.. he problem. Faster citizens processing, helping illegals country’s economy such as NAFTA which is already in affect. Some suggest tamper proof residency cards, computerize the I.N.S., increases the number of boarder patrol agents, and build a wall around the U.S. and problem countries.
There has been many suggestions made in dealing with this problem. The Gallegly bill is one of them. If ever completed by House-Senate conferees, is likely to include several conditions already adopted in similar form by both chambers. As passed by the House and Senate, the bill would: Increase the number of border patrol agents by 1,000 each year between 1996 and 2000, roughly doubling the force to reach 10,000. Make it difficult for people caught trying to enter the United States illegally, or overstaying a visa, from being granted visas in the future. Establish pilot programs in which employers could electronically check the immigration status of their employees.
Restrict public benefits for legal immigrants by increasing the time for which their sponsors are responsible for them. This section is partially obtained by the welfare law, which denies benefits to many legal immigrants. Allows the deportation of legal immigrants who illegally accepted public benefits for 12 months or more. Besides the Gallegly provision, which is in the House bill only, conferees face two other issues with major disagreements between the two chambers: The House would require that any family wishing to sponsor a legal immigrant earn at least twice the poverty rate. The Senate bill would require the family to earn an income one-fourth higher than the poverty rate. The House bill would also make it much more difficult to apply for political asylum, both for those who apply upon entry into the United States or for those already on U.S.
soil. Immigration experts generally agree that the Clinton Administration has devoted more attention to immigration than either of its two Republican predecessors and he always has at least two reactions: his initial public statement (determined largely by public-opinion polls, which show support for restrictions), and then the actual policy (as determined by his advisors and the various special interests they represent). Clinton proposed legislation that included expedited exclusion for frivolous asylum claimants, an increase in INS asylum personnel, and various anti-smuggling provisions. President Clinton’s record on legal immigration. In June 1995, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by the late Barbara Jordan, recommended a modest cut in legal immigration and the elimination of some extended-family immigration categories.
President Clinton immediately endorsed the recommendations as “consistent with my own views” and added that they “are pro-family, pro-work, pro-naturalization.”13 Clinton’s record on illegal immigration, since that is a major focus of his re-election campaign, particularly in California, a must-win state. Less than three months after taking office Clinton sent to Congress his Fiscal Year 1994 budget proposal for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which included cutting 93 Border Patrol positions. President Clinton gave a speech in which he proclaimed that “our borders leak like a sieve” and urged that $45.1 million be spent to beef up the Border Patrol, including six hundred new agents.14 He failed to mention that the House had already approved an additional $60 million for the Border Patrol, or that the Senate Appropriations Committee had approved an additional $45 million. One of the California’s response to the problem was proposition 187. This proposition seeks to deny social services to illegals and their children. Pete Wilson, governor of California, announces his intention to file a suit against the federal government for “its failure to control our nation’s borders.”15 He claims that there are a million illegal residents in the city of Los Angles alone, and that since 1988 the taxpayers of California have spent more than $10 million in education, medical, and prison costs for illegal immigrants. My personal opinion is not good for illegal immigrants.
I believe that illegals should deal with their problems in their countries, instead of coming here and creating more problems. If there country has a poor economy then they should fix it. In the long run it would be good for their country, but I know this is easier said than done. The illegals that are already here should be deported. The term “illegal” speaks for itself , that is what they are called illegals. Also they should not live and take up social services that legal residents use. Some people say “They have the right to use these services they, pay sales tax and don’t file income tax which in most cases the government owes them.” Well I do not see it that way.
I found that a majority of illegals that work here take the money out of the country and into there families in other countries. Most of their net income goes outside of the U.S. economy. My father came to this country over 30 years ago. He applied for a visa, which took him two years to get, complied with all regulations dealing with immigration to the U.S. After arriving to the U.S.
he work hard to became a legal resident and finally a citizen, gaining all privileges of that citizenship. Why should others come and take those privileges while they come here illegally. Out of the solutions given in section three the one I believe to be the best is the Gallegly bill. I believe that a tighter restriction with added border patrol would be the best and reasonable option. Building a wall with machine gun towers would be a great deterrent as in the old Germany, but I don’t think that’s America’s style.
— Endnotes 1. Dan Carney, ” Social Policy ” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 9/7/96, Vol. 54 Issue 36, p2531. 2. Dan Carney, ” Social Policy ” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 9/7/96, Vol.
54 Issue 36, p2531. 3. Dan Carney, ” Social Policy ” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 9/7/96, Vol. 54 Issue 36, p2531. 4. Glenn F.
Miller, Los Angles Times, 7/1/93,pA25. 5. Glenn F. Miller, Los Angles Times, 7/1/93,pA26. 6.
Dan Carney, ” Social Policy ” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 9/7/96, Vol. 54 Issue 36, p2531. 7. Dan Carney, ” Social Policy ” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 9/7/96, Vol. 54 Issue 36, p2531.
8. Moises Sandoval ,National Catholic Reporter, 6/28/96, Vol. 32 Issue 33, p20. 9. Moises Sandoval ,National Catholic Reporter, 6/28/96, Vol.
32 Issue 33, p20. 10. Moises Sandoval ,National Catholic Reporter, 6/28/96, Vol. 32 Issue 33, p20. 11. Moises Sandoval ,National Catholic Reporter, 6/28/96, Vol.
32 Issue 33, p20. 12. Moises Sandoval ,National Catholic Reporter, 6/28/96, Vol. 32 Issue 33, p20. — Bibliography Taylor, Monica.
Workbook For Political science 5, Western Custom Publishing. Conover, Ted. A Journey Through the Secret World of America’s Illegal Aliens. Vintage, 1987. Hutchinson, E. P.
Legislative History of American Immigration Policy, 1798-1965. Pennsylvania, 1981. Bontemps, Arna and Conroy, Jack. Anyplace But Here. Hill & Wang, 1966. May, Charles Paul.
The Uprooted. Westminster, 1976. Carney,Dan, ” Social Policy ” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 9/7/96, Vol. 54 Issue 36,p2531. Miller,Glenn F., Los Angles Times, 7/1/93,pA25. Sandoval, Moises, National Catholic Reporter, 6/28/96, Vol.
32 Issue 33, p20.