IMMIGRATION

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Does Canada do immigration better than we do?

When Canada won't even take our disgruntled Democrats, the U.S. media reports that the 9/11 highjackers were all in this country legally and an increasing number of sources are reporting that most were registered to vote, maybe our immigration policy should be moved to the front burner.

Many of us have been frustrated with the Bush administration immigration policy, but understood realistically how you can't alienate the Hispanic vote just before an election. (The theory was that Hispanics would resent tighter immigration polls--that has not been the case among my Hispanic friends but that is what is said.)

Now that Bush has been reelected, will you support him clamping down on illegal immigration? Would you support cutting off all social services (education, health care other than life threatening emergency, welfare, social security, workers compensation benefits, etc.) for illegal immigrants? Would you favor a constitutional amendment making it necessary for a person to be born to a U.S. citizen rather than just being born on U.S. soil in order to be a citizen?

Reminder: The suggested severe restrictions are related to ILLEGAL immigration, not all imigration.

Quote:

Unhappy Democrats Need to Wait to Get Into Canada
Wed Nov 3, 2004 01:16 PM ET

By David Ljunggren
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Disgruntled Democrats seeking a safe Canadian haven after President Bush won Tuesday's election should not pack their bags just yet.

Canadian officials made clear on Wednesday that any U.S. citizens so fed up with Bush that they want to make a fresh start up north would have to stand in line like any other would-be immigrants -- a wait that can take up to a year.

More. . .
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6704292

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,647 • Replies: 27

No top replies

I don't like the idea of the constitutional amendment (if I'm understanding your wording correctly) - what it looks like to me is a way to keep a lot of hard-working people out of the country, and it doesn't seem to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. Does it?

The other thing is, some might want to (not me, necessarily) distinguish between folks who came here completely illegally (boat people, etc.) versus folks who started off legal but ended up illegal, such as students staying longer than their visa allowed. Should there be a distinction? Maybe there should, as the latter seem to be the victims of bureaucracy (or is it just laziness?) rather than actively working to circumvent the law.

One problem with cutting off all of those social services is that you create and maintain an underclass with them. I am not saying that illegal immigration is a wonderful thing - it isn't. But surely there has to be something better than denying education to children who happen to be illegal immigrants. Should we blame them for the choices of their parents? As for welfare, etc., I understand the desire to not pay these folks, but I hardly think that leaving them to beg in the streets (or steal) is an attractive option, either. Do we really want to make it easier for people to justify committing crimes? I don't think that denying funds will force these folks back home to wherever they came from.

I'm not saying I have the solution - God knows I don't - but being miserly with basic social services, particularly when children are involved - just strikes me as wrongheaded.

0 Replies

The Constitution now states that a person born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen, even if the parent is here illegally. What has been happening, especially in the border states, is a pregnant woman makes it to San Diego or El Paso or some other U.S. border town and gets to an emergency room just in time for her baby to be born. The baby is thus a U.S. citizen entitled to all benefits thereof and the mother can live happily in this country with all benefits of citizenship from thereon. This may not seem like a big deal, but to the hospitals who are delivering (gratis) thousands of such babies, it is a big deal.

A change in the constitution limiting automatic citizenship to those born to citizens would stop that kind of nonsense.

As for the other issues, it is the jobs and social benefits available to them that keeps the illegals pouring across the borders. Would they stay home if we made it less attractive for them to be here?

0 Replies

Besides that it is Politically Correct, why do we have ANY legal immigration?

- Do we have too many empty parks?
-Do we have too much gasoline and electricity?
-Do we have too many empty classrooms?
-Too many empty hospitals?

0 Replies

It's a good question Jim, but I don't have any problem with immigration that is reasonable and tightly regulated as it used to be. There was a time when immigrants wanted to be citizens because they loved America and wanted to be Americans and part of the American culture. We need to get back to that policy.

0 Replies

Okay, thanks for clearing that up, foxy, I agree although I think amending the Constitution is a bit much (this can probably just be covered with a federal law on the matter).

Well, legal immigration means Manny Ramirez becomes a citizen. :-D

It's a very, very large problem. In some ways, it's a data problem, e. g. agencies not following up with each other because their systems don't "talk" to one another. Plus, of course, it's a huge security issue, no argument there. Lots of folks come here and are law-abiding other than getting in illegally; surely there should be a qualitative difference between them and Mohammed Atta?

0 Replies

Citizenship derived from U.S. birth derives from the 14th Amendment. Now, this part of the amendment was intended to insure that former slaves would become citizens regardless of any state restrictions. This has become an obsolete issue, and that part of the amendment should be amended.

0 Replies

why not just go back to the original intent of having only white-christian-land owning men of european descent being eligible for citizenship?

0 Replies

Clamping down on illegal immigration makes some sense--people shouldn't be rewarded for violating the law. However, it makes little sense to punish children for the transgressions of their parents. While this doesn't imply that they should be granted citizenship, there is a strong case to be made for granting the children of illegal aliens basic services. We would otherwise turn non-citizens into a permanent underclass by denying them (and their offspring) the ability to enhance their skills and join the lawful community. This is only begging for crime and indigence among a fairly large population.

In regards to "why do we allow immigration at all?," I would give two reasons, one ethical, and one economic.

On the economic side, I consider myself a strong free-trade advocate; this includes the labor market. Immigrants have been a very large and valuable source of low-skilled labor. A steady flow of young, willing-to-work immigrants is what separates our economy from the aging economies of Japan and much of Europe. Many European states are about to experience a demographic crisis as the ratio of old and unproductive people to young workers declines. Immigration prevents this country from experiencing the same.

On the ethical side, why do Americans feel so entitled to the silver spoon of citizenship? How hard did you work to be born an American? We have a certain schizophrenic view of equality and liberty. We believe that people should make themselves into their own man or woman, and we revile nepotism (or so I once believed), while at the same time, we cling to valuable birth-rights like citizenship. This doesn't make any sense.

0 Replies

Steppenwolf writes

Quote:

On the ethical side, why do Americans feel so entitled to the silver spoon of citizenship? How hard did you work to be born an American? We have a certain schizophrenic view of equality and liberty. We believe that people should make themselves into their own man or woman, and we revile nepotism (or so I once believed), while at the same time, we cling to valuable birth-rights like citizenship. This doesn't make any sense.

I often struggle with some of the issues you raise. So far as citizenship goes, there must be some standard to identify who can be a citizen. As a citizen, I do not wish for my children to have to 'earn' that privilege or qualify for some kind of club in order to belong and be entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.

At the same time, while I believe a moral society takes care of the helpless, I believe there simply must be some kind of standard for legal immigration or else we are doomed to all become a permanent underclass when the people outnumber our resources. Far better to encourage foreign aid (with much better regulation than it usually gets) and also private charities to help the less fortunate, but I strongly advocate all people here illegally being sent home along with their children.

Having been in the position of having to make that kind of decision, however, I'll admit it's a lot easier to make such a policy than it is to enforce it.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

why not just go back to the original intent of having only white-christian-land owning men of european descent being eligible for citizenship?

Yeah. And don't let any of those darn aliens own property either, untill they become citizens.

0 Replies

A huge amount of U.S. real estate is owned or controlled by foreign interests. I'm not sure what I think about non citizens owning property here. I don't think that would be allowed in many other countries. I had a piece of beachfront property in Baja California for awhile but it was on a long term lease that would expire after so many years--made it impossible to bequeath to one's children. Yet the single largest owner of U.S. property/business in the U.S. was the Netherlands some years ago and they had a LOT.

I do not think illegal aliens should be allowed to own property or even stay here. But it's sure hard to look somebody in the eye and tell him/her he has to go home too.

As with most things, this is not a simple issue.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

A huge amount of U.S. real estate is owned or controlled by foreign interests. I'm not sure what I think about non citizens owning property here. I don't think that would be allowed in many other countries. I had a piece of beachfront property in Baja California for awhile but it was on a long term lease that would expire after so many years--made it impossible to bequeath to one's children. Yet the single largest owner of U.S. property/business in the U.S. was the Netherlands some years ago and they had a LOT.

I do not think illegal aliens should be allowed to own property or even stay here. But it's sure hard to look somebody in the eye and tell him/her he has to go home too.

As with most things, this is not a simple issue.

I don't think it would be that hard to do. While throwing them out we hand the paper work to enter the proper way, at least that way they have some hope. Breaking the law is breaking the law and it has to be dealt with.

0 Replies

ah, simple issues, I love simple issues, they are the very backbone of conservative thought (or lack of thought) if everyone was a christian we would be innudated with simple issues. Jesus was just too complex so we opted for Paul.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

A huge amount of U.S. real estate is owned or controlled by foreign interests. I'm not sure what I think about non citizens owning property here. I don't think that would be allowed in many other countries. I had a piece of beachfront property in Baja California for awhile but it was on a long term lease that would expire after so many years--made it impossible to bequeath to one's children. Yet the single largest owner of U.S. property/business in the U.S. was the Netherlands some years ago and they had a LOT.

I do not think illegal aliens should be allowed to own property or even stay here. But it's sure hard to look somebody in the eye and tell him/her he has to go home too.

As with most things, this is not a simple issue.

Not allowing foreign nationals to own property in the U.S. would be utterly disastrous for our economy. I'm not sure you realize how much American growth is financed by direct foreign investment. Sure, illegal aliens are not a huge source of capital inflows (although they often provide a labor boon), but your friends in the Netherlands cannot rationally be excluded.

0 Replies

I agree with Baldimo that if we are to be a nation o laws, we cannot just turn a blind eye to blatant law breaking. I also agree with Steppenwolf that we can't be too protective without other countries retaliating against American investments abroad. But do you think the playing field is level?

0 Replies

Well, thinking that American poperty owners and investors would have to leave foreign countries and foreign investment should be stopped in the USA ...
Some will miss 'Trader Jo', I think, and others Saab, Vauxhall, and Opel. :wink:

0 Replies

LOL Walter. Too true.

In basic terms, what are Germany's immigration rules? Could I just plop in there without the German equivalent of a green card and go to work, put my kids in a German school, get German health care, welfare, unemployment benefits, etc.?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, thinking that American poperty owners and investors would have to leave foreign countries and foreign investment should be stopped in the USA ...
Some will miss 'Trader Jo', I think, and others Saab, Vauxhall, and Opel. :wink:

Hear, hear. God bless foreign trade. I'll also stick with a relatively loose immigration policy, but I know that neither party will bite, so I don't keep my fingers crossed. Smile

0 Replies

How loose Steppenwolf? You are not in favor of deporting illegals?

0 Replies

IMMIGRATION

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know