Monday, July 10, 2006
Conservatives and Immigration
Today's Wall Street Journal editorial agrees with comprehensive immigration reform: When border patrol agents don't have to chase down people coming here to work, they can concentrate on genuine threats, like gang members and terrorists. The real choice is between throwing more resources at an enforcement-only policy that has failed, or a larger reform that's had some past success in reducing illegal border crossings and meeting the demands of our economy and of human dignity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I guess I'm wondering how you tell the difference between and illegal honest hard worker, and an illegal terrorist/gangster? Can you tell me how exactly you would implement your idea?
First step, give the honest hard worker an opportunity for earned legal staus. The good guys won't hesitate to step up and get fingerprinted for a background check. Then you can focus on the bad guys and the mopes who don't come forward.
Ok, Clyde, good start. Should background checks include events from the old country, and crimes committed in the old country? For example, skipping out on child support; participation in torture or gang activity; involvement in sexual perversion, or drug use and/or sale? Where would you draw the line? Felonies? Misdemeanors? Crimes of passion? Lawsuits? Bigamy? Homosexuality? Child abandonment? Forgery? False passport or lying on visa application?
Briefly, answer me this - 1) should the background check include history in both the US and the home country (as well as any other countries of residence), or only the US? 2) what crimes or activities would disqualify the alien? 3) As a last point, who would pay for the investigation?
The senate bill says either a felony or three misdemeanors are you are not eligable
Are you implying that actions performed in the old country don't count?
Post a Comment