What should be done about illegal immigration?

Most of the French you speak of were and are French nationals.

Bill Just to set the record straight . I was referring to the crooked lawyers why is said hang them them. As for the illegals, they should be deported. Sent home on the first available transport.

Brown
Not liberal or conservative. Just a question of legal vs criminal..
There is no doubt where you stand :wink:

For what it's worth, Au, you're in good company in being branded "bigot" (aka racist, uncompassionate, selfish et al) by the "enforce all laws but the ones we don't like" crowd. I haven't found any racism or bigotry in your remarks. The only ones who have inserted a racist mentality into the discussion are the 'let everybody in who wants in' group, but unfortunately they are apparently incapable of seeing that.

At any rate, once they started the mud slinging and personal insults, you know they are out of ammunition for supporting their side of the argument.

President Fox just pulled Mexico out of the Olympics. He said that everyone who can run, jump, and swim have already left the country.

President who?

What's in a name, roger?

(And to write Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa takes too much time, too.)

Our government fails to enforce the laws it establishes on illegal immigration. They're not about to deport them, so talking about deportation of all those 12 milllion illegal immigrants is a useless position. I think the better solution is for our government to establish laws that will allow them to stay here after meeting certain requirements, and those not meeting those requirements should be sent back to their home country.

Great, I made our little nitpickers happy.

President Reagan will be proud of you.

Rally Against Illegal Immigration Scheduled
Radio Hosts Enlisted in Effort, Which Is Aimed at Rousing Area Activists Before Week of Lobbying

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/21/AR2007042101213.html?hpid=topnews

Too long to post here.

I think this rally is great news too!

Dobbs: Big media hides truth about immigration
POSTED: 9:39 a.m. EDT, April 25, 2007
By Lou Dobbs
CNN

Adjust font size:
Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The Bush administration and the leadership of the Democratic Party are preparing to take another legislative leap at imposing a massive illegal alien amnesty on American citizens.

And the mainstream media is complicit in advancing this thinly veiled blanket amnesty. Instead of asking and answering important questions about why our immigration laws aren't being enforced and why we're permitting pervasive document fraud, the national media seems hell-bent on trying to obfuscate the issue, shamelessly playing with language, equating legal immigration with illegal immigration while obviously trying to preserve the illusion of objectivity.

Too often, the language of the national media describes illegal immigration as "migration" and illegal aliens as "undocumented immigrants," even though many of them have lots of documents, most of which are fraudulent or stolen. Some media outlets have taken to calling illegal aliens "entrants." Whether such language is meant to engender sympathy or to intentionally blur the distinction between legal and illegal, the mainstream media is taking sides in this debate.

The Arizona Republic, for example, used "undocumented immigrant" more than 80 times in 36 separate stories in the past month alone; the term appeared as many as 12 times in one article on "migration," according to our Lexis-Nexis search. At the same time, "illegal alien" appeared a total of only nine times during that span, with seven of the references coming from readers' opinions, one from a quotation and one from an editorial.

The mainstream media reports as if America would no longer be a welcoming nation if we stopped illegal immigration. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why does the national media conveniently and routinely neglect to report that the United States brings in more lawful immigrants than the countries of the rest of the world combined? Each year, we accept 2 million immigrants legally. We give a million legal immigrants permanent residency every year. We bestow citizenship on 700,000 people a year and provide almost half a million work-related visas a year.

Illegal immigration, in fact, has the potential to change the course of American history: Demographers at the Brookings Institution and the Population Reference Bureau paint a troubling picture of the future of our democracy. As more illegal aliens cross our borders and settle in large states like California, Texas and Florida, congressional seats will be redistributed to these bigger states following each decennial Census. States with low levels of immigration will ultimately lose seats as a result. Unfortunately for American citizens, this seismic shift in political representation will be decided by noncitizens that cannot vote.

Congress will soon take up so-called comprehensive immigration reform, and a bipartisan House bill would probably admit 400,000 guest workers a year. And since any plan calling for eventual legalization would include family members who live outside the United States, the legislation would open our borders to tens of millions of people. The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector estimated that the 2006 version of the McCain-Kennedy bill would have added an additional 66 million immigrants over the next 20 years. The bill may change, but that estimate has yet to be refuted.

There's no question this type of mass immigration would have a calamitous effect on working citizens and their families. Professor Carol Swain, professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University and author of "Debating Immigration," would like to see more people speak up for the sectors of society most affected by illegal immigration.

"How many African-American leaders have you seen come out and address the impact that high levels of illegal immigration [are] having in the communities when it comes to jobs, when it comes to education, when it comes to health care?" she asked. "And often, these low-skilled, low-wage workers compete in the same sectors for jobs."

Let's have a vigorous open debate on illegal immigration in this country, and let's begin with the facts. Estimates of illegal aliens in this country range from 12 million to 20 million people. Why doesn't our government know how many there are?

Shouldn't this Congress and this president at least recognize that the industries in which illegal aliens are employed in the greatest percentages also are suffering the largest wage declines? And shouldn't there be an economic impact statement researched and delivered to this Congress, this president and the rest of us before any legislation granting amnesty is even considered?

Shouldn't we first bring the facts of illegal immigration out of the shadows?

yes lou, we should. so far the subject is driven by emotion alone...

"Driven by emotions alone" seems to be a popular ploy to not address what's said these days. What precisely does that mean?

When common decency resides on the same side of an argument as fiscal wisdom; what emotion is necessary in determining the correct path? Emotional dispute can generally be traced back to anti-immigration arguments that rely on fictitious threats like wildly increased crime or even terrorism being blamed on immigrants who come here seeking work. Let's examine that:

[b]TODAY[/b]:
1. 1. There are 12 to 20 million residents in this country hiding out in the open. A mass expulsion of 12 to 20 million people would be absurd on several levels:
   1. Rounding them up would be damn near impossible.
      
   2. It's probably safe to assume the least law abiding would be the toughest to locate.
      
   3. Their current employers would suffer greatly...
      
   4. Causing business closings that would negatively impact our overall economy.
      
   5. SS and other government agencies would take a massive hit from loss of tax revenues currently paid by illegal aliens...
      
   6. Causing our National debt to soar even higher.
   
   
2. Is Mexico really equipped to accept 12 to 20 million refugees? I think not.
   1. Doing something like that would likely create a humanitarian disaster just over the border where we dropped them off.
      
   2. How do you suppose 12 to 20 million poor hungry people would respond to such treatment? How would you?
      
   3. How will the balance of Mexico, North America (Canada) Central and South America view such a callous disregard for humanity? How about the rest of the world?
      
   4. What will Hugo Chavez say about our idea of Democracy... and who and how many more will listen?
      
   5. Would anyone really be a proud American for having done such a thing?
   
   
3. Who here is really being harmed. Really?
   1. Do the restaurants that are barely staying afloat not purchase services from dozens of related businesses that in turn employ millions of people?
      
   2. Do the Farms who (many of which can't even find American workers when the round-up scares keep the illegals home... causing produce to rot on the vines) employ illegals not also provide a litany of jobs in related businesses in the transportation and retail sectors?
      
   3. Just where, in a capitalistic system, has competition ever proven to be a bad thing, over the long hall? (Please limit answers to field's related to immigrant labor +/-'s... as in not cable companies planning 32 different cables running to the same large market areas, while neglecting the small ones).
      
   4. Healthcare... is this not one of our biggest growth industries? Is it populated by illegals? Do we really want to base our decision on a desire to not provide health care to human beings? Really?
      
   5. Or is it perhaps the age-old tendency to blame whoever got here last for your own lack of success. Weren't Italians, Irish etc. accused of creating the same type of problems in this country... and haven't they ALL over the long hall participated in making this the most economically potent entity mankind has ever known?

[b]TOMORROW[/b]
• Do we want our country, the Land of Opportunity, the New World, to continue growing at an economical pace that continues to attract the best and the brightest the world has to offer... the country billions have dreamt about just having the opportunity to reside in... the country our forefathers bled the ground red to create a Land of the Free, a beacon of hope, a country in stark contrast to long accepted rolls of Nobles and Commoners, a country where every commoner has the opportunity to become a Noble... and despite the overwhelmingly negative press we receive; the population of the rest of this planet still has good reason to envy... and people are still risking their lives let alone their livelihood for just one chance, one chance, to live in the Promised Land that is still these United States of America.

[size=24]OR[/size]
• Do we want to throw away our centuries old tradition of being the country that willingly accepts the huddled masses of people formerly without hope and thereby transforms them into people who's very existence provide hope to the downtrodden of humankind. Have we become so selfish that it is no longer enough to have won the lottery by birth (that so many play while hoping beyond hope that their name will be called) that we would take this away too? Do we want to look in the mirror after casting 12 to 20 million people into the kind of poverty and hopeless desperation that we ourselves have never known? Do we want the rest of the world to watch us do this, while we horde our trillions and attempt to build an impenetrable wall to keep them out? Do we? Really?

Our forefathers had the wisdom to realize that any new system of tyranny where the common man lacked opportunity would not long endure. Having just risked everything they had to create a Nation free of Tyranny, they set to work designing a system where rich and poor alike would share responsibility and opportunity. Our collective Medal was tested when our nation's collective conscience awoke to the ugly facts of a far more heinous form of oppression… and we elected a leader with the wisdom to write the words "a Nation Divided can not long endure".

The world is a much smaller place these days. In an instant I can talk to friends in Moscow, with a phone from China… and if I forget how there are people standing by in New Delhi to assist me. I can visit Central America in a few hours or Europe in a few more. Yet there is a segment of Americans who continue to desperately cling to an outdated Us Vs Them mentality, as if the effective geography of the planet hasn't all but evaporated… or the collective likeness of humans hasn't long ago been recognized. These people continue to look at their fellow man as somehow less human, if he were born on the wrong side of some arbitrary line in the sand.

Newsflash: He's not less human, and he'll fight for his survival just as surely as anyone on this side of that arbitrary line and I can't say I blame him in the least. Who among us wouldn't admire the American who'd risk his life to better provide for his family? You know who you are… How do you think he'll respond if you rip the food out of his children's hands? I know how I'd respond…

A giant wall, at best, will do more to foster hatred of the arrogant American's, who will no doubt continue to use their economic and military superiority, in cooperation with corrupt foreign governments, to perpetuate a world of human hopelessness for too much of the balance of this planet, than any other single action of our past. Will this not have consequences?

We attained our superiority by opening the doors of opportunity to the world at large, thereby tapping the depths of human ingenuity and the natural desire for personal success. The most courageous of humankind continue to risk their very lives attempting to better provide for themselves and their families and our Nation gets nothing but better for it. Should we collectively choose to do a complete about face and cast 12 to 20 million people into poverty and desperation; then we may as well save the victims of our misguided greed and selfishness the trouble… and blow up the Statue of Liberty ourselves… because it will have ceased to be representative of us anyway.

You convinced me that we should bite the bullet and throw the illegal criminals out. Otherwise, they will keep pouring in, ruining our country.

I don't think you have been convinced at all. I think you have always been part of the 24% of Americans who have felt this way.

'scuse me bill; where did i say anything about favoring mass deportation?

nowhere ?

i made my opinion well known long ago on that part, but i'll restate it here;

do illegals deserve to be deported ?

yes.

is deporting 13 million people realistic ?

no.

should they be given permission to stay in the country ?

most, but not all. (like any other group, not all are great people)

should they be given citizenship ?

no. green card only. but maybe citizenship would be okay for babies and very young children. dunno.. but if what their advocates say is true, "they only want to get a better life for their families", being a resident alien will do just that.

My rant wasn't really directed at you, DTOM. Just the first paragraph was. Care to answer that question?

okay.. this part ?;




a simple observation, really. one side has many who stand ready to label someone who has a different view as a racist. the otherside has many who see amnesty as the end of the world.

the constant tugging at the heartstrings may work on folk's emotions to rally them to either side, but the vast number of people involved makes this an issue that should really be thought about.

an example being that if we think back to the beginning of the iraq war, most of the country were in an emotional state, post 9/11 or whatever, and let themselves be lead into an act with serious consequences without really putting the administration's claims to the test. in fact, the country allowed itself to be hurried into it; don't ask questions, just jump.

and look where we are now.

because emotions are really driving a most of the debates about illegal immigration... wait let me stop here and point at an example; as we've gone through the various threads on this topic, how many times have you seen this;

"how can a human being be illegal????"

that's a purely emotional response to a non-emotional fact, which is, if a person enters a country without permission, documents or whatever you want to call it, they immigrated to that country without a legal right to, which it only makes sense that the opposite of legally is... you guessed it, illegally...

so it's not the person is illegal, but his act is...

that's okay... society loves to screw with our heads by using phrases in law enforcement like "arrested for being legally drunk."

so as to be fair, here's one that's not just emotional, but is also plain nuts..

sltrib.com

wow! emotion and religious paranoia. it's a double whammy!!

anyway, it seems to be a truism that every leader has an agenda. so maybe it's a good idea that we should consider there is probably more involved than simply the emotion driven buzzphrases and bullet points that are getting tossed around before we just jump and do this the wrong way too.

see what i mean, bill ?

I don't think any of us on the pro-enforcement side of the debate are saying amnesty would be an 'end of the world' decision.

We are saying that amnesty has been tried twice in the last 30 years, each time with the promise of strong enforcement from now on. Illegal immigration has doubled by the time Reagan gave the second amnesty less than 8 years later, and it has quadrupled at least since then. Amnesty is like installing a huge neon flashing sign over America: "Ya'll come and if you escape detection for just a little while, the Americans will let you stay." There is no reason to believe doing the same thing again will produce any different results.

Deporting 12 million aliens may not be feasible but that is not the only solution being offered. We could offer a 30-day amnesty to allow people time to get back to their home country and re-enter legally on a guest work program. Any who chose not to do that would be subject to arrest and deportation and would not be eligible for re-entry at least any time in the near future. Those here legally could apply for citizenship if they wanted but they would have to get in the back of the line of all those waiting to immigrate legally.

A sensible guest worker program could help all those who need economic help and we definitely should streamline the process to make legal immigration less of a nightmare of red tape. I think we can safely increase the quotas but this must be done wisely so that those who come to stay can be assimilated seamlessly into the American culture and economy in order to give them the best chance to achieve the American dream.

To allow people to enter the country illegally with impunity certainly increases security risks because it certainly isn't just poor desperate Mexicans who are coming. Nobody who thumbs their nose at American law should be immune from the consequences of that law.