I'm Taking a Side

My Final Blog on WHERE DO I STAND?

I have tried with my blog to bring about fair argument regarding immigration. As we know, America is, and always will be a land of immigration. The question is what type of immigrant will occupy our land; Legal or illegal?

Although I feel for the plight of illegal immigrants and all they have gone through to be in America, they have partaken in a dishonest act, and have broken the law. Although I feel for the children of illegal immigrants, and understand why they feel the way they do regarding the DREAM Act, my legal, American child is suffering from educating illegal immigrant children at this time.

California has faced tremendous budget cuts; from music, art, physical education, sports, and basic paper needs. With California supplying free education to illegal immigrants, costing about $7.7 billion per year as reported in 2004, why is this fair that it comes at the price of my son’s P.E. and music class?

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_5cedf831-9d5d-5335-af7e-2af6730a577c.html

Regarding crime: “illegal immigrants made up a disproportionate share of the state prison populations in California” (FOXNes.com). There is not much more to say about this issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/29/border-states-dealing-illegal-immigrant-crime-data-suggests/

It doesn’t really matter why I believe the way I do; I just believe that illegal immigration is against the law and wrong. From the very moment an illegal immigrant steps on the soil of America, he tells us through his actions that he does not care about our laws; so why should we care about his rights?

My Final Blog

Black’s Law Dictionary defines immigration as the “act of entering a country with the intention of settling there permanently” (Garner, 2006). An immigrant is the person who partakes in the action of immigration and is defined as a “person who arrives in a country to settle there permanently; a person who immigrates” (Garner, 2006). From the very beginning, America has been a land of immigrants, and I expect that it will remain that way.

When the word immigrant comes up in everyday language, especially for those of us who live along the border states, it may be common that the next thought may be the word illegal. Not because we believe that it is wrong or right, but because it exist, and it continues to be a sour subject for many Americans. Sometimes I wonder why this is. Have you or I personally been hurt by an illegal immigrant? Is your or my family going hungry because an illegal immigrant has our jobs? Or, is just the mere fact that illegal immigrants are here in America illegally? I guess questions like these would be answered differently by different people.  

Ever since the eighties, when I started understanding the news and my parent’s conversations, I have heard the words immigration reform. Today, I still continue to hear the words immigration reform. Whether I am reading blogs, reading the paper, listening to the radio or television, people are urging for immigration reform. These two words not only have the ability to get people riled up when they are put together, they have the ability to put a wedge between friends. What is it about these two words that hold so much power, but seem to go nowhere? What is immigration reform and what does it mean to the masses?

For immigrants who have families abroad, immigration reform is about getting reunification benefits for their family members back home; so they too may come to America. For some, it might be that they are legal immigrants who followed the rules and have the expectation that others should do the same. For others, maybe it is about migrating here legally through an education visa knowing that a green card is not attached to their visa; so they too may enjoy the American dream. Lastly, immigration reform may be about rounding up the all the illegal’s and sending them back home because they broke America’s federal laws. In whichever way you or I view immigration reform, someone else will have the opposite view.

If you are a politician, the words immigration reform means talking about reform in the manner your constituents want to hear, but knowing that a stalemate exists in Congress that is almost impossible to break. Its okay, Joe can blame Fred when he has to explain his shortcomings his constituents. Who are the Democrats going to blame? They held the majority in the House and the Senate for a time with Obama at the helm most recently and did nothing. Now that the Republicans hold the majority in the Senate, the Democrats can blame the Republicans when reform does not happen in 2011. How much more can we take? Before we know it, it will be 2049 and immigration reform will still be two words that cannot find true meaning.

According to James Jasper, “emotions pervade all social life, social movements included” and are “as much a part of culture as cognitive understandings and moral visions are, and all social life occurs in and through culture” (Goodwin & Jasper, 2009, p.p. 175-176). But if our culture is so extremely divided on the issue of illegal immigration, then how does this work and where do we go from here? Each side of the issue continues to make a “concerted effort” to change the other side through social movement, but progress still looms with no end in sight (Goodwin & Jasper, 2009, p. 176). One may argue that it is critical to leave emotion out of the process and to just work off the law, but in reality, this type of action would be in favor of the anti-illegal immigration camp. With this being said, this would not be true reform; at least for those in favor of illegal immigrant rights. So where does that leave us? Back where we started—spewing out the words that we need immigration reform.

Article 5

It's Election Time Again

Is it the same old rhetoric, or could there be real change? Elections are near and the parties have to target voters. Jeb Bush is reaching out to the Hispanic voters “in advance of next year’s presidential election” (Associated Press, 2011). Being a Republican, Hispanic voters may be more standoffish than open; for the Republican party does not have a good reputation for working on behalf of immigration.

Although Jeb Bush understands the history between the GOP and Hispanics, he is insistent that Hispanics have more in common with the party than most realize. “party's social conservatism, anti-abortion stance and positions for private school vouchers and other school choice proposals as well as lower taxes” are all of interest to the Hispanic vote (Associated Press, 2011).

The GOP has a lot to overcome to win the Hispanic vote: Electronic border fence, the 14^th Amendment, health care reform that the Hispanics want and the GOP does not, the connection to the Tea Party movement, their support of Arizona’ S.B. 1070, and just their vote and view on immigration history.

GOP Leaders Working to Woo Latin Voters

Watch This Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4496519/gop-leaders-working-to-woo-latin-voters/

Here is Jeb Bush in 2007 explaining how the Hispanics have more in common with conservatives than many think, and how they have assimilated in American mainstream .

Associated Press. (2011). Jeb Bush to Lead Hispanic Republican Group's Outreach to Latino Voters. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/13/jeb-bush-lead-hispanic-republican-groups-outreach-latino-voters/

Article 4

Proposition 187: California

In the 90’s, Californians took their plea and fight against illegal immigration to the ballot box and voted yes for Proposition 187.  Although the courts ruled the proposition unconstitutional, here is a sum of what it entailed:

 “The measure would: Ban children who are in the country illegally from attending public schools. Prevent publicly funded social service agencies and hospitals from providing services to illegal immigrants except in emergencies. Require health care facilities, police and sheriff's departments, schools and social service agencies to report suspected illegal immigrants to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and the state attorney general. Make it a felony under state law to manufacture, sell or use phony citizenship documents. The crime would be punishable by five years in state prison or by a $75,000 fine” (The Sunday Oregonian, Sept. 18, 1994).

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?shr=t&csi=235910&sr=HLEAD(PROPOSITION+187)+and+date+is+September,%201994

Today, whether you are an illegal or legal immigrant, you are allowed to utilize citizen services. Also today, the costs of these services have skyrocketed. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), it costs the U.S. “$113 billion a year – an average of $1,117 for every ‘native-headed’ household in America” (Barnes, 2010). Some may wonder why this is fair to the average taxpaying citizens who is forced into supporting the illegal immigrants when they can barely support their own families.

Barnes, E. (2010). Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/

Article 3

Article 3

Civil Rights Groups Protest Arizona Immigration Law, File Suit Over Federal Program

According to Touraine (1981), social movements have “typically [been] centered around the distinction between ‘strategy-oriented’ and ‘identity-oriented’ movements (as cited in Goodwin, 2009, p. 265). When two separate movements can come together and unite for “movement solidarity,” mobilization of a movement can be the result (p. 267).

In this article, “Civil rights and immigrant-advocacy groups teamed up” in protest against Arizona’s immigration law calling it “racist” (Gibson, 2010). The basis of the law, S.B. 1070, is that it “makes illegal immigration a state crime and allows local law enforcement to question people about their immigration status and arrest them if they can’t provide proper documentation” (Gibson, 2010). The law expands the Secure Communities program which allows “law enforcement and federal authorities coordinate to identify and deport illegal immigrant criminals in the United States” (Gibson, 2010). Many argue that a racist bill like this is against their civil rights while others are in favor of S.B. 1070.

Counsel John Bouma, on behalf of Governor Jan Brewer went to the Ninth Circuit Court Hearing in November to argue that Arizona has a right to against crime and fight on behalf of their law abiding citizens. They argued that Arizona has a right to fix what the federal government has failed to do.

http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_110110_StatementByBrewer.pdf

In December 2010, the federal district granted “motions to dismiss” some of the challenges to S.B. 1070 by groups such as the “National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders,” the “League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)” among others. It will be interesting to see if the judge dismisses the suit filed by the “The National Day Laborer Organizing Network, The Center for Constitutional Rights and the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law” (Gibson, 2010).

http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_121010_FederalCourtDismissesSeveralChallengesToSB1070.pdf

http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_121510_FederalDistrictCourtGrantsStatesMtDChallenge.pdf

Furthermore, Brewer’s office has filed a motion to dismiss lawsuits filed by foreign countries. Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Chile are all challenging S.B. 1070 and the “enforcement measures that have been a part of U.S. federal law for decades.”

http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_100510_BrewerObjectsForeignGovSB1070Lawsuit.pdf

I don’t know about you, but doesn’t it seem weird that all these countries feel that they should have a say in what laws we enforce in America?

Gibson, J. (2010). Civil Rights Groups Protest Arizona Immigration Law, File Suit Over Federal Program. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/27/civil-rights-groups-protest-arizona-immigration-law-file-suit-federal-program/

Article 2

 

The Complexity of Our Immigration Law

Supreme Court weighs fairness of citizenship law differences for mothers and fathers

Usually when we debate immigration law in the U.S. we debate on illegal versus legal. Along the border states of California, Texas, and Arizona, the debate usually always goes to Mexico. None of us really ever think about the sex of a parent of an illegal child, but maybe we should.

This article discusses another issue of reform needed. Did you know that if you are an illegal immigrant trying to get citizenship in America that it makes a difference whether it is your mother or our father who may be the illegal in the country? Last November, "The Supreme Court heard a case" about "A Mexican-born man who grew up with an American-citizen father in the United States is asking the court to protect him from deportation, claiming the law would have granted him citizenship if his mother had been an American instead of his father" (Foley, 2010).

The law permits non-citizen child to become a citizen if one of the parents had lived in the U.S. for a certain amount of time before he or she was born. The issue at hand is the amount of time for the mother versus the father. “Before 1986, American fathers needed to have spent at least 10 years in the country — five of them after the age of 14 — to pass on citizenship to their children. American mothers needed only a year living in the United States before the child’s birth to pass on citizenship” (Foley, 2011).

Ruben Flores-Villa’s father did not meet the citizenship requirement for Ruben to be granted citizenship status, but if it were his mother who was passing the citizenship, he would have qualified and be a U.S. citizen. I had no idea that sex mattered, did you? This case currently sits in the hands of the Supreme Court and a decision is expected this summer. I guess it brings to question, is it fair to have different requirements for men and women to pass citizenship to their children?  

http://washingtonindependent.com/103262/supreme-court-weighs-fairness-of-citizenship-law-differences-for-mothers-and-fathers

Article 1

CIR 2010 - Comprehensive Immigration Reform Reality Check

This video gives a good breakdown on the financial impact of illegal immigrants in the U.S. and why there is need for reform.

Many claim that illegal immigration hurts America, but let’s look at how it helps for a second. It is argued that if we pass the DREAM Act, there are many benefits. Immigrants count for 1 in 20 persons in America and contributes to a purchasing power of “736 billions” for Latinos in America. What would happen to the economy if they disappeared? Since the U.S. spends “$78 Billion dollars” a year on enforcement costs, just imagine if this money was put back into the system because reform had taken place already. It has also been said that if the U.S. was to legalize the illegals, “$44 billion” dollars of “new revenue” would be generated through “income, payroll taxes, and various fees” along with the raise in our overall GDP. With America knee deep in debt and financial crisis, maybe passing reform would be more helpful than hurtful.

Needless to say, the DREAM Act failed in Congress when the Senate “fell five votes short of the 60” votes required in December 2010 (FoxNews.com). It is argued that this failure stiffens future professionals in America and that the children of illegal immigrants should not have to pay the price of their illegal parents bringing them here when they were children. They are as American as you and I. Others argue that the DREAM Act is just another form of “backdoor amnesty” that will continue to feed the problem of illegal immigration (FoxNews.com).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/18/senate-tries-pass-dream-act/