What should be done about illegal immigration?

An agreement the Bush administration reached with Mexico on Social Security benefits would allow illegal aliens granted amnesty in the future to claim credit for the time they worked illegally.
The deal was reached in 2004 but never released publicly because it hasn't been submitted to Congress. The TREA Senior Citizens League, a Social Security advocacy group, recently obtained the document through a Freedom of Information Act, and said it confirms the group's worst fears.

Citing an Urban Institute study, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies Steven Camorata noted in 2004: "Roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level are illegal aliens.

That's a huge number since illegal aliens only account for about 3 percent of the total population."

Up to a third of the U.S. federal prison population is composed of non-citizens, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics - but not all non-citizen prison inmates are illegal aliens.

Citizenship

United States: 141,358 (73.1 %)
Mexico: 32,655 (16.9 %)
Colombia: 3,234 (1.7 %)
Cuba: 1,633 (0.8 %)
Dominican Republic: 3,230 (1.7 %)
Other/Unknown: 11,249 (5.8 %)

Ethnicity

Hispanic: 60,745 (31.4 %)

Quote:

Ethnicity

Hispanic: 60,745 (31.4 %)

Perhaps you could double-check your calculations before posting.

Furthermore, he fails to mention that the federal prison population represents less than 10 percent of the total US prison population (according to the US Department of Justice). Therefore, the 17 percent of illegal aliens in federal prisons make up less than 1,7 percent of the total prison population.

The Federal prison population totaled 187,618 at yearend 2005,
up from 180,328 at yearend 2004. About 12% of all prisoners
were serving time in the Federal system.

Emphasis on the "if".

Martijea, welcome to A2K. If those are your words, I'm impressed.

Second that, though I'm not 100% convinced that we should keep the Constitutional provision that anybody born in America is an automatic citizen no matter who his/her parents are. I'm still thinking through the pros and cons on that one.

Foxfyre wrote:

Second that, though I'm not 100% convinced that we should keep the Constitutional provision that anybody born in America is an automatic citizen no matter who his/her parents are. I'm still thinking through the pros and cons on that one.

What about those born to a United States citizen (or citizens) overseas? Are you thinking that should perhaps be changed as well?

Or do you prefer the ius sanguinis in general?

... the ONLY solution that will be satisfactory for most Americans is to provide a grace period in which the illegals can return home and apply to come back legally.

Quote:

... the ONLY solution that will be satisfactory for most Americans is to provide a grace period in which the illegals can return home and apply to come back legally.

You keep saying this Foxfyre.

But you a wrong on the term "most Americans". Both polls, and a set of midterm elections say that most Americans will support a path to citizenship where people don't have to leave.

This will be proven in the next few months-- when a realistic solution; a path to citizenship where people here don't have to leave the country, is passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president.

The only bill that will be passed (and be acceptable) will include a path to citizenship. The choice will be to accept this bill, or to try to obstruct it. I think now the attempt to obstruct a comprehensive compromise will fail (and may even fail amusingly).

There is a very loud minority in the far right that will continue to bitterly complain.But they will lose this fight. They just don't have the broad public support needed, nor the political representation.

In spite of the fact that you keep repeating that you represent "most Americans" there is no evidence that this is the case. The polls don't support you, the papers don't support you, and the political process doesn't support you.

The bitterness and loudness of people on your side doesn't mean they are "most Americans".

What bugs me is that this is the beginning of a plan to obstruct the realistic compromise position that will be worked on in Congress. The "most American" myth means that you can ignore polls and the result of the political process.

Don't obstruct progress on this Foxfyre.

Most voters, Democrats, Republicans and independents, want Congress to act on immigration reform this year, a national poll released Tuesday found.

More than 70 percent also favor a bill the Senate passed in May that would beef up immigration enforcement but also would grant legal status to most of the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants and would admit temporary guest workers, according to the July 9-13 survey conducted jointly by the Tarrance Group, a Republican polling firm, and Democratic pollster Lake Research Partners.

No I think children of U.S. citizens should be citizens no matter where they are born.

But granting automatic citizenship to children of people who have no intention of being citizens or who are not eligible to be citizens is something else and seems to present a whole host of unnecessary problems. I honestly have not arrived at a personal doctrine on this or what, if anything, should be done about it. That's all I'm saying.

That's the political process Foxfyre. Your people had their chance, and decided to stall rather than to compromise.

The bill that is going to be worked out in congress in the next few weeks will undoubtedly contain a path to citizenship for people who are already here (without requiring them to leave jobs and families here).

That is the bill you will have to choose to accept or reject.

As far as what "most Americans" want (and I apologize for throwing facts at you again)' and the results of the election weren't enough for you, consider this.

Quote:

Most voters, Democrats, Republicans and independents, want Congress to act on immigration reform this year, a national poll released Tuesday found.

More than 70 percent also favor a bill the Senate passed in May that would beef up immigration enforcement but also would grant legal status to most of the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants and would admit temporary guest workers, according to the July 9-13 survey conducted jointly by the Tarrance Group, a Republican polling firm, and Democratic pollster Lake Research Partners.

Full article

We have a soltion that most Americans will support.

Again I would ask that you not obstruct progress on this.

Foxfyre wrote:

No I think children of U.S. citizens should be citizens no matter where they are born.

Countries with same/similar nationality law(s) to the US-law think differently.

Foxfyre wrote:

But granting automatic citizenship to children of people who have no intention of being citizens or who are not eligible to be citizens is something else and seems to present a whole host of unnecessary problems. I honestly have not arrived at a personal doctrine on this or what, if anything, should be done about it. That's all I'm saying.

With your first sentence you describe exactly what ius soli is about: to get new citizens the easiest way.

A pure ius soli is - in today's societies - as unpracticable as is a pure ius sanguinis.
I suppose, all countries will more or less have to create some mixtures of such.

Which might be a bigger problem for those like the USA, where you find it in the constitution.

I do have my own point of view which I believe is shared by the majority of Americans.