What should be done about illegal immigration?

That's right, but tell that to the people who are making the argument in support of Bush's war in Iraq, and the security of our own borders that seems to have no or little control. Ya can't have it both ways. It seems Bush is willing to fight the war in the US by not securing our borders, but his emphasis continues to be Iraq.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I just think it would make it easier to identify the undesirables if we had one method to get in legally and that way is to show your ID at the border or other point of entry for those coming from other places.
That is non sequitur, Foxy. The "undesirable will neither show up for their ID, nor volunteer for deportation, for he'll know that both result in the same. From an ID standpoint; there is ZERO difference. Zero. Your it's amnesty without coming and going makes a tiny bit more sense; but since the current plan guarantees re-entry that's basically just an expense, a family hardship, and more time that poor people can't earn their keep. If it's amnesty; it's amnesty regardless of the hoops. The next generation of border crossers isn't going to care a wit that you made the last generation stop home for a visit before granting them the keys to the kingdom. I promise you; that will deter no one. (I hope that came out nice. You're getting piled on pretty bad on that other thread).

I'm not convinced that it would make ZERO difference. We can see who goes home and who doesn't. It isn't as if all the folks who have snuck in are invisible. Just about everybody knows somebody who will know they're going home to come back legally. That will make a lot of the undesirables who don't go home stick out like sore thumbs.

Are you under the impression 12 to 20 million people are going to leave at the same time? Not. Under the plan currently being debated; they'd have 8 years to accomplish it. NO ONE will stick out like a sore thumb.

Also, you are contradicting yourself. If it's no big deal to do it with no guaranteed re-admission; why would anyone think it's a big deal when re-admission is guaranteed?

Also, I suspect your proximity to Mexico is altering your judgment here. That's no short trip from up north, and consequently it is not a uniform punishment. Far from it.

Foxfyre wrote:

It is for this reason I think the going home and returning legally would be far less a financial hardship on most folks than would the ridiculous $5000 or more fine idea that is being kicked around.

The $5000, is actually an additional $4000 on top of the $1000 all must pay. They have 8 years for that as well, and at least that IS a uniform punishment.

Foxfyre wrote:

And given all those aliases and multiple social security numbers the illegals are using, I don't see any fair way that the feds would ever be able to sort all that out to collect the requisite back taxes. There is a part of me that seriously resists people being able to buy their right to be in the USA along with all the abuse that could be built into that.

I agree on the back taxes; that's how I came around to accepting the fine... though I do think it should be waved incrementally in recognition of those who can proved they've already paid. A tax paying illegal is better than a non taxpayer, no?

Also on the side; I couldn't agree less about buy ins. For sure everyone who can show sufficient residual income through annuity, penchant or what not should be welcomed with open arms. In Costa Rica; a $300,000 investment in a business there and they roll out the red carpet. By American Standards that comes to about an even $1,000,000 and hell yes the country can always use another millionaire. Those are good for everybody. Every Doctorate should come with a Green Card as well. The best, the brightest and the richest are all excellent additions.

Foxfyre wrote:

But collective heads if they're talking instead of fighting will usually come up with a plan everybody can live with. I hope we all can do that.

I seriously doubt it. In my experience "management by committee" is usually a recipe for disaster. It is amazing a committee the size of our government ever gets anything done.

au1929 wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
au1929 wrote:
By the way if you solved the illegal problem. You should help out congress and tell them. They are in dire need of a solution.
I have, both by email and by appearing in person for the latest March. :wink:

."

And they didn't listen to your wise council. I guess they must be, whats that word "idiots"

In all likelihood, yes. :wink:

cicerone imposter wrote:

au, And don't forget "bigots."

Probably that too. :wink:

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

CI
When did I give you the impression that I don't fault the government for not enforcing the law. That is the primary reason for the present situation. And it will continue to be if the immigration laws are not inforced in the future. However, that fact does not make the illegal entry into the US any less a crime.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it . Does it still make a
noise?

Did you look at the link about the IRS? They actively pursued illegal aliens for tax, while making it abundantly clear their illegal status would not be revealed. Can you get any closer than the Federal government recognizing you and accepting you... for over a decade?

Your fundamental error is the same as Foxy's. You can't put the sh!t back in the donkey. If you try to starve them out; crime will flash, while businesses close. To the extent the United States erred in lax enforcement; the price is a form of amnesty if they ever want to catch up with all those people, without first turning them into serious criminals. Americans will not tolerate the starving of families, whether they be illegal or no. Hence; legalize them, or continue to turn the blind eye, because there is no third option that won't awaken public outrage like nothing we've seen in a very long time.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Ya can't have it both ways. It seems Bush is willing to fight the war in the US by not securing our borders, but his emphasis continues to be Iraq.

it is pretty mind boggling isn't it ?

0 Replies

OBill, We're talking about "terrorists" crossing our borders. Bush continues to tell the American People "if we don't fight them in Iraq, we'll have to fight them here." If Bush knows this, and doesn't secure our borders to ensure it from terrorists coming through, all Bush is doing is BS of the highest order with some Americans (about 35%) in agreement. If you can't see the contradiction, I can't help you.

0 Replies

O'Bill said...

Quote:

Unless virtually ALL of the non criminal Illegal aliens are given an opportunity to become legal;

Does anyone else see the contradiction there?
If they are here ILLEGALLY,they are criminals.
It doesnt matter if they have obeyed every law on the books since they got here,just the fact that they are here is a criminal act.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

OBill, We're talking about "terrorists" crossing our borders. Bush continues to tell the American People "if we don't fight them in Iraq, we'll have to fight them here." If Bush knows this, and doesn't secure our borders to ensure it from terrorists coming through, all Bush is doing is BS of the highest order with some Americans (about 35%) in agreement. If you can't see the contradiction, I can't help you.

What makes you think I can't see the contradiction, CI? Did I say something to that effect? Examine the strategy I endorse, considering ONLY that for a moment; and then try to tell me it isn't the most effective.

By decriminalizing the vast majority of border crossing; every single illegal border crossing thereafter can reasonably be assumed to be with bad intentions... and border patrol won't have to pick them out of millions of friendlies to identify them. What could be simpler than that?

0 Replies

OCCOM Bill

Quote:

Did you look at the link about the IRS? They actively pursued illegal aliens for tax, while making it abundantly clear their illegal status would not be revealed. Can you get any closer than the Federal government recognizing you and accepting you... for over a decade?

Your fundamental error is the same as Foxy's. You can't put the sh!t back in the donkey. If you try to starve them out; crime will flash, while businesses close. To the extent the United States erred in lax enforcement; the price is a form of amnesty if they ever want to catch up with all those people, without first turning them into serious criminals. Americans will not tolerate the starving of families, whether they be illegal or no. Hence; legalize them, or continue to turn the blind eye, because there is no third option that won't awaken public outrage like nothing we've seen in a very long time.

The federal government is peopled by "Idiots" and as I said before is the main culprit in this entire senario. Can we undo their neglect or send these people packing? No of course not. However, should they be allowed to become citizens? My answer is that they should never be able to gain citizenship or be given the privilege of voting. They do not deserve it. In addition any criminal act committed previously or in the future should be punished by a swift deportation. However, before any action is taken regarding those presently in the US our southern border by any means possible must be sealed.
In the future those who come in illegally should be, no matter how long they are here before discovered and how many anchor babies they have must be sumarily deported, not detained.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

O'Bill said...

Quote:
Unless virtually ALL of the non criminal Illegal aliens are given an opportunity to become legal;

Does anyone else see the contradiction there?
If they are here ILLEGALLY,they are criminals.
It doesnt matter if they have obeyed every law on the books since they got here,just the fact that they are here is a criminal act.

Instead of unproductive wordplay; why don't you try to consider the actual point. If you can't; read back and catch up on the thread. Your simplistic black and white distinction and the fact that so many Americans mimic it is a large part of the reason we're stuck at a stand still... with no reasonable way back, and no reasonable way forward. Only when you and others like you expand your thought process can a solution be found. Have the courtesy of reading back rather than making me re-type just for you.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

OCCOM Bill

Quote:
Did you look at the link about the IRS? They actively pursued illegal aliens for tax, while making it abundantly clear their illegal status would not be revealed. Can you get any closer than the Federal government recognizing you and accepting you... for over a decade?

Your fundamental error is the same as Foxy's. You can't put the sh!t back in the donkey. If you try to starve them out; crime will flash, while businesses close. To the extent the United States erred in lax enforcement; the price is a form of amnesty if they ever want to catch up with all those people, without first turning them into serious criminals. Americans will not tolerate the starving of families, whether they be illegal or no. Hence; legalize them, or continue to turn the blind eye, because there is no third option that won't awaken public outrage like nothing we've seen in a very long time.

The federal government is peopled by "Idiots" and as I said before is the main culprit in this entire senario. Can we undo their neglect or send these people packing? No of course not. However, should they be allowed to become citizens? My answer is that they should never be able to gain citizenship or be given the privilege of voting. They do not deserve it. In addition any criminal act committed previously or in the future should be punished by a swift deportation. However, before any action is taken regarding those presently in the US our southern border by any means possible must be sealed.
In the future those who come in illegally should be, no matter how long they are here before discovered and how many anchor babies they have must be sumarily deported, not detained.

You are advocating a permanent second class. Even if you get the "idiots" to go along with it; the time will soon come when Americans will see the inherent wrongness in that and grant them citizenship anyway. A 2nd class wasn't a good idea with slaves, or with sharecroppers and it will not prove to be today. You'll see.

0 Replies

OBill, I may have misunderstood your intent by your recent post.

Here's the latesit Bush rehtoric:

Bush: Iraq at center of terror fight By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
44 minutes ago

NEW LONDON, Conn. - President Bush portrayed the Iraq war as a battle between the U.S. and al-Qaida on Wednesday and shared nuggets of intelligence to contend Osama bin Laden was setting up a terrorist cell in Iraq to strike targets in America.

Bush, who faces a public weary of war and is at odds with Democrats in Congress over funding troops, said that while the Sept. 11 attacks occurred in 2001, Americans still face a major threat from terrorists.

Correction: According to CNN, Bush has alienated over 25 percent of republicans, and the polls now show Bush with a 32% approval rating (not 35%).

0 Replies

Obill writes

Quote:

The next generation of border crossers isn''t going to care a wit that you made the last generation stop home for a visit before granting them the keys to the kingdom. I promise you; that will deter no one. (I hope that came out nice. You''re getting piled on pretty bad on that other thread).

All amnesty has accomplished in the past is to encourage more people to come illegally. I think tough enforcement including not allowing anybody to be legal who doesn't do it legally from Day 1 would deter people from coming illegally.

(And yeah you were nice and thanks. Smile

You do know that the other thread was posted purely for the purpose of beating up on me? So its understandable that it was going that way.)

Obill writes

Quote:

Are you under the impression 12 to 20 million people are going to leave at the same time? Not. Under the plan currently being debated; they'd have 8 years to accomplish it. NO ONE will stick out like a sore thumb.

Certainly more than 20 million Americans visit Europe every year and probably at least that many visit other continents. I know more than 20 million Americans visit Mexico, Central, and South America every year. So yeah, I think the only amnesty should be to provide 30 to 90 days for folks to get their affairs in order and get themselves home for legal admission.

Obill writes

Quote:

Also, you are contradicting yourself. If it's no big deal to do it with no guaranteed re-admission; why would anyone think it's a big deal when re-admission is guaranteed?

Re-admission should not be guaranteed. It would require certification from a legal employer that you have a job waiting and you would have to agree to undergo a background check and agree to learn English and all the other reasonable requirements before you could get your green card or temporary work permit or whatever.

I did like your idea previously of making sure all other worthy folks who have been patiently waiting for green cards, etc. should also be included in this process. I think they should be given priority consideration even because they have been consistently legal.

Obill writes

Quote:

Also, I suspect your proximity to Mexico is altering your judgment here. That's no short trip from up north, and consequently it is not a uniform punishment. Far from it.

That's where you and like minded individuals come in. Rather than siphoning off your tax dollars for welfare for illegals, you would dig into your pockets and do bake sales and aluminum can drives and whatever else you could to come up with help for those who can't afford to go home on their own. If they can't afford a bus ticket from Chicago to Chihuaua, however, it's pretty certain they aren't exactly thriving here. I bet you would be surprised how few will need charity to buy that bus ticket, however. I bet folks from nearby countries who are on work comp in Illinois go home to Mexico or wherever to recuperate too.

Obill writes

Quote:

The $5000, is actually an additional $4000 on top of the $1000 all must pay. They have 8 years for that as well, and at least that IS a uniform punishment.

I agree on the back taxes; that's how I came around to accepting the fine... though I do think it should be waved incrementally in recognition of those who can proved they've already paid. A tax paying illegal is better than a non taxpayer, no?

My understanding of the current bill being debated is that there will be a fine AND payment of back taxes. But the eight year thing, if that is a provision-I hadn't heard that-is absolutely unacceptable to me. This whole thing could be overturned by the very next Congress or provisions simply swept under the rug as time passes. Eight years for implementation would be little different than failed legislation of the past or no legislation at all. A tax paying illegal is of course better than a non tax paying illegal, but both on average are a drain on American society. Let's get them legal in a way that is positive for everybody.

And it seems to me that anybody can afford $5000 in fines could afford a bus ticket especially if that was in lieu of paying the fine.

Obill writes

Quote:

Also on the side; I couldn't agree less about buy ins. For sure everyone who can show sufficient residual income through annuity, penchant or what not should be welcomed with open arms. In Costa Rica; a $300,000 investment in a business there and they roll out the red carpet. By American Standards that comes to about an even $1,000,000 and hell yes the country can always use another millionaire. Those are good for everybody. Every Doctorate should come with a Green Card as well. The best, the brightest and the richest are all excellent additions.

Well we sort of seem to be on the same page that we should be encouraging the brightest and best to immigrate to the United States, but isn't there a disconnect here between that concept and your concern for the poor? I could easily be misunderstanding what you're saying here. I have no problem with Costa Rica's immigration policies though and think their system would be far preferable to what we have now. But it certainly does not suggest that Costa Rica is prepared to take in all or even some of the world's most destitute people and I see no reason to make people who will be productive contributing citizens to buy their right to be here. If they're productive and contribute more than they take, that is quite sufficient for me.

Obill writes.

Quote:

In my experience "management by committee" is usually a recipe for disaster. It is amazing a committee the size of our government ever gets anything done.

Unfortunately we are stuck with Congress and our President to make national policy happen. I doubt you would agree for me to write the immigration to be implemented and I would not agree for you to write it. So we're stuck with that committee.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

au1929 wrote:
OCCOM Bill

Quote:
Did you look at the link about the IRS? They actively pursued illegal aliens for tax, while making it abundantly clear their illegal status would not be revealed. Can you get any closer than the Federal government recognizing you and accepting you... for over a decade?

Your fundamental error is the same as Foxy's. You can't put the sh!t back in the donkey. If you try to starve them out; crime will flash, while businesses close. To the extent the United States erred in lax enforcement; the price is a form of amnesty if they ever want to catch up with all those people, without first turning them into serious criminals. Americans will not tolerate the starving of families, whether they be illegal or no. Hence; legalize them, or continue to turn the blind eye, because there is no third option that won't awaken public outrage like nothing we've seen in a very long time.

The federal government is peopled by "Idiots" and as I said before is the main culprit in this entire senario. Can we undo their neglect or send these people packing? No of course not. However, should they be allowed to become citizens? My answer is that they should never be able to gain citizenship or be given the privilege of voting. They do not deserve it. In addition any criminal act committed previously or in the future should be punished by a swift deportation. However, before any action is taken regarding those presently in the US our southern border by any means possible must be sealed.
In the future those who come in illegally should be, no matter how long they are here before discovered and how many anchor babies they have must be sumarily deported, not detained.
You are advocating a permanent second class. Even if you get the "idiots" to go along with it; the time will soon come when Americans will see the inherent wrongness in that and grant them citizenship anyway. A 2nd class wasn't a good idea with slaves, or with sharecroppers and it will not prove to be today. You'll see.

Second class citizens, slaves, sharecroppers my foot.They would have the equivalent of a green card giving them all the privileges of a citizen with the exception of being able to participate in the political process. That is little enought considering their criminal entry into the US. What they really deserve IMO is deportation however I will concede that is neither practical or possible.

0 Replies

CI wrote

Quote:

NEW LONDON, Conn. - President Bush portrayed the Iraq war as a battle between the U.S. and al-Qaida on Wednesday and shared nuggets of intelligence to contend Osama bin Laden was setting up a terrorist cell in Iraq to strike targets in America.

That is hardly necessary there are plenty of willing candidates presently residing in the US.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Obill writes

Quote:
The next generation of border crossers isn''t going to care a wit that you made the last generation stop home for a visit before granting them the keys to the kingdom. I promise you; that will deter no one. (I hope that came out nice. You''re getting piled on pretty bad on that other thread).

All amnesty has accomplished in the past is to encourage more people to come illegally. I think tough enforcement including not allowing anybody to be legal who doesn't do it legally from Day 1 would deter people from coming illegally.

See, this is the problem. Your very first sentence defies logic. You claim to respect logic, but here we see a stunningly perfect example of Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this).How many times has this been addressed? Do you really think a group of desperate people are sitting around brainstorming their options... and an amnesty decades ago ranks higher than ecconomic factors? I can ill imagine how you've convinced yourself of something so ridiculous. When you can't concede such an obvious point; it makes me wonder why I bother. I'm stopping here; unless you can see the folly in that assumption. I is completely unfounded in reason.

Foxfyre wrote:

(And yeah you were nice and thanks. You do know that the other thread was posted purely for the purpose of beating up on me? So its understandable that it was going that way.)

Of course. Your premise there was in my opinion ridiculous, but that seemed excessive. I don't know what's more surprising; that 10 peolple would pile on so hard... or that you still don't get it. Idiots and geniuses come in all shapes and ideologies. Idea

If there's a liberal way about anything; it has to be related to caring.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

CI wrote

Quote:
NEW LONDON, Conn. - President Bush portrayed the Iraq war as a battle between the U.S. and al-Qaida on Wednesday and shared nuggets of intelligence to contend Osama bin Laden was setting up a terrorist cell in Iraq to strike targets in America.

That is hardly necessary there are plenty of willing candidates presently residing in the US.

You're starting to repeat this now. Do you realize that the demographic who responded that they understand suicide bombing have performed not one, not ever?

0 Replies

au: That is hardly necessary there are plenty of willing candidates presently residing in the US.

I'm aware of that, but many in the US just don't "get it." Bush apologists keep supporting Bush and his war in Iraq, and his ad-nauseum rhetoric about "fighting them here."

1) Our borders are not secured. We can look at this issue in many different ways, but the important one being "terrorists can cross our border."
2) We're fighting in Iraq to stop the terrorism there, but we're not worried about terrorists coming into the US.
3) Bush doesn't want to see any time-lines to get our troops out of Iraq, because that'll only tell the terrorists to wait until we leave.
4) Bush has no plan to stop the terrorism in Iraq and around the world, but we must continue to sacrifice our military men and women and our treasure to continue this madness - while terrorism continues to increase around the world. It's okay if the terrorists bomb in London, Indonesia, and the Philippines, but NIMBY; we'll keep the war in Iraq.

0 Replies

Are there any examples from anywhere in the world where a country provided amnesty and then no longer had an illegal immigrant problem?

I know Spain thought they had it done, but Africans continue coming to the Canary Islands knowing Spain's history of amnesty and hoping to be included next time they do it.

0 Replies

No.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Are there any examples from anywhere in the world where a country provided amnesty and then no longer had an illegal immigrant problem?

I know Spain thought they had it done, but Africans continue coming to the Canary Islands knowing Spain's history of amnesty and hoping to be included next time they do it.

Dude, they come for the economic benefit... any possible amnesty is an after thought. They already have more economic opportunity than any of their neighbors save us. Amnesty, no amnesty, they're coming. Try to process that. Until you do, you'll never accept the truth of the situation. Nothing you can do these people, that the majority of Americans will support, will prevent them from wanting to come. NOTHING.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know