Saturday, June 24, 2006

Know-Nothings are Do-Nothings

The anti-immigrant Know-Nothings in the House rushed the enforcement only HR 4437 through in December.

Did they call long drawn-out hearings? Nope.

They just made sure the bill would pass by slapping the word "Antiterrorism" into the title.

I don't know about you, but if I got called to vote on a bill I never read and saw the magic word "Antiterrorism," I'd vote "Aye" and know I couldn't be accused of voting against something that was labeled "Antiterrorism."

Six months after they passed HR 4437, House Republicans are calling for "hearings" before they do the real work of hammering out a difficult compromise between their unenforceable enforcement-only House Bill and the Senate Bill (S. 2611) that provides for comprehensive immigration reform.

The Know-Nothings in the House have a chance to Do Something about our nation's broken immigration system.

Instead, they want to stall and delay and Do-Nothing.

They want hearings. The hearings are not planned for primetime TV lights in DC.

They are plannning to hold these so-called hearings back in their Districts during the summer when anyone who might attend or read about them in the paper will be away on vacation and focused on vacation.

Why did they not study immigration thoroughly before passing HR 4437?

If HR 4437 is so vital for Border Security and Anti-terrorism, how can we afford further delay?

Are the border-crossing terrorists calling a time-out for summertime hearings and lemonade back on Main Street?

Are the House Know-Nothings also shameless cynical Do-Nothings?

The undocumented Irish and their Irish-American supporters are doing something about immigration.

We know we can't afford to wait. We won't go away and let the cynical House Know-Nothings slip another horrible bill by when nobody is watching.

The only place we are going is back to Washington for a massive Lobby Day and Rally in on Wednesday June 28, 2006.

They want hearings? Well, we're gonna give them an earful next Wednesday.

Join us. Call your Congressman and tell him to stop stalling and pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

7 comments:

skara brae said...

Didn't the Irish just last year vote in a referendum to tighten their own immigration rules, specifically to discontinue automatic citizenship by birth?
Why do I smell hypocracy?

Sean said...

You might smell it, but you can't spell it.

There is no "hypocrisy" in the expressed opinion of a first generation Irish-American.

My support of Senate legislation that would grant a path to earned legalized status to the undocumented Irish has nothing to do with changes Ireland might make to its citizenship policy.

The US policy of citizenship by birth here is long established and not at issue.

The issue is the future of the Irish in America, not the immigration policy of Ireland.

skara brae said...

sean;

Why don't we change the issue to reciprocol immigration between Ireland and America? If we had better terms for living and working on the Emerald Isle, we might be more open to advancing more liberal terms for Irish nationals visiting, working, and living here.

Limiting the debate is unfair.

The US policy of citizenship by birth is not long established and should be put on the table. We should negotiate in good faith. What do you have to offer? What do you want us to give up? How can we meet on common ground?

Anonymous said...

citizenship by birth goes back pretty far, read US v Wong Kim Ark (1892 US supreme Court case).

if you want to change citizenship by birth, then renounce yours.

skara brae said...

The Ark 1892 Supreme Court cases only proves my point. Basic principals of the case are the following.
At the time of his birth, both his parents were Chinese citizens, but living as resident aliens in San Francisco.
The fundamental rule of citizenship by birth includes all children of resident aliens born in this country


Had his parents not been resident aliens, Ark's petition would have been denied. Citizenship by birth is not automatic in this case. Ark citizenship is conditional - the condition being that both his parents are legal permanent residents.

skara brae said...

The Ark 1892 Supreme Court cases only proves my point. Basic principals of the case are the following.
At the time of his birth, both his parents were Chinese citizens, but living as resident aliens in San Francisco.
The fundamental rule of citizenship by birth includes all children of resident aliens born in this country


Had his parents not been resident aliens, Ark's petition would have been denied. Citizenship by birth is not automatic in this case. Ark citizenship is conditional - the condition being that both his parents are legal permanent residents.

skara brae said...

The Ark 1892 Supreme Court cases only proves my point. Basic principals of the case are the following.
At the time of his birth, both his parents were Chinese citizens, but living as resident aliens in San Francisco.
The fundamental rule of citizenship by birth includes all children of resident aliens born in this country


Had his parents not been resident aliens, Ark's petition would have been denied.

Citizenship by birth is not automatic in this case. Ark citizenship is conditional - the condition being that both his parents are legal permanent residents.