Will Scott Brown support immigration reform? « Reform Immigration For America

Will Scott Brown support immigration reform?

The Wall Street Journal broke a story yesterday that President Obama called Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown from aboard Air Force One to discuss the Schumer-Graham immigration framework.

Could Senator Brown support immigration reform and deliver the crucial 60th vote Democrats need to overcome a Senate filibuster? Brown has broken with his party on a jobs bill and to extend unemployment benefits this session and has proven himself not to be a lock-step member of the Republican opposition.

According to the WSJ, Brown said he had an “open mind” and would take seriously any proposal the Senate considers.

That Obama appears to be moving forward on immigration reform despite an exhausting health care reform fight and looming battles on Wall Street reform and over the Supreme Court is good news for immigration activists, since Ezra Klein notes for the Washington Post, it would be a “peculiarly wonkish practical joke.”

Categories: Uncategorized

Send to Friend

Bobbie

Jessi,
Send all the petitions you want.
Senator Brown knows most of us MA citizens and legal immigrants don’t want to reward illegal aliens.
And he concurs.

Good luck though
Tonnywarfare

Many immigration restrictionists and so-called traditionalists chafe at the notion that the American people are not defined by “blood and soil.” Yet the truth of the matter is, we aren’t. One of the greatest patriots who ever graced this nation’s history, Teddy Roosevelt, said it best: “Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul.” Roosevelt deplored what he called “hyphenated Americanism,” which refers to citizens whose primary loyalties lie with their particular ethnic groups or ancestral lands. Such a man, Roosevelt counseled, is to be “unsparingly condemn[ed].”

But Roosevelt also recognized that “if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.” Roosevelt’s words are not offered here to suggest that all foreigners are equally capable of assimilating into our country. Clearly, they aren’t. Nevertheless, the appellation “American” is open to anyone who adopts our way of life and loves this country above all others.

Which brings me to the final, and most difficult, aspect of this question: How do we define the “American way of life”? This is the issue over which our nation’s “culture wars” are being fought. Moreover, the “American way of life” has changed over time. We no longer have the Republic that existed in TR’s days. The New Deal and Great Society revolutions — enthusiastically supported, I note, by millions of white, Christian, English-speaking citizens — significantly altered the political, economic, and social foundations of this country. Did they also change what it means to be “an American”? Is being an American equally compatible, for example, with support for big government versus small government? the welfare state versus rugged individualism? socialism versus capitalism? And so on. Plainly, this is a much harder historical and intellectual problem than at first meets the eye.

Nevertheless, I am convinced that being an American requires something more than merely living in this country, speaking English, obeying the law, and holding a job (although this would be a very good start!). What this “something more” is, however, is not self-evident, and, indeed, is the subject of increasingly bitter debate in this country.

Yet one thing is certain: If we stray too far from the lines laid down by the Founding Fathers and the generations of great American men and women who built on their legacy, we will cease to be “Americans” in any meaningful sense of the word. As Abraham Lincoln warned during the secession era, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Today the danger is not armed rebellion, but the slow erasing of the American national character through a process of political and cultural redefinition. If this ever happens, it will be a terrible day for this country, and for the world.
Tonnywarfare

What Does It Mean To Be An American?
By Steven M. Warshawsky

I suspect that most of us believe, like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in describing pornography, that we “know it when we see it.” For example, John Wayne, Amelia Earhart, and Bill Cosby definitely are Americans. The day laborers standing on the street corner probably are not. But how do we put this inner understanding into words? It’s not easy. Unlike most other nations on Earth, the American nation is not strictly defined in terms of race or ethnicity or ancestry or religion. George Washington may be the Father of Our Country (in my opinion, the greatest American who ever lived), but there have been in the past, and are today, many millions of patriotic, hardworking, upstanding Americans who are not Caucasian, or Christian, or of Western European ancestry. Yet they are undeniably as American as you or I (by the way, I am Jewish of predominantly Eastern European ancestry). Any definition of “American” that excludes such folks — let alone one that excludes me! — cannot be right.

Consequently, it is just not good enough to say, as some immigration restrictionists do, that this is a “white-majority, Western country.” Yes, it is. But so are, for example, Ireland and Sweden and Portugal. Clearly, this level of abstraction does not take us very far towards understanding what it means to be “an American.” Nor is it all that helpful to say that this is an English-speaking, predominately Christian country. While I think these features get us closer to the answer, there are millions of English-speaking (and non-English-speaking) Christians in the world who are not Americans, and millions of non-Christians who are. Certainly, these fundamental historical characteristics are important elements in determining who we are as a nation. Like other restrictionists, I am opposed to public policies that seek, by design or by default, to significantly alter the nation’s “demographic profile.” Still, it must be recognized that demography alone does not, and cannot, explain what it means to be an American.

So where does that leave us? I think the answer to our question, ultimately, must be found in the realms of ideology and culture. What distinguishes the United States from other nations, and what unites the disparate peoples who make up our country, are our unique political, economic, and social values, beliefs, and institutions. Not race, or religion, or ancestry.

Whether described as a “proposition nation” or a “creedal nation” or simply just “an idea,” the United States of America is defined by our way of life. This way of life is rooted in the ideals proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; in the system of personal liberty and limited government established by the Constitution; in our traditions of self-reliance, personal responsibility, and entrepreneurism; in our emphasis on private property, freedom of contract, and merit-based achievement; in our respect for the rule of law; and in our commitment to affording equal justice to all. Perhaps above all, it is marked by our abiding belief that, as Americans, we have been called to a higher duty in human history. We are the “city upon a hill.” We are “the last, best hope of earth.”
Tonnywarfare

Inmigración: ¿Quién llegó primero y quién después?
Rolando Lahera para Aol Latino Noticias,
Posted: 2010-04-20 11:17:04
Filed Under: Inmigración, Latino_noticias_pagina_principal

WASHINGTON – Cada día se escuchan nuevos temas sobre la inmigración y se habla de inmigrantes una y otra vez, de indocumentados, de derechos y de deberes, pero aquí no debe hablarse de inmigrantes sino de quién llegó primero y quién después, por que todos los que vivimos en Estados Unidos, ciudadanos, residentes o indocumentados, somos inmigrantes, por supuesto, menos los indios nativos que ya quedan poco. Además, están recluidos en su mayoría en reservaciones y se les permite administrar casinos de juegos, prohibidos en muchos estados, como compensación por las tierras que les quitaron.

Y si hablamos de quién llegó primero y quién después, hay que ser justos. Cuando llegaron los “pilgrims” en el Mayflower por la costa Este, aquí en lo que es el territorio de Estados Unidos ya estaban los mexicanos, en California, Texas, Arizona, Nuevo México y otras tierras que cuando ese entonces eran todavía mexicanas. Y en Florida estaban los españoles.

O sea que si soy bisnieto o tataranieto de un mexicano que nació y vivió en California antes de que ese territorio fuera un estado norteamericano o soy descendiente de un español que nació en Florida, cuando aun no era propiedad estadounidense ni un estado de ese país, me podría preguntar si no son mas inmigrantes que yo los que vinieron en el Mayflower o después.

Muchos mexicanos que emigran ahora a Estados Unidos a lo mejor tienen por ahí un pariente que nació en Texas y entonces el que es descendiente de ingleses, que nacieron además en Inglaterra antes de emigran a Estados Unidos, le llama al mexicano indocumentado y se molesta por que esta emigrando al país que el descendiente de ingleses afirma que es suyo, sin saber que cuando sus tatarabuelos estaban aun en Inglaterra, ya los tatarabuelos del mexicano vivían aquí.

O sea que debiéramos pensar bien a la hora de definir quien es inmigrante o al menos no ser tan discriminatorio a la hora de definir a unos y otros.

Las leyes de inmigración y, no solo en Estados Unidos son caprichosas. En Alemania hasta hace poco afirmaban estas leyes que alemán era el que tenia sangre alemana o sea que si tu tatarabuelo emigro a China, a México o a Rusia, tu eres alemán aunque no sepas ni donde queda Alemania y ni sepas decir Buenos Dias en la lengua de Goethe. Mientras que si tu familia era de otra parte y tu habías nacido y te habías criado en Alemania no eras alemán. En el caso de los turcos, la mayor cantidad de inmigrantes en tierras germanas, hay hasta tres generaciones de nacidos en el país que no son ciudadanos alemanes.

Afortunadamente en esa nación ya las leyes de inmigración están cambiando.

Pero aquí en Estados Unidos por ejemplo, y hablo de casos que conozco, es diferente pues se basan en el lugar de nacimiento, aunque no siempre, así que un amigo cubano, hijo de padre y madre cubanos, que eran diplomáticos, nació en Colombia y no pudo aprovechar los beneficios de la Ley de Ajuste Cubano, que establece que es cubano el que nace en Cuba.

A la inversa le ocurrió a una amiga china-cubana nacida en Cuba, pero con ambos padres chinos. Debido a regulaciones especiales sobre China, la mujer tampoco pudo beneficiarse de la Ley de Ajuste Cubano, aunque era cubana por nacimiento.

Las leyes de inmigración son muy caprichosas y arbitrarias a veces, en casi todas partes.

Lo mas importante es que cuando hablemos de inmigrantes en Estados Unidos, lo pensemos dos veces, y estemos claros que todos somos inmigrantes, que solo unos llegaron primero que otros y que incluso los que podemos creer que llegaron después, quizás ya estaban aquí mucho antes de nosotros.

2010-04-20 08:20:33
Jessi

We need to sign a petition in Ma to show Scott Brown how many Massachusetts people support immigration reform. He does right toward the people and not toward his political party!
http://the-watchtower.webs.com/ dfwdude

Obama will end up passing a free ‘get out of jail’ law for millions of illegal immigrants.
They need to go to the end of the line and start the immigration process like those doing it the legal way.

Will Scott Brown support immigration reform?

FIND US ON

Partner Blogs

Think Globally, Blog Locally

Blogroll