OCALA, Fla., July 31, 2014 — The Republican-controlled U.S. House is considering a legislative conference with the Democratic-dominated Senate to amend an immigration bill signed by George W. Bush in 2008.
This law, in long and short, established the current immigration policy for unaccompanied illegal alien minors. While President Barack Obama wrote executive mandates which substitute for outright amnesty, Bush’s law brought forth the complicated, lengthy deportation system.
If the GOP conferences, there is the possibility that an amnesty bill passed by the Senate over two years ago might come back to life. That is why immigration control advocates oppose conferencing without exception.
“There are a lot of reasons for the economic doldrums we’re in,” Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told me in 2012. “Whatever our immigration policy, the business cycle won’t go away. But at a time when more than 22 million Americans are unemployed or involuntarily underemployed, the idea that we are continuing to import 100,000 *legal* foreign workers each month is absurd. Curbing immigration wouldn’t make the Great Recession go away, but it would soften the blow for large numbers of people, especially the less-skilled and young workers just entering the job market.”
It isn’t all about dollars and cents, though.
“Immigration control needs to be a central feature of a modern nation’s approach to security,” Krikorian later said. “While we will always face the conventional kinds of military threats, the terrorist threat to our homeland (which can come not just from non-state groups like al Qaeda but also states like Iran or North Korea) is a danger we will have to face for the indefinite future. And terrorists can’t attack our territory if they can’t get here. This is not to say that we need only security-related immigration measures, such as better watch-lists or background checks.
“A look at the records of the dozens of terrorists who have been active in the U.S. shows that even ordinary immigration enforcement would have stopped many of them. For instance, not one of the 19 9/11 hijackers should have been granted a visa on normal grounds — they all had profiles that almost screamed “future illegal alien,” meaning that young, unattached men from the Third World, without money and without homes or other encumbrances at home, are very likely to just stay after their period of stay in the U.S. expires.
“In another example, three of the Ft. Dix plotters were illegal aliens who had been stopped by police dozens of times for traffic and other offences, and yet no one ever checked their immigration status.”
Surely these inconvenient truths give us something to consider. At the very least, it should be clear why there is such revulsion toward immigration amnesty.
Do you think your elected officials really care about you?
Mansur Gidfar, Communications Director of Represent.Us, explains how Congress gets corrupted on the latest episode of Cotto & Company.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.