1
   

Resolving the Immigration Issue

 
 
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 11:03 am
I want to strongly advocate, publicize and support the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill which is making its way through both houses of Congress. It offers a solution to many of the issues which divide Americans about immigration.

I know there are some here who advocate the harshest of treatment for those who have broken immigration law. They believe these immigrants should have no rights, no medical care, and no chance of staying. These folk would like immigrants to be rounded up and shipped out right now.

I also know that this simply isn't going to happen. Business doesn't want it to happen. Many Americans don't want this to happen, and there is simply no political support except for that from a couple of loud-mouthed senators.

Yet, the status-quo doesn't make anyone happy. You know the unhappiness of the anti-immigration folks who scream about billboards for Spanish newcasts and go running in the desert with guns. Many of us on the other side are very unhappy with the way the current laws affect families and communities.

So along comes McCain-Kennedy which offers a very fair, straightforward solution to the immigration problem.

1. McCain-Kennedy will straighten out businesses problems with immigration. Business will tell you they need immigrants, and that is why the business community strongly opposes any measure, including enforcement of current law, that stops their ability to get the workers they need.

McCain-Kennedy offers a good compromise. They say, we will provide a way for you to keep the workers you rely now (through legalization) and to get the workers you need in the future (through guest worker visas) in a way that is legal and regulated. In return, you will accept stricter enforcement of the new laws.

2. McCain-Kennedy will increase security by getting rid of the need for a second underground economy. The fact is there are millions of people living here. The vast majority are good people who work hard and present absolutely no threat to our security. Their only crime is crossing the border and working to make a better life.

So we have millions of basically good people who must stay out of public life. They can't get licenses, and they must do business out of public life. This provides a great cover for the few people who want to do us harm.

If you let good people come out into the public, the bad people will be much easier to find.

3. McCain-Kennedy will save families. There are many people who now have deep connections, even family connections, to the United States. Breaking up families simply because one has crossed a border is cruel and unnecessary.

McCain-Kennedy provides a way for undocumented immigrants to come forward, admit they are here illegally and start a process of fixing their problems in a legal way. This will eliminate the painful decision of either living underground, or risking the breakup of your family and community that many immigrants currently face.

Washington Post Article
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,095 • Replies: 45
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 11:31 am
So now we talk about amnesty? What about those who are "waiting in line"? IS this bill fair to them??

"McCain-Kennedy offers a good compromise. They say, we will provide a way for you to keep the workers you rely now (through legalization) and to get the workers you need in the future (through guest worker visas) in a way that is legal and regulated. In return, you will accept stricter enforcement of the new laws. "

What does "stricker enforcement" mean??

"McCain-Kennedy will save families. There are many people who now have deep connections, even family connections, to the United States. Breaking up families simply because one has crossed a border is cruel and unnecessary. "

Why is that a US Citizens problem? They strangle our resources without paying taxes.

How is this a fair plan to taxpayers?? Not very convincing.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 02:12 pm
ebrown, I voted for #3. Besides making guest workers legal, we must make sure those that apply through the legal system must also get preference ahead of the illegals. If we are to remain a country of laws, we must enforce them or change it to reflect current conditions. I agree with the McCain-Kennedy solution.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 03:06 pm
Interesting.. I seem to recall Bush proposing an amnesty for illegal aliens that were already in the country a while back and he was roundly criticised in the press and by the left here on A2K.

This bill looks like a combination of Bush's amnesty proposal and his Immigration Reform proposal.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 03:10 pm
fishin' wrote:
Interesting.. I seem to recall Bush proposing an amnesty for illegal aliens that were already in the country a while back and he was roundly criticised in the press and byh teh left here on A2K.

This bill looks like a combination of Bush's amnesty proposal and his Immigtration Reform proposal.

My recollection is that what Bush proposed couldn't really be called an amnesty. Violation of the law should never be rewarded. That always sets a precedent. Amnesty would be a slap in the face to all the would be immigrants who obey our rules for immigration.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 03:27 pm
Brandon,

You don't offer much in the way of a better solution.

What you are saying is staight off of an special interest group position paper. The term "slap in the face to ... immigrants who obey our rules" is quite cliche.

Can't you think about the problem deeper than that?

There are real issues in terms of businesses, communities and families, that concern many Americans. Parroting trite statements like "violation of the law should never be rewarded" doesn't at all address these issues.

Are you advocating the status quo?

Do you think it is possible (let alone a good idea) to hunt down and ship off the undocumented workers here without having a drastic effect on our economy and perhaps our culture?

Do the the concerns of your fellow American citizens who believe that undocumented immigrants should be treated with dignity and given the chance to become legal give you pause?

Does the reality of the economy and the concerns of the business community give you pause?

Instead of glib comments-- please tell me what your solution would be.

Please make sure you answer, or explain why you are dismissing, the concerns that have been raised.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 03:54 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
My recollection is that what Bush proposed couldn't really be called an amnesty. Violation of the law should never be rewarded. That always sets a precedent. Amnesty would be a slap in the face to all the would be immigrants who obey our rules for immigration.


While it's nice in theory, the idea of never rewarding anyone that violates the law doesn't lend itself to any practical solutions that actually fix the problem.

For myself, I'd rather budge and accept that some people will be rewarded in teh effort to get the issue resolved (or at least significantly under control).
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 04:21 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Brandon,

You don't offer much in the way of a better solution.

Sorry, I thought the implication was clear. Arrest the illegal immigrants and send them back to whatever their point of origin. I suppose that if someone has been here for decades, we might consider on a case by case basis forgiving the original sin, and occasionally do so.

ebrown_p wrote:
What you are saying is staight off of an special interest group position paper. The term "slap in the face to ... immigrants who obey our rules" is quite cliche.

Why would I care what anyone else thinks about it? I am giving my opinion. I am more concerned with my position being correct than with whether or not it is a cliche. A cliched opinion can be either correct or incorrect, and, therefore, the fact that it is a cliche is immaterial.

ebrown_p wrote:
Can't you think about the problem deeper than that?

On what basis do you decide that my opinion is more shallow than your opinion?

ebrown_p wrote:
There are real issues in terms of businesses, communities and families, that concern many Americans.

I do not care much about the business interests of people who knowingly hired illegal workers. As for the interests of companies who hired them innocently, I believe that the issue of the impact on them is less important than the issues of enforcing the law, setting a precedent that we will enforce our laws, evicting people whose first act here was to disrespect our laws, and the fact that there may be a few truly unsavory people mixed in with the people who sneak into the country.

ebrown_p wrote:
Parroting trite statements like "violation of the law should never be rewarded" doesn't at all address these issues.

I object to your assumption that my opinions constitute parrotting. My opinions are my opinions, and you have zero information on how I arrive at them. How would you like it if I said that since your opinion is shared by many, and since you don't appear smart enough to be original, I will assume that you are merely parrotting the thoughts of your betters? As for my opinion being trite, you would be amazed by how much I don't care. And finally, I do believe that violation of the law should virtually never be rewarded. It sets a counterproductive precedent.

ebrown_p wrote:
Are you advocating the status quo?

No, the status quo is dangerous. I am advocating arresting and deporting all illegals and welcoming the people who chose to come here, but who show enough respect for us to follow our laws.

ebrown_p wrote:
Do you think it is possible (let alone a good idea) to hunt down and ship off the undocumented workers here without having a drastic effect on our economy and perhaps our culture?

We have indeed waited much too long to enforce the law, but we should do so before the situation is completely beyond our control, even if we have to suffer a certain amount to accomplish that.

ebrown_p wrote:
Do the the concerns of your fellow American citizens who believe that undocumented immigrants should be treated with dignity and given the chance to become legal give you pause?

Not really. I believe in treating the illegal immigrants with dignity too - the same dignity that I believe should be shown in the treatment of any minor lawbreaker.

ebrown_p wrote:
Does the reality of the economy and the concerns of the business community give you pause?

Like I said, we've waited too long to enforce our border security, and now it's going to hurt to do so, but we should before the situation is even further out of control.

ebrown_p wrote:
Instead of glib comments-- please tell me what your solution would be.

I have. My opinions are definite, but no more glib than yours. You have my solution as to what to do about people who are here illegally.

ebrown_p wrote:
Please make sure you answer, or explain why you are dismissing, the concerns that have been raised.

Because they're stupid.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 04:40 pm
Thank you Brandon.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 04:45 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Thank you Brandon.

It was a pleasure.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 04:48 pm
First (and the sooner the better) I would make north american (Canada-USA-Mexico) a virtually free pass zone much the same as most of europe is now. people would migrate to the jobs available just like they now do from state to state within the USA.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 04:53 pm
Dys,

This idea is nice in theory...but alas, it is about as likely to happen as Brandon's solution to the problem.

McCain-Kennedy is a decent compromise.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 04:59 pm
dyslexia wrote:
First (and the sooner the better) I would make north american (Canada-USA-Mexico) a virtually free pass zone much the same as most of europe is now. people would migrate to the jobs available just like they now do from state to state within the USA.


Don't know if you got the idea from a segment on Lou Dobbs show on CNN last evening but...here's the transcript. There are some Washingtonites kicking the idea around.

DOBBS: Border security is arguably the critical issue in this country's fight against radical Islamist terrorism. But our borders remain porous. So porous that three million illegal aliens entered this country last year, nearly all of them from Mexico.

Now, incredibly, a panel sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations wants the United States to focus not on the defense of our own borders, but rather create what effectively would be a common border that includes Mexico and Canada.

Christine Romans has the report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On Capitol Hill, testimony calling for Americans to start thinking like citizens of North America and treat the U.S., Mexico and Canada like one big country.

ROBERT PASTOR, IND. TASK FORCE ON NORTH AMERICA: The best way to secure the United States today is not at our two borders with Mexico and Canada, but at the borders of North America as a whole.

ROMANS: That's the view in a report called "Building a North American Community." It envisions a common border around the U.S., Mexico and Canada in just five years, a border pass for residents of the three countries, and a freer flow of goods and people.

Task force member Robert Pastor.

PASTOR: What we hope to accomplish by 2010 is a common external tariff which will mean that goods can move easily across the border. We want a common security perimeter around all of North America, so as to ease the travel of people within North America.

ROMANS: Buried in 49 pages of recommendations from the task force, the brief mention, "We must maintain respect for each other's sovereignty." But security experts say folding Mexico and Canada into the U.S. is a grave breach of that sovereignty.

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: That's what would happen if anybody serious were to embrace this strategy for homogenizing the United States and its sovereignty with the very different systems existing today in Canada and Mexico.

ROMANS: Especially considering Mexico's problems with drug trafficking, human smuggling and poverty. Critics say the country is just too far behind the U.S. and Canada to be included in a so-called common community. But the task force wants military and law enforcement cooperation between all three countries.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Indeed, an exchange of personnel that bring Canadians and Mexicans into the Department of Homeland Security.

ROMANS: And it wants temporary migrant worker programs expanded with full mobility of labor between the three countries in the next five years.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS: The idea here is to make North America more like the European Union. Yet, just this week, voters in two major countries in the European Union voted against upgrading -- updating the European constitution. So clearly, this is not the best week to be trying to sell that idea.

DOBBS: Americans must think that our political and academic elites have gone utterly mad at a time when three-and-a-half years, approaching four years after September 11, we still don't have border security. And this group of elites is talking about not defending our borders, finally, but rather creating new ones. It's astonishing.

ROMANS: The theory here is that we are stronger together, three countries in one, rather than alone.

DOBBS: Well, it's a -- it's a mind-boggling concept. Christine Romans, thank you, as always.

Task force site
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 05:03 pm
dyslexia wrote:
First (and the sooner the better) I would make north american (Canada-USA-Mexico) a virtually free pass zone much the same as most of europe is now. people would migrate to the jobs available just like they now do from state to state within the USA.


Don't know if you got the idea from a segment on Lou Dobbs show on CNN last evening but...here's the transcript. There are some Washingtonites kicking the idea around.

DOBBS: Border security is arguably the critical issue in this country's fight against radical Islamist terrorism. But our borders remain porous. So porous that three million illegal aliens entered this country last year, nearly all of them from Mexico.

Now, incredibly, a panel sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations wants the United States to focus not on the defense of our own borders, but rather create what effectively would be a common border that includes Mexico and Canada.

Christine Romans has the report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On Capitol Hill, testimony calling for Americans to start thinking like citizens of North America and treat the U.S., Mexico and Canada like one big country.

ROBERT PASTOR, IND. TASK FORCE ON NORTH AMERICA: The best way to secure the United States today is not at our two borders with Mexico and Canada, but at the borders of North America as a whole.

ROMANS: That's the view in a report called "Building a North American Community." It envisions a common border around the U.S., Mexico and Canada in just five years, a border pass for residents of the three countries, and a freer flow of goods and people.

Task force member Robert Pastor.

PASTOR: What we hope to accomplish by 2010 is a common external tariff which will mean that goods can move easily across the border. We want a common security perimeter around all of North America, so as to ease the travel of people within North America.

ROMANS: Buried in 49 pages of recommendations from the task force, the brief mention, "We must maintain respect for each other's sovereignty." But security experts say folding Mexico and Canada into the U.S. is a grave breach of that sovereignty.

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: That's what would happen if anybody serious were to embrace this strategy for homogenizing the United States and its sovereignty with the very different systems existing today in Canada and Mexico.

ROMANS: Especially considering Mexico's problems with drug trafficking, human smuggling and poverty. Critics say the country is just too far behind the U.S. and Canada to be included in a so-called common community. But the task force wants military and law enforcement cooperation between all three countries.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Indeed, an exchange of personnel that bring Canadians and Mexicans into the Department of Homeland Security.

ROMANS: And it wants temporary migrant worker programs expanded with full mobility of labor between the three countries in the next five years.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS: The idea here is to make North America more like the European Union. Yet, just this week, voters in two major countries in the European Union voted against upgrading -- updating the European constitution. So clearly, this is not the best week to be trying to sell that idea.

DOBBS: Americans must think that our political and academic elites have gone utterly mad at a time when three-and-a-half years, approaching four years after September 11, we still don't have border security. And this group of elites is talking about not defending our borders, finally, but rather creating new ones. It's astonishing.

ROMANS: The theory here is that we are stronger together, three countries in one, rather than alone.

DOBBS: Well, it's a -- it's a mind-boggling concept. Christine Romans, thank you, as always.

Task force site
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 05:05 pm
Like using ther north star, I seek a direction more than a destination. The direction I seek is that eventually all men/women/children will have equality. Nation states are tribal states no longer relevent in this modern world. (also I am an idealist)
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 05:06 pm
Damn you, you weren't suppose to post til I got that other post deleted. Laughing
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 05:09 pm
so it goes.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 05:11 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Like using ther north star, I seek a direction more than a destination. The direction I seek is that eventually all men/women/children will have equality. Nation states are tribal states no longer relevent in this modern world. (also I am an idealist)


You could just have OnStar installed in your RV, dude.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 05:29 pm
Quote:
Most controversially -- but ultimately sensibly -- the bill allows illegal immigrants already here to regularize their status, but not easily; they would have to go to the end of the line, and that only after paying a hefty fine, staying employed for a prescribed period and paying back taxes. The bills' authors argue that this is not an amnesty, because it requires a recognition of wrongdoing. They also argue that establishing the temporary visa will prevent a new pool of illegal immigrants from arriving because it will become politically realistic to fine employers who continue to employ illegals. Most of all, this provision for illegal immigrants makes sense because any legislation that does not deal with the approximately 10 million illegals will ultimately result in more lawbreaking.


The above quote is from e-brown's Washington Post Article. Since this is the vital provision that makes the compromise acceptable to me, I'm surprised that he didn't include it in his extract.

Now, I continue to have issues with the Fourteenth Amendment providing that anyone born within the U.S. or possessions is a citizen from birth. As one of the reconstruction amendments, it was surely intended to protect former slaves from disenfranchisement. I think it should be amended. It has not been.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 07:01 pm
The McCain/Kennedy plan is virtually identical to Bush's first proposal way back in 2000, and one he again proposed just after the November election. One difference is that the visas would be issued in the immigrant's country of origin (a suggestion by McCain in one of his meetings with the President and which Dubya readily agreed to).

One stumbling block will be Hillary's aversion to the 'backdoor amnesty' -- allowing illegals already here to become legal.

In an interview on WABC radio, she said: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."
"Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we're going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let's have a system that keeps track of them," she said.
Unlike many pro-business Republicans, Mrs. Clinton also has castigated Americans for hiring illegal aliens.
"People have to stop employing illegal immigrants," she said. "I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work."
In contrast, Mr. Bush backs a guest-worker program that allows foreign citizens entry into the United States and an eventual path to citizenship. One of the president's first acts after his re-election was to push for it again, before both domestic and foreign audiences.


Unless she's changed stripes (again) I wouldn't count on her support of this bill. She's also in favor of a national ID card, mostly to aid in the clamp-down of illegal immigration.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Resolving the Immigration Issue
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 06:50:57