Monday, June 11, 2007

It's Amnesty, Governor

Gov. Janet Neapolitano of Arizona, in the Washington Post:

No one favors illegal immigration.

Well, there's plenty who want an open border without regard to immigration law, and there's people who want immigration law to give everybody a green light, so I'm not sure that's true.

For 20 years our country has done basically nothing to enforce the 1986
legislation against either the employers who hired illegal immigrants or those
who crossed our borders illegally to work for them. Accordingly, our current
system is, effectively, silent amnesty.

Up until a few years ago our government was running sweeps of urban employers to halt illegal immigration. There's been a surge this century in illegal immigration, in part because the Bush Administration refuses to do what works, and in part because the government of Mexico is wholeheartedly supportive of the idea. So again, I don't think that's true.

We haven't caught the arsonists who torch the hills of Southern California each summer for the past few years; that failure doesn't amount to "silent amnesty".
· A man in the United States illegally was pulled over in Phoenix and charged
with driving under the influence. Immigration officers arrested him, his wife
and their 19-year-old son, who were also here illegally. An aunt says that their
12-year-old daughter -- who is an American citizen -- cries every day for the
family members who had to leave her behind. This is a fair immigration system?

Yes. Immigration policy doesn't resolve custody. They are free to bring their daughter back home with them.
The Immigration Customs and Enforcement agency has sent several top-ranking
students from Arizona State University to a camp in Eloy, Ariz., to await
deportation to countries they have never lived in. The students have earned top
marks, have never been in serious legal trouble and by all measures are primed
to become productive members of our economy. This is a wise immigration policy?

No. They should have been deported long before they started consuming state educational resources.
A team from an Arizona high school that has a high percentage of immigrant
students went to Upstate New York in 2002 to compete in a science fair. After
winning the top prize, the students crossed into Canada to see Niagara Falls --
and were stopped at the border when they tried to return. After nine hours of
interrogation they were allowed back into the United States, but a years-long
legal battle ensued over whether they should be deported. We spent precious law
enforcement resources on these high school students rather than on combating
putative terrorist threats or, indeed, on infectious tuberculosis carriers. This
is good homeland security?

Excellent, if they're questioning everybody as they should be doing, even high school students. Aren't the custodial adults responsible for abiding by all federal and state laws on their field trips? They did understand they were leaving the United States, did they not?

Don't label me soft on illegal immigration.

Why not? You seem willing to grant exceptions to immigration law at every turn.
It is fundamentally unfair and unrealistic to suggest that our system remain as
it is and ignore the 12 million who ran the gantlet at the border and managed to
find work in our country. It is not "amnesty" to require these individuals to
earn the privilege of citizenship, as have the millions of immigrants who came
before them.

I accuse her of being buttery-soft on illegal immigration because once they "run the gauntlet" and land in America, she wants them left alone. Congress can "require" they pursue citizenship, but as she's well aware, million of "immigrants" want nothing to do with Los Estados Unidos except to earn its dollars, and the whole point of "comprehensive reform" is to rewrite the laws to ignore those 12 millions.

No comments: