Forget the nonsense, let’s talk immigration

So far in the presidential nominating campaigns of 2016, we have concentrated on more superfluous flummery than actual substantial policy plans when it comes to the key issue of immigration.

Wild, surrealistic assertions such as Donald Trump’s Mexican/American wall and Bernie Sanders’ “everyone come as you are from wherever you are” open-door policy have permeated the rhetoric from Boston to Osh Gosh.

Between the two extreme poles, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich have assumed a slightly greater degree of realism regarding the immigration dilemma, but nowhere as sound and thoughtful as they should be.

Seventeen Republican and 11 Democrat debates have explained little about where the candidates actually stand on reasonable and implementable immigration policies. On the contrary, we have been immersed in a dialogue of nonsense. The search for the sound bite has surpassed the need for pertinent plans to cure America’s immigration ills.

However, in an analysis of non-debate utterances, we can grasp how these candidates stand on the issue and in doing so sort out the wheat of valuable information from the chaff of ridiculous chatter and banter.

In the debates as well as on the stump, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump calls the voter’s attention for the need for a return to the mindset of the “Know-Nothing Party” of the 1800s. Instead of alienating Irish Catholics as was done in the mid-1800s and excluding Chinese former railroad workers as was done later in that same century, Trump cautions us that Hispanics from the south are murderers and rapists and anyone who professes the Islamic faith is necessarily a potential terrorist.

Trump’s remedy to these immigration problems is to stop all Arab immigrants of Islamic belief from entering the country. Additionally, he wants to erect a 1,000- to 2,000-mile wall along the southern border of the United States with towers, bird’s nest, gates, barbed wire, and surveillance cameras, and then somehow force the president of Mexico to pay for it.

Converse to the foundational philosophy of our nation, since our bedrock principle has been religious pluralism, we are supposed to be a bastion of religious observational diversity as opposed to imposing restrictions based upon one’s faith. Our country, and for that matter our state, was formed on the basis that one holds the individual liberty to observe what they wish – or, for that matter, the right not to follow any religion at all if they so choose. That is why the Puritans, the Quakers, the Catholics, the Jews, and yes the Islamic people have been coming to the North American continent since we were called British Colonial America.

However, our immigration laws have not always been as cautiously welcoming as the founders had envisioned. Our immigration policies and statutes have evolved, albeit sometimes unfairly and cross-grained with the intentions of the founders.

Trump’s hatemongering on this issue has gained him devotees who need to find a scapegoat for the tepid economy and the lack of job opportunities. He has also fed into the legitimate fear of terrorist attacks, which has been pervasive especially because of the recent events in Europe.

The Donald’s Democrat opponent, Bernie Sanders, takes the diametric opposite standpoint. Bernie is for essentially open borders, and in order to affect that scenario he plans to circumvent the Congress more so than the current occupant of the White House does. He stated in December 2015 the following: “I will take executive action … to, among other things, make sure that 11 million undocumented people in our country no longer live in the shadows, no longer live in fear, but live in security and dignity.”

Sanders has been uncomfortable with the rulings of immigration adjudication boards, which in some cases render deportation orders. He said: “The growth of the immigration detention deportation machine and the expansion of border militarization has perpetuated unjust policies.”

Sanders’ idea of further liquefying our borders and attempting to effectuate that effort through a further avoidance of the legislative branch of government is just as unconstitutional and repellent to true American philosophical pillars as Trump’s opposing stands on the issue.

Cruz, a Republican senator from Texas, spoke in hard-line rhetorical absolutes in regard to illegal immigration. In January of this year, he stated a policy of blustering catch phrases rather than explicit, well-thought-out plans: “As president, I will stop illegal immigration, build a wall that works, triple border security and put in place the surveillance and biometric tracking to secure the border. Border security is national security.” That is a nice-sounding tough sound bite, but those assertions are not feasibly implemented.

Also pandering for votes through well-crafted rhetoric is the Democrat frontrunner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She believes taking the circuitous route around the Congress and the Constitution is the way to go as chief executive. She stated: “If Congress won’t act, I’ll defend President Obama’s executive action, and I’ll go farther to keep families together.” And she said, “I will stand against any effort to deport dreamers.” She of course was referring to the “Dream Act,” which ensures children who were born elsewhere but spent most of the childhood in the United States should enjoy the same protections and educational opportunities as American children.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich states very plainly the problem and his foundational perception on what paradigm he believes Americans should have regarding illegal immigrants. In an interview with “The Hill,” he said: “The idea that we’re going to deport all these people is ludicrous and everybody knows it. If they are law-abiding then I think they should stay.”

These sentiments expressed by the candidates may be serious or may be an assumption of a stand that they think sells to the electorate. Either way, all attitudes seem to ignore the laws already on the books and the constitutional rights our country was built on.

Perhaps the reason the candidates are all over the map with assertions about proper immigration ideals is our evolution of laws on the matter. It all started with the “Naturalization Act of 1790,” which insured that “free white people of good character” could become U.S. citizens. That line excluded Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, freed blacks, and Asians.

After the railroads were completed, President Chester Arthur signed into law the “Chinese Exclusion Act,” which prohibited all immigration of laborers. This immigration law might be the most ironic considering the trillions of United States debt that China currently holds and that our economies are irreversibly intertwined today. Following that, the “Emergency Quota Act of 1921” restricted to 3 percent each country of origin’s citizens entering America per year. Thus, if the aggregate population of people from Ireland in the U.S. was a certain number, then only 3 percent of that number could enter per annum. That was reduced to 2 percent three years later. Then finally, the “Hart-Cellar Act of 1965” abolished the quota system and virtually opened the floodgates to immigrants from all over the globe.

Yet even with these unrestrictive policy changes, there remained in place a clear application process, various types of visas that a aspiring resident can avail themselves of, a system of review and adjudication on residency status, and of course a requirement to conform to the rules and reporting of being a resident alien in our nation. Most importantly, a newcomer was vetted through documentation and a provable paper trail that may not have been possible with the waves of immigrants a century before, or may not be possible with the Syrian refugees of today.

Simply, this begs the undeniable question – how come approximately 11 million of those who reside in our country illegally did not respectfully engage in the legitimate process? No matter how dire the circumstances in their home nation may have been, they did not follow our laws. No matter if they have not committed any crimes since they came here in the first place, they still have violated our immigration laws. Other immigrants have waited for entrance, complied with procedure, studied to become naturalized, and are now part of our American family. Why should we reward those who have broken our system of laws by migrating into our country illegally?

Furthermore, as it is being proposed in Rhode Island, why should we give legitimization to illegal immigrants by bestowing the privilege of driving and a driver’s license?

The candidates for president have all missed the point. First, we must enforce the laws and processes on the books and hold anyone who does not have proper documentation culpable for breaking the law. Furthermore, no one should be remotely considered for entrance to America without being properly vetted. If we endorse illegality, then the slippery slope of choosing which statute to comply with and which to ignore will begin to erode our very society. Immigrants should know unequivocally, if you want to be one of us you must first adhere to our system of laws and not seek to flaunt them.

If the present immigration laws are contrary to a candidate’s ideas, then he or she must pass legislation and sign the bill into law. Using executive action to circumvent the will of the people is abhorrent to the cause of liberty.

Welcome to America, but first follow the law!