What should be done about illegal immigration?

We used to say "Indians". It became "Native Americans". Now, you tell me it's "American Indians". Wouldn't surprise me a bit to come back next week and find we are back to "Indians". All I'm certain of is that the Navajo call themselves Dine. One Navajo I worked with wore a tee shirt that said "I'm sure glad Columbus wasn't looking for Turkey (instead of India).

In any case, the point of my post concerned neither nomenclature, nor precolumbian populations, actually.

HS wrote :



might one also want to take into consideration the ratio of "american indians" vs. "all the others" ?
how much of their lands and resources do they still own and control ?

of course , it's all "water under the bridge" now . many other peoples can no doubt claim that various immigrants have pushed them out or dimished their status/influence .

just reading "indian summer - the secret history of the end of an empire" .
it's interesting to note that india after a long occupation by mongols and later by the british has become its own master again .
the difference seems to be that india was really never "colonized" - didn't have many immigrants coming to their country .
strangely enough , they adopted many british customs yet somehow were able to modify them to their own liking .
the book claims that in certain respects - such as the civil service - india is now "more british" than britain is today .
hbg

Could we get away from the discussion of American Indians? After all, it is ancient history.

ancient romans , ancient indians - aren't they all much the same ? :wink:
hbg

They said the same things about American Indians that you are saying about illegal people.

They were criticized for not assimilating and learning English.
They were accused of degrading "American" culture.
They were accused of violent crime and where called a threat for sexual predation.
They were said to not value education.

The themes here are all the same.

I had an argument with a lady from Indiana on this tour, because she says there is no such thing as "illegal immigration." She says if they are here illegally, they are not immigrants. I told her many countries around the world has illegal immigration - including the US. I told her I disagreed with her on this terminology; we have "illegal immigration" in the US.

Where do you nutballs get off trying to compare the current Illegal Immigration situation to the outright murder, and theft of land and culture that happened to the Native American Indians?

My history tells me the it was the WESTERN EUROPEANS who were the illegal immigrants. They killed thousands, stole land, refused to adapt to our culture. Many Natives fought next to the "immigrants" and with Andrew Jackson during the War and then he decided to move of off our land. So much for trying to help you guys out!

woiyo, Excellent point! We sometimes get carried away with who we think are immigrants.

Right woiyo. I think you get it.

And she wins the argument. They are "illegal aliens", not immigrants. They are here illegally and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Certainly the term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States - as a definined by the Immigration and Nationality Act.

However, people who want to stay/live in the USA and are not tourits/visitors (alliens) are commonly called immigrants.

See e.g. the defintions/terms in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsiblity Act.

(According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security the name of this act hasn't changed to "Illegal Alien Reform and Alien Responsibilty Act". But they may be wrong.)

Walter, the government is clearly not on the side of the majority of its citizens on this issue. The misnamed act clearly reflects that. Thanks for pointing it out.

Well, but those citizens could live for 11 years with - even the U.S. Supreme Court didn't notice what you now suddenly found out.

The USSC is not bound by the will of the people. The government is.

Well, I would certainly prefer to live in a country with a constitution and a constituional court - but if you prefer such done by plebiscite, your choice.

governments are not and SHOULD NOT always be just listening to the majority and adjust their policies accordingly .
from what i undertsand about GOVERNING , it does not mean being in a popularity contest .
certain practices or political ideas may sometimes start with small individual groups . governments may pick up the idea and introduce them despite widespread opposition .

if EVERY american would be voting on a referendum on gun control , i wonder what the outcome might be .
would the gun lobby be willing to accept an outcome that would further restrict gun control ??? i have my doubts .
hbg



from THE FREE DICTIONARY

I would tend to disagree.

Our founding fathers recognized the original constitution might have to be amended in an effort to "change with the times".

A Constitution that is so rigid that can never be changed seems to lend itself to a dictatorial type of govt.

I didn't want to give the impression that I think, a constitution shouldn't be changed.

Actually, I prefer a constituion which "following" the actual life.

Might well be that my problems here arose because I grew up and live all my life in a federal parliamentary republic.

Immigrants, illegals use welfare more often
By Stephen Dinan
November 29, 2007

Both immigrants and illegal aliens are more likely to be poor and to use welfare programs than native-born Americans because they come to the country with lower levels of education, according to a new study looking at U.S. Census Bureau data.



"The problem here is not work, or a lack of willingness to work; it's not legal status; it's educational level at arrival," said Steven A. Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which is releasing the report today.



The public burden is a major issue, and it was one of the disputes, along with border security and increased enforcement, that helped kill the Senate immigration bill earlier this year.



President Bush and some Senate Republicans had wanted to scrap the family-based immigration system that has dominated for the past 50 years and replace it with a system that awarded points for those with needed job skills, high education levels and English proficiency. But Democrats objected, arguing that family reunification should still be the guiding principle.



Mr. Camarota, whose group calls for a crackdown on illegal aliens and a slowdown in legal immigration, said his numbers show that the family-based system puts a strain on taxpayer-funded services.



"Allowing in legal immigrants mainly based on family relationships, and tolerating widespread illegal immigration, certainly has very significant implications for social services, public schools and taxpayer services," he said.



He said that makes sense ?- native-born Americans without a high-school education also are more likely to use welfare or to live in poverty. But he said that means that the burdens illegal aliens places on taxpayers can't be solved through amnesty because it would not raise education levels.



"You're not going to fix the problem of high rates of welfare use just by legalizing them ?- at least for the 57 percent of high school dropouts," Mr. Camarota said.




Nearly one in three immigrant households nationwide uses a major welfare program, compared with 19.4 percent of native-born American families.



But Angela Kelley, director of the Immigration Law Foundation, said the report didn't capture the true American experience of immigration.



"Immigrants come to this country; they work hard; if they can get legal status, that improves their chances, they buy homes, they learn English, they intermarry ?- and it's been the success story of this nation," she said.



She said federal laws are very tight about benefits ?- illegal aliens are not eligible for most types of social services and legal immigrants have to wait years before being eligible.



"There are a lot of numbers in this," she said. "It's like they're trying to take a machine-gun approach and spray us with a lot of bullets and hope the issue dies and goes away."



The report says overall immigration to the U.S. remains high, with immigrants now accounting for one in eight U.S. residents ?- the highest level in 80 years. Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived, which is the highest seven-year total in U.S. history.



The study also found immigrants and illegal aliens account for 32 percent of those without health insurance nationwide and for 24 percent of those in or near poverty.



That has become an issue as the presidential candidates in both parties wrestle with how to expand health care access. Some candidates have said their plans would cover illegal aliens, although others, such as Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, have ruled that out.