Legal Immigration
To the editor:
I am so tired of the arguments about who has legal rights to the protection of our Constitution and who doesn’t. If people would simply read it, our Constitution is very clear on that point. The only people who are protected by that very important document are those who are born in this country or in US facilities abroad, or those who enter this country legally for designated purposes and periods of time.
The people who come to this country through the Visa program further have the right to apply for citizenship as long as they do so during the time their visas are valid. The people who enter this country illegally or who overstay their visas have no protections at all under the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the Constitution states that these people must be removed or imprisoned as soon as they are discovered. Evidently, our previous administration chose to ignore that part of the Constitution, and now look at the mess we are in.
As a foreign-born child of US citizens, I am presuming to speak for the legal immigrant community. You see, even though my ancestors founded the Colonies of Maryland and Virginia, I myself am a naturalized citizen. I was born at the end of WWII when our immigration laws were much stricter than they are now. For example, you were only considered a citizen from birth if both your parents were citizens and you were born on U.S. soil. According to the laws of the time, I met one requirement but not the other simply because my father chose to remain in the military and help rebuild Europe following the war. Consequently, I was not born on U.S. soil.
As the Boomer generation continued to explode following my birth, Congress passed an interim fix by designating all U.S. military and foreign service facilities (including hospitals) as U.S. soil. But as one of those people born during the excluded window, I found myself in the U.S. Federal Building in Houston being sworn in as a U.S. citizen on my 21st birthday.
Because of my father’s chosen career path, I grew up in quite an International community. My three closest friends from middle school on are from three different countries. Liz’s family had fled Cuba when Castro came into power. Tina’s family had fled Colombia when her grandfather’s regime was overthrown by a military coup. And Mary had been adopted from an Irish orphanage by a local couple. Today we are all very vocal opponents of illegal immigration, the Dreamer Act and amnesty. You may be interested to know that a large majority of legal immigrants feel the same way we do. Look at it from our perspective: 1. According to current immigration laws, there is no such thing as an illegal “immigrant.” They are all lawbreakers legally known as “aliens.”
2. According to current immigration laws, there is no such thing as an anchor baby. Liberals and Progressives have pushed this concept for more than 40 years even though it has no basis in law. While they may have been born on US soil, their parents are/were not US citizens at the time of their births. Remember, a lie repeated does not equal a truth.
3. Young adults who were brought to this country illegally as babies and small children are in a very uncomfortable position. They have no rights to legal status here and their own countries often don’t want them because they don’t fit in, and most of them believe that this IS their home. That does not entitle them to special treatment or opportunities just because of their unfortunate circumstances.
Many of us who have followed the legal path to citizenship do believe these Dreamers should have some sort of program that provides a path to citizenship. However, we also believe that they should become citizens before being accepted into any college or university. Once they have been accepted they can earn any sort of preferential treatment or financial support in the same manner as the rest of the student body.
4. As for amnesty, most of us absolutely oppose it. If we had to follow all the rules along the path to citizenship, so must they. Outside of my weird situation, we had the correct paperwork and visas, studied the Constitution and the laws of the land, went through two or more extensive background checks and interviews, took tests, were required to learn English if we didn’t already speak it and assimilate into the local culture. What’s wrong with that? Our ancestors were required to do the same things just to survive and prosper in a new land once they got here.
With so much legal evidence, what is wrong with our elected officials in Washington, D.C? Have they even read the Constitution? It should be a required prerequisite for anyone running for public office. It wouldn’t hurt if they had to read at least part of the Federalist Papers as well. Our founding fathers were very clear on not just the words contained in the Constitution, but on the intent behind those words. Did they always agree? No. Did they resort to name-calling, hate speech and violence? For the most part, also No. Instead they adopted what used to be called civil discourse to iron out their differences and come to peaceful resolutions, not to murder and mayhem. In my humble opinion, it is way past time for us to heed our founders and return to informed civil discourse if we want to remain the Land of the Free.
Mary Kendall Dawson La Grange