What should be done about illegal immigration?

That is too logical it would never fly with the left wing liberals. In addiotion Browne would no doubt claim it is a biggoted concept.

That would be short-sighted for liberals to challenge, because many who work in the high tech and bio-tech areas are immigrants who contribute greatly to our economy.

I certainly have no objection to such a program provided those provided such benefits came into the country legally to begin with and the law is in place. That certainly should be something for the immigration reform process to consider. I am of the school that thinks we should be inviting the brightest and best from wherever to come to the USA to be Americans--that's what Canada does. And certainly property owners paying their fair share of taxes and being productive members of society as well as committed citizens is something we should all want. Still nobody should be able to crowd in line ahead of those who have been waiting patiently for legal admission, some for many years, so no form of amnesty should be adopted except in perhaps extremely selective hardship cases that perhaps could require a Presidential or Congressional action to solve.

No. You are missing the point. The constitution has nothing to do with the Asian Exclusion Laws.

The issue here is that the Asian immigrants of the late 1800s and early 1900s faced the same discrimination now being faced by Hispanic immigrants. (And we should probably mention the Irish and Italian immigrants along the way).

The Asian immigrants were viciously defamed-- blamed for stealing jobs, committing crimes and spreading diseases. They were accused of being unable or unwilling to assimilate and of being a threat to the country.

Loud mouthed politicians whipped up the hatred for personal advantage-- and the result were harsh laws and policies that hurt Asian communities and families.

You seem to want to cozy up to the Nativists of today while disavowing the Nativists of earlier times. The arguments used by the two are the same even though the targets are different.

Will you answer my question instead of trying to change the subject. My grandparents came here from Italy and immagrated leagally. I still have the papers to prove it. According to you I hate my grandparents because they were immagrents. Do you realize how stupid an arguement that is? The illegals are keeping the legals out because there is only so much room for immagrents. If they give all the illegal mexicans citizenship because they cross the border how is that fair to all the legals.

That, Fox, when I heard the story, troubled me. The notion that someone could buy their way up the list doesn't quite seem fair, does it?

Yes it does; the Constitution precedes all state laws; "all men are created equal." Discrimination is against the Constitution of the US.

I'm not cozying up to anything but about current laws, and becoming US citizens.

Our parents were US citizen by birth; they were legal citizens who could not purchase property/land. That goes against the US Constitution and equal protection clause.

To answer your question (and tell me if I am answering the wrong question)-- although I have answered this question many times before.

You can be against illegal immigration without being a bigot. Relying on racial stereotypes to inspire; making exagerrated claims about disease or crime or using incendiary words like "invasion" for people who come to do landscaping... these are all examples of bigotry.

You can be against illegal immigration (or amnesty or whatever you are against) without using bigotry... somehow not to many people try.

To deny that there is significant anti-Hispanic bigotry coming from anti-immigrant people is ridiculous. (This is different from saying that everyone in this camp is a bigot).

Now a question for you: If you found out your grandparents had come from Italy illegally, how would this change your feelings about them?

All ebrown knows is the use of "bigot" to make it sound as if there's something inherently legal about it.

Depends on one's definition of fair I guess. If the 'buy' part is based on one having credentials that make him/her a desirable citizen and no bias applied on who would be able to produce those credentials, I think it is fair. Is it 'fair' to think a doctor or scientist or skilled craftsman or expert in technology or accomplished businessperson, etc. would benefit society as a whole more than somebody who would be a certain drain on social services while contributing little or nothing?

As a country, though very rich and very successful, we have neither habitable space nor resources to take in all the world's poor without making everybody poor and unable to help anybody. So why not focus on that which will make us stronger, more affluent, more successful so that we are in a position to better help the world's poor to help themselves become richer?

You are right about the land ownership laws... but you haven't addressed the Asian Exclusion laws (which I have never heard anyone argue were unconstitutional).

Hatred and racism toward the Chinese had a big affect on immigration policy (as well as land ownership policy).

RE:

Our country has made progress in this area as with most things that has to do with our Constitutional rights. I've seen it myself during my lifetime, and have no ax to grind; our family is now made up of many cultures. Our country has now elected a black president. That's great progress for a great country, but we still some ways to go, and I'm talking about equal rights for gays and lesbians, and equal pay for women and minorities (mostly blacks and Hispanics).

Cicerone, the question you are dodging is;

How was the bigotry leveled against Asians (particularly the Chinese); where immigrants were blamed for violent crime and disease, accused of being unable or unwilling to assimilate; painted as a threat to US culture and society any different than what Hispanic immigrants are facing today?

I can't answer for the Chinese. However, I'm sure you can find plenty of facts on Google Search.

From my understanding of American History, most immigrants, even from Europe, were discriminated against. I'm sure you've also heard the term "white trash" during contemporary times.

You are so dense. No one hates illegals. However, most people think they should not break the law and sneak into the country. They should follow the rules for legal immigration. Most people think that those who come here illegally should be promptly expelled.

We are talking under a more spirited debate, but I would add this:
If you, Foxfyre, and your fellow conservatives can get over the notion that the folks participating are stealing jobs from "real" Americans, I can get over the idea of these folks buying their way to the head of the list ahead of hard-working but less well-heeled legal immigrants.
The result, removing a bunch of houses from the real estate market and retaining a bunch of very bright professionals in the U.S. AT NO COST TO THE GOVERNMENT is worth exploring. I am unaware of any legislation pending, but I think, were it to be done, the economic benefit would trump the whole immigration hand. Thanks to yall for sharing your thoughts.

I would like people to follow the rules, not break the law and not sneak into the country. That is not the question. The issue is what to do with people who have been living here now-- particularly whether we can make a rational immigration system that is compassionate and doesn't require destroying families and communities in the process.



This is simply untrue.

ebrown, You're problem is not dissimilar to what Jews and Israel apolotists who call anybody who disagrees with Israel's treatment of Palestinians. They like to use a broad brush and call all of us anti-Semites.

There are extremists on both sides of any issue, and one writer does not apply to the whole. In reality, most do not fit into any box.

You're joking right? When those documents were written; black men, women, and children were legally owned by half the guys who wrote it. Can you even fathom a clearer doctrine of racism?

For God's sake man; the very First Article of the Constitution stipulates that blacks be counted as 3/5s of a man and excluded Indians from consideration altogether. Again; can you even fathom a clearer doctrine of racism?

When Abigail Adams asked her husband not to forget the ladies; he reportedly laughed and pointed out “all men were created equal”. Our Bill of Rights and the Laws of the Land have evolved into pretty fair instruments, but make no mistake; they DID NOT start out that way.

Almost a century would pass before Lincoln declared the Slaves free and almost another century would pass before the S.C.’s famous Brown v the Board of Education decision really started to give the words “all men are created equal” some credibility.

That was 1954, C.I., and the 14th amendment had been around for almost a century itself, before it was so interpreted. Now it’s all fine and good and fun to credit our Founding Fathers with all that is good and fair in the world, as long as you’re talking to children. The truth is the Constitution of the United States was written mostly to protect its signatories; rich white male landowners, every one.

Ebrown correctly points out, and you've admitted, that your own ancestors were deplorably discriminated against… and it’s true than many of the same excuses and justifications were offered. You should consider the simple truth of this comparison, because it is very, very valid. Hispanics, just like Asians, are every bit as human as the bigots who point their fingers and say those others are to blame for their lousy lots in life.

A world where a man (or woman) can be judged based on what he does with his life, not the color of his skin or the location of his birth has not yet developed. But it will. History demonstrates that the Laws of the United States have been on a one way street, evolving into an ever more humane doctrine. Those who hate have suffered defeat after defeat after defeat and this hatred too will be defeated.

If you keep looking in your rear view mirror, you have learned nothing.