What Republicans and Democrats are saying about...immigration by TODD BOULDIN

TODD BOULDIN is The Pepperdine Voyage Director and Asst. Visiting of Social Science

The following article appeared in The Graphic

As immigrants have increased as a percentage of the population of the United States, and moved into regions away from the U.S. borders, Americans have become concerned about the pervasiveness of illegal immigration. The issue has been front and center in the presidential campaign of 2008. This is particularly true in the Republican race where polls show that Republican primary voters believe that immigration is the second most important issue they consider when voting for a candidate, just behind the economy and just ahead of the war in Iraq.

1. What makes an immigrant “illegal?”

Since its very founding, America has been a country of immigrants. Immigrants from all over the world have fled persecution and economic hardship to create a better life for themselves and their family here. Illegal immigrants often come for the same reasons, but they are illegal because they cross United States borders or enter our shores by avoiding U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations concerning the conditions for entry into the United States and the qualifications for obtaining temporary permission (a passport or visa) or for becoming a citizen by law (naturalization).

2. What is the legal status of an illegal immigrant?

The Supreme Court has held that immigrants within the territory of the United States are owed basic legal protections such as due process and a fair trial. Illegal immigrants may not be refused by hospital emergency rooms, and their children often attend public schools. In many cases, these immigrants may also drive on public highways.

However, the rights of illegal immigrants are limited: they cannot vote in national elections and cannot decide to live here permanently without permission. Because of the 1996 immigration reform legislation, and the reaction to the terrorism caused by immigrants on 9/11, immigration regulations have tightened, making legal entry for non-citizens even more difficult. Illegal immigrants may be deported immediately to their country of origin without a court hearing at all.

3. Why are Republicans and Democrats addressing the issue of immigration?

As illegal immigrants have flooded into America’s rural areas and towns far from the country’s borders, a greater majority of the citizenry has become concerned and even angry about the impact of illegal immigrants on the American economy, national security and, in the eyes of some, the “American way of life.”

President Bush, the former governor of a border state, proposed a reform package in his first and second terms that would increase border security, build a fence along the United States border with Mexico, and grant legal status to certain illegal immigrants already in the country (a form of “amnesty”). Bush also favored a temporary guest worker program by which immigrants could apply to work in the United States temporarily in industries that need their labor, with the possibility of becoming a permanent resident over time.

The conservatives in the Republican Party in Congress opposed the Bush plan and prevented it from becoming law in both of the Bush terms. This public debate led to the current concern with immigration in the 2008 race, particularly among Republican voters.

4. What have the Republicans proposed as a solution to illegal immigration?

The Republican candidates for president have proposed that the first priority should be on securing the nation’s borders before offering temporary worker assistance or amnesty to illegal immigrants already within our borders. McCain has proposed a doubling of the size of the U.S. Border Patrol and a border fence, a crackdown on employers who hire illegal immigrants and a “guest worker” program that offers temporary visas. Romney advocates for a border fence, opposes amnesty for undocumented workers, and wants to institute an employment verification system. Republicans generally oppose amnesty programs.

5. What have the Democrats proposed as a solution to illegal immigration?

The Democrats support a path to legalization for illegal immigrants already in the country that includes learning English and paying a fine for illegal entry. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have proposed toughened penalties against employers who hire illegal immigrants. Both have voted for a fence along the Mexico border. Senator Clinton also has supported a measure to allow undocumented illegal immigrants to gain a U.S. government identification or drivers license.

Submitted 01-31-2008

State of our Union is irrelevant by MARC CHOQUETTE

Marc Choquette is the Perspectives Editor for Global Tides

The original article can be found at The Graphic

With another new year comes another run-of-the-mill State of the Union address from our commander in chief.

As required by the U.S. Constitution, our fearless leader shall “from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

The idea, like many in our country’s early practices, borrows from some sort of traditional practice in the United Kingdom — specifically, it is reminiscent of the monarch’s “Speech to the Throne” given during the State Opening of Parliament.

But times change, and as the monarch has become a mere figurehead in the politics of England, so has the State of the Union become a vestige of the U.S. political system.

The hour-plus parades of pomp and circumstance, vagaries, good and evil terms, insane levels of political spin, mechanized chicanery and bogus, all-too-frequent standing ovations are old and tired. The televised address tells viewers more about the state of the Capitol’s chambers and who’s got a manly handshake than about the actual state of real problems and the specific solutions the government needs to address.

The night begins with glad-handing both sides of the aisle and false pledges of “bipartisan” appeal. It only takes a few minutes for the subtle potshots, pathetic smirks, overzealous cheering, catcalls and numerous interruptions of partial applause to appear, to show it was a night for political pandering, not an actual — or even sincere — call to action.

The literal importance of this speech is nowhere to be found in the hallowed halls of the Capitol. But the VIPs, special guests, hordes of Capitol Police and Secret Service, media honchos and people with the right amount of money are everywhere.

How democratic that, aside from being a Super Bowl champion or a war hero, it is pretty much impossible for an ordinary citizen to attend this speech. Watching the speech with a few friends, we wondered what the chamber would really be like if the galleries above were filled on a first-come, first-serve basis. Surely there would be some arrests, protests and interruptions (i.e. good television).

It would be like ‘question time’ at the House of Commons — the weekly, policy-laden tongue-lashing the Prime Minister receives at the Houses of Parliament in London.

Then it hit me. Why doesn’t our president face question time? Why aren’t our executives held accountable in the same ways that leaders are in other countries under different, yet equally (or arguably more) democratic systems than ours? Somehow, precedent doesn’t seem like a good enough answer.

No, it’s high time for the president to have to face the crowd … personally. No more free passes. No more overlord-like control by the Executive Branch, laughing at the inabilities of Congress to check its power. This weekly report to Congress will greatly improve checks and balances and actually hold the Executive Branch accountable (because nobody can seem to check their power right now).

Seeing Tony Blair get grilled on a weekly basis while in the London program was rewarding — an experience that is surely grounding, knowing that you can’t burn too many bridges and must make progress on issues, lest you get humiliated by hundreds of scary, bad-teethed, old British men pointing and screaming at you in the worst controlled chaos you’ve ever seen.

Of course, the U.S. version of “question time” doesn’t have to be so primal and bizarre. It could be “Americanized” into more gentlemanly methods, like instituting a “one person speaks at a time” rule.

But the ability to hiss and boo when the president doesn’t give an adequate answer is essential, our right as Americans.

And surely, if “question time” was instituted in the House, CSPAN’s ratings would go through the roof — thus, more attention paid to politics. Isn’t this what America really needs?

Submitted 01-31-2008