U.S. approach to immigration: Futility

  • Article by: Steve Chapman , Chicago Tribune
  • Updated: November 20, 2012 - 7:29 PM

Everyone wants reform, which means enforcement, which is the problem.

  • 13
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
bblheadNov. 20, 12 9:38 PM

Excuse me, but the President gave an executive order dictating to not enforce the immigration enforcement code as written. That being said, there is no quick fix. There does need to be some balanced approach, however, enforcing the current employment laws, i.e. fining companies that knowingly hire illegals, might help identify illegals and provide a route to evaluate what to do with them. People will continue to enter the country illegally as long as companies will hire them, albeit at a lower pay scale, over legal immigrants and citizens. It always seems to come down to the almighty dollar.

15
1
spicebearNov. 20, 1210:07 PM

Many come legally but overstay their visa. How can you "seal" a border when every major airport is, in effect, a point of entry? What about coastlines? How about Canada??? Get a tourist visa to Canada and simply cross @ an unwatched point or go 'fishing" on one of the Great Lakes. There are SO many ways to get here... Enforce employment rules, indeed, but we have to be honest with ourselves... We NEED these mostly young new Americans and we ought to be focussing on making them into Americans instead of demonizing them.

7
10
davehougNov. 21, 12 7:05 AM

Give employers the same tools ICE uses and hold them accountable. JAIL TIME FOR EMPLOYERS if shown they hired an illegal.

7
3
EleanoreNov. 21, 12 7:15 AM

"Accept that millions of foreigners are living here illegally and are not going to "self-deport" -- and that we (and they) will be better off if they gain the protection of the law." - This is niot reform, its abdication of responsibility to every american citizen, every legal Immigrant, every hopeful immigrant following the legal path. This is not an attitude that can be entertained for one single second, it is lawlessness defined.

9
4
odinmanNov. 21, 12 8:04 AM

Repeal/Revise the 14th ammendment. The original intent was to ensure that children born of newly freed slaves were granted U.S. citizenship automatically. There can be no denying that this ammendment is now a huge problem when it comes to illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants know that all they need to do is have a baby in this country (with medical care costs paid for by the citizens) and it is their ticket to applying for all kinds of government benefits as well as reduced chance of deporation (thus the term "anchor baby"). This incentive must be dealt with if we are to be honest about solving the problem. If you don't agree and give a thumbs down, please provide a reasonable argument why we should leave the 14th ammendment as is.

5
4
EleanoreNov. 21, 12 8:21 AM

"Revise the 14th ammendment." - Couldn't agree more. "anchor babies" needs to be something you read about in history books. If neither parent is an american citizens the baby needs to become a citizen of the nation of the parents.

7
2
EleanoreNov. 21, 12 9:10 AM

"Accept that millions of (citizens) are not going to (follow the law - whatever law) -- and that we will be better off if (we ignore the law and just accept that)." - That makes no sense either, you can't have a functioning society when you have no respected rule of law, yet that's what this commentary is suggesting america adopt, anarchy. Brilliant.

4
4
traderbillNov. 21, 12 9:13 AM

odinman here is why you are wrong: XIVth Amendment 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. There is nothing in that statement about being for children of slave. But think about this, in the 1860's any form of rapid transportation and mobility was unthought of. Now we have jet travel...and Chinese coming here specifically to have a baby that will be a U.S. citizen. THAT is what has to be amended not repeal of the entire act. You go on to say, correctly, that only the child of a LEGAL immigrant should be a native born American, but have you even heard once any politician propose this? Meanwhile, we are gaining more of these 'anchor' babies every month, which could include any foreigner whose plane has a layover here before continuing on and the mom suddenly has a baby, thus dual citizenship. THIS is what MUST be changed...fast.

6
1
odinmanNov. 21, 1210:01 AM

@traderbill - I agree with you. My orignal post said "Repeal/Revise". Short of repeal, at the very least, the ammendment should be revised to only allow automatic citizenship of the child if the mother and/or father is in this country legally. This common sense approach would not prevent a woman from China coming here and having a baby (assuming she was granted a visa) but it would at least prevent the millions of anchor babies born to those who enter our country illegally. As you indicate, this simply has to stop.

5
2
EleanoreNov. 21, 1211:29 AM

"the ammendment should be revised to only allow automatic citizenship of the child if the mother and/or father is in this country legally." - I'd disagree in that the citizenship of the parents should dominate (if one parent is a US citizen, then US citizenship granted, if neither is then child isn't. If either parent get's that naturalization paper before the child turns 18, or whatever the age of majority is at the time, then those children also get automitic citizenship). No more getting off the plane for a visit and having a baby just to get an anchor here.

3
1

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT