“How do we remain a country that is both diverse but also has a firm integration policy?”, asked Igor Tymofeyez, director of immigration policy and senior advisor for refugee and asylum affairs at the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. This question of U.S. identity has occurred since the early 20th century. At this time, immigration was based upon a quota system. Immigration from Northern and Western Europe was encouraged, while Jews and Latin Americans were discouraged from coming to the United States. As Stephen Pitt, professor of history and American studies at Yale University noted, “there was a fear of cultural assimilation”. In the 1960’s, with the passage of the Hart-Celler Immigration Bill of 1965, family unifcation became the overriding principal of immigration. This focus continued in the Immigration Reform and Control(IRCA) of 1986, the basis of our current immigration policy.

Panelists argue that IRCA put polices into place that led to the current large population of illegal immigrants in the United States today. While the law offered amnesty to anyone how had resided in the United States since before 1982, it cut off any future flow of legal immigrants. Yet people were still drawn to the United States for jobs that were readily available. The magnet was work says Myers. In addition, political turmoil and revolutions in Central America, massive structural adjustments in Mexican economy, and the increased numbers of foreign owned factories along the U.S. – Mexican border that employ Mexican workers, all acted as “push factors”, driving people into the United States.

Because U.S. immigration policy made it so difficult to gain citizenship, it artificially built up an undocumented population.

These are excerpts from an article on an immigration symposium.  I found the article very informative and truly gained insight into the dynamics of this complicated issue.  What I liked best, was that a need was identified to have an open process regarding immigration a need to flexible.  Immigration policy is not a one time fix, but most be monitored constantly to ascertain, what  policies are working and what is no longer effective. 

http://www.cfr.org/content/meetings/immigration_symposium_summary.pdf

87 Thoughts to “Did the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 create the situation we find ourselves in now?”

  1. Red Dawn

    “I dont tolerate hatred, but I do understand what generates it. understanding where it comes from is the key to eliminating it. Both sides stir the pot.”

  2. “understanding where it comes from is the key to eliminating it.”

    But where DOES it come from, Elvis? I really do NOT understand it. I honestly don’t understand how anyone can hate as in “I want you dead” or “I don’t care how miserable you are or how much you are beaten on, I’m going to have my way” or “you deserve to suffer.” I know part of it is learned behavior but part of it isn’t. Part of it is a refusal to think things through or have empathy. But it just seems so ILLOGICAL to me!

    And as far as hatred becoming part of the law? No way. That’s Jim Crow all over again. It’s what we have now with a policy from FAIR.

  3. Red Dawn

    “I know part of it is learned behavior but part of it isn’t. Part of it is a refusal to think things through or have empathy. But it just seems so ILLOGICAL to me!”

    You left out F.E.A.R…….

  4. Oh yeah. I forgot about that Red. Thanks for the reminder. It’s pretty pathetic actually that fear woud lead to something like hatred instead of “lets’ find a solution.” It’s not like we’re in combat or anything. Or at least, I’m not. GL and JS apparently think we are.

  5. Michael

    KG at 9:43

    You show no understanding of “human rights” as defined by law. Only wishful thinking that human rights means groups rights for “minority groups, and “human rights” means minority communities and “illegal aliens” have a right to break the law, if the law makes them unhappy.

    Please go and read the constitution, you will find not a single word that says that law enforcement breaks human rights, in fact neutral law enforcement enforces equal rights for all under the law. It gives no special favors to “illegals” based on their ethnic group. It only gives everyone the right to be equally held to the same law, that is true of the 1960s laws that forced “integration” rather than “separatism and diversity” which is pervasive thinking amoung all of you “antiblbv” social engineers, and is what social engineers are advocating for now all over the country. Such socialist thinking will destroy us all. None of you understand your own inability to execute the law fairly, understand the “neutrality” of human rights and “individual rights” and support it only when it benefits your socialist view to support minority groups with benefits and special privileges. That concept is not a “human rights” nor “individual rights” concept.

  6. Red Dawn

    LOL, ( I am laughing at my self for saying this, because I have heard it and heard it BUT now get the saying…I got the saying but SEE it played out! )

    Pride…something before the fall?….someone will chime in ( but I got it)
    🙂

    It is SELF reflection of FEAR~

  7. Red Dawn

    My 21:40 post was to K…what EVER time that is… 🙂

  8. Michael

    KG, FAIR is not promoting having separate laws that apply to one ethnic group and a different set of laws that apply to a different ethnic group. That is what a Jim Crow law is. Jim Crow separatismn and cultural segregation and cultural diversity is what all the social engineers of the “anti-blbv” and pro-illegal alien crowd are actully promoting, but due to thier focus on minority group sympathy, don’t see it in themselves. It will cause as much problem in our communties in the 2010s as it caused in the 1960s. None of you on this side of the fence get it.

  9. Michael

    The “solution” is simply enforce the law, equally for all. That is the only fair way. The only neutral way.

  10. human rights
    –noun fundamental rights, esp. those believed to belong to an individual and in whose exercise a government may not interfere, as the rights to speak, associate, work, etc.

    ——————————————————————————–

    [Origin: 1785–95]

    Social engineering? Dear me, I think you have the wrong person or the wrong blog. If I wanted to “engineer” I would tell this person or that person they couldn’t move to a certain place or live in a certain place. I would tell them how many kids they could or could not have. I would tell people what kind of food they were allowed to cook and what they can’t. Doesn’t sound like me. Sounds like some OTHER people I’ve heard however.

  11. As I understand it, this blog doesn’t constitute any particular side of any fence. I think you’re in the wrong subdivision, Michael.

  12. Jim Crow
    –noun 1. a practice or policy of segregating or discriminating against blacks, as in public places, public vehicles, or employment.

    What we have are practices and policies that discriminate against anyone presumed to be “illegal.” These people have become targets, forced into a shadow community now fearful of overt harassment. It’s discrimination. Yup. The analogy works, all right.

  13. HA HA HA HA HA! Michael, you’re a trip. I think you’ve memorized all the right buzz words from BVBL–socialist, illegal sympathizer–but I have to admit the “social engineer” thing is new on me. Imagine that. Little ole me. An ENGINEER! Who woulda thunk?

  14. Here you go, Michael. Read up on human rights and its universal application.

    _____________________________________________________________
    Human rights refers to the “basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled.”[1] Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

    The Magna Carta or “Great Charter” was one of England’s first documents containing commitments by a sovereign to his people to respect certain legal rights.“ All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. ”
    —Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[2]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

  15. Here’s some more:

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    Main article: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

    “It is not a treaty…[In the future, it] may well become the international Magna Carta.”[6] Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish text of the Universal Declaration in 1949.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a non-binding declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly[7] in 1948, partly in response to the barbarian acts of World War II. Although the UDHR is a non-binding resolution, it is now considered to be a central component of international customary law which may be invoked under appropriate circumstances by national and other judiciaries.[8] The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights are part of the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” The declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the behavior of states and press upon them duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality.

    “ …recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world ”
    —Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

    The UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt as Chair, who began to discuss an International Bill of Rights in 1947. The members of the Commission did not immediately agree on the form of such a bill of rights, and whether, or how, it should be enforced. The Commission proceeded to frame the UDHR and accompanying treaties, but the UDHR quickly became the priority.[9] Canadian law professor John Humprey and French lawyer René Cassin were responsible for much of the cross-national research and the structure of the document respectively, where the articles of the declaration were interpretative of the general principle of the preamble. The document was structured by Cassin to include the basic principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood in the first two articles, followed successively by rights pertaining to individuals; rights of individuals in relation to each other and to groups; spiritual, public and political rights; and economic, social and cultural rights. The final three articles place, according to Cassin, rights in the context of limits, duties and the social and political order in which they are to be realized.[9] Humphrey and Cassin intended the rights in the UDHR to be legally enforceable through some means, as is reflected in the third clause of the preamble:[9]

    “ Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law. ”
    —Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

  16. Last one:

    The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a United Nations treaty based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, created in 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976. Nations that have signed this treaty are bound by it.

    Convention Provisions
    Five Categories

    Protection on individual’s physical integrity (against things such as execution, torture, and arbitrary arrest).
    Procedural fairness in law (rule of law, rights upon arrest, trial, basic conditions must be met when imprisoned, rights to a lawyer, impartial process in trial).
    Protection based on gender, religious, racial or other forms of discrimination.
    Individual freedom of belief, speech, association, freedom of press, right to hold assembly.
    Right to political participation (organise a political party, vote, voice contempt for current political authority).

  17. Michael

    My how we love to twist words.

    Social engineering is a description of using the socialist concept and liberal political activist rheteric to change the social demographics and legal system to favor only one gender, racial, religious, ethnic point of view, while ignoring the “neutrality” of the law. It also applies to those who advocate that existing law should be broken to acheive a particular social demograhic or benefit to a minority group while not caring about the impact on all “individuals”, only “selected ones” associated with a particular “group identity”. I have seen this repeated concept over and over on this blog and many of your posts.

    Your attempt to use the term “discrimmination” to apply to “law enforcement” is not valid. Discrimmination and Preference (privilege) applies to using different laws to apply to different racial, gender, religious and ethnic groups to unfairly favor or advantage one group over another. That is what “social engineers are doing today”.
    The law does not discrimminate, or give privilege,only people do based on their social beliefs. You are using concepts such as “Jim Crow” to imply the law is discrimminating and that “law” is unfairly targeting “ethnic groups”. It is not. Your logic is flawed.

  18. “The law does not discrimminate, or give privilege,only people do based on their social beliefs” LMAO.

    Obviously, you’ve never heard a lawyer say, “How much justice can you afford?” I have and I’ve looked around to know that justice is not blind in this country. And in PWC, thanks to BVBL et al, it’s on the lookout for “brown faces.”

    Law enforcement of the select few and not all equals discrimination.

  19. Michael

    No-where in any of your quotes on “indivudual and human rights is a quote that supports those rights in favor of one racial, ethnic, gender or religious group over another, nor does it favor in any of those comments it is ok to break the law and not enforce “immigration law”. Your references intended to show scholarly wisdom have no relevance to my argument that “enforcing law” eliminates human or individiual rights. In fact failure to enforce the law allows a rhetoric on group seperatism and politcal advocacy to grown and become popular. That is my point KG, you are not getting it.

  20. Michael

    So now you are saying you support hiring lawyers to support a philosophy that it is ok to break the law?

  21. LOL! Okay, let me get to this Michael.

    1. Wikipedia isn’t what I would call “scholarly.”
    2. ” ‘enforcing law’ eliminates human or individiual rights.” Hmmmm. I believe, Michael, that’s why the UN has authored the pieces on human rights–to protect even prisoners from people like you who seem to think that breaking the law means we can do whatever we want to people.
    3. Lawyers are there to support YOUR (and my) justice system here in the United States. If you don’t like this, you might want to move. And I suggest more lawyers make themselves more available to people (like me, even) who can’t afford them.
    4. “supports those rights in favor of one racial, ethnic, gender or religious group over another” Who is supporting one group over another? My argument is we should not be PERSECUTING one group because of some big mouths in another! Furthermore, you should note that Human Rights includes “Protection based on gender, religious, racial or other forms of discrimination.” Right now, anyone who is perceived to possibly be “illegal” is discriminated against.

    This is my last post to you because you are kind of ranting and assuming things. Have a nice night and get some sleep.

  22. Red Dawn

    kgotthardt said:

    “Obviously, you’ve never heard a lawyer say, “How much justice can you afford?” I have and I’ve looked around to know that justice is not blind in this country”

    Michael said:

    “So now you are saying you support hiring lawyers to support a philosophy that it is ok to break the law?”

    I have to break in for the reason I have hired and work for lawyers…..

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You guys are talking about lawyers….WTF, Michael, do you think their JOB is?

    It is to weight the scale down with bricks to win. The scale is the JUDGE

  23. Red Dawn

    Correction : WHAT do you think their job is?( Michael)

  24. elvis

    I solemnly swear (or affirm) I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California;

    I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;

    I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land;

    I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;

    I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client, and will accept no compensation in connection with a client’s business except from the client or with the client’s knowledge and approval;

    I will abstain from all offensive personality, and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged;

    I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay any person’s cause for lucre or malice.

    So help me God.

    the above is California’s bar oath, that’s what THEY say the legal professional should be. There are others; temper justice with mercy, etc…the list goes on. Personally the last phrase of the oath is what hits me the most and is the essence of what it means to be an attorney.

  25. michael

    My point is not about hiring lawyers to defend people who break the law, my point is that people who think they can break the law, or break the law, use lawyers to help them do it and get away with it. Even judges who are supposed to be impartial, are political and make biased judgments.

    My issue with KG is that she is supporting an unethical lawbreaking philosophy and saying that the law discrimminates, it does not, and saying that breaking the law (because you don’t like it) is ok as long as she can hire a lawyer to help avoid the penalty or consequence.

    My issue is with the collapse of legal ethics and people who think that breaking the law is OK.
    KG is arguing that breaking law is OK from what I am hearing.

  26. michael

    KG: Law enforcement of the select few and not all equals discrimination.

    That’s an assumption and belief on your part, you have no proof of that. I serious doubt our trained officers are doing that, even though you believe it.

    A typical person claiming “profiling” uses “numbers” to make that claim, rather than “standards”. “numbers” are based entirely on the number of people arrested for committing an offense based on a “standard”. Whenever those “numbers are higher for one ethnic group than another, people like KG scream “profiling” and “discrimmination” and feel smug in that claim. The reality is those officers are applying a standard of law (only a very,very few don’t), regardless of race, gender, religion or ethnic group, and are arresting anyone who breaks the standard of the law or is suspected of breaking the standard of the law. If one particular ethnic group has a higher percentage of “numbers” of people breaking that law standard, you are going to have more numerical arrests you can put into that “ethnic group category”. The logic fallacy I am calling KG on is that those “numbers” have nothing to do with “discrimmination”, but have a basis in fact directly related to a simple standard of law. People either break the law or are suspected of breaking the law because of reasonable factual information available, or they do not.

    The problem with thinking discrimmination is occuring, is like “diversity” concepts, you only use a measuring yardstick of racial balancing concepts, instead of a standard like “skill, ability, or intellectual capacity”, which is a standard blind to race, gender, religious, or ethnic group “numbers”.

    When people use “numbers” to claim discrimmination or claim privilege, they are not “neutral”, are not applying a legal standard, and are simply and illegally trying to advantage one racial, gender, religious or ethnic group over another.

  27. michael

    The UN created human rights to protect people from other people or governments from abusing basic legal rights, KG, not to say that all laws you don’t agree with can and should be broken, and a claim made to justify those laws as “inhumane”, just because you don’t like them. The UN supports “illegal” immigration laws, on an international basis. Show me where the UN says that “illegal” immigration is legal, and people who enforce “illegal” immigration law are “inhumane”. Let’s narow your argument to something relevant and pertinent to the debate about your claim that Immigration law is “discrimmination” and “inhumane”. I’m saying your abstract concept of this is wrong. You can’t see your error in your own abstraction about human rights and “individual” rights.

    You dodge and weave, but can’t focus on the truth.

  28. michael

    Your concept is absolutely correct elvis. I am not against the legal code, in fact very much in favor of it. My beef is with people who use/abuse that legal system to support a philosophy that it is ok to break the law because you have a Lawyer. My beef is not with the lawyers, but with the people who are unethical, and think it is OK to break the law. This is the focus of my entire debate with KG. She indicates to me it is ok to break the law. Only lawbreakers operate in an unlawful and unethical manner, like the mafia, or organzised crime or unethical industries, and now “un-ethical” social engineers who support breaking immigration law to the detriment of the rest of us 360 million people living in this country. I take issue with that. It is our right to be protected by that law, for law enforcement to enforce, for police oficers to arrest those who break it, and for judeges to rule on sending them home because they broke the law and affected 360 million of us. Thank God, the judges are usually the ethical ones.

  29. elvis

    A lawyer upholds the constitution and the constitution of the state and as such is an officer of the court. I totally agree michael, it’s not ok to break the law. In fact, being an officer of a court means you are held to a higher standard. Sure there are some unethical people who do break the law, but they are the ones who have to live with themselves. This can be applied to any profession. I will zealously and vigorously support and defend my client as necessary within the law. Sometimes that law is skirted, but remaining within it ensures you always are safe and that your reputation is not tarnished. The law is a funny beast in that it’s always changing and everyones interpretation of it changes. it is fickle to say the least and it can be frustrating. I dont do immigration nor family issues, they are touchy subjects that really drain a person and honestly the money is not there and I need to feed a family. I really respect those that take those jobs as they 110 percent supportive to the cause regardless of lack of money involved.

  30. elvis

    anyone catch the nationals game last night? boy do they suck, figure they would do better in their shiny new ballpark. that said, was a pretty good time at the new stadium. beer seems to be getting more expensive these days, could buy a freakin’ 6 pack for what I could buy for one beer there 🙁

  31. Kenneth Reynolds

    elvis, 10. May 2008, 19:12

    anyone catch the nationals game last night? boy do they suck, figure they would do better in their shiny new ballpark. that said, was a pretty good time at the new stadium. beer seems to be getting more expensive these days, could buy a freakin’ 6 pack for what I could buy for one beer there

    I GUESS YOU HAVENT CAUGHT ANY REDSKINS GAMES LATELY ELVIS…..

  32. elvis

    Kenneth,

    of course, I have season tickets on club level. I split them half and half with a friend. They do suck, but honestly I go to see the other teams play. the skins are horrible and pretty much always have been. I’m a chargers fan. and lately I dont think anyone has caught the games since the season has not started yet.

  33. elvis

    kenneth,

    i also have season tix to the capitals too, they are not so hot either. i think those games are more entertaining however and verizon center seems to have cheaper beer for some reason than all the rest. the food selection is not as great though. cant comment on the wizards, cant stand basketball.

  34. Kenneth Reynolds

    You are more well-versed tan i am on any of this..i understand the Redskins get a bad wrap for soaking everyone!!!

  35. elvis

    Kenneth,

    I just love the experience, I’m not too golden on the rules of any game other than football I’m afraid. It’s a pleasant distraction from reality for the most part. spend any of amount of time orbiting around various courthouses and pushing paper and you’ll know what I mean (I wouldnt count that as “reality” but you get my drift)

Comments are closed.