on an Ogden woman they found through a radio ad to do the paperwork. "
Granted he may have gotten a bad deal, but the question will eventually be decided in COURT where all matters of law are decided. One only has to ask if the DNews will be presenting a similar bleeding heart sob story about some who were NOT able to come to the US LEGALLY because they were not close enough to the border. I'm sure that are more than a few excellent examples cases. e.g.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)