Immigration - Discussing Non-Partisan Solutions

So we can all agree that we are probably not getting 1 million mexican immigrants a month, yes? Can we move on?

How about that notion of a great wall of America. I think it's a very bad idea as I think walls are generally a bad idea. What say you all?

What would be a better solution than a wall then Freeduck?

Do you think a wall is a good idea, Foxfyre? I believe that was FreeDuck's question.

Note: edits on last two posts were to correct syntax. My typing sometimes gets way ahead of the words.

I've advocated making it easier for folks to immigrate legally. I won't pretend to know enough about the whole problem to come up with a comprehensive solution. That's above my pay grade, as Joe Biden once said.

How would a wall solve the problem, Foxfyre?

There is some numbers on the internet :

Source

What if illegals were Americans?

:wink:
source

Freeduck also made a statement re a wall ehBeth and my question was entirely reasonable. I have also asked the same question re the wall in this thread and to date nobody has answered it. I have not yet come to a conclusion on it.

This country once had specific rules, guidelines, requirements, and quotas for legal immigration and immigrants with or without money came in by the many thousands every year and the vast majority made significant positive contributions to the culture, society, and economy of the United States.
That is my recommendation for legal immigration now.

As for what an immigration policy should be and/or how to keep the illegals out and/or deal with the illegals who are already here, isn't that what this thread was created to explore? So how about we explore it instead of overt and/or backhanded criticism of each other?

Wow Francis. Those numbers are less than JW's source and considerably more than mine. I wonder if we can find any verification from a secondary source because that is very interesting.

Dys - actually, I think it was 800,000/month. I rounded it up since it was so close to a million. I know those numbers boggle the mind (I was shocked), but like Foxy, I wonder how we would ever know the EXACT number since there are so few border patrol agents counting.

How many did you say you think are crossing per month? I understand you thinking me irresponsible in throwing out facts without sources, but I may yet find Brokaw's exact words.

Freeduck - I agree with you that those crossing for a better life here can't do it legally if it requires even a few hundred dollars. Prior to 9/11 my thoughts were to let them all in and to some extent I still feel that way.

The threat of terrorists being among those crossing illegally is too much of a concern and we need better control over who is coming into this country through Mexico.

Almost a million in a 3 month period and that was just the Arizona border.

That was my intention when I attempted to change the subject. I'm guessing you are speaking of the last page of the thread when you mention overt and backhanded criticism of each other.

So, what about it? How would a wall solve the problem, and would it be worth the expense to build one? Would it need to be manned by armed border patrol in order to make it work?

I believe Spain has the same problem with illegals coming in from Africa. I'm going to dig around and see what they've done in the past or what solutions didn't work for them.

That's a good point, JW. I just wonder if it is ever possible to completely control one's borders. (That's at least the second time I've inadvertently used your screen name in a response to one of your posts.)

Hunting for something re immigration on NBC links, I incidentially found this. I wonder how close this is to most European countries?

Denmark's immigration issue

Pia Kjaersgaard heads the Danish People's Party (DPP)
The Danish election on 8 February has turned the spotlight on the country's immigration policy.

The most enthusiastic advocate of placing restrictions on immigration, the far-right Danish People's Party (DPP), increased its support from 12% to 13.3% of the vote, moving from 22 to 24 seats in the country's 179-member parliament, the Folketing.

The party that most vocally criticised the last government's immigration restrictions, the Radical Liberals, more than doubled its support from 4% to 9.2% of the vote and has 17 seats in the new parliament, as opposed to eight in the outgoing one.

These two parties are widely seen as the election's big winners.

The Danish People's Party is a relative newcomer in Danish politics. Formed in 1996, it won 7.4% of the total vote in the March 1998 elections and took 13 seats. The 1998 elections were won by the Social Democrats and Radical Liberals, who formed a coalition government.

The Danish People's Party first became a significant player after the Conservatives and Liberals triumphed in November 2001 and formed a coalition government reliant on DPP support for a parliamentary majority.

The Liberal-Conservative government introduced what it described as Europe's strictest immigration laws in May 2002.

The right to asylum on humanitarian grounds, which had previously seen up to 60% of applications approved, was scrapped, the acceptable grounds for being granted asylum were cut to the bare minimum required under the Geneva Convention for Refugees, and social benefits for refugees were cut by 30%-40% for their first seven years in the country.

If they [Swedes] want to turn Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmoe into a Scandinavian Beirut, with clan wars, honour killings and gang rapes, let them do it. We can always put a barrier on the Oeresund Bridge

Pia Kjaersgaard
New provisions stipulated that Danish citizens could not bring a foreign spouse into the country unless both partners were aged 24 or over, passed a solvency test showing the Dane had not claimed social security for 12 months and had to lodge a bond of 53,000 kroner ($9,300).

Most importantly for Danish citizens who are themselves immigrants or second-generation immigrants, the Danish citizen has to be judged to have stronger links with Denmark than any other country.

The new laws had an almost immediate effect. Some 13,000 family reunification permits were granted in 2001, but this had fallen to fewer than 5,000 in 2003.

One effect of the new laws is that Copenhagen-based Danes with foreign spouses have been moving to the southern Swedish citizen of Malmoe at a rate of about 60 couples a month, continuing to work in the Danish capital by commuting across the Oeresund Bridge, which has since been nicknamed "the love bridge".

Sweden's Social-Democrat government has castigated the Danish government, accusing it of undermining Scandinavian solidarity, and the Danish laws have also been attacked by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner.

The leader of the Danish People's Party, Pia Kjaersgaard, responded to Swedish criticism by saying: "If they want to turn Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmoe into a Scandinavian Beirut, with clan wars, honour killings and gang rapes, let them do it. We can always put a barrier on the Oeresund Bridge."

Denmark's share of asylum applications in the three Scandinavian countries fell from 31% in 2000 to 9% in 2003, while Sweden's rose from 41% to 60% and Norway's from 28% to 31%.

Immigrants and the descendants of immigrants account for about eight per cent of Denmark's population.

BBC Monitoring selects and translates news from radio, television, press, news agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages. It is based in Caversham, UK, and has several bureaus abroad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4276963.stm

I said later that I believe these 1,000,000 now.

Why should I apologize? Because I quoted a paper that quoted the official numbers?

This piece



is quite similar to the Canadian provision on spousal sponsoring.

If I married Setanta today, I could move to the U.S. and start working immediately. Or, I could sponsor him here - complete a 60+ page application, promise to reimburse the government for any medical costs he might incur over the next 10 years, pay about $10,000 for the forms/processing, and hope that he gets enough points on the evaluation chart to be allowed in to move here and apply for permanent residency.

Seems to me, quite a bit of the U.S. scheme needs looking at.

830,000 over a three month period is still not 1 million a month, so it seems no apologies are needed. Can we all just agree that it's a lot but nobody knows the exact number?

The 800,000 number posted by Francis was about immigration to Canada.

(I remember seeing that quote at the time it came out and thinking it was a spoof. Not sure it isn't).

I can hardly abide the thought of a wall. It would be a solid manifestation of who we should not be, a republic of fear and loathing. Of course, this is opinion.

OssoB - the first link went to



which I believe is straight up.


The Canadian one was indeed a spoof.

finding Brokaws exact words is not relevant, I don't care what Brokaw said, what concerns me is your statement "THE BORDER PATROL" in a n attempt to lend credibility to the fact of 1 million per month. This is beyond careless posting or possibly faulty memory it is, seen by me, as attempting to validate unsubstainted facts by use of an 'authority' such as the "border patol" I could just as legitmately say that the Pentagon says that there are 109 million insurgents fighting against the occupation for democracy forces in Iraq. (as long as I came back later and say, "well, I heard that on a program" The point is the 1 million pre month figure you more than suggested as being legitimate by referencing to the border patrol is, at best, sloppy presentation of information and has no place in a forum where people are seriously (some are!) deal realistically with the world we find ouselves living in. Illegal immigration is a serious problem for the US and we need all the real information we can get to find adequate solutions. What we don't need is hyperbole that only obfuscates real problems aka partisan dis-information.

The link to the article re the 800,000 specifically refers to Arizona. Maybe it's a spoof; maybe it isn't, but there is ample information in the news re Arizona's crackdown on illegals.
NPR Radio broadcast (you'll meed Windows media player or Real Player to listen):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3930547

This indicates about half a million illegals are apprehended coming into Arizona in a six-month period. Human rights activists are protesting that this is forcing the illegals to cross in more deadly areas and thus more illegals are dying while attempting to sneak in.

It does not refer to how many make it across without being apprehended, but who wants to guess that will be a lot more than are intercepted. (Is that making up numbers, or is that a reasonable assumption?)