|
Whatever Happened to
"Sponsorship"
Saturday, August 20, 2005
By Beverly Eakman
Would someone please explain to me (a) what is more important than securing our borders and closing the door to newcomers until we can assimilate those here legally, and (b) what happened to the old sponsorship approach to immigration?
For example, as I write this, I read in the Washington Times (among other news outlets) that a homosexual Mexican man with AIDS living in San Francisco was granted asylum last week...
|
In response to increased worries about terrorism, the Center for American Progress, on July 26, released its assessment of a proposed mass deportation policy for some 10 million undocumented persons currently in the U.S., to say nothing of the 500,000 that cross the border each year. CAP's statistics were reported in newspapers nationwide.
CAP's data analysis
estimated the cost to be at least $206 billion over 5 years
($41.2 billion annually), and possibly as high as $230 billion.
Apparently, the Center arrived at these figures after assuming that
2 million of the 10 million illegals would leave on their own-which
seems something of a stretch. To put the $41 billion in perspective,
CAP indicated that the figures would exceed the entire annual budget
of the Department of Homeland Security ($34.2 billion).
As best I can figure out, sponsorship laws are still on the books. "If
you do not have a college degree or skills that are in demand … you
must have a job offer with a U.S. company that is willing to sponsor
you for a labor certification. This process takes many years to complete
but leaves you with a green card," states one government web site.
Others offer similar advice to prospective immigrants.
Also, immigration laws state that in order to protect U.S. citizens, a visa is denied to certain applicants, among them, those who:
- Have a communicable disease, or a dangerous physical or mental disorder.
- Have committed serious criminal act(s).
- Are known terrorists, subversives, members of a totalitarian party, or former war criminals.
- Have used illegal means to enter the U.S.
This seems pretty explicit to me. While enforcement may take money, time,
and manpower, what is the point of fighting wars abroad and negotiating
with questionable sources to contain terrorism if we don't enforce
laws already on the books? If, by chance, U.S. sponsorship laws are
no longer viable, then who was responsible for watering them down,
when did it happen, and isn't it time to revive them?
For example, as I write this, I read in the Washington Times (among
other news outlets) that a homosexual Mexican man with AIDS living
in San Francisco was granted asylum last week (August 12) by the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing an earlier ruling of deportation
for overstaying his visa. Why? Because, the man claimed, he would
face persecution for his condition and orientation in Mexico. And
get this: The man works as a waiter -- as in food service --
at a local hotel. Excuse me, but how does fellow with a compromised
immune system get a job working around food, and what happened to
the prohibition against "applicants with communicable diseases"? Have
this nation's leaders lost their collective marbles?
The usually conservative Washington Times, along with more liberal
news outlets, have in the past few weeks carried prominently placed
stories describing the travails of one dispossessed immigrant family
after another. On July 26, for example, the Washington Times
detailed how wonderfully the Department of Education is serving the
children of migrant workers from Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican
Republic ["Education on the move"] who travel up and down our East
Coast in search of temporary jobs picking blueberries. A couple days
earlier, a full-page story appeared in the same newspaper about a
down-and-out Somali family.
Now, I sympathize with these individuals. But American citizens
living here lead harrowing lives, too. This isn't the time to be straining
our resources and services on new illegal immigrants. It sends the
wrong message to Americans at home. If we are going to go through
the purses of elderly grannies in airports, subways, and building
entrances; if we are going to install cameras and track people; if
we are going to herd good citizens around like cattle, telling them
to present for inspection, then people have reason to expect a serious
approach to immigration. No non-citizen should be over here right
now without a sponsor-i.e., a full citizen with a spotless
record who will take responsibility for the applicant.
Rep. Tom
Tancredo (R-CO) and former House Speaker Rep.
Newt Gingrich, have been accused of "engaging in fantasy" when
they suggest government conduct a massive police action to arrest,
try and deport "undocumented workers" to get a handle on America's
out-of-control immigration problem. But if the Administration expects
the public to get behind the Patriot Act, then it has to see seriousness
elsewhere. If it takes the entire budget of Homeland Security to do
the job, then maybe that's the job it should be doing, with
the help of the U.S. Immigration Control Enforcement (ICE).
Those against interdiction and deportation predict devastation of our economy.
Never mind that the nation's emergency rooms and our government classrooms,
to cite just two examples, are no longer able to accommodate taxpaying
citizens, thanks in large part to the hordes of indigent immigrants
who are here without sponsors. Yet, legislators are expected to opine
that interdiction efforts wouldn't really improve our national security
or take any pressure off of social services (and, oh yes, that any
measures to slow the influx is somehow "racist," in any case).
But recent events in London prove that every day our leaders fail to "bite
the bullet" on immigration, terrorism becomes more imminent, and American
respect wanes for the law and the police.
Beverly Eakman is an Educator, 9 years: 1968-1974, 1979-1981. Specialties: English and Literature.
Science Editor, Technical Writer and Editor-in-Chief of official newspaper, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1974-1979. Technical piece, "David, the Bubble Baby," picked up by popular press and turned into a movie starring John Travolta.
Chief speech writer, National Council for Better Education, 1984-1986; for the late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, Commission on the Bicentennial of the US Constitution, 1986-1987; for the Voice of America Director, 1987-1989; and for U.S. Department of Justice, Gerald R. Regier, 1991-1993.
Website: BeverlyE.com
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
| |
,
II
and 