posts >> publuis > william > nikolai > bradley
_________________________________________________________
Publuis
There are two essential functions of a sovereign nation; (1) the rule of law and (2) established borders. No person foreign or domestic can be beyond reproach of the law. In addition without enforcement laws provide only guidelines. Clearly defining where legal jurisdiction extends is equally necessary. Without laws or borders no government, of any kind, can employ sovereign order. Consequently, illegal immigration calls into question these basic principals.
When an immigrant crosses an established border illegally (s)he challenges the fundamental pillars on which a nation is built. Its laws are called into action and its continuity is compromised. There exist established avenues for legal immigration, for myriad reasons. Legal migration upholds the rule of law and border continuity.
Therefore, migrants who break the established law and compromise borders should be held in account for their actions. Moreover, those who have evaded enforcement of established law need to be rooted-out and accountable also. Enforcing immigration law is not about xenophobia or elitism. Rather it is paramount to preserving a nation as such.
Deportation of those currently living illegally within a nation’s border is not a sound solution, neither is jailing them. Instead, holding them accountable to the law through financial penalty, forfeiture of certain privileges and or a probationary period under the supervision of law enforcement are better solutions.
Equally, strategies to reinforce the integrity of a nation’s border must be implemented while at the same time prosecuting law breakers. It is not enough to build a wall of deterrence.
_________________________________________________________
William
It wasn’t that long ago that the first immigrants to America, fleeing religious persecution, landed in Plymouth. In fact the larger part of 400 years of American immigration policy have consisted of merely proving identity within a greater context of expanding borders. The French summed up what was the American immigration policy when they wrote on the Statue of Liberty: “give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free…”
Until recently, it was recognized that the U.S. was a society of immigrants. But those days are largely gone as our borders are now fixed and quotas along with application processes establish who may and may not enter. Over the last few hundred years, the main influx of immigrants braved harsh conditions to escape deplorable conditions in their respective homelands. From the potato famine to dismal Latin American economies (of which we’ve had a hand), the search for opportunity in America has come at a great social and personal price – even costing some their lives.
Our current immigration predicament is important to see in light of its historical context. Our borders have not been well enforced, and too often have we looked the other way when in need of crop pickers. The solution aught to be a mix of grace and truth. Grace extended in the form of guest worker programs or a road to amnesty for those who are already here. And truth in stronger borders and penalties paid for illegal entry. If those two things were to happen, subjects like drivers’ licenses, social service strain and unpaid taxes wouldn’t continue to be issues. We have a responsibility to these people in light of our history, our own culpability, and our proclaimed motto.
_________________________________________________________
Nikolai
In 1918 Theodore Roosevelt said, “Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country.” It’s become apparent that illegal immigration is a major issue in the upcoming presidential election. All of the candidates believe there needs to be a better way of protecting our borders. What to do with those already here and what to do with the current process of making immigration legal is where the difference lies. Some say that illegal immigrants should be allowed complete amnesty, and others believe in immediate deportation.
Action needs to be taken regardless of how the immigrants end up in our country. I agree with President Theodore Roosevelt’s quote saying immigrants should be required to learn our native language. If they’re looking to call the United States their home, then they should be making the extra effort to complete the naturalization process as quickly as possible. I also believe that the government should be aiding as much as they can. Providing either free or affordable education for the immigrants is one way of achieving this. How are we expecting immigrants to learn our language and history if nobody is there to help them along the way? Immigrants should be given the same rights and responsibilities as birth citizens. They also need to take the bad with the good, i.e. be held accountable to our laws and pay taxes! To most countries around the world the United States is known to be the land of opportunity. Its time we started acting like it.
_________________________________________________________
Bradley
So, what ever happened to personal responsibility?!
EGO sum conscius lex, tamen EGO sum sumo ut effrego is usquam. It’s Latin, yeah I went there again. In English it translates to, “I am aware of the law, but I am choosing to break it anyway.” Think about it. Take it in. Swish it around. Gargle it. Spit it out. Then take another drink.
Let’s say I wanted to go to Russia, because that’s where all the good begging jobs are. I couldn’t just hop on a plane or boat and simply arrive in the mother land; there are certain protocols that need to be followed that are set up for a reason. (mostly so I don’t get myself owned by the KGB) The same is also true for those that want to come to The U.S. If one makes the transition legally, it will absolutely pay off for all parties involved. The U.S. gov’t will get it’s taxes and the parent won’t be deported and ripped away from their 5 year old.
Of course I’m aware that there are already thousands of illegal aliens here in the states and our economy “relies” on them. But this most certainly does not excuse the fact that they are here illegally. Meaning, against the law.
The United States needs to crack down on employers who hire these aliens, and penalize them for breaking the law. The U.S. should also provide a very strict, zero tolerance path to citizenship. Clear guidelines for the aliens to follow and qualifications they need to meet, or be deported. Amnesty would be saying, “Our laws mean nothing, do as you please.” (then again, laws are only made valid by those that follow them)
So give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses, but let’s do this legally.
35 Comments
February 15, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I disagree with Nikolai on a point. He said, “Providing either free or affordable education for the immigrants…” I think I know a few million college age U.S. citizens who would beg to differ!
February 15, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Before we, the comfortable, haughty Americans, begin preaching about illegal immigration, we need to make sure that our government is holding up its end of the bargain. The immigration process is slow, difficult, expensive, and in desperate need of repair.
If I had to choose between breaking the law and feeding my family, or getting decent medical care for my sick children, or escaping a society with little or no chance for advancement, I would break the law without flinching. I don’t think anyone can call that a choice.
We are lucky to have been born in a country such as this, where even our poor and needy have access to education, sustainance, and basic medical care. We take for granted the fact that we are literally handed an education and a future, simply because of the fact that we were born on American soil.
I say we should fix the process rather than simply treating the side effects.
February 15, 2008 at 9:52 pm
What about the process is in desperate need of repair? How would you propose we fix it?
Sorry, don’t mean to sound pushy, I just like specifics
February 15, 2008 at 10:21 pm
To Mr. Curtis,
How do you suggest reforming the system without regard for the law?
You seem to over look the reality that America is a better place to live than rest of the world because we are country governed by the rule of law. Had we say, the legal system of Mexico, I think the pattern of migrants would be flowing the other direction.
It is precisely because the law is applied even in difficult social contexts that we enjoy the lifestyle we do. Should you allow people come en mass without limitation, or without consequence under the law, American would cease to be what it is today. Maybe that’s your goal, to change America, but I say you and I would both rather live here than elsewhere.
upholding the law is paramount to any decision a nation makes–everything else are side effects.
February 15, 2008 at 10:41 pm
nikolai –
when you say one remedy is “…providing either free or affordable education for the immigrants” do you mean to illegal immigrants, or to legal immigrants? i’m pretty sure there are plenty from both sides enrolled in public schools…
also, i’m confused when you say, “…What to do with those already here and what to do with the current process of making immigration legal is where the difference lies..” Last time I checked, immigration is legal. Are you talking about making illegal immigrants legal?
February 15, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Tyler,
I think he was trying to give one way the government can help the immigrants out. Plus, he didn’t say he was giving free college tuition to them, did he? And its not to say that the government shouldn’t help offer more financial aid for college students and their parents.
February 15, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Blue Jacket Society:
I mistakenly stumbled upon your blog and I am confused on multiple fronts. Never mind the elementary political views, the name you chose is highly trivial. I would suggest a change of name so as not to encourage further unintentional traffic.
In case you are unaware of the sexual connotation that your society promotes, intentionally or not, I have included a link below.
-T
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blue+jacket
February 16, 2008 at 12:12 am
I apologize for the brevity and lack of explanation in my prior post, I needed to get to class.
To seanamunoz,
The process for becoming a legal immigrant in this country is tedious and clogged up due to categorical backlogs. The best case scenario for someone in Mexico waiting to become an American legally as it is now is about a twenty month wait, give or take. These people are related directly to someone who is already naturalized in the United States, or have valuable high level job skills. I’m sorry, but if my family is in desperate need of something which can only be had in the United States, I’m coming over ASAP, regardless of what a piece of paper says.
Get this: it typically takes much less time for someone already in the United States (illegally) to become a citizen than it does for people who do it the ‘right way’. I don’t know about you, but I call that incentive. I say we should give incentive and priority processing for people who respect the law and do it the ‘right way’, and pay attention to the human aspect (i.e., a streamlined work visa program) and get the ball rolling toward a better life.
February 16, 2008 at 12:27 am
To donald,
I strongly disagree with you about why America is great, and a preferable place to live. You hold that it is because of the rule of law that we are great. I say it is our right to question, oppose and change the law as we, the people, see fit. Our country gained independance through strong, militant civil disobedience, and the constitution is full of caveats which give us, the people, power over the government. Think of all the rights and privileges we take for granted today that are only allowed to us because people strongly and fervently challenged and disobeyed the law.
As far as why people come here, I think it has less to do with the strength of our laws and legal system than with our overwhelming prosperity and our workforce, which (comparatively) is teeming with opportunity for advancement. As a person needing to feed my family, I’m not going to search for somewhere that has a strong, well-enforced legal system, I’m going where there’s money to be made.
February 16, 2008 at 12:28 am
thanks for the response, richard.
my grandparents immigrated from mexico in the 1950s, and they did everything the legal way. if they can do it, and wait throughout the process, why should other people get special treatment? if they can do it, anybody can. i think being related to a naturalized citizen or having a skilled trade is irrelevant concerning how long they should wait. to me, that sounds like an incentive.
if they truly want to come into our country, and do it the legal way, a 20 month wait should not deter them from doing so. that sounds pretty good to me, actually. i’m all for welcoming immigrants, but let’s do it the legal, and right, way.
we both agree we should promote respecting the law and gaining US citizenship the right way, yet you say you’d come to the US despite what a piece of paper says? i could be misinterpreting that, so i’d like to hear your thoughts.
February 16, 2008 at 1:28 am
Todd brought up an interesting and disconcerting fact about the term Blue Jacket: Actually the term Blue Jacket came as a historical reference to the “blue stockings”, a nickname given to intellectual women during the era of French salons. I refer you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_(gathering)
- Seaborn
February 16, 2008 at 1:37 am
Richard,
Thanks for the response. I still would contend however with you on a few points.
First, the rule of law trumps the rule of man in this country. if you disagree i would encourage you to study the 200 plus years of Supreme Court history. Moreover, it because we have that law to rule us we can peacefully disobey. Go to Sudan and disobey with the rule of the people…
Therefore every premise which you hold in high regard is only possible because the law is established.
Some for examples to prove my point,
If Mexico had a minimum wage law that payed citizens enough to live would they still come?
If Mexico courts were not corrupt could Mexicans challenge incompetent policies?
The point is; the America you talk about only exist through laws. Lawless regions in the world, like the Peshwar province in Afghanistan are the worst places in the world to live.
Nations are only two things, As publius rightly points out, Laws and Boarders
February 16, 2008 at 2:25 am
How did you come up with “Blue Jacket” from “Blue Stockings?” Was this in order to change the association from women to men?
I have noticed that no women have commented in this group, and I can’t help but think this is a “boys’ club.” What do you have to say about feminism in the United States today?
Cordially,
Sheryl
February 16, 2008 at 3:36 am
Sheryl!
Thank you very much for the comment.
Again, “Jacket” was used in homage of a very positive, historical reference to woman’s intellectual involvement during the French renaissance period. “Jackets” was also used to create a unique identity associated with this positive reference but not identical to it. Secondly, Jackets continue to be unisex garments.
And lastly, I would like to commend you, as well as thank you again, for breaking the gender barriers that existed in the infancy of this organization.
(but seriously, we are an inclusive society, and aspire to represent the plurality of voices and peoples within the United States)
As for feminism in the United States today, I Seaborn, think that that would be a wonderful topic for discussion among our writers and members, and I will forward it accordingly. What do You have to say?
Please feel free to send mail concerning future topic inspiration to thebluejacketsociety@gmail.com.
Thanks again Sheryl!
– Seaborn
February 16, 2008 at 1:06 pm
seanamunoz,
What I meant by “…I’m coming over ASAP, regardless of what a piece of paper says” was only that the real and immediate need of my family would take precedence over the law, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Much respect to your grandparents for immigrating legally and properly. However, the process of immigration is much more difficult for some than for others. Twenty months is an absolute best case scenario, and it is a fact that many would-be productive citizens that our government has decided we don’t ‘need’ have been placed in backlogs and put on permanent hold. And, regardless of what you or I think about the relevancy of having relatives in the United States, it is a fact that the US government gives major priority to immigrants who’ve got them.
Everything you have to say is legitimate, and I agree with you that immigration should happen legally. I just want to make clear that, as a nation of privilege, it is very easy for us to ignore the human aspect of things.
February 16, 2008 at 1:28 pm
donald,
I understand that the America I talk about only exists through laws, and when I talk about civil disobedience I’m not saying that anyone who disagrees with the government in the slightest should take up arms against it. Instead, I thank god that we live in a country that allows us to disagree and affect change! Also, I have studied the Supreme Court, thanks for the encouragement.
The point that I was trying to make is only this: there are times when it is appropriate and necessary to disobey the law, especially when it means providing basic human needs for yourself and your loved ones. As I said before in my response to seanamunoz, it is very easy for us as the most powerful nation in the world to take for granted the things that others are desperate for and willing to break the law to acquire. It’s not all black and white, dollars and cents. I don’t know about you, but I would not be able to look into the face of a man whose sick children and starving family turn to him for sustainance and support and tell him to wait his turn in line for years on end while my country thinks about whether or not he’ll be an asset.
February 16, 2008 at 4:59 pm
–
what is a “boarder”? how do you establish a “boarder”?
a skate-boarder?
a water-boarder?
a…mortar-boarder?
February 16, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Richard,
My point is not to deny people access to opportunity. My point is to maintain the rule of law in the process of allowing people to come and to stay in our country.
That requires employing the rule of law equally in all cases, even those cases where it seems cold.
America is not a city on hill, there are other places for people to go/come. Also, if we allow all people race north, south, east and west to America we would not simply get suffering families. We would/will/do get lots of bad people wanting to do bad things; drug dealers, human smugglers, rapists, etc.
People don’t come to America and loose their histories, they come to American and bring their gang affiliations and their criminal past as well as their hurting families and dreams of a better life.
Without strong consistent rule of law we have no hope of preserving America as a nation of opportunity.
February 17, 2008 at 12:09 am
–
ah, you fixed the typo. well done.
February 17, 2008 at 2:20 am
i do what i can
– Seaborn
February 17, 2008 at 2:24 am
hey i was wondering why publuis, william, nikolai, and bradley never respond to qestions asked about there posts. are these posts just copied and pasted from another site and responded to by the members of this group? how come seaborn responds to questions as the blue jacket society, and why doesn’t he/she make posts? its also a little confusing where you get your information from. it would look better if you cited your sources. it seems only donald cites anything, unless you count wikipedia.
February 17, 2008 at 3:54 am
Dennybenny –
Thanks for the post, and the opportunity to clear up a few issues for new members. I, Seaborn, am the moderator. I take care of the administration side of this site as well as that of the Facebook group. I will usually respond to points of clarification and/or questions like the one you brought up.
The 4 posters, as a general rule, try to refrain from entering the post-post debate and instead allow their brief thoughts to stand as a starting place for members to build upon. They welcome criticism, agreement and dissent as long as the content is discussed and debated in a spirit of open-mindedness with the goal of becoming educated and hopefully more involved!
If you need further clarification from a specific author, you may certainly ask it, and they may respond via me, the moderator… or not. Just remember, their posts are starting points, and they usually do not participate in active defense of their positions; that’s the community’s job! But points of clarification are welcome and will be accommodated as I can.
Thanks again!
- Seaborn
February 18, 2008 at 7:48 pm
–
so…you’re saying they’re not going to respond to comments? then where’s the ‘challenging dialog’, ‘education’ and discussion going to come from?
are we to believe that the authors have no need for ‘challenging dialog’ themselves? that they’re so far above the political debate that they’re doing us a favor by giving us a ’starting point’ to fill our uneducated, menial lives with the richness of their twenty-something words? that they’re just gracing us with their (generally unsubstantiated) thoughts while hiding behind pen names and refusing to defend their propaganda?
tacky boys…real tacky.
February 19, 2008 at 2:42 am
genepensiero-
I would refer you to my last post in reply to “dennybenny”. Publuis, Nikolai, William, and Bradley may respond to points of clarification concerning their short op-eds. The burden of ‘challenging dialog’, ‘education’ and discussion are on those who participate with the 4 posts as springboards.
I would urge you to write your own op-ed in response to either all or one of the original four posts in a manner that is respectful of differing opinions and ideas, informed with references, and ultimately in the spirit of The Blue Jacket Society as laid out in the About page, as well as under the FAQ page (forthcoming).
The 4 posters do not claim to be experts in each of the fields they write. They seek to become informed each time they prepare to write, learning more about why they believe what they believe. You are free to disagree with their opinions, their examples etc. The idea is that we would be mature enough to present a different idea, a different opinion, a different source of evidence to add to debate at large, in a way that is not combative but seeks mutual learning.
a note concerning censorship:
Comments that are posted by the guidelines and spirit of The Blue Jacket Society will be freely processed (including dissenting opinions about the issues raised). However, comments will be moderated that are intended to be destructive to the site, the ethos it intends to create or consist of slander towards others members.
Thanks,
– Seaborn
February 19, 2008 at 4:08 am
I, for one would still like to talk about immigration issues and not website nonsense. I think there have been some good comments on the validity of the original posts, as well as some good follow up discussion.
I would present a question to those who are interested; what should we do about the illegal immigrants who are currently living in America? Should we try and deport them? Offer them citizenship?
I’d appreciate everyones thoughts…
February 19, 2008 at 6:41 am
Path to citizenship, all the way. The pain and strain it would cause not only the system, but the families that would be split apart, outweigh Not doing the right thing: which is offering citizenship.
February 19, 2008 at 10:39 am
I’m with Jameson. This country operates on the backs of the illegal workers. If you deported every illegal immigrant in this country, prices for everything would immediately skyrocket and the economy would stumble and crash. I don’t know about you, but I thoroughly enjoy eating on a regular basis, and without the illegal workforce, I in all my middle-class glory wouldn’t be able to afford to.
As far as our prior discussion, donald, I’m genuinely sorry it’s taken me forever and a day to get back, I’ve been swamped with work. Here we go…
I’m sorry, but America is kind of a city on a hill, and we’ve guaranteed that by solidifying our global empire to the point of a stranglehold. We go to other countries and try to force them to be like less powerful, totally dependant little versions of us, because our way is apparently the best way. But that’s another issue entirely (maybe the subject of a future round of discussion, moderator?
).
You mention crime, drugs, trafficking and gangs. I don’t know much about human trafficking, but I’m sure if you looked into it you’d find just as many white, full blooded American citizens taking part in it as any other immigrant demographic.
I do, however, know a lot of drug dealers and generally unsavory characters, and I’ll concede that a good half of them are the children or relatives of families who immigrated illegally. Only, here’s an interesting fact, at least from my experience: the white American kids with flags on their garage doors in the suburbs are the ones peddling cocaine, crystal meth and oxycontin instead of marijuana and hash, because their families tend to have more money for them to waste. So there you go, a gross generalization in exchange for a gross generalization. Do with it what you will.
February 19, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Richard,
I’m not implicating illegal immigrants as criminals wholesale. Simply that it is not only those is search of something uniquely American who cross the border illegally. On the on the other hand, if you immigrate legally, we have systems establish to catch criminals. And I think we can agree; we don’t need to importing criminals, as you rightly point out we enough of those on our own.
February 19, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I guess I should answer my own question.
I too would like to see some path of citizenship coupled with a guest worker program.
I would make a one-time offer to illegals to come out of the shadows, pay a fine (pegged to back taxes), and begin the naturalization process (which would include learning English). Those who do not participate would be subject to deportation. Those who start the program must finish it with a given period of time, or face deportation as well.
A guest worker visa should be created. This would be a six to eight month visa specifically for manual labor or other low wage jobs. Participants would be given an ID number so as to be counted by the government and taxed on their wages. Also, there would be a maximum number of times a single individual could use the program. So as to encourage permanent migration.
In addition, sanctions need to be tough against employers who continue to heir people who are not taking advantage of either of the new programs. For employers currently employing illegals, they would have to pay a fine (pegged to back taxes) and be put on a probationary period.
The revenue created by these fines would go to the costs of implementing these new programs.
That way we could deal with some of the issues brought up about food prices and ag jobs. As well as stem the tide of undocumented, illegal immigration.
I also support a tamper-proof ID card so that those in the country not taking the steps to attain citizenship, or taking part in the guest-worker program, could be easily found.
I would make this a public/private partnership. Giving the task of creating and tracking ID cards and numbers to the major credit card companies in a special joint venture. The government on the other hand would have to bolster the number of employees at INS to handle the increased work-load. Also, coalitions of employers need to be created to monitor hiring practices.
There exists the political will and the wherewithal to create such a comprehensive program. We just need a leader in Congress and the in the White House to do it.
Sorry for the length, just trying to be heavy on specifics…
February 19, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Do you think the working poor would be able to pay back taxes realistically?
February 19, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I don’t think they should have a choice. The law cannot make an exception based on financial means-either for the poor or the rich. If they cannot pay a fine, related to back taxes not necessarily equal to, they should face deportation.
February 20, 2008 at 12:43 am
If the illegal immigrants pay taxes, I wonder if that will help subsidize racism towards them here in the valley.
February 20, 2008 at 12:59 am
explain that a little more…
February 19, 2008 at 11:28 pm
See, that’s the issue with mandating the payment of back taxes. People don’t take the risk of immigrating illegally if they’re swimming in cash where they come from. For most of these people, at least from what the numbers show us, it’s enough of a challenge to make ends meet day to day without mountains of back taxes weighing them down. I have a feeling that would just create an even larger debt problem. I like the idea of a guest worker visa program, and a lot of the other stuff you said, donald, I just think that as soon as most illegals hear the word ‘back taxes’ they’ll move even further ‘into the shadows’, rather than exposing themselves and signing their lives over to the US in the form of debt.
timbalint, could you elaborate on your meaning?
February 22, 2008 at 8:28 am
I meant to say subdue, not subsidize. I don’t know how my spell check missed that. It also could have been me. My bad!