What should be done about illegal immigration?

Before the ratification of the XIXth amendment, women could not legally vote. One wonders if those who now rant about what is illegal would have considered at the time that the suffragists were publicly agitating for an illegal proposition.

0 Replies

Wyoming and Colorado, the first states to grant suffrage to wimmins (Wyo was a territory, Colorado was a state) but it wasn't until about 1927 that native americans got the same treatment.

0 Replies

So they were ILLEGALS until then, electorally speaking . . . it figures, you just can't trust them people . . .

0 Replies

Again, you guys are muddying the argument.

Women and blacks were already citizens when they demanded equal treatment and rights. We do have legal paths to immigrate and become a citizen of this country, no matter from what country one originates. What's so difficult to understand about that?

It's not about LAW, LAW, LAW. It's about not allowing millions of people to cross our borders with no regulation whatsoever.

AGAIN, I ask, what other country allows that? (Okay. Besides Iraq right now.)

0 Replies

Squinney,

Your position has kind of taken me aback. I expect these position from Foxfyre and MysteryMan and Finn. Squinney doesn't fit in this list.

Illegal immigrants are human beings.

People have come here for many reasons. American citizens have been complicit in illegal immigrantion and you and I have benefitted from it with lower prices at least. Characterizing them as illegal or invaders is just wrong.

But people who are here illegally are real people and some of them are my friends.

We agree on the question is what to do with illegal immigrants-- and we agree that they have broken the law. The question is what is the appropriate response.

Deportations have very bad effects. They break families. They take kids who have grown up here and plunge them into what is to them a foreign country.

Deportations also take away immigrants (after all illegal immigrants are immigrants) who are contributing to the US economy and to our communities.

I as an American citizen would feel a loss if my friends who are an active part as parents in our school and in the lives of our kids, were deported.

Deportations (and many of the other proposals of the religious Right) are overly harsh and vindicitive. This is why I am supporting the McCain-Kennedy compromise which makes the law more consistant but doesn't contain harsh punishment that will ruin families.

If you need to impose a punishment (based on the need to uphold the law) than do it in a way that won't cause pain to people I value.

0 Replies

For the record, I am willing to accept if you want to uphold the law by making employers accountable or by closing the border (although I suspect the latter is a fools errand). Better yet, raise wages for all workers (in both countries) by reigning in corporate abuses.

The easiest thing you can do is to demonize the immigrants themselves. This is what I am objecting to.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

It's not about LAW, LAW, LAW. It's about not allowing millions of people to cross our borders with no regulation whatsoever.

AGAIN, I ask, what other country allows that? (Okay. Besides Iraq right now.)

Actually, I could name 15 countries in Europe ..... but that's admittingly a bit different - on the other site: can you immagine to cross x-borders without showing your passport, ID-card and just slowing down the speed on the motorway to 55 miles? :wink:

0 Replies

So speaketh ebrown:

The debate is what to do with the 11 million people who are here.

Specifically, are we going to give people here illegally now the chance to become citizens or are we going to round them up and deport them?

I am making the argument that giving people a path to citizenship is the only solution that is compassionate and understanding. I am claiming that this is also what is best for the country, and given the way our country has benefitted from immigrants both legal and illegal, it is the only fair solution.

You are making the arugment that treating "illegal" immigrants with compassion encourages lawbreaking and is harmful for the country as a nation of laws. You are supporting (but not commiting to) the idea that harsh penalties including deportation are necessary for the country and will be supported by most Americans.

Don't mischaracterize my argument (or your own). The issue for me is compassion, not lawbreaking and as Walter says, I want just laws that are respected by all.

So agree-eth edblythe

0 Replies

Yes, Walter, that is a bit different. One can travel between those countries, but can one then live in a neighboring country and demand citizenship just because they decided to stay? Or do they have to go through proper channels for changing their citizenship?

Is the answer to to make North and South America like the EU? I don't know that Canada would go along with that, given the likely influx of US citizens. Very Happy

ebrown - I know these are people with families, friends and connections to this society. I know your connection to them and of course I feel for them and you. But, where does it stop? Do we do away with quotas for immigrants from every country in the world? Are we expected to take in every person from around the world that wants to "live the American dream," or do we support making the same dreams possible in their country?

As far as benefitting from their being here, I don't care much for that argument. Most people benefitted from slavery as well at the time it was happening. Doesn't make it right, and it plays into the argument that we need them so we can have our cheap grapes, essentially making them Prolls. What kinda dream is that?

0 Replies

Anon-Voter wrote:

California passed Prop. 187 while Gov. Pete Wilson was in power. It was later declared unconstitutional.

Under the California or the US constitution?

squinney wrote:

I may be over-simplifying, but, when the men of WWII returned to find their women working, what happened? Men found other jobs. The economy and work force adjusted, spurring new technologies, industries and ways of doing things.

Again, I'm over- simplifying, but wouldn't the same likely happen if 11,000,000 ILLEGAL immigrants were to be sent home.

Yes, but this argument cuts both ways because the same would happen if 11,000,000 more legal immigrants were invited in.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

So speaketh ebrown:

The debate is what to do with the 11 million people who are here.

Specifically, are we going to give people here illegally now the chance to become citizens or are we going to round them up and deport them?

i can't believe you guys are still going off about this part.

nobody is going to call in the 18wheelers and the trains and purge the country of 11-12-20 million people. ain't gonna happen. there's going to be another amnesty. won't get called that, but that's what it's gonna be.

but you're still going around in circles playing "racist".. "am not".."are too"...

and honestly, i see the race thing coming from both sides. cracking on white europeans is every bit as racist as bagging on mexicans.

so move on......

nobody here has answered any of the auxilliary questions associated with those actions. or even made suggestions.

* - what about those who don't register for the programs?

* - what about illegal entry after the amnesty ?

* - what about children born to illegal entrants ?

* - if not fining employers and making them accountable for their crooked hiring practices, what other ways to discourage illegal entry ?

point is, there's a very small number that really want to deport illegals. there's a somewhat higher number that want full amnesty etc. there's a huge number that want the government to crack down on illegal entry, by anyone and from anywhere.

0 Replies

Squinney,

If enforcing the law is what you want, there are humane ways to do it, and inhumane ways to do it.

Uprooting people who have been living and working in the US is, in my opinion, cruel and immoral. There are many parts of American society that are complicit in the fact that people are here working illegally. There are companies who hire them, customers who want cheap prices.

In my opinion, this problem is also complicated by racism (and I promise this as my sincere opinion but I know the term 'racism card' will be played soon). The fact is the current laws are unfair, unenforceable, arbitrarily cruel and unworkable since they don't provide for the needs of business.

The reason the laws are so extreme is groups like FAIR who believe that all immigration should be curtailed. Much of their rhetoric is anti-multiculturalism (i.e. immigrants are un-Americcan (i.e. not European Protestant)).

First let's treat people here with understanding compassion instead of excessively cruel punishment. Then let's change the laws so they are enforceable and fair in the future.

Your slavery argument is odd. Slavery was legal. People who oppsed it were breaking the law.

Deportation is also (presumably) legal. That doesn't make it right and it plays into the argument that we need it for our cheap grapes.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Yes, Walter, that is a bit different. One can travel between those countries, but can one then live in a neighboring country and demand citizenship just because they decided to stay? Or do they have to go through proper channels for changing their citizenship?

Well, crossing borders with showing/proving idendification has little to nothing to do with the EU: it's between the so-called Schengen-countries (though most are EU-countries as well).

Within the EU, EU-citizens have the same or similar rights as native citizens in nearly all 25 countries.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

AGAIN, I ask, what other country allows that? (Okay. Besides Iraq right now.)

At present, no country. Historically, most western countries, including but not limited to the US, have not even demanded passports for border crossing before 1918. The experience with free immigration has been very encouraging. I see no reason why policians in rich nations talk about immigrants from poor nations as if the Third World was dumping toxic waste upon us.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Within the EU, EU-citizens have the same or similar rights as native citizens in nearly all 25 countries.

i wonder if the disparity between e.u. members is the same as it is with usa/canada and the rest of the american continent ?

0 Replies

It has been said that many who want Mexicans out are racist. This is undoubtedly true. I have not been saying that here, but it is a fact IN MANY CASES, masked by cries of "LAWBREAKERS." But, as ebrown states, it is about compassion mostly and destroying hard struggling people's lives more than anything. We can put aside the racist argument and still have a compelling case for not criminalizing these people.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

One last thought, I cringe when I hear these marches being compared to the Civil Rights marches of the '60's. That was about equal rights for people of color who were already CITIZENS, not ILLEGAL immigrants who have no basis for demanding anything. There is no comparison.

Yes -- but (1) there is at least one person in this thread who illegally drove in the same car as a black while registring black voters in 1964 Mississippi. He went to jail for it, and I salute him for doing what he did. When fighting unjust laws, the legal/illegal distinction doesn't get you very far.

(2) Is anyone asserting that illegal immigrants have a constitutional right to be legalized? Maybe I didn't pay attention (it's quite possible) but I don't believe any of the demonstrators claimed that as a right. They marched to support some bills in Congress and oppose others, and the US constitution certainly gives non-citizens the right to do that, whether threy're in the country legally or not.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

squinney wrote:
Why is it the responsibility of the US tax payers to support the dreams of millions of illegals? Their health care? Their education? Their ability to earn a living wage?

You aren't. If you pass a law saying that immigrants have no right to any of those things, and in turn completely open America for immigration again, that's fine with me. Is it fine with you too?

squinney wrote:

Why would it require that we "in turn completely open America for immigration again?"

It wouldn't. I just suggested a package deal to you that would address your concern about having to feed the immigrants through, and asked you what you thought of it.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

i wonder if the disparity between e.u. members is the same as it is with usa/canada and the rest of the american continent ?

Actually, I'm not sure what you mean by that.

We have in our town council a Spanish and a Dutch town councillor, and in the various committes there are members from six different (than German) nationalties (town of 70,000 inhabitants).

0 Replies

Thomas, I am afraid you have badly misquoted me. I don't do the upper case thing.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know