What should be done about illegal immigration?

Foxfyre

The Bush plan is not amnesty for the exact reason and definition that e_brown states of Amnesty = "no punishment". The Bush plan calls first for those so accused of these offenses to be placed on probation, then fined according to the present law. These are not severe sanctions but sanctions non-the-less. Back taxes must be paid and one must assume the IRS will not show special treatment to new American wanna be citizens by foregoing applicable fines and interest charges due to their unpaid taxes--more sanctions. Further, if the individual does not meet these and additional requirements, such as a workable command of the English language ,s/he can be deported--another and certainly more severe sanction. The plan is a good starting point.

JM

0 Replies

Where's the 'Slaughter all illegal men, women, and children' option?

0 Replies

JamesMorrison wrote:

Foxfyre

The Bush plan is not amnesty for the exact reason and definition that e_brown states of Amnesty = "no punishment". The Bush plan calls first for those so accused of these offenses to be placed on probation, then fined according to the present law. These are not severe sanctions but sanctions non-the-less. Back taxes must be paid and one must assume the IRS will not show special treatment to new American wanna be citizens by foregoing applicable fines and interest charges due to their unpaid taxes--more sanctions. Further, if the individual does not meet these and additional requirements, such as a workable command of the English language ,s/he can be deported--another and certainly more severe sanction. The plan is a good starting point.

JM

James, thank you for actually debating the subject without playing the 'lets beat up on and call racist anybody who doesn't agree with me' game.

I do understand what you're saying and sympathise with your intent. I haven't decided whether the Bush plan is good or not so good, but I am looking at it and thinking it through best as I can. The suggestions for dealing with this dilemma have definitely made a solution a moving target so far.

But I still say that no matter what fines or requirements are imposed, scrapping or rewriting a law so that those who broke the law achieve their purpose in breaking it is a form of amnesty. We may very well eventually reach consensus that this is necessary. I do not think such a consensus yet exists. History is against us, however, as past amnesties have been granted for much the same reasons as one would be granted now. The intent then was to take care of those already here, not disrupt families and economies, and then do a better job of enforcing illegal entry in the future. That is the intent now.

The problem is that only the first part got done and the border was as porous as ever. It was more attractive to come here illegally than to wait in line to be admitted legally. And how long do you think it is going to take the militant element, ACLU etc. to challenge the English provision for that matter?

Anybody who has kept up with my posts knows something of my background and history in dealing with immgrants, legal and illegal, and knows I have great sympathy and compassion for them, as well as great admiration for those who merit it.

But there is no easy answers to this particular issue, and I am not convinced we (our leaders etc.) have hit on the best solution yet.

0 Replies

Foxfire,

It seems we're both on the same page here regarding a realistic solution to this problem--both our country's laws should mean something and so should the destinies of 11 million hard working human beings. I feel the English requirement may be a bridge to far and a sop to certain parts of the electorate. Personally I would be in favor of dropping this and simultaneously dropping many public schools effort at bilingual parallel (can you say "separate but equal"?) education. The key to a successful immigration policy is one that promotes assimilation. By forcing school systems to teach in English and Spanish they eliminate the biggest incentive towards assimilation--a common language. How can countrymen work together towards common goals when they cannot understand each other? Besides, this dual effort at education is discrimminatory...what about the Chinese, Southeast Asians, or Nigerians and their languages?

You are right about there being no easy solution and nobody will be entirely satisfied with any final solution. If the final solution satisfies some of everyone's desires but not all this will speak towards a good compromise.

Bush should be commended (as he should have been for his efforts at Social Security reform) for initiating the debate. The value in the final decision and legislation comes from the information so imparted from an honest and informed discussion involving all interested parties. That is the way democratic decisions are made. Even the extremists serve a valuable purpose here even if they only serve as delimiters marking both sides of the issue.

Attempts at and granting Amnesty do have value when a situation has reached a degree of intolerance between two sides. Think about the South African deal where those involved with acts of violence against the other side regarding apartheid or that program forgiving American draft dodgers living in Canada after the Vietnam War. These programs seek to have cooler heads prevail so that a society can heal old wounds with the hope of moving on past rough patches. So even if one views the Bush plan as kinda almost Amnesty it still has merit.

JM

0 Replies

I've come late to the game, and not inclined to read all postings, but the choices you have provided us in your poll are pinched.

There are between 11 and 12 million illegal (I despise the Lefty euphuism of undocumented) aliens. They will not be deported, no matter what law is passed.

Our economy has flourished while low cost illegal alien labor has increased.

The vast majority of illegal aliens are decent, hard working folks.

We are a nation made great by immigration.

However...

Our native Liberals have supported the dynamic that makes mass immigration problematic: Multi-culturalism.

Very few Americans would have much difficulty with Mexican immigration if there was a sense that these immigrants were willing and happy to become Americans.

Current protestors waving Mexican flags could not be more misguided.

I am the grandson of immigrants from Ireland and Norway. My wife is the granddaughter of immigrants from Italy and Puerto Rico. Mexican immigrants are no better or worse than those that have led to my family being here. If they are willing to assimilate, I'm delighted to have them jon us. If they are not, they concern me.

Pretty simple as far as I'm concerned. For those that find me a jingoist, let me ask you: If millions of Americans emigrated to Europe and insisted on speaking only English and preserving their American culture, would you be so sympathetic? I seriously doubt it.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I've come late to the game, and not inclined to read all postings, but the choices you have provided us in your poll are pinched.

Yes, there are other options that could/should have been included, but there was no way to edit once somebody posted. Apparently the mods don't do that.

There are between 11 and 12 million illegal (I despise the Lefty euphuism of undocumented) aliens. They will not be deported, no matter what law is passed.

Our economy has flourished while low cost illegal alien labor has increased.

The vast majority of illegal aliens are decent, hard working folks.

We are a nation made great by immigration.

However...

Our native Liberals have supported the dynamic that makes mass immigration problematic: Multi-culturalism.

Very few Americans would have much difficulty with Mexican immigration if there was a sense that these immigrants were willing and happy to become Americans.

Current protestors waving Mexican flags could not be more misguided.

I am the grandson of immigrants from Ireland and Norway. My wife is the granddaughter of immigrants from Italy and Puerto Rico. Mexican immigrants are no better or worse than those that have led to my family being here. If they are willing to assimilate, I'm delighted to have them jon us. If they are not, they concern me.

Pretty simple as far as I'm concerned. For those that find me a jingoist, let me ask you: If millions of Americans emigrated to Europe and insisted on speaking only English and preserving their American culture, would you be so sympathetic? I seriously doubt it.

There are two sides. The one you just raised, Finn, and the other is that we don't know who among the 11-12 million are good and who are bad. National security is still not an unimportant consideration.

0 Replies

well here in NZ illegal immigrants when and if found are deported immediately, only rare cases get to stay very rare we are a small country and cant afford to be invaded by illegal immigrants its bad enough as it is with one person getting citizenship in this country then hello the next thing we know is the arrival of 20 family members.

.....the government have now stipulated that anyone applying for immigration here must be able to speak a decent amount of english
puh!! I say, I dont know how many people I talk to over the phone and I cant understand a word they are saying and they have the nerve to get all uppity with me! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I've come late to the game, and not inclined to read all postings, but the choices you have provided us in your poll are pinched.

Yes, there are other options that could/should have been included, but there was no way to edit once somebody posted. Apparently the mods don't do that.

There are between 11 and 12 million illegal (I despise the Lefty euphuism of undocumented) aliens. They will not be deported, no matter what law is passed.

Our economy has flourished while low cost illegal alien labor has increased.

The vast majority of illegal aliens are decent, hard working folks.

We are a nation made great by immigration.

However...

Our native Liberals have supported the dynamic that makes mass immigration problematic: Multi-culturalism.

Very few Americans would have much difficulty with Mexican immigration if there was a sense that these immigrants were willing and happy to become Americans.

Current protestors waving Mexican flags could not be more misguided.

I am the grandson of immigrants from Ireland and Norway. My wife is the granddaughter of immigrants from Italy and Puerto Rico. Mexican immigrants are no better or worse than those that have led to my family being here. If they are willing to assimilate, I'm delighted to have them jon us. If they are not, they concern me.

Pretty simple as far as I'm concerned. For those that find me a jingoist, let me ask you: If millions of Americans emigrated to Europe and insisted on speaking only English and preserving their American culture, would you be so sympathetic? I seriously doubt it.

There are two sides. The one you just raised, Finn, and the other is that we don't know who among the 11-12 million are good and who are bad. National security is still not an unimportant consideration.

No it is not, but surely the proper response to this concern is not to deport 12 million people.

Search and select the relative few who might be bad eggs. How many can there be though? 1,000? Even 100,000 who no one will acknowledge is possible, is a tiny fraction.

Security is a poor excuse from shutting the doors on mexican immigrants.

0 Replies

Peoples labour is a "force of production" Just like a tractor or a or a drill press. So people become a force of production. Peoples labour is a commodity traded as a force of production.

If Corporate America can get unrepresented (No workers rights, No right to vote, No social Security) labor they can get it cheaper. Illegal aliens don't complain, They can't sue you, They can't vote on working conditions.

So why hire the pesky American citizens whos fathers fought wars to secure the rights and representation for future generations.

So the government can't come out and say "American citizens are to expensive and they have to many rights and we don't want to pay social security" They just make sure that the border Is wide open for an invasion of a foreign Labour force because they can't pass a policy that would sell out America so the do it behind their backs.

I have not looked at the guest worker legislation. But I would guess it is the same policy on paper. Which is unrepresented labour in place of represented labour of the American citizen.

This mess was not created by the "Illegal alien" it was created by those Americans that sell out their own country for a buck and it goes all the way to the presidency.

0 Replies

The guest worker legislation is precisely a response to illegal immigration from the corporatist/capitalist viewpoint, that being the profit margin as the bottom line. So, compasion for the welfare of the hard working illegal laborer isn't the primary concern. The primary concern of any kind of guest worker legislation is how to make the exploitation of the illegal laborer legal. That the powers that be of the US have ignored the present immigration laws of the country illustrates the arbitraryness of these laws (as well as other laws, such as the environmental laws that were ignored under the Regan administration). Laws are passed, but it is up to the executive branches of government to decide whether to enforce those laws. Apparently, enforcement of the present immigration laws are bad for the bottom line of the country in general, so they have been generally ignored. Now, the present administration is looking to revamp these laws, much like it has revamped the environmental laws.

0 Replies

Finn wrote:

Our native Liberals have supported the dynamic that makes mass immigration problematic: Multi-culturalism.

Very few Americans would have much difficulty with Mexican immigration if there was a sense that these immigrants were willing and happy to become Americans.

Finn Thank You!

You have highlighted the real issue- the issue that Foxfyre and the other anti-immigrant apologists are trying to avoid.

The opposition to immigration is primarily an opposition to multi-culturalism.

Multi-culturalism is the belief that the United States is made up of many different cultures, each of which contributes to the nation and deserves respect. At the core of the anti-immigrant movement is the belief that the US is ordained to be White European and Christian (specifically Protestant)

These argument aren't new. The "Know-Nothing" party of the early 1900s said exactly the same thing-- that the new immigrants (at that time Irish and Italian) were not American (i.e. Protestant) and had no interest in fitting in.
.
Finn, I agree with your assessment completely. A big part of this debate is whether the United States should be kept a White European culture, or whether different cultures can be valued as part of a melting pot.

You are also right that I think multi-culturalism-- the fact that we, as a nation of immigrants together form a vibrant diverse society where I can eat Sushi and Tacos and Bratwurst-- is a very good thing.

0 Replies

All well and good, although the Know Nothings were in the pre-civil war era of the 1800s. Organized political xenophobia is an ancient whore in our polity.

0 Replies

So to Ebrown who is so darn sure s/he knows exactly what I'm about and quite eager to slap on an accusatory label, and to Finn, I ask you both:

1) Do you oppose any quota system or any closing of the border of any kind? In other words scrap the legal immigrant program and welcome in anybody who wants to come?

2) If not, how many more illegal immigrants do you think we can assimilate without negative effects on the American economy and quality of life?

You can say the questions are anti-immigrant if you must. I think they are legitimate and necessary to ask as we formulate a new policy to deal with the issue.

0 Replies

I have been very clear on my position from the beginning, Foxfyre.

I support the McCain-Kennedy position. This would provide border security. Provide the workers that business needs in a humane and workable way, and provide a realistic way for enforement.

It is clear that the US economy can adequately support the immigrants who are here. The business community is begging for mor workers.

Most importantly it would treat the people who are here with decency and compassion.

What I am also saying very clearly is that harsh, vindictive penalties on people who have been building lives here for years and contributing to our communities is not acceptable.

Breaking up families and sending kids who have grown up here to what is to them a foreign country is not an appropriate punishment for the crime of crossing the border that is encourage and taken advantage of by sectors of the US economy.

I understand your "illegal" argument. We are arguing over the appropriate punishment. I feel the McCain-Kennedy solution addresses your concerns.

Saying that I haven't addressed the issues, or answered your questions is ludicrous given my posts on this thread.

I also strongly oppose what I feel is a big part of the real opposition to immigration, legal and illegal. This is tThe opposition to a multicultural America that respects all of its residents regardless of their ethnic or cultural backaground.

But what part of "decency" and "compassion" don't you understand?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I have been very clear on my position from the beginning, Foxfyre.

I support the McCain-Kennedy position. This would provide border security. Provide the workers that business needs in a humane and workable way, and provide a realistic way for enforement.

It is clear that the US economy can adequately support the immigrants who are here. The business community is begging for mor workers.

Most importantly it would treat the people who are here with decency and compassion.

What I am also saying very clearly is that harsh, vindictive penalties on people who have been building lives here for years and contributing to our communities is not acceptable.

Breaking up families and sending kids who have grown up here to what is to them a foreign country is not an appropriate punishment for the crime of crossing the border that is encourage and taken advantage of by sectors of the US economy.

I understand your "illegal" argument. We are arguing over the appropriate punishment. I feel the McCain-Kennedy solution addresses your concerns.

Saying that I haven't addressed the issues, or answered your questions is ludicrous given my posts on this thread.

I also strongly oppose what I feel is a big part of the real opposition to immigration, legal and illegal. This is tThe opposition to a multicultural America that respects all of its residents regardless of their ethnic or cultural backaground.

But what part of "decency" and "compassion" don't you understand?

I am not arguing 'punishment' and haven't even brought it up other than as a component of an overall policy yet to be developed. I did early on express how punishing employers was problematic in the past when it was tried. That doesn't mean that couldn't be a component for a yet-to-be-developed policy, but I think we can't just ignore the results of previous policies and reimplement them as if they didn't even have a history.

Those in the 'let everybody stay and everybody else come' camp are employing the typical race card attack while I do not see race or nationality as any kind of issue. My concern is for a majority of Americans, through their elected leaders, to agree on a policy that protects all the components that should be included: economy, quality of life, security, culture, feasibility, etc. etc. etc. Compassion is not always just being 'nice' but very often is also considering the longer term consequences of the policies we implement. Those policies will of course affect everybody including present and future immigrants, not just those adopting them at the moment.

Until the 'feel good about my righteous position and judge everybody else' people are willing to look at and deal with the hard questions, even the poliically incorrect ones, Asherman's prophecy that nothing of any significance will be done will almost certainly be fulfilled. The McCain Kennedy proposal is already essentially dead in the water simply because it failed to address the hard questions. As that is obviously unsatisfactory to so many Americans, the repercussions could have negative consequences that nobody wants.

So far I have seen no proposal that advocates rounding up and deporting all the illegals and I doubt seriously that we will see a serious proposal to that effect. At the same time, many Americans see a danger in allowing huge numbers of people to thumb their noses at the existing law even if an after-the-fact token fine is imposed. This is something on the principle that we are either a people of laws or we are a people where everybody pretty much does as they darn well please and the government will accommodate them.

You say my questions are ridiculous. I know they are uncomfortable. I say they have to be addressed before any of us can consider a real policy.

0 Replies

The use of the term "playing the race card" is a sterling example of conservative reverse political rectitude. It is an attempt to suggst that a criticism of a racist attitude is without value. That is mere rot. Political demagogues on the right are not fooled: they use the issue of illegal immigration to appeal to the hidden or latent racism of their intended constituency. Whining about someone "playing the race card" does not alter that fact of political life in the United States.

0 Replies

Criticism of a race attitude, or more specifically suggesting or accusing another of having a race attitude when no 'race attitude' has been manifested whatsoever in an argument is very definitely playing the race card.

0 Replies

Do you allege that anyone here has specifically accused you of racism?

I've seen no evidence of that.

0 Replies

Methinks the lady doth protest too much . . . this is definitely a case of "if the shoe fits" . . .

0 Replies

Me specifically? Not specifically. Allusions to the effect that any who advocate asking the hard questions or enforcing the law are anti-Mexican or anti-different races, etc., absolutely.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know