I'm going to take a stance that may surprise many of you, at first. But bear with me, you just might end up agreeing with me when I'm done. And remember, immigration is one of my special interests. We've all heard the talk, repeatedly, out of Washingtoon about how immigration needs reformed, including the current administration's ramblings about it. There are many who don't agree, that feel we just need to enforce the laws already on the books. Oh, were it so easy as that. Unfortunately, our current immigration laws are as convoluted as the tax laws. And every Congress has to add this or that to the mix depending on the vocal outrage, or lack thereof, during a campaign for election. As we all know, the sentiments ebb and flow more often than the tides, from outrage to apathy and everything in between. Those facts exemplify the problem, and the confusion, of most of the agencies directed with enforcing those laws.

So what's the answer? Open the borders on occasion and allow increased numbers of immigrants to flow in, but document them as they cross without requiring them to do more than aid in establishing a form of identification? That's a current idea floating around the beltway, and gaining traction is several areas. Another is to do another huge amnesty program, giving those here illegally a chance to come forth and declare themselves without penalty, and offer them citizenship as a reward. The administration and those more liberal of his party love that one. Mainly because the majority of them will be among the most poverty stricken of our population, as they are already. It is also of note that a large majority of those who live in poverty vote Democrat, and it's been that way for decades so it only strengthens their voter base. Across America, there is also a prevailing mood that says we should just gather them all up and send them home, and forcibly close our borders to any who wish to come here without going through the proper channels. None of those ideas are acceptable once one reviews the massive size of the problem.

The Republicans currently don't have a workable solution, or at least one they want to out at this time. And with the current Congress and White House in the hands of the left, unless a viable alternative is proffered, we may get stuck with more and more additions to the current INS laws. Additions that will only cloud the issue further and force more problems as conservatives become more alienated to the situation. So what would be a good alternative to having more laxity or giving illegal immigrants another free pass? To come to a reasonable solution, one must first analyze how we got here to begin with.

History tells us that our first real immigration laws were enacted just after the Civil War, prior to that they were more geared toward slave traffic and ownership, along with "servitude" laws which protected the rights of those in the Northern states to enforce servitude of immigrants under contract. By the mid-1800s, people of African descent were craftsmen, teamsters, porters, and domestics as well as plantation workers. However, naturalization was open only to free white persons who had lived in the United States for more than five years. The 1857 Dred Scott decision had declared Negroes were "beings of an inferior order," not afforded rights by the Constitution, including citizenship. The key wording here is "free white", as many whites, mostly of Irish and Scottish descent, in the North were not determined to be free, having signed contracts of various durations which forbid them from becoming citizens as well. One of the many contradictions present during the Civil War was the fact that these whites were held in an acceptable form of slavery, while slavery of blacks in the South was deemed to be unsatisfactory by the same people who owned the contracts of the whites in the North. In 1863, however, the transatlantic slave trade of Africans was permanently ended by the Emancipation Proclamation.

It might interest some of you to know that many whites died in servitude, never paying off their debts even after 30-40 years under what was supposed to be a seven year contract. Some remained under contract as late as 1903, a full 40 years after the Emancipation Proclamation. A brief explanation is in order here, simply to clarify how it occurred. One signed a seven year contract, agreeing to work for their benefactor in exchange for transportation across the Atlantic and the chance at a new life free from oppression by the British, provided the amount owed the benefactor for that passage was paid in full. Once they arrived here, they were taken to housing, owned by the benefactor, given jobs working for that same benefactor, and told they must shop at the store (Hence the term, "the company store" was originated.) or drink at the saloon owned by the benefactor as well. At the end of a long week (6 days, 16 hours a day), they found they owed more than they had earned after paying rents and food costs, so their debt was larger than if they hadn't worked at all.

These facts are, indeed, relevant when looking at how and why immigration laws were changed over the years. Next came the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, intended to stop the radical flow of Chinese into this country. It has been deemed racist by many, but one of the side effects was the exposure of slavery of yet another group of people. It was then followed by the Asia Barred Zone Act of 1917, the 1924 Immigration Act, and the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934, all geared toward prohibiting people of Asia, the Pacific Rim, and the Phillipines. The Chinese, who we know were major allies against the Japanese during WWII, were rewarded by the 1943 Magnuson Act, permitting a small annual quota of 105 Chinese immigrants and by making Chinese already in the country eligible for citizenship. 1946, the Luce-Cellar bill changed the immigration quotas from India to allow 100 Indians per year. After WWII ended, the consolidation of Eastern Europe under the influence of the Soviet Union, the success of the communists in mainland China in 1949, and the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 stimulated a fierce anti-communist backlash in the United States. This prompted the McCarran (Senator Pat McCarran [D-NV]) Internal Security Act of 1950, which required American Communist Party members to register with the Attorney General. President Truman vetoed the bill and, in comments reminiscent of contemporary opinions about the registration of Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians, wrote that, "The basic error of this bill is that it moves in the direction of suppressing opinion and belief…that would make a mockery of the Bill of Rights and of our claims to stand for freedom in the world." Nevertheless, Congress overrode Truman's veto and the bill became law.

Two years after passage of the McCarran Internal Security Act came the McCarran-Walter (Congressman Francis Walter [D-PA]) Act, the original INS Act. And while the national origins quota system was dismantled in 1965, other provisions of the Act - such as the creation of family and employment-based preference categories - remain an integral part of U.S. immigration law to this day. The Immigration Act of 1965 replaced quotas based on national origin with a uniform annual cap on immigration of 20,000 per country. Nevertheless, many other aspects of the McCarran-Walter Act live on, ranging from the centrality of family and employment-based preferences in U.S. immigration law to the exclusion and deportation of immigrants on the basis of beliefs. The Act was an important, historic piece of immigration legislation, although considered by many to be "an imperfect step toward ending discrimination based on race in U.S. immigration policy". Coming 21 years later was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, supported by Reagan, was the first step major toward today's problems caused by immigration. While I believe Reagan had the country's best interest at heart, some portions of the law backfired under the tutelage of the Democrats in Congress, and those who followed as POTUS.

To quote immigration lawyer Greg Siskind, "From an immigration point of view, Reagan will best be remembered for signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ('IRCA'). IRCA was a contradiction of idealism and pragmatism, as was the case with the President who signed the bill into law. It took the pragmatic view that the while the government frowned on illegal immigration, we could provide an amnesty to help normalize the lives of millions of American residents. Indeed, millions of American citizens were legalized under the program and owe a thanks to the President for proposing what was then a very controversial plan."

"IRCA also provided hardliners with something they too sought - the deputization of millions of American employers to assist the then Immigration and Naturalization Service. IRCA created the I-9 forms that every employer must check to ensure that an employee is authorized to work in the US."

"The theory of IRCA was that by legalizing the country's undocumented population and then creating a stronger enforcement system, we would end illegal immigration. That was, of course, a naïve proposition. Market forces would soon come into play and the flow of illegal immigrants has only intensified over the last 23 years. That has brought us to the current debate over what to do about our immigration system and the debate continues on whether we need a more open system where employers can simply petition to bring over an immigrant worker when it can show that Americans are not available to do the work at an acceptable salary."

"However one feels about immigration, Ronald Reagan deserves at least some credit for trying to address an issue that has been controversial since the country's founding. He attempted to craft a compromise and cashed in his 'political chips' to get the bill passed. Other Presidents have only offered rhetoric and hoped the immigration debate would not get too fierce. Whether IRCA was ultimately helpful or harmful is certainly subject to argument, but no one can say Reagan shirked his responsibilities to try and improve the system."

Now that we've established how this monstrous pile of confusing law came about, what can we do about it without just adding more confusion to the mess? Immigration reform. Simplify the laws, do away with SCOTUS rulings in favor of "anchor babies" for one, by including verbiage prohibiting any foreign national, legal or not, from remaining in this country based on the birth of their children. This could be accomplished by wording it that any child born on our soil of anyone other than natural or naturalized parents will be the citizen of the mother's native country. If one parent is a U.S. citizen, the child will be a citizen of this country provided the other parent becomes a citizen within a reasonable amount of time. if the parent who is not a citizen decides to leave the U.S., the child will remain with the parent who is a U.S. citizen.

>Another part of our current laws that should be removed is the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Our government should not be in the business of importing people form other lands because they are impoverished. If they are allowed to continue, the numbers brought here could end up being much worse than those coming here of their own means. Especially when you consider where they are coming from, and how they are being accommodated once they arrive. Somalians in IA, for example, are being made concessions for their religion that exceed the rights we are allowed as citizens. They are also being furnished housing, food assistance, medical, and are assisted in acquiring jobs. This is bureaucracy at its best, and is costing not only taxpayer monies, but jobs desperately needed by Americans right now. Adding wording to a new immigration law must include stiffer penalties against employers who hire illegals, as well as to those who harbor or aid illegals in coming here, those who rent or sell housing to illegals, blocking any individual from working for any local, state or federal government office in any position, or being elected to any government office, if found to have employed, aided or assisted any illegal. No ifs, ands or buts outside of agriculture. The nation's farmers are in a tough enough fix without removing their work force or costing them more money. However, any farmer must show proof of attempting to hire citizens or legal immigrants before hiring any illegals, and any illegals in his employ must be registered as such and given a special ID.

Another item that must be included is something that makes it mandatory that any and all Law Enforcement Agencies, local, state and Federal, MUST immediately arrest and detain any illegal they encounter for any reason, and report the arrest to INS and/or Border Patrol within 24 hours. No bail, no release except to INS or BP, period. If the apprehended illegal is to be charged with a crime, they must face a trial and serve their sentence if found guilty. If they are found innocent, or serve their time, they will not be released, but instead turned over to INS or BP for deportation. That's just for starters, but I feel those few items would make a big dent in the problem if illegal immigration, and just simplifying the rest of the immigration laws would certainly make it a lot easier on not only Americans, but those who wish to come here by following the rules. I certainly don't object to anyone wanting to come to this, the GREATEST NATION ON EARTH, all I ask is that they knock before entering.

WAKE UP, AMERICA!!!

WE'RE BEING SOLD DOWN THE RIVER!!!

And from every angle, and every corner of the globe, but worst of all, from within!!!

PS Click here to review The IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT for yourself.

ALL PHOTOS, GRAPHICS, CLIPART AND LOGOS USED ON THIS SITE ARE THE PROPERTY OF THEIR SPECIFIC OWNERS AND ARE USED WITH FULL PERMISSION OF THOSE OWNERS. A NUMBER OF PHOTOS USED AS BACKGROUNDS AND CLIPART BELONG TO THE OWNER OF THE CHEROKEE PARKS SITE AND MAY NOT BE COPIED OR USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION. PLEASE CLICK THE EMAIL BUTTON ON THE HOME PAGE TO REQUEST PERMISSION FOR USAGE OF PHOTOS, GRAPHICS AND CLIPART DISPLAYED ON THIS SITE, OR GO TO THE LINKS PAGE FOR USAGE REQUESTS REGARDING LOGOS, CLIPART, PHOTOS AND GRAPHICS FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS.