Ms. Nance’s position on the Republican version of the DreamAct is contradictory and doesn’t take into account the historic controversy
surrounding immigration law. The difficulty in solving the immigration problem is
finding a fair way to address the status of illegals without creating amnesty
and while simultaneously managing to keep the requirements for citizenry in
place. It is a complex issue and to oversimplify it by claiming it will create
class warfare misses the point.
She argues that because the bill does not provide legal citizenship
to illegal immigrants, it will push the country towards class warfare by
inadvertently creating an inferior third class which “would
encourage problems that go hand-in-hand with a new, inherently lower class(es),
such as racial stereotyping”.
I have a hard time
understanding this logic. Turning it into a class warfare issue does nothing to
address the reason why our government isn’t getting anywhere with the problem
of illegals. It’s the issue regarding citizenship that has bogged down progress,
and for several reasons.
First, it is not likely,
and rightfully so, that a sufficient majority of congressional leaders are
going to toss aside already existing immigration laws. It is not a reasonable option, unless we
ignore the law. Thus, providing a mechanism which provides a middle ground for
illegals, who simply want to get on with their lives, who could care less as to
whether they can vote or not, is both fair and reasonable.
Secondly, opening the
floodgates of immigration by allowing for citizenship based on education or
military service does not allay concerns pertaining to the legitimate drain
this could have on limited American resources. One of the reasons we have legal
standards for citizenship is to limit lazy, corrupt, dishonest or otherwise
immoral individuals from taking advantage of this nation’s resources. That’s
how most countries work.
Again, it is not likely
any legislation that doesn’t address this issue is ever going to get through
Congress. Thus it makes sense to find a method which would allow for legal
status to be granted based on the merit of the individual, arguing that they
will be an asset to this nation, not a detriment.
The Republican version of
the Dream Act doesn’t ban an illegal from future citizenship; it simply doesn’t
make citizenship readily available and easy to obtain. How does this segregate
individuals into a third class? It seems to me that Ms. Nance has not considered
the value this legislation has in providing a way for an illegal to prove him
or herself, through hard work and discipline, thus paving their own way for
future success and stability through legal means.
The new version of the Dream
Act will not spoon feed illegals. The assumption is that the privilege of being an American citizen warrants an individual taking it
upon him or herself to prove they deserve, and therefore should be entitled to,
such a privilege. That endeavor requires initiative and effort, but it does not
force a third class status on anyone. Rather, it allows those excellent
individuals to be rewarded as such.
I wonder if the argument she
is making has more to do with creating legislation that will enhance votes,
rather than to enhancing lives. Should the huge influx of illegals be given
citizenship, they will provide a tremendous voter base for Democrats in
upcoming elections. Simply giving them legal status will not give them this
voting power.
I suppose the same argument could be made in
reverse, that by disallowing citizenship the Republicans are making this a
partisan issue to block Democratic votes, except the Democrats already gave it
their best shot and could not get the original Dream Act-with its mechanism for
citizenship- passed, even among fellow Democrats. The reason? It does not
address the fundamental concern this nation has regarding the nature of
citizenship. Ultimately, that is not a partisan argument; it is a legal one.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/15/445762/rubio-takes-dream-out-of-dream-act/?mobile=nc
No comments:
Post a Comment