What should be done about illegal immigration?

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't think you'll find 30+ thousand references to immigration on Salon.com as you said there were however.

I can't argue with complete denial of reality! You don't have to think! You have to

CLICK THIS LINK

AND LOOK!!!

Go there! Right now! Look at the results you get! Look at the number of results you get!

Was it Blatham who said that he couldn't find 'anchor baby" on Salon.com? I couldn't find "immigration" there either. Shall we therefore conclude that 'immigration' is not a term widely used or understood? See what I mean?

Nimh, while your piece did seem to fit our Foxy quite well, it was just as absurdly hyper partisan in it's separation of tendency between Democrats and Republicans.

Foxfyre wrote:

Was it Blatham who said that he couldn't find 'anchor baby" on Salon.com? I couldn't find "immigration" there either.

I see that you are unable to use an internet search machine:

0 results for "anchor baby" on www.salon.com --> click

37.200 results for "immigration" on www.salon.com --> click

Why do you keep on posting statements that are just factually wrong, Foxy? I don't understand that. Do you think it helps your argument when your statements can be shown to be incorrect within 10 seconds?

Last month National Public Radio listeners said they were shocked when former House Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay explained why he wouldn't talk to Democratic lobbyists: "Why would I meet with an enemy?" But in saying that anybody "who wanted to make me the minority whip" was not just a political opponent, an American with legitimate if differing interests, but rather an enemy to be shunned, DeLay wasn't speaking some strange, new, fanatical language,

re Powell: I've seen him in England and noticed how he could fire up the masses.
And polarise.

I still wonder how he could persuade Thatcher to act against the German unification.

Well, actually I don't wonder at all.

High Seas wrote:

Old Europe - truly this hysteria doesn't speak well of your mental state.

You are unfamiliar with the term "anchor baby" for the excellent reason that you aren't directly involved in U.S. immigration issues, first, and you fail to grasp the jus solis principle, second, which certainly doesn't apply in "Old Europe" where I gather you're located.

Sure. The ius solis (or, jus solis, if you insist... bloody Americans).

I'm also directly involved in US immigration issues - not on the US side, but working in various countries in Latin America.

[.....][
quote]

"or, jus solis, if you insist... bloody Americans"

Snob!

perhaps the distinguished scholar Old Europe has also heard of the proverbial Polish plumber working in France, in addition to his Latino illegals in the U.S.?

Eastern Europe is knocking on France's door

Bricklayers and concrete pourers, boiler-makers and sheet-metal workers, travelling salesmen and maintenance agents: there is barely anything except the much sought after plumber - no doubt a slip of the pen - that is not included in the long list of occupations open since 1 January to Romanian and Bulgarian workers, the latest to join the EU; a list drawn up by Employment Minister Gerard Larcher in his memo of 22 December.

The image of the appealing young Polish plumber, toolbag slung across his shoulders, coming to offer his services in France, sowed panic during the referendum on the European constitution in May 2005.

As of May 2006, the much feared wolf has been in the sheepfold. From the public works sector to cleaning, and including catering, commerce and the "processing industry", France is allowing members of the eight EU states that joined in 2004 (Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia) to work in 62 occupations identified as suffering from a labour shortage. This right was also granted to the Bulgarians and Romanians as soon as they joined the EU, in January, whereas the Poles, Hungarians and Czechs had to wait two years. [..]

I don't know why you felt you had to explain, Nimh. I concur 100%. Did you miss this post, or fail to realize which brilliant man I was paraphrasing in the bottom paragraph? :wink:

FIELD POLL
State favors path to legality for illegals
Majority supports Bush proposals for immigration reform
Tyche Hendricks, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

More than four in five California voters support giving legal residence to illegal immigrants, according to a statewide public opinion poll to be released today.

By wide margins, the state's voters also favor creating a temporary worker program to allow future immigrants to enter legally, increasing the border patrol and imposing stiff penalties on employers who hire unauthorized immigrants, the Field Poll found.

Those proposals are elements of a plan outlined by President Bush in the border city of Yuma, Ariz., on Monday, as he revived his call for comprehensive immigration overhaul.

Some analysts doubt any such legislation out of Washington, D.C., will go that far, however, because they think Bush lacks the political clout to rally divided Republicans behind his proposals.

Couching his hope for legalization and an expanded temporary worker status in the context of a "tough on security" message, Bush made his pitch at a Border Patrol station in the desert, where a new fence and increased staffing and high-tech surveillance have helped reduce illegal crossings 68 percent over the past year.

California voters increasingly oppose a federal plan for 700 more miles of border fence -- with just 37 percent favoring it this year, down from 47 percent last April, the Field Poll found. And just 53 percent of those polled voiced support the current policy of federal agents rounding up, detaining and deporting illegal immigrants.

Support among California voters for legalizing undocumented immigrants rose to 83 percent from 75 percent last April, while 67 percent of respondents backed a guest worker plan, up from 60 percent a year ago.

"The public is very open to providing a path to citizenship and giving temporary workers some kind of legal status, rather than having to do it on the sly," said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo. "The issue now is, can Congress and the president agree on a package?"

"It's important that we get a bill done," Bush said Monday. "We deserve a system that secures our borders, and honors our proud history as a nation of immigrants."

Bush's plan also would include a workplace enforcement system based on a tamper-proof identification card for legal foreign workers and a means of allowing at least some of the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants to earn legal status by paying a fine and waiting in line behind other applicants for permanent residence.

A similar immigration reform bill won bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate last year but the House of Representatives passed a conflicting bill that focused solely on enforcement, including the 700-mile border wall, which is the only recent change signed into law.

Both houses of Congress have shifted from Republican to Democratic control since then, but there is disagreement within each party on immigration.

"I'm a little dubious Congress will do anything this year because there are too many conflicting voices, particularly in the Republican caucus," said UC Irvine political scientist Louis DiSipio. "Some of the staunchest anti-immigrant voices in the House are Californians, despite the fact that the California electorate is clearly more tolerant."

Nationally, the coalition supporting comprehensive immigration overhaul includes "a collection of odd bedfellows: business and labor, ethnic pressure groups and ideological libertarians," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., which favors tightening restrictions.

For example, business groups favor a guest worker program to ensure a steady supply of cheap labor, but don't care about offering citizenship. Labor unions, by contrast, want to give undocumented workers already in the country a path to citizenship and will only support a future worker program if it includes wage guarantees, he said.

"The internal contradictions among supporters of this idea have made it very difficult to get anything done, which is fine by me," said Krikorian. "I'm very confident this isn't going to happen."

Angela Kelley, associate director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington, D.C., group lobbying for a liberal immigration policy, was more optimistic, citing Senate majority leader Harry Reid's promise to set aside the last two weeks in May to debate immigration.

"I think they can do it, but they have to do it soon, before we get into the 'silly season' of the 2008 election," she said. "This is not an easy issue for either party to either embrace or walk away from."

Kelley said she was not surprised by the Field Poll's finding that California voters endorse a combination of tougher enforcement, a legal foreign worker plan and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here.

"You guys are the most informed because you live and breathe this," she said of California, a state with an estimated 2.5 million illegal immigrants, where more than one in four residents is foreign-born.

The Field Poll's findings confirm that California is more moderate on immigration policy than much of the rest of the country. Karthick Ramakrishnan, a professor of political science at UC Riverside, said this is because the state leans Democratic and has a long history with immigration and a significant and growing Latino electorate.

Californians' sense that illegal immigration is an urgent problem has declined slightly compared to a similar survey last July, and residents of the Bay Area were the least concerned, the poll found.

The poll results were based on a random survey of 570 registered voters statewide, interviewed by telephone in English and Spanish, March 20-31. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

au wrote: CI
That is a question for Brown and friends not I.

Fully understood; but you're one of the few on this thread who understands where we are on this issue.

cicerone imposter wrote:

au wrote: CI
That is a question for Brown and friends not I.

Fully understood; but you're one of the few on this thread who understands where we are on this issue.

Its the "compassion" that they play on. While the rest of us see law breakers who are seeking awards for saying screw you and your laws.