City Journal Winter 2016

Current Issue:

Winter 2016
Table of Contents
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Brandon Fuller and Sean Rust
Make Immigration Reform Local « Back to Story

View Comments (12)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.

Showing 12 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
Pie in the sky - the issue is now in the hands of people who could care less about anything but their own narrow selfish interests.

The immigration issue has brought into sharp relief the fact that in many,if not most ways there is simply no difference at all between the major parties. The big difference however,is that Democrats understand that passage of the immigration law as written by the Senate will result in the reimposition of the Democrat majority that was the norm in the 1960's before Wallace destroyed it,leading to a Nixon victory.

Republicans, on the other hand, are wrapped up in a fantasy as a result of greed and narrow political self interest, and are dancing to the tune that their money supporters, who care nothing about elections, are singing. The Repubicans appear deaf to anything else, which is why next election, the Democrats will win back the House, as Republican voters (like myself and every Republican I know) simply stay home - there is simply no way that we will come out for these people. And once that happens the nation will be in for it, as Democrats pass law after law in order to create the perfect Democrat society - lots of poor, a few good rich, and party apparatchiks and government workers in the middle. Any opposition will be fragmented and wholly intimidated - much like it is today, but only on a much smaller scale.

For Democrats, as I've said countless times, there is no price to be paid when the people are in poverty - it is where the Democrats want us to be since it means close to 100% of the votes as people re-elect Democrats in the mistaken belief that they are "for" poor people and Republicans are against poor people. True in a sense, since Democrats want just about everyone to be poor.

There is simply no way that someone like Boehner will ever stand up to Democrats. Boehner is a coward by nature, a go along get along type, who has no clue as to the implications of his actions, or what he is dealing with when it comes to Democrats. It is our nation's curse to be stuck with this man in a leadership role at such a crucial moment. Note that when Boehner wants to appear in the media he goes on '60 Minutes' and other mainstream Democratic venues. The man is utterly clueless and unfit to lead, but here he is - and it is Boehner and only Boehner that stands between the country as we know it and the Democratic ideal of paradise, as previously described.

I've never seen an issue that gets conservatives as worked up as immigration - abortion doesn't even come close. Nothing better illustrates the lies and hypocrisy,the naked greed for political and economic power. (and it is not about racism - that's the reflexive Democratic claptrap response when anyone opposes their agenda, since the absence of racism is impossible to prove). For immigration, the Democrats completely sold out their basic, most loyal constituency - and, by the way, Democrats know it and simply don't care. For this issue, Republicans sacrificed what could have been a permanent majority as Democrats lurched ever leftward. Unlike Democrats, the Republican leadership is clueless to what might have been - these people seem to be incapable of understanding, thinking strategically is beyond them, and when they try to do it they draw all the wrong conclusions

In the name of immigration reform the Democratic ideal will finally become a reality. The Republic won't survive it - yes, we've all heard dire warnings on various issues in the past, but this time it will happen - imagine the State of California, but instead of simply California, imagine similar governance on a national scale. We are heading toward a nation without a true middle class - sold out by those we elected to lead us.

I can't decide who is worse - the Democrats or Republicans. At this point, I am much more upset with Republicans,since there is utterly slimy..about the way that this has been done - all of it unnecessary. I keep thinking that Democrats could have easily passed this bill in 2008, when they held Congress and the Presidency, but were smart enought to wait until after the 2012 election. That type of strategic thinking is completely absent in the Republican leadership - who ignore the fact that Bush's popularity went to 13% after Bush pushed amnesty. If the Republican rank and file are so passionate about this issue (and believe me they are) one would think that the Leadership would shy from shoving it down our throats, but these people are blind, deaf and dumb to anything but their own very narrow interests. It is maddening.

As someone has said, the Republican leadership lack confidence in their moral convictions. The Leadership lacks something else as well, the inability to identify and promote the interests of the country they are supposed to be governing.

Bad, bad idea...
You mean well, but until you change Article I, Section 8, paragraph 4 of the U.S. Constitution you can't regionalize immigration that is the responsibility under the Constitution of the Congress. It is meant to be uniform not regionalized. If you wish to change that then you have to do it under Article V of the Constitution or amend Article I, Section 8. Immigration legislation is not necessary. Just enforce the current law, the 1986 Immigration and Reform Act. They have failed to enforce the current laws. If that is the case, then what good is a new law going to do? Even in the 1950's with the Bracero program in place for guest workers we still had an illegal immigration problem that the Eisenhower Administration handled correctly. They went after the business owners, prosecuted them and then deported illegal aliens. In 8 years the Eisenhower Administration had deported nearly 5 million illegal aliens. Today they need to do the same thing, arrest the business owners for violating the law, fine heavily, deport illegal aliens, build once and for all a legitimate border fence with razor wire, sensors and very regular patrols. Why not try the obvious instead of groping for straws. Some guts to do this is in order. They need to get a pair.
It's certainly worth looking at. One concern that I have is how would we restrict visa holders to a single region? What would prevent them from traveling to another region?

My bigger concern is that this would give more liberal regions a way to flood the US with terrorists, fellow travelers, and anti-American troublemakers.
I got yer local immigration right here, bub.

Require all immigrants to have a sponsor who posts a $100,000 bond per immigrant sponsored. The bond is forfeit if the immigrant becomes a public charge at any time or whenever the location of the immigrant becomes unknown.

Nuthin' is more local than the individual.

Problem solved.
The problem that I have with municipal administration of immigration is that its susceptible to corruption and abuse at the local level. Once the states and/or city governments control their own immigration, the flow of under-the-table money will flourish.
Auntie Analogue May 05, 2013 at 10:11 AM
Nothing like decentralizing, spreading, metastasizing the corruption, fraud, and scamming which now pervades the federal immigration rackets, is there?
People keep spouting a lot of hogwash about immigration: the Left loves it, the Right hates it.
In reality it should be stopped because it is a brake on the development of many countries who see their talented people leave along with their criminals.
Sad but true.
You are ignoring SCOTUS precedent that says immigration is a federal issue. Sure, states can recommend who they want, but the federal government will have the ultimate say. It's a nice fantasy to have, but don't hold your breath.
A Law that is mocked and ignored with impunity, is worse than no law at all. Thus we must have at minimum three things; 1) stringent border control with a 12 ft double fence, surveillance cameras and motion detectors over 100% of the southern border. 2) Stringent entry/exit control to track all those entering the country on temporary visas. 3) (most importantly) stringent "point of hire" enforcement in the workplace. This last should include immediate mandatory e-verify and also, as soon as possible, a national forgery proof biometric ID card. Until these matters are in place there is simply is no point to writing new immigration laws. They are a waste of ink. In addition to the minimum requirements, immigration reform should empower the states to be equal partners in the enforcement of immigration law. If the local authorities apprehend an illegal alien, then they should be able to demand that federal authorities take custody of the prisoner and that this person be deported without delay and without any possibility of parole or work-release. The local governments should also be compensated for the expense of providing public education and social services to the children of illegal aliens. It is not fair that local communities, many under a large financial strain, are burdened with the responsibility and expense caused by the failures of federal law enforcement.
This is a really bad idea. I would trust these regional areas as much as I trust the federal govt, which is to say not much. I can certainly envision very liberal regions having very liberal immigration policies whether it's for "humanitarian", "diversity", or other illogical reason. A Democratic CA legislator recently suggested admitting all Afghan women to the US so they can avoid repression. A lofty goal but also one that would have severe repercussions. States like CA who already have destructive fiscal policies would implement destructive immigration policies that would greatly impact the rest of the US. At least at the federal level, the sane can influence policy.
David W. Nicholas May 03, 2013 at 10:07 PM
The problem with any idea such as the ones you suggest is that it's another set of rules, and if they're at all onerous on the person trying to immigrate, there's ample incentive for immigrants to ignore the almost-never-enforced rules and simply go where they want, and work under the table. That's the problem now, and I don't see there being any way to incentivize that out of the equation...