By now the RK community may be tired of my urging that the federal solution must be some kind of path to permanent residency with NO possibility of citizenship.

Making it possible for those who entered illegally to become citizens will send a message to those who are trying to come legally that they are fools. By coming with total disregard to US law, they can eventually earn the right to help make US law (residence and citizenship)after jumping through some proposed hoops that are much easier than those you have to jump through to come in compliance with US law.

I'm not urging massive deportation or even a return to home country to apply for legal admission as that's probably a hardship for most who have come illegally, have not violated other laws, and are productive residents of the USA. Enforcement would be a nightmare in either case BUT, I'm willing to bet that if offered a Green Card with no possibility of citizenship and a social security number, most, if not all, who are here illegally would accept the offer as a punishment for avoiding the legal path.

For the most part we are talking about good people who, after some vetting of their backgrounds, would become productive and proud permanent residents willingly.

The solution MUST be a federal solution and I suggest a workable compromise that hopefully would be acceptable to the political left and right wings of the Congress.

is not progressive and it's not American.  No thanks.

I think I am progressive and certainly hold American Values dearly and especially those of Teddy Roosevelt when it comes to immigrants.  My grandfather immigrated in the 1920's hoping to make some bucks and go home, then he came a second time and decided to stay but had to wait for citizenship before he could safely leave the US with a guarantee of being permitted reentry with my grandmother and father who was 12 years old at the time, and the whole family survived without any official bi-lingual help from the government.  See TR's speeches about 5 years to learn English.  My father survived public school with no one in his classes that spoke his native language and learned English just as fast as he could.

Now My diary is about all illegals, not just the Hispanics who seem to be the main focus of attacks on the subject by republicans.  Corporations have several classes of stock, some without voting rights. Is that un-American?

What do you propose to tell the immigrant here legally about why it is progressive and American to give those here illegally the same class of stock as they get?  Should the legal immigrant get two votes upon earning citizenship if we grant the illegal one vote?

I think my proposal is very progressive compared to what I've seen proposed to date.  I wouldn't make them go home to reapply for entry (the whole family or just the head of family)because it would be expensive for their family, hard to enforce, unfair to those in the country that they return to who have been on a legal immigration waiting list for years.  Also with the head of family out of the US, the family may well have to go on welfare as it is unlikely that the parent who came here for a job will find a job back home and send money to his family in the US.

There is a likelihood that most of the children are American Citizens by birth and will have the right to vote when they are old enough to vote and I don't have a problem with that although some might see it as still rewarding illegal behavior.  It is progressive not to punish children for the sins of their parents.

If any RK member still disagrees, please be specific on exactly what would be a progressive and American solution that would not "bitch-slap" those awaiting legal immigration and those who are already here legally.

to EARNED citizenship.  That can involve fines, payment of back taxes, English and civics requirements, whatever.  John McCain has proposed this, pretty much, and I agree with him.  No matter what, the LAST thing I want to see is the type of situation they've got in European countries like Germany, where immigrants become a permanent underclass that is never fully integrated into society.  That's about the worst possible option I can think of.

Can we tell those who are on waiting lists to come legally just skip all that legal stuff, come on now and pay a fine (from what I've seen, talk is about $5K or $10K and most on waiting lists will tell you they've already spent about that much)and be sure to keep accurate employment records as once you can have a legal social security number, all you have to do is pay back taxes?

Never fully integrated is incorrect as the children born here will have that opportunity and that differentiates my proposal from the European.  

Now, how about English as the official language (you take a citizenship exam in English, but we have to print government documents in your native language as well as English.....unless you are a Lao, or Thai, or Romanian,or German, etc.)?

Thoughts on Dual Citizenship from people who are TR progressives like me?

How big should the fine be and how will the IRS determine how much is owed in back taxes in order, sorry to use the term again but I think it is descriptive, "bitch-slap" the immigrant who came legally and the waiting list immigrant who wants to come legally?

TR said in part:  "Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.

But 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."

Now I agree with that 100%.  

is usually a function of birth, I'm not sure why you're confusing the two.

Have you considered voting for Huckabee?  He'd like to put dual citizens who exercise their rights in jail.  Maybe you should check him out.

does it mean to have "allegiance [] purely to the United States"?  Is that kinda like standing behind the President, no matter what he does?  Supporting the US gov't, even when it's torturing people?

It means the United States Constitution.  That is the United States, Not the president, the congress or the supreme court.  It is the constitution and the people!

"I, ___ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of ___ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

That is the current oath from the Army's website.  The Constitution is what I fought for, not the president, not the flag, not anything else.  We swore and our successors still swear to support and defend the Constitution.

As I'm sure you're quite familiar that a number of people who serve in the US military aren't citizens.  You have worries about their loyalties?

There are millions of dual citizens out there, what's the big deal?

Someone forgot to tell all those who were naturalized like my grandfather (my father's citizenship was derivative from his fathers beacuse he was a minor and that's the way that works even today, I think)

Dual citizenship is when you are a US citizen and at the same time a citizen of England, Israel, or some other country.  The issue is best stated by Teddy Roosevelt:

"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
- Theodore Roosevelt, letter to the American Defense Society (January 3, 1919)

I agree wholeheartedly with the progressive warrior of 1919.

No one born here has to take an oath of loyalty to anything (and I have no idea what that would accomplish, even if it were required).

This idea of loyalty arising from happenstance of birth really strikes me as ridiculous.  There are plenty of US citizens (of all political persuasions) that would claim the mantle of patriotic and loyal citizens, yet seem to have no real love or appreciation for the ideals contained in the U.S. Constitution.  Conversely, there are a lot of people who aren't U.S. citizens who have an extraordinary devotion to those ideals.  Now, of those two groups, with whom do you feel more of a common cause?  

Far from narrowing our differences it is obvious that we are all over the place and I hope all who commented consider themselves progressives.

I hope those who support Obama and are confident that he can bring independents and republicans into unified action on our problems take note that some progressives in the relatively small forum of RK rigidly disagree on solutions to illegal immigration.  I am a Teddy Roosevelt progressive and a Harry Truman Democrat and I apologize for proposing something that I thought, with fair debate, might be a solution.
I cannot accept that an American can pledge allegiance to the United States and pledge allegiance to another country and hold two passports at the same time. As TR said, you're either an American, or you're not.  No quibbling.  I also cannot accept not imposing penalties on law violators just because we don't want an underclass.

We already have an underclass and a lot of its members used to be middle class before Dubya Bush.  I thank you all for the opportunity to say my piece and I'm outta here on this issue.

that you could at least tell me whether you trusted the loyalty of those non-citizen U.S. soldiers.  You know, like maybe a few of those that recently died in combat?  Really, I'd love to hear you say it.

I am a Teddy Roosevelt progressive and a Harry Truman Democrat and I apologize for proposing something that I thought, with fair debate, might be a solution.

Well, you do seem to have that Teddy Roosevelt jingoism vibe down pretty well.  I'm not sure how you expected a fair debate when you're so easily declaring some Americans as not Americans.

I cannot accept that an American can pledge allegiance to the United States and pledge allegiance to another country and hold two passports at the same time. As TR said, you're either an American, or you're not.  No quibbling.  

Well, thanks for declaring me not an American. Funny, what with being born in Phoenix, spending the first 15 years of my life on U.S. military bases around the world, and putting a lot of time, money, and heart into public service and politics in this country, I 'd have thought my bona fides as an American were pretty clear.  But oh, look.  Since my father wasn't born an American, I'm not one either, according to your narrow little worldview (influenced by titans of global understanding like Teddy Roosevelt, at that).  This is where I'm tempted to invite you to do something unpleasant.  I'd held back from this before, thinking that since you're here, we probably have many values in common.  But your willingness to just declare someone unAmerican?  Well, I can't say that I've got much respect for you, at this point.

I also cannot accept not imposing penalties on law violators just because we don't want an underclass.

No, be more honest about it.  What you can't accept is not imposing the penalties YOU WANT on law violators.  There are plenty of ways to penalize the violation while still permitting someone to end up as a full and participating citizen.  But that's not good enough for you.  You need, for whatever reason I don't understand (I think your stated reason - that it makes those waiting in line mad - is bullshit) to deny these folks a chance to fully integrate into American society.  Okay, well, that's your position.  I'm just glad that, so far, it's a (rather vocal) minority one.

I strongly object to the use of the phrase "Teddy Roosevelt Progressive" in the context of the narrow-minded worldview expressed by the commenter "oldsoldier."  That is not, I believe, what Teddy Roosevelt was all about, except in his darkest and worst aspects.