Illegal Immigration Part II

First let me say that I am happy to have a conservative forum where I can express some of my ideas.  As you might imagine, I run in pretty liberal circles.  Just a quick note on that, what you conservatives better understand is that winning the Latino vote would secure your political sway for decades to come.  Liberals and democrats understand this.  They cater/pander to the Latino community.  If not for George Bush’s relative popularity among Latinos, you would have likely had a two-term Gore White House.  Latinos share several core values with conservatives.  These should be pointed out and, where there are differences, these should be discussed and debated gently and not with megaphones and draconian legislation.  A conservative/Latino voting coalition would be nearly impossible to beat.

Second, You have to understand my background.  I grew up in the barrio in Tucson, Arizona.  My mother and father, both illegal at the time, had seven children of which I am the fifth.  They came to the United States to flee suffocating economic oppression.  They have always honored their native culture and spoke Spanish exclusively to their children.  At the same time, they insisted that we adopt the customs of our new country and made sure that we gave our full effort to studies.  Though never rich, my recently deceased father was a proud citizen.  He loved the United States and what it gave him.  He said, once, that it would be impossible for him to re-pay the United States for all that it had done for him.  His plea to his children near the end of his life would be for us to continue the repayment effort.  Because of that, I took school seriously.

It was my study of law and economics that spurred extra-curricular detailed studies in US history and government.  Though we share little racial/cultural heritage, I am forever bound to Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson.  Freedom is the bonding agent.  In spite of serious conservative leanings on issues of freedom, I side with the President on Immigration Policy.  I may not have chosen the best video to display in my last post.  Here is my own Immigration proposal, which mirrors the president’s.

Immigration Policy

Every immigrant wishing to become a citizen should be required to register to become a citizen.  If they register, they will be given immunity from deportation and be allowed to work during the registration period.  The registration period is 18 months long.  During that time, each applicant must:

• Achieve basic English proficiency
• Pass an immigration test heavily weighted toward US history, government and law
• Pay a $3500 fine to completely cover associated administrative costs
• Not commit any crime during the 18 month period (traffic and similar law infractions are excepted).  If a crime is committed, the applicant forever forfeits citizenship rights and will be immediately deported or prosecuted under US law.
• Be subject to US income and other taxes.

Besides this, the borders must NOT be closed but must be regulated.  If there were a far easier way for citizens of other countries to immigrate, non-criminal, illegal immigration would cease.  Border agents would no longer be over-burdened and could focus in on keeping bad elements out of the US.

I welcome any and all dialogue on this site or to my personal email, mariaangelicaleonchamorro@gmail.com

The Immigration Mess in Arizona — The Obama Solution

María Angélica León Chamorro graduated from Brown University with a degree in Economics and a Law degree from University of Arizona. She founded the group, Senda Reál América which lobbies on behalf of immigrant interests in several states.

Anthropologists tell us that we American’s are all immigrants or children of immigrants. Not even the Native American tribes are really native. They are transplants who may win an American genealogical longevity argument, but in the end, they owe their origins to Euro/Asian/Middle Eastern populations. Around 250 years after the first modern Europeans began colonizing, a bold, yet well-conceived, experiment in government created a wildly liberal immigration policy. The policy is shocking to modern politicians and anthropologists.

David Grant wrote previously in, American DNA, about the apparently backward notion of inviting:

your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me

Really? We are not asking for the professors, the doctors, the lawyers, the politicians and the business tycoons? You must be joking! How would we get along without the elite? You are telling me that we are embarking on the boldest governmental experiment ever conceived, and we are asking for “wretched refuse?” The key great-nation-making qualifier in the poem, and really, the only one that matters, is “yearning to breathe free.” Think about that! America threw down the gauntlet. America brashly claimed that, “Out of your rejects, we can create a nation better than yours by about any measure. Out of this wilderness, we will outproduce you in industry and agriculture. We will rule the seas, the land and the air. We will dominate global trade. We will create unimaginable wealth, and we will do it all with your refuse! Keep your doctors, lawyers, philosophers, politicians, princes, artisans, land owners and industrial magnates. We need none of them. Freedom will sanctify both soil and toil, and out of these will grow unimaginable wealth in art, science and industry.” Somewhere between the writing of that poem and our current immigration angst we lost site of what made us great.

The Agony in Arizona

Arizonans live near a porous border with a struggling state, in this case, a Mexican state that has failed in border regions. Lawless border areas have become a breeding ground for gangs of drug thugs, human traffickers, vigilantes and wretched refuse who often do not survive desert crossings and border breaches. Arizona has been abandoned by the legal prescriber and intended enforcer of immigration policy, the federal government. I am convinced that after one day of issue discussion, a random class of fifth graders could come up with superior immigration policy to what decades of Democrats and Republicans have been able to concoct.

The end result of the Arizona law, which allows police to, upon suspicion that a person in question is an illegal immigrant, ask for documentation, will have two effects. The first has already happened and will be described at the end of this post. The second can be demonstrated by the recent rise in Audi dealership revenue in Scottsdale. Every trial lawyer in the state is spending in advance of what will surely be vast income augmentation.

America Versus Europe

During the last two centuries, it was not uncommon for a European in power to demand proper identification of a subject. The response would be a submissive document delivery and hope that arrest quotas were filled. The American response would look something like this:

Suspicious Officer: (They look like they might be illegal immigrants.  They are short, brown, and their English is really bad). May I see your documents?

Luis Hernandez: Tell you what, medio pendejo, you can stick your request donde el sol no brilla!

Suspicious Officer: You are under arrest!

Luis Hernandez: Perfecto! My abogado is going to love this. Nos vemos in court!

Months later a court docket arrives, “Hernandez v Arizona.” Some time later, the law is overturned for being unconstitutional, the lawyers are richer, and Arizona is poorer (but some politicians may save their miserable skins by taking a stand).

The first effect previously mentioned, is that Arizona’s angst is now in the national spotlight. President Obama has already spoken on what I believe is sound immigration policy. Given his proven ability to create policy against tremendous odds, he may be able to push needed immigration reform through as well. By taking a stand, Arizona has created the necessary impetus to push policy. Take a look at what he proposes–

Most of Summalogica readers are asking, “Chica, have you lost your mind?” You probably fall into one of three categories:

1. You believe that I am consorting with the enemy and that no matter what Obama says, it is wrong for America because he said it. I have nothing more to say to you.
2. You believe that the ideals that the President expressed, though valuable, will end up nationalizing something, centralizing power, benefiting a union, increasing the national debt, or somehow continuing similar encroachment on freedom. I am sympathetic to your distrust of all things political.
3. You disagree with me for reasons independent of political figures. If you fall into this category, please engage in the comment section of this post.

You can also send me an email: mariaangelicaleonchamorro@gmail.com

María Angélica