The Penalty For Pushers Of Amnesty – From My Vault

The following is my syndicated column that was published August 10, 2010. With Obama’s current effort to create an avenue of amnesty for illegal aliens it is even more relevant today.
****************
It pains me to acknowledge that, in all likelihood, before Obama can be impeached or voted out of office, there is a good chance he and his minions, complicit with characterless Republicans, will pass an immigration amnesty bill under the guise of immigration reform.

As my readers know, I have long argued that we do not need immigration reform; we need immigration enforcement.

At present there are several ways of attaining legal residence in the United States. The most frequently used are family-based visas, study visas, work visas, asylum and refugee status and the diversity-visa program. It should be noted that within one of these categories you can have a further classification as to whether the visa is an immigrant or nonimmigrant. A nonimmigrant visa is one that allows an alien to reside in the United States for a short period of time for a particular purpose.

There are three legal ways to become an American citizen (Eisla Sebastian; www.associatedcontent.com; April 2, 2006). They are Jus Sanguinius (Right of Blood), which is an automatic method that bases a person’s right to American citizenship on their parent’s citizenship. A child is given American citizenship automatically if at least one of their parents is a legal U.S. citizen at time of that child’s birth.

There is Jus Soli (Right of Birthplace), which is based on where the child is born. In this instance, a child is given automatic American citizenship even if the mother is here illegally as long as the child is born on U.S. soil – which many argue, myself included, is a total abrogation of the intent of the 14th Amendment.

The third is Naturalization. As Sebastian points out, to qualify for naturalization a person must meet a number of prerequisites. Besides there being age and residence prerequisites, the person must be of good moral character; they cannot have been charged or convicted of any crime for five years prior to naturalization, or three years if married to a U.S. citizen.

They must be able to read, write, and speak English. These requisites can be forgiven if the person has lived in the U.S. legally for at least 15 years and is over 55, if the person has resided here for at least 20 years and is over 50 or if the applicant has a verifiable condition that impairs their ability to learn English.

They must have a firm understanding of U.S. history and government and are required to take an exam to prove their understanding of same.

The final and in my mind most important requisite is that they take an Oath of Allegiance. The oath states that they will support and defend the U.S. Constitution, obey the law, renounce their allegiance to other countries’ governments and bear arms for the U.S. Armed Forces or perform services for the American government if circumstances demand it. This can be modified if the oath goes against their fundamental religious beliefs and they are opposed to bearing arms for any armed forces.

Upon fulfillment of the aforementioned, said person seeking legal citizenship is afforded all rights and privileges commensurate with legal American citizens. The key word and expectation pursuant to the aforementioned is “legal.”

How can the federal government, much less the president of the United States, knowingly and willfully abandon these principles for the sake of rewarding a potential voting bloc for breaking the law?

These laws were set in place not just to ensure our domestic security, but also to ensure that those coming here assimilate successfully within the fabric of American communities. They aren’t intended to deny immigrants their right to ethnic pride as such, but rather that they put America first.

They are intended to ensure that the immigrant becomes a contributing member of our society – not, as we are witnessing, a financial cancer on the communities within which they now reside.

There is a reason we are called the “United” States of America. How can we be “United” if within our borders there are alien factors and communities disrespectful of our laws and heritage? How can we be “United” if we are increasingly separated by those whose allegiance is to themselves and to their countries of origin and the cultures there within?

More importantly, how long can we continue to be the greatest country in the world if we are increasingly disjointed by foreign elements within, whose only stake in America is what they can extract?

The very suggestion of such consideration by those sworn to uphold our laws and our Constitution is worthy of impeachment and/or expulsion from office.
*********************

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM MYCHAL: “Thanks for reading this article! If you enjoyed it, please sign up to receive new articles via email by clicking here.  We HATE spam as much as you do and we promise to NEVER, EVER, sell your information to anyone EVER! We will only share with you ideas and information that we feel is worthy of our subscribers. Remember, just click here to sign up for our email alerts. Thanks!”