Immigration "Debate" in the Press: Still Slanted to the Left, Pro-Illegal, Pro-Amnesty

Immigration reform is the hot topic in the press--again.

It has been a hot topic for the last 30 years, especially with NAFTA and the surge of border crossings. All of this after the grand amnesty signed into law by Ronald Reagan, and one would think that all of these problems would be solved.

Sadly, the open borders lobbies--yes, there are more than one--are more interested in cheap labor, easy membership, and more votes for their pet causes.

Who ends up picking up the tab? You and me. A populist revolt has erupted throughout the country, however, and

What happens when both ends of the immigration debate talk it out? They challenge each other to create a reform bill.

Santos Aviles, who as a teenager immigrated illegally from El Salvador to the United States, has found it surprising that conservatives have been open to his suggestions on immigration reform.

Aviles, 44, a Redlands real estate investor, believes millions of unauthorized immigrants should be legalized but concessions must be made, he said.

No concessions. Sovereignty is not subject to concessions. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not a nation of  laws.

What do you say to that?

This whole talk about "compromise" is unjust and insulting. This country already submitted to a compromise in 1987. The wall was not built, the border security never came through, and the 3 million who had entered this country illegally has now turned into 11 million, if not more. Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine declared that there are 16 million illegals in this country now!

This whole discussion is marred by the underlying--and false--premise that we United States citizens have to care about the plight of illegal aliens in our country.

My answer? No we do not. We do not have to make concessions to ensure that our government, whether federal or state, enforces our immigration laws.

E-Verify, the electronic employment-eligibility verification system, should be mandatory, he said. Law-abiding undocumented immigrants should be given temporary work permits, which would be revoked if they’re found guilty of any serious crime, he added. And, he said, the government should begin to legalize undocumented immigrants only after the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol has found a significant reduction in illegal border crossings.

E-Verify should be mandatory, period. No one should be working in the United States if they are not legal residents of the United States. That's pretty simple, I think. Does anyone find this political calculus confusing?

Aviles, who is now a U.S. citizen, presented his points in a closed Facebook discussion group called Talking Across Borders, which includes about 60 people from Southern and Northern California.

The point: Aviles is now a citizen. Next. What is the excuse for the millions of illegal aliens in our country who have not taken any steps to become legal residents? What is their excuse, indeed?

Roughly half of the group favors more immigration enforcement, about half opposes it, and a few represent the middle ground. Participants in the group challenged one another to come up with key components of an immigration-reform plan.

It’s part of a project spearheaded by Spaceship Media, a group whose aim is to use journalism to bridge divides and reduce polarization. During the monthlong discussion, which began in July, participants have suggested topics and questions for the group to address.

Media partners in the California Immigration Conversation Project include the Bay Area News Group, Southern California News Group and Univision, a Spanish-language TV network.

TALKING REFORM

The U.S. has not had seen major immigration reform since 1986 when Congress, under President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act. It granted legal status to millions of unauthorized immigrants.

Yes, except that it did not control the border and stop illegal immigration. The Democrats defunded the wall. What a terrible law. Reagan should not have signed it.

Cindy Hahamovitch, a University of Georgia professor who researches immigration and labor issues, said immigration reform has been long delayed because of decisions within the Republican Party.

Wrong! The Democratic Party, with Barack Obama as President and Congress at this disposal, including a filibuster-proof United States Senate, could have done something about immigration. Instead, they went after Cap and Trade, then Obamacare.

“That party has long represented business interests, including employers’ desire for access to foreign workers, but the GOP has also stirred up nativist sentiment in order to win elections,” Hahamovitch said via email. “As long as the GOP can’t get it together, and it controls Congress, we wait.”

"Nativist" sentiment? What does that mean? Racism? The desire to ensure only one ethnic background of Americans? What a lie. The truth is that there is nothing racist or nativist about enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. This is a simple and welcome expectation which every country has.

This is no debate, everyone. This is another attempt to paint men and women who want enforcement, not amnesty.

But, instead of just waiting, Jeffrey Thurnher, 55, of Pasadena asked fellow Facebook members to think of themselves as Congressional representatives, requesting that they present their own five- to 10-point immigration-reform proposal.

Who cares who these people are? How were they selected? I would like to see the total list of participants. What are their backgrounds? What are their affiliations?

“If we’re talking about trying to have some kind of dialogue about how we want to move immigration reform, and our politicians can’t do it, I thought, ‘Well, if you’re a politician, how would you put it out there so people could get on board?” Thurnher said.

Political aspirations are nonsensical. I do not want a politician's hand in this matter. We need statesmen who will do the right thing for the country, not just think about getting re-elected in the next term.

NEGOTIATING

Aviles’ six-point plan generated a lively discussion among Facebook group members.

Andrea Leon-Grossmann, an environmental organizer from Los Angeles, took issue with his temporary worker program because it wouldn’t allow workers to apply for residency. Thurnher thought Aviles’ plan was balanced.

How about we scrap it all together? I would like to see severe limitations to H-1B visas, too. The program has become so notoriously abused, and the misuse of the program--which has led to massive lay-offs of American workers, has generated so much public hostility. All of this is wrong.

American workers for American jobs. There is no reason, no excuse to import cheap labor.

“I’m going to propose something that can work for both sides,” Aviles said.

“I got a pretty decent response surprisingly from the people on the opposing side who are against illegal immigration,” Aviles said.

Men and women who oppose illegal immigration by-and-large will offer respectable responses, even if they vehemently disagree with a point of view offered from someone else.

But respectable disagreement does not mean that compromise is imminent, either.

“I’m having a harder time with people on my own side who are in favor of legalizing undocumented immigrants,” he added.

Exactly. The hard-line amnesty panderers want everything. Frankly, what they are agitating for is illegal, immoral, and unjust.

That's why they scream and yell for it.

MORE EMPATHY OR TOO RADICAL?

Leon-Grossmann, who immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico on a student visa, disagreed with various points in Aviles’ plan.

She said the plan, which doesn’t allow temporary workers to become legal residents, would create second-class citizens.

Temporary visas will always do that--if they are offered in a way which allows those same individuals to stay in the country definitely. 

Guest worker programs? That's a discussion we can have much later. For now, it's time to put the needs of Americans first.

“Companies know if you are being sponsored, they can overwork you. Because what are your options?” she said.

For this reason, in greater part, along with others, I adamantly opposes the DREAM Act, but want to see the RAISE Act brought before the President and signed into law. 

Leon-Grossmann came up with her own seven-point plan.

In her proposal, anyone from a country where the U.S. has conducted unfair trade practices, or where an American corporation has caused conflict, would be able to apply for permanent residency and for citizenship three years after that.

Define "unfair."

“If you do some damage in terms of the environment, in terms of politics ... you can’t just be abusive in other countries and not expect people to try to flee those circumstances,” she said.

Silliness. National immigration policies must support the best interests of the nation and its citizens. Immigration policy cannot be a feel good gesture for the world. Americanism, not globalism.

Work visas under her plan would be available for various professions and would not be tied to an employer. And workers would be able to apply for permanent residency. Family reunification also would be a priority.

“We’re supposed to care about family values in this country. We should really put that into context and into our law,” she said.

Wrong. Family values within a national governing structure, those are the values we need to champion.

To Leon-Grossmann, Aviles’ plan is not empathetic enough.

And to Aviles, Leon-Grossmann’s plan is not doable.

He said her plan is too “radical.”

“That just adds fuel to the fire. We’re not being realistic here,” he said.

MAKING COMPROMISES

Right away we have a problem. The next heading the article talks about compromises. There is no reason for any taxpaying citizen to compromise over the rule of law. How offensive is this! No citizen in any city should have to beg the local police force to protect them.

It is their job!

Thurnher said these are the type of conversations he was seeking when he challenged group members to craft their own plans.

“There has to be some kind of compromise,” Thurnher said. “That’s the only way we’re going to move forward.”

Wrong. Democrats have not compromised. They want illegal immigration, they want open borders, and they want to continue to politicize the situation of young illegal aliens brought into this country against their will.

Give me a break.

Thurnher has not finished his own plan, but the challenge has encouraged him to think about compromises he’d be willing to make.

He describes himself as a “guy who goes by the rules,” but he does not think the government is set up to deport millions of people who are here illegally. He’s pro-business and believes anyone from any country who is sponsored to work in the U.S. should be able to work here. He empathizes with young immigrants who were brought here as children.

Wrong again. The government can take charge and begin deportation proceedings against the hundreds of thousands of back-logged immigration cases.

Let's start with that. Enforce the E-Verify laws, stop the welfare, and watch the illegal aliens leave the country. Also, make sure that illegal aliens cannot enroll their children in public schools, and the government incentives which illegals have been seeking in the United States will be GONE.

What he’s unsure about is how to prioritize which immigrants should be granted a path toward citizenship.

"Illegal aliens" not "immigrants". The priority for pathways to citizenship are very simple: who has followed the law the entire time to enter into the United States? They are not only the priority, they are the only migrants who should receive attention and response.

“What I try to look at, if you want to come to a compromise, start with what you have in common and then build upon that,” Thurnher said.

Compromise is not open for debate.

The rule of law must be respected to its fullest, as much as possible.

Final Reflection

The local--or rather,  regional press--has never entertained real debate. A narrative of open borders, amnesty, and pandering over illegal aliens because of the younger generation of illegals, those brought int o the United States as children, who are in this country because of their parents.

No, it is not an act of love to violate our immigration laws. No, it is not right for elected officials to prioritize the needs of illegal aliens, regardless of the good works which they have done, ahead of the interests and basic legal rights of American citizens.