The Republican Party has justified its recent rightward lurch on an array of issues, including immigration, in the name of restoring the Constitution's original meaning and preserving the rule of law. Their most extreme policy prescriptions are frequently couched in spurious constitutional or rule-of-law frames or by vague references to the will of the people. But their grossly contorted re-imaginings transform the face of the Constitution from "Mona Lisa" sublime to "Devouring Saturn" grotesque.
Take the most prominent example, health care reform: Conservatives didn't simply trash it on policy grounds -- they fallaciously assaulted the law as an illegitimate and unconstitutional power grab. And obscuring extremist positions under the "rule of law" cloak has become a standard tactic by Republicans in the immigration arena. In the last few years, we've seen immigration restrictionists in Congress call for a radical reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment's constitutional guarantee of citizenship to those born here. We've also watched Republican legislators and governors -- mostly in the South -- argue that states have the right to regulate and enforce their own immigration policy. The Supreme Court is now considering those claims as well.
But the rejection of well-settled legal constructs in favor of extremist positions has also been replicated in the policy arena. Where common sense once produced middle-of-the-road, bipartisan policy prescriptions, disdain for pragmatism now produces extreme proposals that are defended on rule of law grounds.
Nowhere has this been more obvious than in current Republican prescriptions for addressing the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. As recently as 2006, 23 Senate Republicans -- in a Republican-controlled Senate -- voted with 38 Democrats and one Independent to restore legality by requiring undocumented workers to register, pay fines, learn English, and go to the back of the line in order to earn the privilege of citizenship. Why? Because no one believed then, as no one really believes now, that, as a practical matter, we would, could, or should pursue policies of mass expulsion that would drive millions of undocumented immigrants and their millions of U.S. citizen spouses and children out of the country.
That is, no one seriously believed it until the presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney announced his extreme immigration policy platform of "self-deportation." His idea, also known in restrictionist circles as attrition through enforcement, embraces the very concept of mass expulsion that the Republican Senate categorically rejected six short years ago. It envisions a suite of policies that will make life so miserable for undocumented immigrants and their families that they will pack up and leave the country.
Romney and his surrogates defend this proposal as necessary to restore the rule of law. But states and municipalities that have tried to adopt similarly harsh enforcement measures show that the exact opposite is true. The policies don't drive undocumented immigrants -- nearly two-thirds of whom have lived in the United States for more than a decade -- out of the country. Instead those policies drive people further underground or to more friendly locales. Experience shows that by pushing people farther outside the system, Romney's approach would actually deepen systemic dysfunction and perpetuate the illegality Republicans claim to abhor.
The other frequently proffered justification for this Republican shift to immigration extremism is that the public demands it. But anyone who has even casually perused the polling data knows that nothing could be further from the truth. For years now, Americans of all political stripes have consistently supported a rational solution that balances border security with a tough but practical earned path to legal status for the undocumented.
Republican politicians nonetheless assert that this balanced approach, which garners overwhelming public support including majority support among self-identified Republican voters, will not fly. Why not? Because it can't get the votes needed to pass, they tell us. But why can't it get the votes to pass? Because Republican politicians won't vote for it. Circularity much?
In fact, this is exactly the circular logic Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) wants us to accept as his rationale for lowering the bar on citizenship for DREAM Act kids. Sen. Rubio announced plans to introduce a bill similar in many respects to the DREAM Act: It would provide legal status to undocumented immigrants who were brought here at a young age, graduated from high school, demonstrated good moral character, and attended college or entered the military. But here's the kicker: It would not provide, as the current iteration of the DREAM Act does, an earned path to permanent residence or citizenship.
The Florida senator defends this limitation as necessary to prevent amnesty, the ultimate anti-rule of law label Republicans loosely affix to any policy they dislike. (Curiously, actual tax amnesties for the uber-wealthy over the last several years generated no comparable heartburn among Republican elected officials.) But this amnesty argument that gets trotted out whenever convenient simply obscures the reality that the party is badly hamstrung by this far-right tilt. The truth is that even this stripped-down version of the DREAM Act will not garner the Republican support needed from House Republicans in order to move it forward.
To be sure, Sen. Rubio deserves applause for publicly expressing a desire to find a way forward on immigration at least vis-à-vis the "blameless" kids. He clearly understands and has eloquently articulated how destructive his party's position on immigration has been in its efforts to win over Hispanic voters. Even Romney has recently acknowledged to his donors the depth of this problem and his hope that a Republican DREAM Act alternative (presumably Sen. Rubio's) will help rehabilitate the party's image.
But by justifying this DREAM-less proposal as necessary to prevent "amnesty", Sen. Rubio simply follows the current Republican playbook. He empowers rather than marginalizes the extremists in his party by regurgitating this rule of law frame and lending a thin patina of legitimacy to their position. Maybe that's the best he can do given the Republican Party's rapid move to the fringe.
Brandishing the rule of law argument as a political weapon instead of actually trying to restore legality diminishes our democracy. That's a hefty price to pay in the defense of extremism.
Marshall Fitz is the Director of Immigration Policy at American Progress.
Follow Marshall Fitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@marshallfitz
Why do you think foreigners whose parents violated our laws should receive an automatic green card, yet legal foreign students with law abiding parents don't? Because you want to reward law breakers, to motivate more people to break our laws, to erode American sovereignty until it no longer exists? That's the only reasons I can see.
Mexico Law
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined and imprisoned as felons:
- Foreigners who fail a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
- Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
- Foreigners who violate their visa sentence to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121).
- Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico such as working with out a permit will be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony.
“A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
- Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
- Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are criminals:
- A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
- Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
As an American Born Worker I object to the characterization of me and my cohorts as close minded bigots who would have never succeeded without help from immigrants. Webster's definition of Discrimination is: "the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually; prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment." And Webster’s definition of Discriminating is: “Making a distinction.” If one categorically calls all Immigrants great and categorically calls all Native Born Americans close minded bigots who would have never succeeded without help from Immigrants that seems to me to fit the definition of discrimination quite well. And such dedication to this idea seems to fit Webster's definition of Bigot: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Do you really believe this idea that American Born people could not have succeeded without the help of immigrants?
Let me be clearer about the form of bigotry I find so distasteful. It consists of someone who is intolerant of others based on their race, religion, gender, ethnicity or country of origin.
Section 1. 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.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Congress can easily codify what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. The Amendment Author clearly stated that Section 1 was not intended to give Citizenship to everyone. Since the Amendment took effect U.S. Court Stare Decisis established an "owe allegiance too" test for bestowing birthright Citizenship.
The Wong Kim Ark case decided what this means for the children of LEGEL Immigrants. But since Congress created the possibility of Illegal Immigration in the early 1900’s they have remained silent on how Illegal Immigration fits into the "owe allegiance too" test.
The government’s operating assumption has been that the children of Illegal Immigrants are automatically Citizens. But this has no supporting court precedent or Congressional mandate. Plyler v. Doe only refers to the ability of Congress to define the correct interpretation. In Katzenbach v. Morgan the Supreme Court said: “Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining the need for and nature of legislation to secure Fourteenth Amendment guarantees.”
This is not a "well settled legal construct". Clarifying “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” for the children of Illegal Immigrants has never been settled.
1. Ask if the person agrees with rounding up and arresting all Illegal Immigrants for deportation.
2. This question tends to conjure up ugly visions of excessive police action in the mind of the person being polled so the person says no.
3. The Pollster then claims that since the person said no, it means that the person supports some form of a "pathway to legalization".
4. DO NOT ask if the person being polled supports attrition by enforcement that encourages all Illegal Immigrants to go home. The few polls that do ask this question usually find that 70% to 80% of Americans favor this course of action. This answer is unwanted so leaving it out forces the person being polled to select from only the answers the pollster wants to get.
5. Repeat this same poll once every few months so that it can be said that there is a long history of polls that show a "pathway to legalization" is preferred, even though it is not.
6. Include Illegal Immigrants in your poll about what to do about Illegal Immigrants.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
- Abraham Lincoln
Also, there's a big difference between theoretical support and support for actual bills. The bad faith actual bills are such watered down fraud magnets the public sees through them. E.g., "require to learn English" in the poll becomes "promise to register for a class (and we won't hold you to even that)". "Pay back taxes" is another joke. Perhaps the biggest joke is the "background check". For tens of millions. That was just a rubber stamp for a much smaller amnesty last time. All of this is mere window dressing, sugar coating for the bitter pill of mass legalization with no real strings or standards.
Why is it that this author believes that if there are no jobs for them to access, Illegal Immigrants won't just leave the USA and either return to their home countries or go to some other country that does not stop them from working? After all, supposedly they left someplace else because of a lack of jobs. Why would they not then just leave the USA on their own if there is a lack of jobs for them here?
It cannot be both ways. To say that they came for jobs but will not leave if there are no jobs is ridiculously illogical. The only reason Illegal Immigrants would stay without a job is if they really came for some other reason. Maybe to get welfare payments or to engage in criminal activity?
The Latin countries most crying foul over our laws are unfair all have laws making Alabama look like they declared amnesty. Yet they're suing the various states for passing laws only effective in their own state boundaries.
Is the USA not a sovereign nation? Because our government tried to show compassion for desperate foreigners we now owe that to the rest of the world? That and much more, even our citizenship?
If we're no longer a sovereign nation and now subject to dictates of whatever Latin American propaganda demands, it's time that we deported far more illegal foreigners
Our immigration laws are not up for a vote on what foreigners want them to be. They are as they stand as they were made and approved by citizens. Just stepping over the border doesn't make anyone a citizen. Our neighboring country thinks it should but they're not interested in reciprocity.
As for citizens who don't like our laws and think they should be changed the answer is simple. Write to your congressman. If you're a congressman, you go represent that 30%!
Beware though; the 70% of us, Fox News aside, who disagree with amnesty will also be writing and voting. good luck!
They are essentially saying we don't even have the right to be! Obviously that's extremely radical in a world composed of sovereign nation states and is a complete denial of international law. Nations, by definition, are not legitimate and should not be allowed to exist. That's what they're saying whether they realize it or not.
------
"Why not? Because it can't get the votes needed to pass, they tell us. But why can't it get the votes to pass? Because Republican politicians won't vote for it."
The last bill of the type you speak of (in 2007) polled over 2 to 1 AGAINST:
"The immigration bill failed because a broad cross-section of the American people is opposed to it...Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters are opposed. Men are opposed. So are women. The young don't like it; neither do the no-longer-young. White Americans are opposed. Americans of color are opposed."
EVerify, even more ramped up border security, biometric card, a path to legalization or issuance of a non immigrant visa for anywhere from 1-5 years for qualified applicants,a relaxation of the 5,10 year bar.
.Uprooting millions of people who've otherwise lawfully resided for over a decade and who mostly have committed the equivalent of a civil misdemeanour, would be morally more wrong than the act of violation with regards to immig laws.The 5,10 year bars were put in there by FAIR,CIS lobbyists in 1996, otherwise these bars were not present. They cut off circular migration, the arbitrariness of receiving a visa was magnified following 911 and reaction post 911, causing migrants to stay, circular migration diminished. Immigration law is arcane in it's burdensomeness to immigrants in ways that are counterproductive to our interests as a country. Your attitude indicates political correctness which says: " These are my laws, however messed up they are, you abide, and if you fail to abide, you suffer, however messed up my laws are, because you want to come here." As a country have all sortsa amnesties in our legal system btw.