What should be done about illegal immigration?

Foxfyre wrote:

Yet no doubt this same person is like all the others who exalt Mexico for being a sovereign nation.

I didn't know he does so. But since you have no doubts, I certainly believe your expertise and experience.

Quote:

Andres Oppenheimer is a Miami Herald syndicated columnist and a member of The Miami Herald team that won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize. He also won the 1999 Maria Moors Cabot Award, the 2001 King of Spain prize, and the 2005 Emmy Suncoast award. He is the author of Castro's Final Hour; Bordering on Chaos, on Mexico's crisis; Cronicas de heroes y bandidos and Ojos vendados, and most recently of "Cuentos Chinos" (Plaza & Janes, Mexico.)

0 Replies

I distinctly remember that earlier in this very thread Foxfyre echoed one of the common complaints Nativists have against immigrants-- that they send their "American" money back to their families in Mexico (as if they don't have the right to use their hard earned money as they please).

Now Foxfyre admits that she herself sends her American money to Mexico.

The ironies from the religious right never cease.

0 Replies

That's right. I wouldn't have so much problem with it if they were here on a legal work program. At least it would be better than pure welfare. But for them to be here illegally is not much different than stealing.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But for them to be here illegally is not much different than stealing.

How would your opinion change if they worked illegaly, but didn't receive welfare, didn't go to emergency rooms for fear of being deported, left their children at home instead of sending them to American public schools, and so forth. Suppose all they did in America was living and working there illegally. Still not much different than stealing?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But for them to be here illegally is not much different than stealing.

How would your opinion change if they worked illegaly, but didn't receive welfare, didn't go to emergency rooms for fear of being deported, left their children at home instead of sending them to American public schools, and so forth. Suppose all they did in America was living and working there illegally. Still not much different than stealing?

The situation would be less volatile and less destructive that way Thomas, so it wouldn't be so much of an issue as it is. But the bottom line is that we are a people of laws or we aren't. Mexican people who want to be citizens of the United States and assimilate into the American culture and who are willing to do so legally are welcome with open arms.

But ignoring the law weakens the law and encourages more law breaking. We have proved that in spades by policies of Carter and Reagan who tried to accommodate those already here and tighten up the system to keep more from coming. The illegals were accommodated just fine, but somehow the system never got tightened up to keep more from coming. And because of the 'amnesty' then and what some propose now, its like erecting a huge flashing light over America: "Ya'll come. The Americans are wimps and if you make it here, you'll get to stay."

Some now want us to do the same damn thing all over again. And some of us say no, enough is enough, and let's get it right this time.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But for them to be here illegally is not much different than stealing.

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

What "little difference" is it in your opinion?

0 Replies

As an addendum to my previous post, however, I was not in favor of the wall. I'm willing to adopt a 'wait and see' attitude about it, but it seems really foolish to me if it isn't effective to limit the crossing points for illegals.

The most effective thing we can do is deny ALL social services to people here illegally other than humanitarian food, water, and essential medical care until we can send them right back home. If they were not able to work, get medical care, subsidized housing, free education, etc. etc. etc. and fairly harsh treatment would be a virtual guarantee if they are caught, there would be far less incentive for them to try to get here.

And I think we are going to have to amend our Constitution to make citizenship contingent on being born to citizens or to otherwise go through legal means. The anchor baby route for admission to the US should be stopped.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And I think we are going to have to amend our Constitution to make citizenship contingent on being born to citizens or to otherwise go through legal means. The anchor baby route for admission to the US should be stopped.

Certainly there are some licit possibilities betwee ius natale and ius soli.
And I'm sure, you'll find some nice wordings which don't poleaxe anyone besides immigrants.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But for them to be here illegally is not much different than stealing.

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

What "little difference" is it in your opinion?

Working illegally in the United States is 'unauthorized taking, keeping, and using' of money and possibly a job that a citizen might otherwise have taken. And certainly availing oneself of medical services, subsidized housing, free education, and other benefits illegally is 'unauthorized taking, keeping, and using' of resources.

Also look up the definition for 'stealing' that in my dictionary considerably enlarges on the technical definition of theft and includes unlawful taking of property etc. by deception.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Working illegally in the United States is 'unauthorized taking, keeping, and using' of money and possibly a job that a citizen might otherwise have taken. And certainly availing oneself of medical services, subsidized housing, free education, and other benefits illegally is 'unauthorized taking, keeping, and using' of resources.

Also look up the definition for 'stealing' that in my dictionary considerably enlarges on the technical definition of theft and includes unlawful taking of property etc. by deception.

Usually I don't use dictionaries when I look up legal tewrms.

Here, I used the definition from a (manuscripted) handbook on the criminal procedure code of various US states as published by the US Embassy Germany - Legal Attaché´s Office.

I will be pleased to send them your corrections.

But as written in an opinion in today's Chicago Tribune:

Quote:

Previous rightwing frenzies against "welfare queens" and "homosexual marriage" have been whipped up, so why not aim the venom this year at "illegals" and "Islamofascists"? Nasty, racially charged attacks may be divisive, but what matters in politics is winning and losing and nothing else.

0 Replies

Does it make you feel good to post something like that Walter? Do you agree with it?

0 Replies

Foxy,

If people born here are not citizens... how would this work? Would their children be citizens? What about if the grandchild of an illegal immigrant marries a granchild of another illegal immigrant ... are their children citizens? What if the granchild of an illegal immigrant marries a citizen?

The rule as it is now is based on the official interpretation of the fourteenth amendment and is supported by 100 years of precedent and a couple of Supreme Court decisions.

There are doubtless millions of American citizens who descend from illegal immigrants- Italians, Greeks, Asians and others. You can be sure this is true because the fact that Asians and (especially Southern) Europeans came here illegally (in defiance of racial quota laws) by the boatload is documented and it only makes sense that they intermarried and had children.

Without the fact that children born here are citizens, many communities would have been much weaker and generations could have been kept from experiencing the American dream.

The rule as it is works... if you are born here, you are an American. This is the way it has been for more than 100 years... and in a way most of us descend from people whose only claim to belonging here is our birth.

0 Replies

Children of citizens who give birth here or anywhere would be citizens. Children of non citizens would not be citizens no matter where they are born unless they make application and are legally admitted. It's a pretty simple concept.

0 Replies

Heaven forbid something gets changed. Someone's feelings might get hurt.

0 Replies

So Foxy,

Let's say of John's four grandparents, only one of them is a citizen (and the others are illegal immigrants).

Would one of John's parents be a citizen?

Would John?

0 Replies

If the law is changed as I and some other would propoe, a child born to a citizen parent would be a citizen. If neither parent is a citizen the child would not be a citizen.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If the law is changed

Not just the law, the constitution too. Good luck trying that against the Democrats' civil libertarians and the Republican business wing.

0 Replies

Foxy, The issue is compassion.

Your policy doesn't fix the problem.

In the example above, John would be a citizen, but his Mother would not. This would mean that immigration laws could still break up a family meaning John would either not be able to live in the US, or would be separated from his mother.

The goal should be assimilation. The best way to make sure that immigrants assimilate into a culture is to help them and their families become a fully integrated part of the society. Look at the experience of the US with the fourteenth amendment compared to other countries that don't give children born to immigrants full citizenship.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
If the law is changed

Not just the law, the constitution too. Good luck trying that against the Democrats' civil libertarians and the Republican business wing.

In this case though, I think most Americans would approve. I do think a substantial majority in all 50 states would ratify it because it would make such good sense. Nor is it uncompassionate as ebrown asserts. It just cleans up a situation that now makes the law so much more difficult to enforce.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In this case though, I think most Americans would approve. I do think a substantial majority in all 50 states would ratify it because it would make such good sense.

You can't change the constitution with "a substantial majority". For that, you need 75% of the House and the Senate each. The Democrats' civil rights faction, together with Republican business wing, easily comand the 25% to stop a repeal of the 14th Amendment.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know