50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 02:19 pm
old europe wrote:
(Hey, I'm really enjoying these intelligent discussions, btw....)


Don't shout that too loud - some might notice such and you get banned! :wink:
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 02:25 pm
Yeah, you're right Walter. I'm not living up to the promise made by my username, am I? Well, let me make up for that:

George, that's as pathetic an anti-European knee-jerk reaction as we are used to get from you. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Now carry on.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 05:38 pm
Now that's more like it !
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 09:30 am
I could have sworn some months ago that the CS Monitor took a more lenient view of illegal immigration, but I might be thinking about something else. Anyway, in the interest of an update:

from the March 05, 2007 edition

Next step to curb illegal migration
First step: sustainable immigration enforcement. Then other reforms are possible.

The Monitor's View

President Bush visits Mexico next week, and just in time. Mexico plans to be tougher on illegal crossings - not into the US, but from Central America - because too many migrants are taking Mexican jobs. In contrast, Mexico last year began to give maps to its citizens showing the safest illegal routes into the US.

No wonder many Americans have difficulty with moves in Congress to provide a "path to citizenship" for many of the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the US. A bill to do just that, revised from last year's failed attempt, may be introduced in coming days. Senate leaders hope to pass it by May.

But until the US can demonstrate strong, long-term enforcement of its borders and crack down on the double crime of illegal hiring of illegal migrants, why should Congress create yet another incentive for unlawful crossings?

Perhaps during his visit Mr. Bush can persuade Mexico's new president, Felipe Calderón, to speed up reforms that would lift Mexico's economy and curb this embarrassing mass exodus of its citizens that only breeds more illegality. Mexico also needs to be as serious about patrolling its northern border as it is the southern one.

To its credit, the Bush administration appears to have gotten the message about the prime need for immigration law enforcement. It has made a few high-profile raids on businesses that hire illegal workers. It sent 6,000 National Guard troops to the border; doubled the number of patrol agents in Arizona; and added more helicopters, fencing, ground sensors, and detention centers. It also toughened procedures for sending illegal crossers back home.

Job-hunting Mexicans have gotten the idea, and fewer of them have attempted to cross the border, leading to a marked drop in arrests - more than 25 percent.

"This is the kind of tangible indication of progress that the American people have been waiting for," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate panel last week.

Mr. Chertoff also seemed to indicate a new administration coolness toward legalizing the illegals. "We cannot give those who are here illegally because they've broken the law a leg up and an advantage over those who have played by the rules," he said.

Congress needs to tackle immigration issues in stages, as even Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, now proposes. The first stage should be certification of border security and rigorous sanctions on employers. Achieving this will need to last into the next presidency, delaying other reforms. Bush has taken good steps. The next president, and the law-enforcement bureaucracy, need to show a sustainable track record.

This is not being anti-immigrant or antibusiness. Congress can lift quotas for legal migration to bring in more workers from many nations.

Better enforcement will be difficult. Just last week, the federal government had to delay by 20 months enforcement of the 2005 Real ID Act that requires states to adopt secure driver's licenses that would help spot illegal aliens and terrorists as well as curb identity fraud. States are balking at the mandated changes.

Congress should not get tangled up over how to legalize illegal migrants, but needs to first show that current laws can be enforced.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0305/p08s02-comv.html
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 09:42 am
The first act that needs to pass is the DREAM act, which will give kids; who have known the US as their home for most of their lives, know English perfectly and have done well in high school, the opportunity to go to college as part of a path toward citizenship in the US.

The US is the only country that is home to these kids. The US also needs these kids, who are hard working, bright and educated, and have become part of our culture.

The enforcement first idea has already been defeated in a Republican-led congress; I think you are dreaming if you think it will do any better with the Democrats.

This is going to be an interesting spring for those of us who care about this debate. I believe (and hope) that you are going to be sorely disappointed.

But lets start with the DREAM act.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 09:55 am
ebrown_p wrote:
The first act that needs to pass is the DREAM act, which will give kids; who have known the US as their home for most of their lives, know English perfectly and have done well in high school, the opportunity to go to college as part of a path toward citizenship in the US.

The US is the only country that is home to these kids. The US also needs these kids, who are hard working, bright and educated, and have become part of our culture.

The enforcement first idea has already been defeated in a Republican-led congress; I think you are dreaming if you think it will do any better with the Democrats.

This is going to be an interesting spring for those of us who care about this debate. I believe (and hope) that you are going to be sorely disappointed.

But lets start with the DREAM act.


How about helping the children of middle class American citizens who are being priced out of collage or end up having to borrow funds at exorbitant rates. They are our future at least they should be.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 10:05 am
A collage should be made up of many types of students (I hope someone gets this) not just one type. Diversity in a college is good for all students.

So, if these public colleges offer the same opportunities to "middle class American students" (who after all will pay tuition, and after they graduate will pay taxes and contribute to society) as it offers to immigrants, you wouldn't have a problem with the DREAM Act?

I strongly support a good affordable public education to anyone who lives here. It not only is the right thing to do, it also helps us as a society by providing an educated workforce.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 03:47 pm
Brown

Having heard of and read the Dream act for the first time I find one thing missing. Preference must be given to students who are legal immegrasnts and US citizens.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 07:46 pm
au1929 wrote:
Brown

Having heard of and read the Dream act for the first time I find one thing missing. Preference must be given to students who are legal immegrasnts and US citizens.


And that's an important one too Au. All people participating in and benefitting from this country should be here on legal student visas or otherwise here legally. Nobody should be intentionally rewarded for breaking the law.

And as for 'diversity' in college, college should be open and welcoming to all LEGAL people who can meet the qualifications and must make sure there are no artificial barriers that would unjustly exclude any group. But achieving diversity should be focused at the faculty level, not the student level, so that students are exposed to all schools of thought on all subjects and thus prepared to think critically and with full information. Universities should be in the business of education, not indoctrination. Universities should be in the business of equipping people to succeed and contribute in the world, not rescuing people.

Leave indoctrination to political parties and rescue missions to organizations better suited for that duty. I would rather see the schools get back to a principle of providing a world class education based on the highest expectations of excellence even if that means some people won't qualify. We diminish everybody and dumb down America signficantly with any other policy.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 11:45 pm
Might be that is different topic.

Most certainly, my opinion here isn't shared by many, but I think, university education everywhere is getting lower .... cpmpared to what it was decades ago.

A lot of what is done (and has to be done) educationwise at universities is actually something, pupils should learn at school.
Though we - that is in [most of] Europe - learn that what you study the first two years at college, at grammar school, it's exactly the same problem here.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2007 09:18 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Might be that is different topic.

Most certainly, my opinion here isn't shared by many, but I think, university education everywhere is getting lower .... cpmpared to what it was decades ago.

A lot of what is done (and has to be done) educationwise at universities is actually something, pupils should learn at school.
Though we - that is in [most of] Europe - learn that what you study the first two years at college, at grammar school, it's exactly the same problem here.


Some of us old timers who have had opportunity to interview, test, and supervise the newer crop of college graduates are pretty well in agreement that we would put our highschool diplomas up against most 4-year college degrees now and on balance we old timers would come out as having received the better education. I don't doubt that pre-college education in Europe is superior to ours. I wouldn't be surprised if MOST pre-college education everywhere is superior to that in the USA though I've not done any serious reading on that. As for the quality of higher education eroding in most places, I don't know. Here, yes.

Why?

I think it is because of this assinine notion of diversity and inclusion etc. etc. etc. Instead of demanding that students actually prepare themselves to qualify for admission to a good college as we once did, they're going out and dragging them in. And a country who no longer puts value on a unified language and high standards of learning is probably not going to see much improvement in all that in the near future I think. And elementary through highschool is steadily dumbing down to accomodate all the kids and just pass them through whether or not they have been educated. You can't eliminate illegal migration as a factor in that either.

A good command of the English language should be the bare minimum we should require of U.S. students as I would think a good command of the German language should be necessary for yours.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2007 09:26 am
Well, at the age of 4 kindergarten children are tested re the language skills.

I suppose, you can't leave grammar school with an abitur (= final exams young adults [aged 18, 19 or 20] take at the end of their secondary education, usually after 12 or 13 years of schooling, which qualifies to go to any university) without a proper knowledge of German.

When I see those test foreign citizens have to undertake who want to study in the USA (TOEFL, I did it as well), I'm rather sure, their (American) English knowledge isn't that bad either - like the German, which foreign students must know here (and are tested).
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2007 11:58 am
It's only a joke or is it?


"Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.


Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).


According to the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must add me to your family 's insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide other benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do your yard work because he too is hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part). If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my right to be there.


It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm hard-working and honest, um, except for well, you know.


And what a deal it is for me!! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being an anti-housebreaker. Oh yeah, and I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me."
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2007 12:01 pm
Au wrote:

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).


You are welcome at my house Au... actually I would prefer if you start with the bathroom (I have always hated cleaning the toilet).

... oh, and one other part of the deal, you have to contribute money to keep my retirement fund afloat (which by the way you can't participate in)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2007 12:14 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Au wrote:

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).


You are welcome at my house Au... actually I would prefer if you start with the bathroom (I have always hated cleaning the toilet).

... oh, and one other part of the deal, you have to contribute money to keep my retirement fund afloat (which by the way you can't participate in)

Personally, I'd be interested to hear a straight rebuttal of Au's argument.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2007 12:14 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Au wrote:

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).


You are welcome at my house Au... actually I would prefer if you start with the bathroom (I have always hated cleaning the toilet).

... oh, and one other part of the deal, you have to contribute money to keep my retirement fund afloat (which by the way you can't participate in)


No thanks, however I am sure you can find hundreds that will take you up on the offer.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2007 12:20 pm
According to the media, dozens of federal, state and local agencies, along with the military, start a massive two-day training exercise today to get skilled in sending illegals back.

Ooops, refugees from Cuba that was, I think.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2007 12:24 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Au wrote:

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).


You are welcome at my house Au... actually I would prefer if you start with the bathroom (I have always hated cleaning the toilet).

... oh, and one other part of the deal, you have to contribute money to keep my retirement fund afloat (which by the way you can't participate in)

Personally, I'd be interested to hear a straight rebuttal of Au's argument.


There is no straight argument to rebut.

Illegal immigrants are being hired by Americans (They are not working without having been given jobs as Au's argument implies).

Illegal immigrants are paying taxes (the IRS says millions of dollars a year) and are paying Social Security (also millions) that they will never collect. Of course I agree it would be better if they could become legal which would allow them to participate in the system like anyone else.

And the biggest fallacy of Au's silly little story is who is the owner of the house?

There are American citizens who WANT these illegal immigrants here. Not only businesses who say they need these workers, even when paying them a good salary because they can't find Americans to do these jobs... but also Americans who care about these people as neighbors and members of the same community.

I as an American citizen (meaning an equal owner of the "House" as anyone else) want the people here to be given a chance to become legal and put on a path toward citizenship.

Where do the millions of Americans who agree with me fit in the story?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2007 12:46 pm
I think the point was that breaking and entering followed by being helpful is still breaking and entering, and that objecting to it doesn't amount to some sort of prejudice, racism, or wrong-thinking. Also that people who have done this have no right to demand anything. Where do the millions who welcome legal immigrants but want the illegal ones to get out fit into your scheme?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2007 12:58 pm
My point is that Au's breaking and entering analogy is a simplistic political stunt-- and nothing else.

As far as where the millions who "welcome legal immigrants but want the illegal ones to get out" fit? This is a fair question.

The answer, of course, is that this a political disagreement between these Americans who want to kick all illegals out of the country, and Americans like me who favor diversity and compassion.

Fortunately we have a Democracy which is perfectly able to resolve this disagreement. The Congress will be debating bills, probably starting next week-- and we will be hearing from Americans on both sides of the issue.

After a period of debate (and probably some screaming at each other) there will be votes on bills (taken by representatives who were elected by Americans).

My hope is that the McCain Kennedy compromise will pass. And there is reason for optimism.

The other side, in the current political reality, doesn't have much power since they lost a lot of representation in Congress in the midterms after failing to make progress in the last Congress. They now have the choice to either accept a moderate compromise (i.e. the McCain Kennedy bill) or to try to Stall and Whine for two more years.

What should be obvious is that it is the opinions of Americans that matter in this debate.

It was the opinions of Americans that kept the enforcement-only bills in the last Congress from passing. And, if a compassionate immigration bill passes that allows immigrants to come out of the shadows, it will be because of the millions of Americans who want this outcome.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.97 seconds on 08/13/2025 at 07:37:30