What should be done about illegal immigration?

Setanta wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Setanta wrote:
MM, you wrote: They are here ILLEGALLY,they CHOSE to violate our laws,so our laws do not protect them.

That is patently untrue--our laws do protect them, and that is because of the application of the due process clause of the XIVth amendment. Now you want to pretend that all you meant all along was that you disagree--that is not what you said, until you got called on it.

This is why no one ever wants to discuss anything with you--when you are not entirely in fantasy land, you change the ground rules and the details as you go along.

Count me out, i don't want to play any more of your childishly idiotic games.

You brought up the 14th amendment,I didnt.
I simply responded to what you said,nothing more.

You changed the discussion,and I responded to that.

Horseshit . . . you said "our laws do not protect them." That's a lie. I pointed out that it is a lie, based on the due process clause of the XIVth amendment. Subsequently, you claimed that you understand the constitution (something i have no reason to believe) and that you knew that, but you simply meant that you don't think things should work that way.

That's why any disucssion with you quickly turns idiotic.

In keeping with the Pooch's personal policy, I hereby announce that I have reported him to the A2K Uberlords for his use of profanity and childish personal attacks.

Actually I haven't since I'm not inclined to be a Snitch, and because I hardly find his effluence to be of much import, let alone all that objectionable.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

I just want to point out that, although you claim to be open-minded on the issue, you have not once attacked any position by people on one side, for example MysteryMan or Finn. You have not hestitated to point out what you see as flaws in solutions, even moderate solutions, that I would consider pro-immigrant.

There is one crucial question-- should people here illegally now be given the opportunity to stay.

There are three answers. Either they all can stay, some can stay or none can stay.

It would do my heart good if you would just once admit that you are slightly uncomfortable with the idea of breaking up families, and sending kids who have spent nearly all of their lives here to a country they no nothing about.

Just one statement from you that showed understanding and compassion-- even if in the end you decide that harsh punishment is more important-- would make me feel better about your position (or non-position).

Because there are two sides to this. If my side wins the consequences will be millions of people who broke the law can stay. If the other side wins, it will means broken famillies, kids lives being uprooted and commities hurt.

So, Foxfyre... before I leave this thread, please just give me one statement of compassion and understanding, that your heart is still open to both sides of this debate.

I know this is A2K and I am probably naive, but I still have a bit of hope that your soul can be saved.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Foxfyre,

I just want to point out that, although you claim to be open-minded on the issue, you have not once attacked any position by people on one side, for example MysteryMan or Finn. You have not hestitated to point out what you see as flaws in solutions, even moderate solutions, that I would consider pro-immigrant.

Nor do I believe I have attacked any position by people other than MysteryMan or Finn. I outlined the four points that I have firm opinions on re this issue at this time and, via their comments, I think they probably agree with those. If you have actually been reading my responses, you will see at least one, possibly more, places where I could not accept MM's comment at face value, at least without further clarification of his intent. I have agreed with him on some points, yes. At this point Finn has expressed mostly his personal ideology of which I mostly agree. I don't believe he has expressed much in the way of hard policy as yet.

I have asked you to please provide any quote of mine that you consider to be an attack on you or your on anybody else's position and I have asked for clarification on some of your points which you so far have not provided.

Another question for you: If I ask for clarification of your comments or see any flaw in a solution you propose, you see that as an attack?

There is one crucial question-- should people here illegally now be given the opportunity to stay.

There are three answers. Either they all can stay, some can stay or none can stay.

It would do my heart good if you would just once admit that you are slightly uncomfortable with the idea of breaking up families, and sending kids who have spent nearly all of their lives here to a country they no nothing about.

Just one statement from you that showed understanding and compassion-- even if in the end you decide that harsh punishment is more important-- would make me feel better about your position (or non-position).

Because there are two sides to this. If my side wins the consequences will be millions of people who broke the law can stay. If the other side wins, it will means broken famillies, kids lives being uprooted and commities hurt.

So, Foxfyre... before I leave this thread, please just give me one statement of compassion and understanding, that your heart is still open to both sides of this debate.

I know this is A2K and I am probably naive, but I still have a bit of hope that your soul can be saved.

I am very gratified that you are so concerned about my immortal soul.

Principle #1: I am pro life. I am pro child. I am pro family. I am pro traditional marriage. I am very much in favor of all children having a loving mother and father in the home whenever that is possible, and I have spent a good part of my rather lengthy adult life in vocations and/or avocations that help families stay together as well as mitigating the damage when they cannot. I am 100% opposed to policies or ideology that weaken, divide, disrupt, and/or destroy families, especially those that hurt kids.

Principle #2: I believe that people, including parents, should respect the law and teach their children to do likewise. I think the law must be enforced or nobody will respect it and it will have little value. I believe that those who choose to live in America should come here and be here legally and should embrace the American law, Constitution, flag, English language and be willing to assimilate into the American culture and be Americans. I believe all people, native born and immigrants, benefit when this is the case and, when it is not, we are all the poorer for it.

Principle #3: Re illegals already here, I am looking for a policy that reconciles Principles #1 and #2. At this time I have not seen one that does in my opinion. I do not believe one will be forthcoming, either, unless everybody is willing to look at all the components and realities of the issue, even the difficult, politically incorrect ones. Accusing those who do of being anti-immigrant or uncompassionate, etc. is not useful to the debate and certainly does not move us closer to a solution.

Now, I've answered your question or request.

Would you do me the courtesy of answering at least some questions or requests that I have posed to you?

0 Replies

I feel like I have answered all the questions you have asked. But, I will state my position as clearly as possible, and I will return to answer any specific questions you post (or repost if I have missed any) clearly and succinctly if my position isn't absolutely clear.

1. People who have been building lives here must be given the ability to become legal and to earn citizenship. Any other solution lacks the compassion and understanding that I feel are imporant to any system of morals.

2. I accept the need for laws for security provided they are compassionate. If you don't deport people who haven't commited any crime worse than crossing the border, I don't mind (and they don't mind) you registering them.

The debate over whether to let people who are here declare their presence, undergo a background check and then stay has nothing to do with security.

In fact, in my opinion, letting people who just want to work declare their presence openly without fear of deportation is the best thing for security (but that is another thread).

3. I also accept laws both beefing border security and providing penalties for employers as a way to stop further immigration.

I know that the business community is a powerful one and will provide strong pressure to ensure the immigration that they need (this was the big reason that the 1986 amnesty failed to reduce the flow). If it weren't for the nativist political side, it shouldn't be too hard to give business what they need to accept greater penalties.

I believe that there is a solution that will reduce illegal immigrantion and provide greater border security while providing businesses what they needs.
----

But the most important question to me is what happens to the people who are already here.

The debate we are having is Compassion versus Punishment. I come firmly on the side of Compassion and believe that "Loving your neighbor" is more important than any other factor in this debate.

Just to hit any other possible questions you may have asked (or may want to ask).

1. I believe that harsh punishment is not a good deterrent. Not only do I consider it immoral, I don't think it is effective. This means that as I have been saying all along, I support letting immigrants here illegally now stay and become legal residents and evenually citizens.

2.I think that how we treat our neighbors is an issue of morality. This includes our neighbors who have broken a law. I don't mind eating with tax collectors and sinners.

3. Deportatations are not a good solution to stem illegal immigration. It is both immoral and ineffective. Good solutions involve stricter enforcement of employers and resisting nativism which passes laws that restrict legal immigration so that business have what they need.

A great solution would be to help Mexico develop a better economy and social infrastructure so we don't have the most unequal border in the world to deal with-- but this is also another thread.

4. I agree that we need to teach our children to respect the law. But, a blind alliegence to the law is dangerous. I teach my kids about Harriet Tubman (an escaped slave who illegally led hundreds of other slaves to freedom); Rosa Parks (who you certainly know); Cory Ten Boom (a menonite who illegally defied Nazi laws to save Jews);

and of course there is Jesus, who stopped an execution which under the law should have taken place ("Let he who is without sin..."), ate with tax collectors and sinners. and healed on the Sabbath.
--------------------

So Foxfyre, as you have seen there are two sides to this, but it is not as difficult as you make it out to be. In fact it is quite simple.

Your choices are Compassion, or Punishment. What will it be?

0 Replies

Ebrown writes

Quote:

So Foxfyre, as you have seen there are two sides to this, but it is not as difficult as you make it out to be. In fact it is quite simple.

Your choices are Compassion, or Punishment. What will it be?

I see the choices as being many more than a choice between compassion or punishment and think I've been pretty clear about that. And compassion that produces unintended bad consequences is not compassion at all in the way I look at it. I have to get ready for choir practice and church at the moment, but would you answer the following:

1. Do you believe it is fair to allow people who came here illegally to get in front of those who have applied for admission through legal means? Should we just shelve laws for how people can come legally and allow anybody to come who wants to now provided they submit to search and background check? If we adopt such a policy, what should we do about those who sort of skip the search and background check?

2. How many immigrants do you think the United States can realistically take?

3. Do you teach your children to disobey laws they do not agree with? Would you? Is it better to tell your kids to disobey a bad law or is it better to tell them to change it?

4. Thinking about the needs of your spouse, your children, or others who depend on you, how much of your income and/or net worth or personal situation are you willing to devote to the support or opportunities of those who come to this country legally or illegally?

5. Do you have no opinion on what should be expected of immigrants re assimilation of American culture and the English language? What should be our attitude/policies re those who refuse to assimilate American culture and laws and demand that their native language(s) be accommodated?

6. You advocate punishing employers who hire illegals. Would you comment on the information already posted that outlines the difficulties inherent in that approach?

Remember that Jesus stopped an execution that was going to be carried out by those who were disobeying the laws themselves. He was not at all opposed to the law, but was opposed to violating the spirit or intent of the Law. That is something that is critical to this debate I think. We get nowhere by playing the 'compassion' card with no consideration for the consequences of our 'compassion'.

Gotta go. Back later.

0 Replies

1. The answer is yes, I think it is fair. It is certainly more fair than the alternatives.

This is a fake issue-- the only people who bring it up are people who want to deport immigrants here illegally (and most want to restrict legal immigration). The majority of legal immigrants support the right of "illegal" immigrants to earn citizenship.

The moral issues raised by deportations are far more important than this made up moral dilemma.

2. The answer is I don't know, but certainly more than we have.

This is irrelevant to the current discussion since the issue is what to do with the people already here. I said I would support compassionate measures to reduce the number of illegal immigrants. However, understand that compassion is far more important to me.

3. I teach my kids to be moral. I teach my kids about why following the law is usually a very good thing. I also teach them that at times, morality and the law conflict and that sometimes breaking the law is the right thing.

I also teach my kids personal morality. That they should be concerned that they are doing what they know is right; and what others are doing isn't their concern.

I teach them not to judge others-- to be compassionate and understanding of people who don't or can't follow our personal beliefs.

4. The answer is a fair amount. I try not to let my personal economic situation override my compassion or my morals.

I also think that immigrants, both legal and illegal, provide benefits economic and cultural (and even contributions to my community) that make this an unfair question.

But even so, deporting immigrants simply so I could have more money would make me feel uncomfortable.

5. Yes, I feel that immigrants should assimilate into the American culture and learn the English language.

Fortunately, immigrants, even illegal ones, do assimilate into the American culture and learn the English language. Take a look at the success of the 1986 amnesty-- the people who are now American citizens were very successful at learning English and becoming Americans. There children are indistinguishable from any other American children.

6. What comment would you like?

I think that the Nativist desire to stop all foreigners from coming makes it difficult for businesses to accept any compromise since they aren't getting the labor they feel they need. Business also needs to take responsibility and truly accept reasonable limits.

7.The event that inspired the Teachers of the Law to turn him over to Pilate was that he healed on the Sabbath. Is this what you mean?

There. I have given specific answers to all of your questions.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

1. The answer is yes, I think it is fair. It is certainly more fair than the alternatives.

This is a fake issue-- the only people who bring it up are people who want to deport immigrants here illegally (and most want to restrict legal immigration). The majority of legal immigrants support the right of "illegal" immigrants to earn citizenship.

The moral issues raised by deportations are far more important than this made up moral dilemma.

I acknowledge that you think not deporting people here illegally is more important and fair than putting people here illegally ahead of those who have been waiting for years. Perhaps you can understand that there are a lot of Americans who do think people who do things legally should prevail over those who do not.

2. The answer is I don't know, but certainly more than we have.

This is irrelevant to the current discussion since the issue is what to do with the people already here. I said I would support compassionate measures to reduce the number of illegal immigrants. However, understand that compassion is far more important to me.

Irrelevant? You don't think this should be a consideration in whatever policy is adopted? Don't you think that would be a rational way of approaching it?

3. I teach my kids to be moral. I teach my kids about why following the law is usually a very good thing. I also teach them that at times, morality and the law conflict and that sometimes breaking the law is the right thing.

I also teach my kids personal morality. That they should be concerned that they are doing what they know is right; and what others are doing isn't their concern.

I teach them not to judge others-- to be compassionate and understanding of people who don't or can't follow our personal beliefs.

Do you teach them by example? Even as you have referred to or alluded to those of us who disagree with any of your points as anti-immigrant, uncompassionate, and/or racist?

4. The answer is a fair amount. I try not to let my personal economic situation override my compassion or my morals.

I also think that immigrants, both legal and illegal, provide benefits economic and cultural (and even contributions to my community) that make this an unfair question.

But even so, deporting immigrants simply so I could have more money would make me feel uncomfortable.

Deporting immigrants so that you can have more money was not one of the options I suggested. I understand that you think asking the question of how much you personally are willing to contribute is unfair. I also ackowledge that you seem to be saying that you apparently do not see a problem in whatever anybody else is contributing and do not think that should be any kind of consideration in whatever policy is ultimately adopted.

5. Yes, I feel that immigrants should assimilate into the American culture and learn the English language.

Fortunately, immigrants, even illegal ones, do assimilate into the American culture and learn the English language. Take a look at the success of the 1986 amnesty-- the people who are now American citizens were very successful at learning English and becoming Americans. There children are indistinguishable from any other American children.

If all immigrants, even illegal ones, were assimilating into the American culture, it would not be an issue. Some do. But it is the observation of a lot of Americans that many illegal immigrants are demanding that their own language, culture, flag, etc. be respected even while they thumb their noses at the American flag, culture, etc., and also many are availing themselves of whatever services they need while feeling no obligation whatsoever to their community and while feeling no remorse in sending billions of their earnings out of the country. You seem to think it is anti-immigrant to notice these things and/or object to them, but a lot of Americans who appreciate legal immigrants do have a problem with the illegal ones.

6. What comment would you like?

Several times you have come back to the issue suggesting that employers should be held accountable in some way. The comment I requested was addressing the information already posted that shows how making the employers' accountable has problems built into that too, and such rules have been ineffective in the past.

I think that the Nativist desire to stop all foreigners from coming makes it difficult for businesses to accept any compromise since they aren't getting the labor they feel they need. Business also needs to take responsibility and truly accept reasonable limits.

You do not seem to be able to make a distinction between legal and illegal in your comment here. As this has been pointed out to you numerous times, I can only assume that you will not make a distinction between legal and illegal in any kind of immigration policy. Your repeated references to those who oppose illegal acts as being anti-immigrant are mildly insulting and more than a little annoying.

7.The event that inspired the Teachers of the Law to turn him over to Pilate was that he healed on the Sabbath. Is this what you mean?

There were many events that irritated the Pharisees; especially those that illustrated how the Pharisees were hypocrites who obeyed the law while failing to implement the spirit of the law. The one event that inspired them to turn Jesus over to Pilate, however, was that he did not deny that he was God. That was sort of over the top for them and also the Sadducees who otherwise wouldn't have given a tinker's dam.

There. I have given specific answers to all of your questions.

I'm sure you believe you have even as you ignored the hard parts of the questions, but I thank you for the effort. If I have misinterpreted or mistated any of your positions, I invite you to correct my take on it. I think you are typical of many on the far left, and we are all entitled to our opinions and entitled to ignore whatever we choose.

I really do hope your side doesn't prevail in this issue, however, as I think the pervasive tunnel vision is dangerous and that many of the solutions you suggest will not solve any of the problems and will create considerably more problems than we already have.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think you are typical of many on the far left, and we are all entitled to our opinions and entitled to ignore whatever we choose.

yo foxy, just thought i'd mention to you that, as you probably guess, most people that i hang around with are really quite liberal; however, in this particular issue, i cannot think of a single one that has much interest in allowing the continued flow of illegal migration. since not all of them are "white-euro" types, i don't buy that it's the simply "racist" issue that some are trying to paint it.

for us, the issue is just what we say it is. and that is the active word, illegal.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I think you are typical of many on the far left, and we are all entitled to our opinions and entitled to ignore whatever we choose.

yo foxy, just thought i'd mention to you that, as you probably guess, most people that i hang around with are really quite liberal; however, in this particular issue, i cannot think of a single one that has much interest in allowing the continued flow of illegal migration. since not all of them are "white-euro" types, i don't buy that it's the simply "racist" issue that some are trying to paint it.

for us, the issue is just what we say it is. and that is the active word, illegal.

As you know, DTOM, I am more liberal than conservative myself on an issue or two, though by no wildest imagination would anybody call me 'far left' or any kind of 'left'. While I think you could probably be somewhat left of center yourself at least some of the time, I certainly don't think you are among the 'far left', and I bet you don't hang around with many people who are. Smile

I don't see this as a conservative or liberal issue though. During the Clinton administration it was the Democrats taking the hard line against illegal immigration. I believe they've only switched camps now because they think they can gain political points against Republicans by dong so. That isn't ideology. That's just pure old fashioned political bullshit.

Off the Beltway, Conservatives and Liberals may disagree on what the law, policy, and/or remedy ought to be, but I think a majority in both camps believe the law must be respected. I believe a majority in both camps understand that the law has served us well to encourage opportunity, protect us against those who mean us no benefit, and defend our legal, Constitutional, and unalienable rights. When we lose our law and, as a result, our ideals, our appreciation for personal and property rights, our language, and our culture, we lose all that makes us a place where millions, perhaps billions, people of the world want to be.

I wonder where they will choose to go then?

The far left claims the high ground in wanting to extend benevolence and permanent residency for all those who broke our laws when they came here. Many of us think they mistook quicksand for that high ground, however. Many if not most of us recognize the very negative unintended consequences that are virtually certain if we fail to enforce the law in this case or in most cases. We are by no means unified on the best plan for enforcing it at this time, however. 12 million folks is a pretty heavy enforcement issue.

I am still wanting one of the 'let's-grant-amnesty-with-strings' group to convince me that won't have the negative unintended consequences. So far nobody has.

(The far left doesn't like the word 'amnesty' either, but if you ignore the existing law in order to let a large group of people avoid the enforcement of it, that is exactly what is being accomplished.)

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Foxfyre,

I just want to point out that, although you claim to be open-minded on the issue, you have not once attacked any position by people on one side, for example MysteryMan or Finn. You have not hestitated to point out what you see as flaws in solutions, even moderate solutions, that I would consider pro-immigrant.

So Foxfyre, in order for you to demonstrate your open-minded bonifides, you must attack Mysteryman or me.

Notwithstanding the fact that I have taken a softer position on Mexican immigration than you, you must attack me to garner the regard of ebrown.

Obviously, if you attack ebrown's position your are a racist reactionary, and so to the extent that you wish to curry his favor, you must attack reprobates like me or MM.

There is one crucial question-- should people here illegally now be given the opportunity to stay.

Indeed.

There are three answers. Either they all can stay, some can stay or none can stay.

True.

It would do my heart good if you would just once admit that you are slightly uncomfortable with the idea of breaking up families, and sending kids who have spent nearly all of their lives here to a country they no nothing about.

Now, if it is your goal to make ebrown's bleeding heart good, you will admit (at least once) that you are venal blowhard who ignores the fact that your conscience tells you that taking any action against illegal immigrants is horrible. Notwithstanding the fact that ebrown's argument that a position based on enforcing existing laws is tantamount to breaking up families is totally specious, you are required to buy his take on things as the moral view of life.

Just one statement from you that showed understanding and compassion-- even if in the end you decide that harsh punishment is more important-- would make me feel better about your position (or non-position).

Pure and unadulterated BS. You could sing, in Spanish, plaintive songs about the poor, and hard working Latinos who cross our borders, but if you do not line up precisely with ebrown's position, you will find yourself on his shite-list.

Because there are two sides to this. If my side wins the consequences will be millions of people who broke the law can stay. If the other side wins, it will means broken famillies, kids lives being uprooted and commities hurt.

More BS (and idiotic BS at that). If eborwn's position wins, nothing really bad happens, but if your position wins, little children are brutalized. What a laughable crock.

So, Foxfyre... before I leave this thread, please just give me one statement of compassion and understanding, that your heart is still open to both sides of this debate.

And here is the classic sanctimonious Leftist spiel. Agree with ebrown and you are saved, disagree with his saintly beliefs and you have revealed yourself to be a cruel miscreant.

I know this is A2K and I am probably naive, but I still have a bit of hope that your soul can be saved.

Excuse me while I throw up.

0 Replies

Not having been part of this discussion I do not know if this has been said in any of the previous responses.

The proposed senate compromise re immigration rewarding people who broke the law is a travesty. In addition it is a slap in the face to all those people who play by the rules. The granting of amnesty, and that is what it is, will only encourage more illegal immigration. As it did after the amnesty of 1986. Congress in essence is putting the cart before the horse. Before any resolution regarding the disposition of those in the US illegally is formulated the borders must be made leak proof. If you have a leaking water pipe the priority is to repair the leak not to keep wiping up the water.

Regarding the ongoing massive demonstrations. With 11 million illegals, calling them immigrant is a misnomer. What they are law breakers. I believe that is what under normal conditions they would be called criminals. Why is it surprising for the demonstrations to be massive? They are crying for their rights. What rights do people who steal into your house in the dark of night think they have or deserve.

Do I agree with the guest worker program? Yes. Amnesty and citizenship never.

0 Replies

Au,

The demonstrations, and the pro-immigrant movement consist of far more than illegal immigrants. This is why it is a pro-immigrant movement and not just a pro-"illegal"-immigrant movement.

The message of yesterdays demonstrations should be clear-- "Today we March; Tomorrow we Vote". This is not a message for undocumented immigrants. Rather it is a message for the Latino community and for Americans of goodwill that there is political power in being unified behind strong clear principles.

Millions of American citizens are part of the movement that wants a path to citizenship. Some of us believe in compassion. Some of us understand what it means to be a nation of immigrants. Some of us are simply grateful for the ways that immigrants, both legal and illegal contribute to our communities.

Don't think for a moment that this fight is about Americans versus Immigrants, or even Legal Immigrants versus Illegal ones.

The protests consisted of hundreds of thousands of US citizens. Most of who believe that racism is a big part of the anti-immigrant movement.

The next big push is voter registration and education. We will see what happens in November.

Finally to answer the question you all have been asking-- I accept there is a difference between illegal immigrants, and legal ones. Legal immigrants are here with permission from the US government. Illegal immigrants don't have permission. That should make anti-immigrant apologists happy.

But the fact is that they are all people. Yes, they all deserve understanding, compassion regardless of their status. People advocating harsh punishment on people (yes they are people) will utimately be the downfall of your position.

You will try to make a distinction, but you all are trying to make the same error that you accuse me of making by lumping all Americans in the same category.

This fight will be fought and won by Americans who vote.

Understand that this includes Latinos, children of immigrants and people who truly try to live the gospel of Christ including the part about loving one's neighbor.

I hope you read my account of the protest on my other thread...

0 Replies

In Arizona, a group of Republican legislators said the protests were an assault on the "rule of law" and granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would send the wrong message.

One state legislator, Sen. Robert Blendu, compared the demonstrations to terrorist acts, suggesting marchers were able to do what terrorists cannot: essentially shut down state government.

GOP lawmakers assail assault on 'rule of law'

0 Replies

The funny thing is these Republican lawmakers are unclear on the concept.

This is exactly what we want-- Republicans referring to protesters in demonstrations widely supported by Latinos (including American citizens) as terrorists...

I coudn't ask for more!

0 Replies

It seems the politicians and the media are paying too much attention to the individuals here illegally and not to the cause of their coming here.

Unless employers of illegal aliens are penalized and the boarders secured, there can be no resolution to the problem.

Those already here working, and obeying the law (excpet how they came here) should be able to find a way to obtain legal status (so long as they pose no security risk). The "silliness" of the proposed legislation is ripe for fraud. How can one verify they were here 2 years or 10 years?

However, each person here illegally and granted legal status, should have a felony on their record as their penalty.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

It seems the politicians and the media are paying too much attention to the individuals here illegally and not to the cause of their coming here.

Unless employers of illegal aliens are penalized and the boarders secured, there can be no resolution to the problem.

Those already here working, and obeying the law (excpet how they came here) should be able to find a way to obtain legal status (so long as they pose no security risk). The "silliness" of the proposed legislation is ripe for fraud. How can one verify they were here 2 years or 10 years?

However, each person here illegally and granted legal status, should have a felony on their record as their penalty.

i've been wondering over the last couple of days if perhaps the fairest thing would be to allow a kind of permanent resident status to the illegals already here without the citizenship allowance.

and, after securing the borders (all of them, not just the part that meets with mexico..), have time limited guest worker visas and increase the number of legal entrants.

i'm not real into the felony idea. a note of original illegal entry without punitive measure should be enough on the record for those already here.

i'd also like to see that after these thing s were instituted, that a child born to parents who entered illegally after the start date would not automatically receive u.s. citizenship. it's a loophole that will continue to bring amnesty around again.

0 Replies

DTOM,

There is no way that we (i.e. we the American public) would accept either of these proposals.

1) Permanent residency without citizenship runs directly counter to the goals of both sides (and you would think this is not possible). The anti-immigrant side complains that illegal immigrants don't want to assimilate (i.e. become Americans). Making them permanent residents without becoming citizens? Who does that help?

Of course the pro-immigrant side, and the Latino community at large, would never go along with this.

2) The Fourteenth Amendment says that if you are born here, you are a citizen. Period.

Calling this a "loophole" is an editorial comment that doesn't reflect reality.

The fourteenth Amendment has applied to the children of undocumented immigrants for over 100 years. It was upheld by the Supreme court as early as 1898 with a Chinese immigrant made illegal by the Chinese Exclusion act.

This is part of our law and our history. This isn't going to change.

Quote:

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents in 1873. In 1895, upon his return from a visit to China, he was refused entry by US customs officials, who asserted that he was a subject of the Chinese emperor and not a US citizen.

At this time, US law (the "Chinese Exclusion Acts") prohibited Chinese immigration (except for those Chinese people who were already in the US). Chinese people were also barred from becoming naturalized US citizens -- and it was argued, on this basis, that Wong was ineligible to be considered a US citizen, in spite of his having been born in the US.

The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling on a 6-2 vote that Wong Kim Ark was in fact a US citizen. The court cited the "citizenship clause" of the 14th Amendment, which states that all persons born (or naturalized) in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. Although the original motivation for this language in the 14th Amendment was to secure citizenship for the freed Negro slaves, the court held that the clause clearly applied to "all persons", regardless of their race or national origin.

0 Replies

"1) Permanent residency without citizenship runs directly counter to the goals of both sides (and you would think this is not possible). The anti-immigrant side complains that illegal immigrants don't want to assimilate (i.e. become Americans). Making them permanent residents without becoming citizens? Who does that help? "

I would agree. Those already here, working and who pose no security risk should be put on a PATH TOWARDS citizenship.

However, I feel the felony record should hold. That is their "punishment" and would not entitle them to ever vote. A small price to pay IMO.

Those who refuse to be put on that "path" must be deported, as they are either concealing a criminal record or other reason.

However, if employers are not forced to hire only legal aliens, then no boarder control will work. We need to stop the enablers, who are the employers.

0 Replies

I'd like to ask the questions: How did all the immigrants get here, why were they allowed to stay here, when did the immigrants begin thinking they could just walk across the borders by the million?

Did the vast migration into America begin with the Clinton administration, and did Clinton think this a good idea and do nothing? George Bush must have agreed, he allowed it to continue, did nothing. Somebody should be held accountable for this current confusion.

This issue is nothing but political. And, there are two long years before a presidential election. A decision from the legislators of this country should be imminent. I think the final decision could be to allow those Mexicans here illegally to become citizens if they so choose, and to keep those who plan to come here illegally where they are at present.

Why didn't the Mexicans hold such protests in Mexico? Americans made this country what it is by holding protests, but by its citizens. Only citizens should vote, demand changes.

My humble opinion based on what news I read and see, and the history of immigration.

0 Replies

If this millions of people DO get deported (which in a logistic matter seems quite a challenge), who's gonna fill their jobs? This is an important productive sector of your economy, not only because the work they do, but because they require services, attend schools, shop in supermarkets... etc, etc, etc.

I don't feel capable of holding a debate in this forums, yet, in my opinion, inmigration problems will always exist if we have common boundaries. Specially if one side holds hungry people of several 3rd world nations, and the other side is the capitalistic leader of the world.

Physical barriers may exist, but if there's a will, there's a way.

I dont like the term America Sad

.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know