BBC News: Immigration reform: US senators in bipartisan deal
A favorite phrase of the Democrats (and some Republicans) is “comprehensive immigration reform.” Of course, this means that the proposed reforms are anything but comprehensive.
When politicians say “comprehensive immigration reform,” they mean amnesty for those who have illegally entered and stayed for many years. Some Republicans oppose amnesty, but we have no legal choice. Yes, our only LEGAL choice is amnesty for the trespassers.
Property rights are not absolute. If I open McRaju’s Restaurant, I have to defend the name. If I see another McRaju’s Restaurant, I have to file a lawsuit. If I let people use the name, I will eventually lose the right to that name.
If I own 1000 acres of land, I have to defend it. If people settle on my land illegally, and I am aware of their presence, I have to evict them. If I fail to take action as soon as possible, I might lose the land. I can’t approach the settlers twenty years from now and tell them to leave. They have the legal right to stay because I failed to evict them when I knew they were there. They are protected under by prescriptive rights.
Because the United States government failed to evict the trespassers, even when made aware of their presence, the government has lost the right to deport. The government let them stay, the government let them start a life here, so the government has to legalize them. They are here by prescriptive right. The Customs and Immigration Enforcement can put them at the end of the citizenship line, but it may not deport them. This concept (prescriptive rights) needs to be explained to the American people.
Quick edit at 3:57pm today: I want to include a link to another blogger’s post on immigration reform, which you may find interesting: Immigration reform is coming, by Lion.
——You can stop reading here; the rest of this post is trivial.——–
While we are on the subject of immigration reform (and not just amnesty), perhaps we can streamline some visa categories. Are all these levels of performance visas really necessary?
Performance visas: P-1 visas for performers who are internationally recognized, meaning 25,000 fans, or maybe 25,000 album sales. I don’t know. If the performer is part of an artist exchange (we play for you, you play for us), they don’t need a minimum number of fans; they just need a P-2 visa. If the performer does not meet either of the two criteria above, but are performing in a program that is culturally unique, they get a P-3 visa. I don’t know what level of uniqueness meets the government definition of unique. The government also has O visas and Q visas; O is for extraordinary abilities and Q is International Cultural Exchange participants.
The H visas are much more important and even more complex, but we won’t go into those details today.
Read my opinion here
http://politicaldanny.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/comprehensive-immigration-reform-introduced-by-members-of-the-senate/
Hi Danny,
I see that nearly agree on immigration reform. I still think that those who entered illegally should go to the end of the line, although I would like to see the line move faster.
Thank you for visiting.
I get your argument, Basically you are taking the common law approach. If squatters stay long enough and the owner doesn’t evict them, , he loses the right after a certain period of time to do anything about it. I’m not sure that applies to border enforcement however. I don’t think the legal precedent follows.
I would rather expand legal immigration rather than breed further disrespect for the law however. Those attitudes won’t go away once the illegals are citizens. It will be family lore among those who get amnesty that if you want something, you have to break the rules.
In legal terms, I am not sure if the concept of prescriptive rights applies to immigration and border enforcement. I think you are right that no legal precedent exists. This is would be an interesting court case.
I would also prefer to expand legal immigration instead of encouraging further disrespect for the law.
“It will be family lore among those…” In many cases, it already is.
In moral terms, I think deporting people after having allowed them to build a life here is wrong. I am fine with immediate deportation for those who are caught entering illegally. I am not fine with catching, releasing, waiting twenty years, and then deporting. Deportation should be the penalty imposed immediately upon conviction.