We remain unmoved by this cowardly admission – when in fact predicated upon a Special Commission headed up by Chairwoman Rep. Barbara Jordan from Texas. In 1995, Former Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan chaired the Congressionally mandated (Immigration Act of 1990) U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. The Commission made the most thorough examination of the impact of U.S. immigration policies of any federal commission to date. The final recommendations were presented to Congress and President Clinton in 1997 (more than six years after the commission was formed).
The late Texas Rep. Barbara Jordan, (D-TX) a fierce, iconoclastic advocate of the rule of law, defined comprehensive immigration reform this way. The USA needs to end chain migration; ending the idiotic Diversity Visa Lottery program; enforcing strict deportation policies not just for illegal aliens convicted of aggravated felonies and other crimes, but for all border/visa violators; opposing welfare programs for illegal aliens; and pushing for real employer sanctions.
“Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence,” she asserted. “[T]hose that should get in get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.” In the report from the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform following up on her work, the panel wrote:
“Research and analyses conducted since the issuance of the Commission’s report on legal immigration support our view that a properly regulated system of legal permanent admissions serves the national interest. We reiterate that such a system enhances the national benefits while protecting against potential harms.” We therefore ask this simple question; Is our Immigration System anywhere near what the above paragraph stipulates as to what is a properly regulated system?
We would strongly argue that the answer is NO! For whatever reason – every Administration and every Congress since 1990 has seen to it that their job is somehow to change our immigration system. Furthermore, we believe that we could prove that every Administration and Congress since 1952 is just as guilty as their predecessors were, only with the stipulation that to make real history they had to go further.
Now this prompts the argument from our perspective that have all of these various and sundry changes to the basic rule of law been necessary; moreover, have the changes aided the USA or caused more havoc. We strongly favor the latter. It has become quite apparent to us that with the assistance of special interests and advocacy groups as well as the human nature of people that any change to the laws regarding immigration cater to the incoming illegal immigrant.
Back now to the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform where it is written that The 1997 Binational Study, Migration Between Mexico and the United States, reports that a systematic survey of border crossers indicates fewer actual crossers but longer periods of stay in the United States. Sounds promising! Then we read on… Thus, it appears that while new border initiatives may deter some movements, they do not fully reduce either levels or impacts of illegal migration. In other words, border control is a necessary, but not sufficient, response to illegal migration.
Let it be known from our staff at The Contemplative Thinker that who is trying to joke around with whom in this scenario? There can exist neither complete sufficient levels nor any other form of illegal immigrant crossing inasmuch as the data can only be speculative. There does not exist a complete – to United States – standards or quality maintained at the Southern border of the U.S. Much more on “comprehensive immigration reform” from Capitol Hill and other parts of government tomorrow; furthermore we suggest that one either skim-read or look with critical thinking skills at this Commission’s Report that can be found here.