| Resolved that
the following amendment should be added to the
United States of America Constitution: “No
individual should be denied the right to employment
on account of his or her immigration status”.
In my opinion the following amendment should
not be enacted because of a number of reasons.
But before I proceed with this issue further I
would like to include some points, which would
aid in explaining this topic further.
Let’s begin here with this topic with explaining
the basic outline of the numerous steps of the
federal lawmaking process from the source of an
idea for a legislative proposal through its publication
as a statute. The legislative process is a matter
about which every person should be well informed
in order to understand and appreciate the work
of Congress. This will enable others to gain a
greater understanding of the federal legislative
process and its role as one of the foundations
of the United States of America’s representative
system. One of the most practical safeguards of
the American democratic way of life is this legislative
process with its emphasis on the protection of
the public interest, allowing ample opportunity
to all sides to be heard and make their views
known. The fact that a proposal cannot become
a law without consideration and approval by both
Houses of Congress is an outstanding virtue of
the United States of America’s bicameral
legislative system. The open and full discussion
provided under the Constitution often results
in the notable improvement of a bill by amendment
before it becomes law or in the eventual defeat
of an inadvisable proposal. Section 1 of Article
1 of the United States Constitution, provides
that:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be
vested in a Congress of the United States, which
shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Unlike some other parliamentary bodies, both the
Senate and the House of Representatives have equal
legislative functions and powers with certain
exceptions. Sources of ideas for legislation are
unlimited and proposed drafts of bills originate
in many diverse quarters. Primary among these
is the idea and draft conceived by a Member. This
may emanate from the election campaign during
which the Member had promised, if elected, to
introduce legislation on a particular subject.
The Member may have also become aware after taking
office of the need for amendment to or repeal
of an existing law or the enactment of a statute
in an entirely new field.
In addition, the Member's constituents, either
as individuals or through citizen groups, may
avail themselves of the right to petition or transmit
their proposals to the Member. Many excellent
laws have originated in this way, as some organizations,
because of their vital concern with various areas
of legislation, have considerable knowledge regarding
the laws affecting their interests and have the
services of legislative draftspersons for this
purpose. The drafting of statutes is an art that
requires great skill, knowledge, and experience.
In some instances, a draft is the result of a
study covering a period of a year or more by a
commission or committee designated by the President
or a member of the Cabinet.
There are two types of bills--public and private.
A public bill is one that affects the public generally.
A bill that affects a specified individual or
a private entity rather than the population at
large is called a private bill. A typical private
bill is used for relief in matters such as immigration
and naturalization and claims against the United
States.
When a joint resolution amending the Constitution
is approved by two-thirds of both Houses, it is
not presented to the President for approval. Following
congressional approval, a joint resolution to
amend the Constitution is sent directly to the
Archivist of the United States for submission
to the several states where ratification by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the states within
the period of time prescribed in the joint resolution
is necessary for the amendment to become part
of the Constitution.
Perhaps the most important phase of the legislative
process is the action by committees. One of the
first actions taken by a committee is to seek
the input of the relevant departments and agencies
about a bill. Frequently, the bill is also submitted
with a request for an official report of views
on the necessity or desirability of enacting the
bill into law. Normally, ample time is given for
the submission of the reports and they are accorded
serious consideration. However, these reports
are not binding on the committee in determining
whether or not to act favorably on the bill. If
the committee votes to report the bill to the
House, the committee staff writes a committee
report. The report describes the purpose and scope
of the bill and the reasons for its recommended
approval. Generally, a section-by-section analysis
is set forth explaining precisely what each section
is intended to accomplish.
The committee having oversight responsibility
is required to review and study any conditions
or circumstances that may indicate the necessity
or desirability of enacting new or additional
legislation within the jurisdiction of that committee,
and must undertake, on a continuing basis, future
research and forecasting on matters within the
jurisdiction of that committee.
In the context of the proposal to introduce the
amendment to the constitution of the United States
of America as not to deny the right of employment
to any individual on account of his or her immigration
status is too early. Before its enacted, I believe
that there should be a special task force made
to look into it’s feasibility which at the
moment appears to be a too over optimistic promise,
especially after the September eleven attack and
analyzing the current socio economic situation,
specifically the current economic situation. The
moderates also worry about jobs going to illegal
immigrants instead of citizens. Immigration is
part of what makes America great, the mass in
the middle thinks, but illegal immigration is
getting seriously out of hand.
Immigration into the U.S. is an issue that makes
for strange bedfellows. Supporters of current
immigration levels include corporate interests
that profit from cheap foreign labor, ethnic lobbies
seeking to increase their political base, and
religious activists, humanitarians, and civil
libertarians who focus on human rights and other
ethical concerns. Opponents include natives who
view non-European immigrants as a threat to American
culture, environmentalists who dread immigration-fueled
population growth, and labor advocates who fear
that immigration is taking jobs from U.S. citizens
and depressing U.S. wages. On the right of the
political spectrum, free marketers square off
against cultural conservatives. On the left, civil
rights and ethnic advocacy groups oppose environmentalists
and job protectionists. Bush Republicans like
illegal immigration because it boosts profits
for agribusinesses in Texas, Florida and elsewhere.
Critics of the plan said it amounted to an amnesty
for illegal immigrants. Bush’s election-year
proposal is designed to help meet the needs of
U.S. employers and to woo Latino voters. Democrats
like it because Hispanics are the nation's fastest
growing voter group. Business owners in MetroWest
like it because it's hard enough as it is to get
people who'll wash dishes and clean offices, and
the immigrants work harder than most Anglos. Among
the factors affecting these different assessments
are a rising sense of economic and social insecurity
in many U.S. communities, dependence of many economic
sectors on immigrant labor (from childcare to
agribusiness), an increasingly interconnected
global economy characterized by the relatively
free flow of capital and trade, and rising crime
and drug trafficking in border states.
Even the masses in the middle accept it, despite
their reservations, because they can get better
deals on landscaping and house painting. Three
million people enter this country illegally every
year, Time estimates, bringing with them a thick
muddle of costs and benefits, risks and rewards.
It's a huge issue, and one that neither George
W. Bush nor John F. Kerry wants to talk about.
And that's a pity. Current immigration policy
is failing on numerous accounts. Stricter border
controls have proved unable to stem illegal immigration
flows, leading instead to rising human rights
abuses and victimization of border-crossers. Immigration
clearly contributes to a downward pressure on
wage levels and to decreased job availability
in certain economic sectors.
The implications of the trends regarding immigrant
rights are troubling. The lure of jobs, higher
wages, and better living standards is drawing
immigrants into situations where U.S. citizens
increasingly perceive the protection of immigrant
rights as undermining their own. This means that
politicians can attract votes by promising to
fortify the Mexican border, even if such measures
only exact a higher price from border-crossers
without significantly altering the flow.
A national consensus on immigration is clear from
the wide range of polls on the issue over the
past several years: By overwhelming margins, Americans
want to cut back drastically on immigration—not
bring in new immigrants or legalize those who
are already here illegally. Limiting immigration
has the overwhelming support of most Americans,
regardless of party affiliation or race.
Following is the extract of a case, Tyson V/S
Plaintiff, in which The Complaint contends that
all such persons have been victimized by a scheme
perpetrated by Tyson to depress the wages paid
to its employees by knowingly hiring a workforce
substantially comprised of undocumented illegal
immigrants for the express purpose of depressing
wages (hereafter “the Illegal Immigrant
Hiring Scheme”).
Tyson perpetrated the Illegal Immigrant Hiring
Scheme through a complex and highly disciplined
network of recruiters and temporary employment
agencies, which obtain illegal immigrants, and
perform additional services to facilitate their
illegal employment by Tyson including transporting
them to the U.S., obtaining housing in the U.S.,
and falsifying identification documents. The Illegal
Immigrant Hiring Scheme violates the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupts Act (RICO) and has directly
and proximately caused the wages paid to plaintiffs
and the class members to be substantially depressed,
i.e., below the level of wages paid by other employers
of unskilled laborers in the areas surrounding
the 15 Tyson facilities who participated in the
Illegal Immigrant hiring Scheme. This has raised
the following questions;
Whether Tyson is engaging in the Illegal Immigrant
Hiring Scheme;
Whether Tyson is doing so in order to depress
its employees’ wages;
Whether the Illegal Immigrant Hiring Scheme has
caused class members’ wages to be depressed;
Whether Tyson conducted the Illegal Employment
Hiring Scheme through its network of recruiters
and temporary employment agencies;
Whether the Illegal Immigrant Hiring Scheme violates
the Immigration and Nationality Act and RICO;
and
Whether Tyson should be enjoined from conducting
further racketeering activity and further association
with its network of recruiters and temporary employment
agencies.
The case mentioned above is one out of the many.
Such cases not only promote depressed wages but
also affect the tax framework, and on the other
end it also promotes illegal migration process
in the United States. Cases like such not only
promote depressed wages but also bring the image
of the US Government on a stake at the global
level, in the eyes of the world. This has laid
way to the mushroom cultivation of such ill organizations
involved in the racketing activity. The production
of false identification documents reduces the
trail to track the miscreants if involved in other
illegal activities including terrorism on the
other extreme hand, when the US government has
vowed to fight against all the forces and sources
of terrorism.
Following is another extract of an extreme case
of terrorism in which an American resident of
Long Island Vinessa was brutally murdered by an
illegal immigrant and the family of plaintiff
is seeking support to stop the influx of employment
of illegal immigrants in the United States. Vinessa
Hioera was brutally murdered. An illegal immigrant
has been formally charged by the Grand Jury with
murder in the first degree, murder in the second
degree and arson in the third degree. This man,
who worked side by side with Vinessa Hioerra,
did not have the credentials to live or work in
the United States. The Plaintiff’s family
has been living for over more than fifty years
in the Long Island in USA. Until now, there never
had been a single experience, there has never
been noticed anything but a respectful blend of
diversified cultures.
Vinessa was a daughter, mother to a five-year-old
kid and a sister. This murder was no accident
but a deliberate violent act against a beautiful,
charming, loving and caring woman. A conviction
in this case would justify Vinessa’s Law.
The Government has already installed the laws
against hiring people without valid credentials.
The government does allow immigrants to come to
the United States to enjoy a better way of life,
through the immigration process. This process
allows them to work and pay taxes and become an
active and acceptable part of the United States’
society. The laws state that any employer who
hires an illegal immigrant is in direct violation
of homeland security, and will be fined for each
illegal immigrant employed.
The purpose here is not to target any single nationality
or minority. The country’s financial resources
are being depleted because there are just too
many, who are part of the problem and contribute
nothing to the solution. The schools are over
crowded, the medical facilities are a nightmare
and the prisons cannot house the over population
of illegal immigrants being convicted of violent
crimes. The scales are being tilted in a very
dangerous direction and what happened to Vinessa
is too much of a heavy load for the victim’s
family to carry alone. This cause to stop the
illegal immigrants’ employment process should
be brought to a halt, to bring the scales of justice
back to an even balance of the American society
and the safety of the America’s children.
The law should be enforced wherein enforcement
officers would have the authority to act as Homeland
security and issue violations for each illegal
immigrant employed. Then based upon the past violations,
they would have the authority to shut down a business
if they fail to comply after two violation convictions.
These laws have already been passed to defend
Americans against the practice of hiring illegal
immigrants, yet rarely enforced.
This law would also give the immigrant the opportunity
to register and gain legal status through the
proper channels or leave the country if they fail
to comply. This practice would enforce the regulations
already on record on a local level, thus giving
home security a wider range of control.
Again, I will emphasize that had the laws on
record been enforced the undocumented immigrant
that murdered Vinessa had not been working side
by side with her, and I believe she would had
been alive today. It is argued that it could have
been anyone that murdered her. Yes, it could have
been anyone, but it was not, it was an undocumented
immigrant who did not belong in the United States
of America. A ghost that the government did not
even know existed, until he murdered Vinessa,
now he is costing the tax payers thousands and
thousands of dollars.
This man worked side by side with Vinessa, they
earned the same hourly wage, yet he was paid one
third more for his forty hours then the hard working
single mother, because he did not pay any employment
taxes.
Self-government is the most important principle
in the constitution of the United States. Out
of the three main principles of the constitution,
the two most important ones are: Inherent Rights
that people living in the United States have and
Government by the people. These principles arc
what has enabled the government to work so well
in the USA. Everyone’s rights are protected.
The United States has a government of the people
and by the people. The people have the right to
vote for and delegate their authority to their
representatives in the government; and elect different
representatives, change the laws or the constitution
when they believe these changes need to be made.
Americans have been devoted to defending the principles
in the constitution, changing it only as much
as needed to adapt to the changing world.
The constitution contains two sections:
-The Document
-The Amendment.
The document part of the constitution has never
been changed. The amendments have been added to
the constitution to guarantee specific rights
and to solve the problems, which have arisen since
the document was first written. For this reason
the constitution is called a living document.
Amendments make the government able to adapt to
changing situations. The constitution and its
amendments provide the basis of the American government.
All aspects of government in the United States
are influenced by the constitution – the
country’s most important document. The founding
fathers of the constitution believed that the
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
was very important for the American citizen. This
right is the basic foundation stone for all the
rights listed in the constitution and its amendments.
Everyone’s rights are protected; if the
citizens feel the government has to be changed
they can change it. The American government strives
to ensure to the best that the interests of all
its’ people are served, rather than the
interests of a small group.
Until now there have been twenty-six amendments
and all these twenty-six amendments assure safety
and rights to its American people. But the proposed
amendment as to allow immigrants whether of legal
or illegal status the right to employment would
change the lives of the millions of American people
who will feel more vulnerable and susceptible
and on the other hand it would contradict the
most important principle of the constitution itself,
which is government by the people, for the people.
The cases listed above have highlighted the situation
further and are an advocate of my opinion as not
to allow the amendment to be added in the constitution-
the living document of the government of the USA,
whose main crux is the protection of American
life and American society’s culture.
|