50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 07:26 pm
What question would you like answered Dyslexia?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 07:30 pm
with your two years of posting foxfyre, the list is nearly endless.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 07:30 pm
For ebrown, here is what I've come up with so far on the immigration isse.

It is my opinion that:

1) People should obey the law or the law will no longer be able to guide, direct, and protect us.

2) Bad law should be changed.

3) Those who come to the United States as immigrants should expect to adopt the Constitution, the law of the land, the language, the culture, and the values of the United States as their own.

4) The United States cannot take all the world's poor without so weakening itself that it can no longer be either an example or a benefit to the world.

I'm still working on what I think about all the rest of the immigration issue.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 07:31 pm
It's okay Dyslexia. Just pick one. What question would you like answered?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 07:37 pm
Quote:
Fox, can you imagine if we did a search on "Foxfyre + answer the question."


http://able2know.com/forums/search.php?search_id=395383345&start=0

1460 hits
from Monday March 07, 2005
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 07:45 pm
Ah, so you want 1400 questions answered? I don't really have time.

But if you have a particular honest question in mind, I'll give it an honest shot. Or are you just wanting to rag on me? I can accept that too. And for the most part, I'll probably just ignore it.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 08:05 pm
Quote:
I'll probably just ignore it.


yes, we are all quite aware of that, it's an established expectation.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 08:28 pm
Yeah, I sometimes forget, but I was taught at an early age that only idiots argue with idiots and trolls and mean spirits more interested in gotcha than discussing the topic are best ignored.

Also those who complain about what other people answer or how they answer and refuse to respond to questions asked in return.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 08:32 pm
Well yes foxfyre, I am often overwhelmed by your academic credentials and astute knowledge of history. I am humbled by your early rearing as well.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 08:55 pm
Well good. Somebody needs to be. Most people who dislike me generally just leave me alone.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 08:57 pm
Now, don't tell me that dys is visiting you regularily :wink:
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 08:59 pm
Well, I happen to be an idiot, a troll, and a graduate of the 8th grade. This just isn't a fair fight.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 09:09 pm
Naw Walter. He lives on the liberal side of town. But really Dys, have you ever considered Dale Carnegie or some other program to help you not see yourself so negatively?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 10:06 pm
ebrown said...

Quote:
Mysteryman has stated a clear position. He stands behind it and defends it. I don't agree with him, but I respect the fact that he has the courage to take a side and deal with the fact that his position will take mothers away from their children.


I appreciate the flowers,but you are grossly misstating my position.

I do not favor taking babies away from their mothers.
I favor giving the mothers a CHOICE.

In San Diego county,there is a serious problem with what they call "anchor babies".
These are women in their last few weeks of pregnancy that come ILLEGALLY into this country to have their baby,knowing that any person born in the US is a citizen.
They also know that the govt will not separate mothers and their children,so that means the mothers get to stay,even though they are ILLEGAL.

Now,what I propose is that the govt stop doing that,and give the mothers a CHOICE.
The newborn would remain a US citizen,but the mother would be deported and the baby put up for adoption,OR the mother and child are deported and the baby does not get immediate US citizenship.

The choice would be entirely up to the mother,not the govt.
However,her choice,whatever it is,would be final!!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 10:33 pm
And what about changing ius soli to ius sanguinis? That would be much more appropriate, especially for a supporter of illegal immigration.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 10:57 pm
mysteryman wrote:
ebrown said...

Quote:
Mysteryman has stated a clear position. He stands behind it and defends it. I don't agree with him, but I respect the fact that he has the courage to take a side and deal with the fact that his position will take mothers away from their children.


I appreciate the flowers,but you are grossly misstating my position.

I do not favor taking babies away from their mothers.
I favor giving the mothers a CHOICE.

In San Diego county,there is a serious problem with what they call "anchor babies".
These are women in their last few weeks of pregnancy that come ILLEGALLY into this country to have their baby,knowing that any person born in the US is a citizen.
They also know that the govt will not separate mothers and their children,so that means the mothers get to stay,even though they are ILLEGAL.

Now,what I propose is that the govt stop doing that,and give the mothers a CHOICE.
The newborn would remain a US citizen,but the mother would be deported and the baby put up for adoption,OR the mother and child are deported and the baby does not get immediate US citizenship.

The choice would be entirely up to the mother,not the govt.
However,her choice,whatever it is,would be final!!


Your position is understood and, if we go with the deportation and reapply for legal admission solution that some advocate, this would be the humane way to handle it.

It will require a Constitutional amendment to stop the 'anchor baby' phenomenon, however. That is one proposal that probably should be considered within the overall plan to fix the problem.

Does anybody have a problem with a Constitutional change stating that a baby must be born to at least one U.S. citizen in order to have U.S. citizenship himself/herself? Just being born on U.S. soil would not assign automatic citizenship any more?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 10:58 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
And what about changing ius soli to ius sanguinis? That would be much more appropriate, especially for a supporter of illegal immigration.


Explain please.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 11:08 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
And what about changing ius soli to ius sanguinis? That would be much more appropriate, especially for a supporter of illegal immigration.


Explain please.


Exactly what? (In the British legal tradition, American nationality is acquired through ius soli, which was made constitutional by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 12:35 am
ebrown_p wrote:
Finn,

You are full of it.

1) Your anti-immigrant rhetoric is exactly the same as anti-immigrant rhetoric has been since the beginning of anti-immigrant feeling.

The Chinese Exclusion laws were passed more than 100 years ago because Chinese were said to be unable to assimilate. The racist groups opposing Irish and Italian immigrants were upset that as Catholics they would never be good Americans. My grandmother told stories of persecution of the recent German immigrants who were her grandparents at the turn of the century.

2) Immigrants today are the same as Immigrants have always been.

Look at how effective the 1986 IRCA amnesty was at creating Americans. Most of the people who became Americans in 1986 are now living productive lives. Most of them are fluent in English and nearly all of their kids are fluent.

You will correctly say that the 1986 law did little to stop people from coming. But, without question , it showed that the people who came are willing and able to become Americans in any sense of the word.

The marches that will take place next week have the slogen "Today we March, Tomorrow we Vote". This is not a message for the immigrants (who being immigrants are unable to vote).

The Latino community is showing that, as American citizens, are able to use their considerable political power to stop a policy that they feel is at it's core racist.

The Irish were able to assimilate after the 2nd generation. The Italians were forced into little Italy's and in Boston there is an area where Italian is still spoken on the street to conduct business. However the Italians, by the 2nd or 3rd generation are now as American as any of us.

3) White Christian "chauvanism" has always been a part of the immigrantion debate-- and it clearly still is. The Irish and Italians felt it because they weren't protestants. The Chinese and Latinos feel it because they aren't white.


I knew the love fest couldn't endure. I had hope that you were not a typical knee-jerk Liberal, but they have been dashed.

Your point #1 is the sort of trite Liberal drivel to which, I was hoping, you might not be addicted. Alas I was wrong.

It is simply, at best, nonsense, and at worst, vile calumny, to contend that I am anti-immigrant.

How many ways can I say that I believe immigration to be a unique and significant strength of America? I guess you are one of those Looney Lefties who find it to be anti-immigration to expect those who come to America, to embrace being American.

Where, pray tell, have I argued that Mexicans are capable of assimilation? It is irrefutable that they are indeed capable of assimilation, just as it is irrefutable that:

a) Very many have chosen not to attempt assimilation
b) There are idiots who will vociferously argue that they should not be expected to.

As for your point #2, this too is nonsense, and of no value to your argument. Mexicans are the only immigrants in our history who have come by foot and in defiance of or laws, across our borders.

However, their reasons for immigration to the US are not really different from all the other waves. What is different is that there are folks like you who argue that they should not be expected to assimilate.

The most significant difference in the immigration of today versus the immigration of the past is the prevalence of American citizens who feel the need to assist the immigrants in preserving a cultural identity that is distinct (even if it is at odds with) from the rough profile of an American.

Part of this detrimental passion flows from a perverse self-loathing. If the sweet baby featured in your icon is your own babe, it's pretty clear that you have White Europeans somewhere in your personal heritage. I would be the last person to argue that this heritage should trump the influence of all others, but I will also be the last to argue that it should be regarded as some sort of evil stain requiring the hearty containment efforts of Liberals.

This is the essence of why I have no use, at all, for the typical American Lefties: They think that by denigrating their heritage they not only score points with the oppressed in the world, but evidence their moral superiority.

Instead, they are simply pathetic chumps.

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that those who hate America have a soft spot in their hearts for American Liberals. My bet is that they laugh at you, and it requires no speculation that when they want to kill us they could care less about our politics.

And yet you consistently advance self-destructive notions. This would be OK except that the destruction that you either court or of which you remain ignorant will not discriminate between you and me.

As far as I am concerned, Latinos are as welcome to become Americans as I would have welcomed Italians, Irish, Germans, Polish etc. However, they are only welcome (by me) if they wish to truly become Americans, and this means sublimating the interests of their native lands to those of America, and "fitting in."


There is no shortage of powerful people in favor of deporting 12 million illegal (not undocumented!) Mexican immigrants, and erecting a wall to hold the rest out.

Lump us all together as is always your wont.

You lose, and so do the immigrants.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 12:39 am
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And it is now 151 years since 1855. We do a whole lot of things differently now than we did then.

Yes. Unfortunately this means you are doing some things worse nowadays.


How glib.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 06:40:38