Federal Government Immigration Initiatives

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Good idea. We should all email Fox News!!!

[orimai 2]

Good idea. We should all email Fox News!!!

Just sent the press manager a detailed email. If I get a response, will follow up here.

[PantomimeGoose 59]

While we do have the right to be married to whomever we please within the law, it is a privilege accorded us to bring non-USC spouses (or allow them to adjust) to the States to live permanently. Only natural-born USCs have an irrevocable* right to be here and enter freely.

*Barring something like voluntary surrender of citizenship.

Cohabitation and conjugal benefits are arguably also a right (unenumerated freedoms with long-standing establishment in our traditions), which is part of why the spouses of criminals may be allowed conjugal visits I believe. I'm not saying that immigration is not a privelege, but aspects of the current process violate our rights in unnecessary ways.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Just sent the press manager a detailed email. If I get a response, will follow up here.

Great job! I'm going to send something too!

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Cohabitation and conjugal benefits are arguably also a right (unenumerated freedoms with long-standing establishment in our traditions), which is part of why the spouses of criminals may be allowed conjugal visits I believe. I'm not saying that immigration is not a privelege, but aspects of the current process violate our rights in unnecessary ways.

I know what you're saying, but aliens have no constitutional right to be here. Further, marital rights are granted by the individual states, so we're dealing with an overlap between federal law and the individual laws of 50 states. Federal law is generally silent on marriage (with the exception of federal recognition of marriages for the purposes of certain benefits). Your right under state law to be married to your spouse doesn't trump federal law regarding the admissibility of aliens.

Look, I'm obviously sympathetic to how long this takes. I went through this myself. But no one wants to hear about legal immigration. It's not sexy or interesting to most people outside of the process. Legal immigration needs non-polarizing advocates who can use thoughtful, intelligent means to bring the topic into discussion.

[decocker 7,198]

Legal immigration needs non-polarizing advocates who can use thoughtful, intelligent means to bring the topic into discussion.

in otherwords, legal immigration needs the complete opposite of fox news and co.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

in otherwords, legal immigration needs the complete opposite of fox news and co.

Well, who do you suggest?

[lostinblue 1,989]

Good idea. We should all email Fox News!!!

Why not CNN or MSNBC ?

[PantomimeGoose 59]

I know what you're saying, but aliens have no constitutional right to be here. Further, marital rights are granted by the individual states, so we're dealing with an overlap between federal law and the individual laws of 50 states. Federal law is generally silent on marriage (with the exception of federal recognition of marriages for the purposes of certain benefits). Your right under state law to be married to your spouse doesn't trump federal law regarding the admissibility of aliens.

Look, I'm obviously sympathetic to how long this takes. I went through this myself. But no one wants to hear about legal immigration. It's not sexy or interesting to most people outside of the process. Legal immigration needs non-polarizing advocates who can use thoughtful, intelligent means to bring the topic into discussion.

I'm not arguing that aliens have constitutional rights (at all). But I think there's a viable argument that denying USCs access to their families is potentially a violation of various rights possessed by the citizen; equal protection under the law, implicit right to privacy, pursuit of happiness and so on. While federal law doesn't necessarily have much to say about marriage, we are a discrete minority who is potentially being discriminated against by the implementation of immigration policies that are unnecessarily onerous. Our spouses coming to live in the US is and should be a privelege, but it just becomes a farce when we, who have rights as citizens, go through a prolonged, awful process and the law is changed for illegal aliens because people feel it's too mean (i.e., it seems to be violating rights that they don't have in the first place).

I'm not sure that anything is advanced in the US government with thoughtful, non-polarizing advocates these days. The discussion about illegal immigration reform has been about as thoughtful and intelligent as a Life Time movie. It does a good job of plucking the heart-strings for theme music though.

[B_J 2,752]

Well, who do you suggest?

Fox won't work because, even though they would probably love the idea, since it fits their political narrative, you would lose the interest of half the country by going to them.

Of course, MSNBC would be worse, they probably wouldn't be interested and you would also lose the other half of the country.

Perhaps CNN. Or try local news, talk radio, etc. Whatever you try, maybe it could then get picked up by a larger media source.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Why not CNN or MSNBC ?

Why would you suggest CNN or MSNBC over Fox News? And this is not a confrontational question. It is a serious question. I honestly don't know the difference. I read yahoo. lol

Fox won't work because, even though they would probably love the idea, since it fits their political narrative, you would lose the interest of half the country by going to them.

Of course, MSNBC would be worse, they probably wouldn't be interested and you would also lose the other half of the country.

Perhaps CNN. Or try local news, talk radio, etc. Whatever you try, maybe it could then get picked up by a larger media source.

Ahaaaaaa why would you lose half of the country by going through Fox?

Hasselbeck vs. Earnest: Isn't This a 'Slap in the Face' to Legal Immigrants?

Elisabeth Hasselbeck challenged White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest this morning on whether giving amnesty to about 5 million illegal immigrants is a "slap in the face" to those who have come to the United States legally.

She pointed out that many have spent a lot of money on the process to become U.S. citizens.

"What do you say to them? Because they want their money back and it's offensive to them," she said.

Earnest answered that those legalized American citizens would support the Senate reform bill because it would have made the immigration system fairer.

He said those who are here illegally would have gone to the "back of the line" while being able to have a path to citizenship as part of a much improved process.

Earnest argued that House Republicans are the one granting amnesty by "doing nothing" on the issue, forcing the president to act on his own.

Hasselbeck pushed back on why the president chose not to wait on the new Congress to be sworn in and at least try to get a deal done before taking executive action.

"It would actually seem more justified then. Here it just seems like a political move," said Hasselbeck.

Earnest responded by calling out House Speaker John Boehner for refusing to commit to bringing up immigration reform in the next Congress.

He argued that the president remains ready to work with Republicans on "common sense" legislation and "tear up" the actions he signed last night if an agreement can be reached.

Watch the full interview above and you'll see why Fox News senior White House correspondent Ed Henry asked moments later whether Elisabeth wants to trade places.

Watch Ed's reaction to the interview below, and tune in tonight to see him hosting "Special Report" at 6p ET.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/11/21/elisabeth-hasselbeck-takes-josh-earnest-isnt-slap-face-legal-immigrants

Edited November 21, 2014 by Janelle2002

[decocker 7,198]

Well, who do you suggest?

i'd try to get the attention of someone actually in politics before going to fox news.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

i'd try to get the attention of someone actually in politics before going to fox news.

Maybe the President?

[Janelle2002 3,865]

i'd try to get the attention of someone actually in politics before going to fox news.

Politicians already know this is an issue and are not taking any steps to correct this. We need public pressure.

[decocker 7,198]

Maybe the President?

yes spooks, that's what janelle should aim for, getting the president's personal attention devoted to her case. that's completely realistic and attainable..

its funny how everyone nowadays has to create the perfect soundbite, petition or gimmick in order to get their government to work on their behalf. thanks obama, i mean internet.