WHATEVER HAPPENED TO "SPONSORSHIP"?

 

 

 

By Beverly Eakman
August 20, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

Would someone please explain to me (a) what is more important than securing our borders and closing the door to newcomers until we can assimilate those here legally, and (b) what happened to the old sponsorship approach to immigration?

In response to increased worries about terrorism, the Center for American Progress, on July 26, released its assessment of a proposed mass deportation policy for some 10 million undocumented persons currently in the U.S., to say nothing of the 500,000 that cross the border each year. CAP's statistics were reported in newspapers nationwide.

CAP's data analysis estimated the cost to be at least $206 billion over 5 years ($41.2 billion annually), and possibly as high as $230 billion. Apparently, the Center arrived at these figures after assuming that 2 million of the 10 million illegals would leave on their own-which seems something of a stretch. To put the $41 billion in perspective, CAP indicated that the figures would exceed the entire annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security ($34.2 billion).

As best I can figure out, sponsorship laws are still on the books. "If you do not have a college degree or skills that are in demand � you must have a job offer with a U.S. company that is willing to sponsor you for a labor certification. This process takes many years to complete but leaves you with a green card," states one government web site. Others offer similar advice to prospective immigrants.

Also, immigration laws state that in order to protect U.S. citizens, a visa is denied to certain applicants, among them, those who:

This seems pretty explicit to me. While enforcement may take money, time, and manpower, what is the point of fighting wars abroad and negotiating with questionable sources to contain terrorism if we don't enforce laws already on the books? If, by chance, U.S. sponsorship laws are no longer viable, then who was responsible for watering them down, when did it happen, and isn't it time to revive them?

For example, as I write this, I read in the Washington Times (among other news outlets) that a homosexual Mexican man with AIDS living in San Francisco was granted asylum last week (August 12) by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing an earlier ruling of deportation for overstaying his visa. Why? Because, the man claimed, he would face persecution for his condition and orientation in Mexico. And get this: The man works as a waiter -- as in food service -- at a local hotel. Excuse me, but how does fellow with a compromised immune system get a job working around food, and what happened to the prohibition against "applicants with communicable diseases"? Have this nation's leaders lost their collective marbles?

The usually conservative Washington Times, along with more liberal news outlets, have in the past few weeks carried prominently placed stories describing the travails of one dispossessed immigrant family after another. On July 26, for example, the Washington Times detailed how wonderfully the Department of Education is serving the children of migrant workers from Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic ["Education on the move"] who travel up and down our East Coast in search of temporary jobs picking blueberries. A couple days earlier, a full-page story appeared in the same newspaper about a down-and-out Somali family.

Now, I sympathize with these individuals. But American citizens living here lead harrowing lives, too. This isn't the time to be straining our resources and services on new illegal immigrants. It sends the wrong message to Americans at home. If we are going to go through the purses of elderly grannies in airports, subways, and building entrances; if we are going to install cameras and track people; if we are going to herd good citizens around like cattle, telling them to present for inspection, then people have reason to expect a serious approach to immigration. No non-citizen should be over here right now without a sponsor-i.e., a full citizen with a spotless record who will take responsibility for the applicant.

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and former House Speaker Rep. Newt Gingrich, have been accused of "engaging in fantasy" when they suggest government conduct a massive police action to arrest, try and deport "undocumented workers" to get a handle on America's out-of-control immigration problem. But if the Administration expects the public to get behind the Patriot Act, then it has to see seriousness elsewhere. If it takes the entire budget of Homeland Security to do the job, then maybe that's the job it should be doing, with the help of the U.S. Immigration Control Enforcement (ICE).

Those against interdiction and deportation predict devastation of our economy. Never mind that the nation's emergency rooms and our government classrooms, to cite just two examples, are no longer able to accommodate taxpaying citizens, thanks in large part to the hordes of indigent immigrants who are here without sponsors. Yet, legislators are expected to opine that interdiction efforts wouldn't really improve our national security or take any pressure off of social services (and, oh yes, that any measures to slow the influx is somehow "racist," in any case).

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address:

But recent events in London prove that every day our leaders fail to "bite the bullet" on immigration, terrorism becomes more imminent, and American respect wanes for the law and the police.

� 2005 Beverly Eakman - All Rights Reserved

Order Beverly's book, Cloning of the American Mind is out of print, supply is limited