Whether You Like It or Hate It, Tell Congress What You Think

We may not have an official position, but I'm sure you do, so let Congress know.

We do not have an official editorial position here at The Resurgent on the President's immigration plan. As a result, we are opening our action center to everyone to tell Congress what you think of the immigration plan. Don't tell pollsters, tell your actual congressman and senators whether you want them to support or oppose it.

If you oppose the President's plan because you think it does too much, go here.

If you oppose the plan because you think it does too little, go here.

If you like the President's plan and want your members of Congress to support it, go here.

The Trump Plan is WRONG for America. Starting out at 1.8 MILLION DREAMers and then negotiating from there is NOT how to make a Deal of Deals. WHERE? did the 1.8 number come from? Thought there was between 700,000-800,000? Further, these folks are ILLEGAL meaning they broke American LAW. Is it not a slap in the face of those individuals who go through the Legal process of applying for entry that takes YEARS and cost THOUSANDS of dollars? WHAT? message does that send? Finally, aren't American citizens DREAMers? The President main priority running for President was IMMIGRATION. The President had the Democrats in a corner. They shutdown the government over favoring ILLEGALS over American citizens and then they caved and the government reopened. Finally, with the Dems back to the Wall, he gives them 1.8 MILLION ILLEGALS a pathway to citizenship. This is a good NEGOTIATOR? I think NOT. First and foremost should be the FENCE, stopping Chain Migration and the VISA Lottery. Then a Plan to deal with the ILLEGALS. There are multi-millions of voters who pulled the lever for President Trump that are confused and very disappointed in his current path on Immigration. The stars are high, the 2018 election and his 2nd term.

You know how America got stuck with the Trump Tax Plan...Democrats didn't try doing anything with tax reform when they had power. You know how we got Obamacare...Republicans never tried fixing healthcare when they and Bush had power. We can do nothing, as many of you propose, since only 60 votes can change things. But then don't whine when the Dems get power and things go sideways for you. I don't really care what happens...but too many R's and D's let "perfect" be the enemy of reasonable compromise.

We have all heard the term “squatter’s rights” thrown out when someone is trying to justify their possession of some place. Perhaps it was their favorite chair in the family room. Or maybe they were calling “shotgun” for the ride into town. But the term “squatter’s rights” has siginificant meaning and a real historical purpose. The legal name for “squatter’s rights” is adverse possession. It allows a legal claim to someone who has occupied a property that was not initially theirs. Think of it! You own a piece of land and somehow it gets handed over to someone else. How could this ever be right or just? It sounds positively un-American! Yet it is a principle of law in America and most other countries in the world. Why?

The justification for squatter’s rights is two-fold. One is to recognize the influence of time and the other is to recognize the influence of improvement. The influence of time refers to that fact that proving ownership becomes more difficult over time. Think of purchasing a house and the bank requiring the title search to go back to the founding of our country. That would be a very expensive and useless exercise. The influence of improvement refers to the idea that it is in society’s best interest for economic value to be created with the land. In simple terms preference is given to someone who is willing to farm the land versus someone who allows it to fall to weed. So squatter’s rights exist and they exist for the common good.

But this seems dangerous ground. If people risk losing their property they will be hesitant to invest. Surely that isn’t in the public interest? True. That is why there are very steep hurdles that must be met on the part of the squatter. The squatter must demonstrate possession, normally for 5-20 years based on various state laws. The possession must also be shown to be adverse which means that the possession is both exclusive, not shared with the owner, and hostile, an invasion of the right of the legal title holder. Without getting into all the specific criteria, the general idea is that the presence of the squatter is in full public view, over a period of time, and the squatter is making the place better, improving it.

If asked, I suspect that 99% of people would say that land should never be taken away from a land owner and given to someone else. They would say that such action would be illegal. Ownership is black and white. Yet squatter’s do have rights. Here we have a generally accepted legal concept that can upend legal ownership for the purpose of a greater good. A good greater than the harm to the land owner losing title. Not so black and white.

So now let me substitute the term “squatter” with the term “illegal immigrant”. Certainly protecting our borders and having immigration law is in the public interest just as is perfecting title to property and property law. But let’s consider a nation who for an extended period of time, like the neglectful landowner, fails to enforce these laws and protect its borders. We now have multiple generations of people who entered the country illegally but who then lived for many years in full public view, being issued drivers licenses and other documents and paying taxes. The vast majority of these people have helped improve the economy of the country through their labor or through building and owning businesses. They have also helped improve our country by building families and raising children.

When do these people have a claim to being part of America? When are they seen as part of what makes us strong? When do we weigh the wrong we would do to these people by not creating a path to amnesty? If the squatter has rights, why not the illegal immigrant we have allowed to live among us? There is room to debate the hurdles to amnesty. There is room to debate immigration policy and border security. But if a person is hiding behind a simple “they broke the law” as reason to remove all illegal immigrants, they need to reconsider their position. On this day that DACA is being rescinded, I call on each of us to let Congress know that we want these people, our neighbors, protected; not just the DREAMERS, but all of them.

For further reading:

Germane, my ass. All you’ve done is concoct a straw man argument based on assuming that all squatters “improve” the space they occupy illegally.

In my neck of the woods, we are not seeing much assimilation or the shouldering of any responsibility. Most of the illegals are not learning English, rely on charity care and are using every social welfare program offered up to them. They have no skin in the game and it infuriates me.

The definition of dreamer is being brought to the US as children. This could mean just missing the qualification as am anchor baby. DACA should only be a three year program, at 18 these people become adults. Refugees are legally here but otherwise face the same conditions. Alternative custody should be made for the dreamers, or they should be deported with their parents. Passing the English and history/civics test after through background checks should be a requirement for citizenship. There have been periods where immigration enforcement has been lax but this problem was created by the great Obama and a weak congress. Going forward we need new immigration laws enforced. Military service is good for those that can serve, but we need a loyalty oath. We don't need more Ft. Hoods. Assimilation is a key for ALL immigrants, no dual citizenship. Visa enforcement needs to be part of the package. The fence is to slow down drug dealers, terrorist, and human trafficking Compassion should first be for our own citizens and the immigrants already here, before new immigrants Voting laws have to be updated or we will have illegals and green card holders voting, and citizenship means nothing..

Obviously we can't have all dreamers deported. Ideally I would like to see that those who don't speak english, or have a record and or are on any type of government assistance deported. Also chain migration and citizenship for anchor babies needs to be stopped.

I resent the conflation that those of us that want the government to enforce the law as it is for now on immigration as anti all immigrants. I will not be guilted into thinking that illegal immigrants should be granted citizenship. Comprehensive reform has just been a ruse to bring in more dependent voters not to help.