What should be done about illegal immigration?

High Seas, You miss the content of my post. Slavery is "bondage."
"Indentured servitude" is what happened early in our country's history. Most of those working on farms and restaurants today in California are "free" to work on any farm or restaurant for pay and any benefits the farmer/owner/manager may provide. They are free to move from one job to another, and many send their earnings back to Central or South America. Hardly slavery.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20080805.IBBITSON05%2FTPStory%2FComment&ord=116659391&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

Thank you, but kindly educate yourself before posting further, Cicerone, and the link is to a Canadian site:
[/quote]One recent report says 10 per cent of America's 12 million illegal Latino immigrants have fled the country in the past 12 months.

Once again, Latino America is on the move.

Four times since 2005, Congress tried but failed to find some path to legality for the illegal Latino immigrants. With the federal government paralyzed, state and local governments started taking action on their own.

In July, 2007, Prince William passed some of the strictest laws in the country affecting undocumented workers, the euphemism for illegal immigrants. The county created a police unit dedicated to locating illegals. Police were ordered to check the immigration status of everyone they arrest. Some city services are denied to anyone who cannot prove they are a legal resident.

Although the evidence is speculative and anecdotal, the drive appears to be working. Illegal immigrants are abandoning their homes and moving to other counties, where there is less danger of being deported.
____________________________________________________


sorry messed up link but text is correct - am writing on latest-high-tech device, or as we say in the Valley, duh! DUH. Sorry, CI, trust msg is clear nonetheless

And here I've been under the impression we were talking about US illegal immigration. Canada? Why not Africa? But, you'll have to start another thread for that.

With due respect, CI, reading the links would HELP your understanding - in this case, the illegals fleeing the US went NORTH TO CANADA instead of SOUTH where they came from. And DID you really READ about the clam-pickers in the UK who couldn't pay interest on their debts and so were left abandoned for high tide to get DROWNED - no, I can't believe you read this horror and ignored it.

With respect again, I find your summary dismissal of posts by Foxfyre, Brandon, Advocate, and others on this thread nothing other than unworthy of your esteemed history, and family, and character. In hopes you'll reflect on that comment, I bid you fare well till mid-February, when I'll be back from China

CI, you shouldn't take everything literally. Only children and the retarded take everything literally. Intelligent people speak figuratively for ease of conversation.

I most certainly would support a rational immigration plan that included a path to citizenship. But it would have to be rational. No illegal would be able to gain citizenship unless they applied and had to wait in line. Those who had been here longest and had children would be granted citizenship first. The numbers that would be accepted each year would be measured against the ability of the states in which the immigrants resided so that there would not be a massive impact on the state's abilities to provide social services and schools.

Your insinuation about my real reason is based on your own idiotic supposition.
I worked with Mexican students for several years and found them to be among the best candidates for citizenship possible. However, they cannot innundate the system. They cannot be responsible for the massive loss of jobs among the native born.

You may not be aware, ebrownp, but in 1924, the US Congress passed a law called the Johnson-Reed Act. This Act radically restricted immigration. No such radical measures are needed now but it is prudent for ANY country to manage its borders so that it does not become a cornucopia for an unlimited number of immigrants.

You talk about "kicking out immigrants". Your wording is atrocious and tendentious. It is not kicking out anyone. It is making sure that any immigrants from any country complies with the duly enacted laws of the United States.

I will assert again that President Obama will have to be cautious not to be viewed as one who opens to door too widely to people who compete for the jobs in American Society. He does owe the Hispanics who voted for him but he will lose far more people who will blame him for the Unemployment rate of 10% to come!

Thanks but no thanks. I'm not interested immigration problems in Canada or England (or anywhere else for that matter).

I'm sure this thread was started to discuss the "illegal immigration" of "our" country. If you wish to discuss other countries, you can start another thread. Good luck; I won't be participating.

foxfyre-Cicerone Imposter does not read other posts. He just goes on repeating the same mantra over and over. He does not realize that in a discussion, it is the responsiblity of all parties to examine the points made by others.

You have done a wonderful job on this topic. Congratulations!

Genoves, I appreciate that you have a moderate stance on a path to citizenship. I take back my insinuation with apologies.

I am well aware of the Johnson-Reed Act which was the law, in 1924, that defined "illegal immigration". Before this immigration was pretty much a matter of crossing the border (there were laws to keep out the "insane" and black people, but there was no real restriction to immigration).

This bill, which started immigration enforcement, was horribly racist at its core. It was unashamedly so... it excluded the Chinese from entering and throttled immigration from Catholic countries while allowing white protestants to enter easily. This bill is a part of the divisiveness and rancor of this issue to this day.

I stand by my phrase "kicking out" immigrants because this is exactly what many people want to do. Deportation means "kicking out"... and this is exactly what many people want to do.

I hope Obama can both pass a compassionate immigration bill and get the economy back on track. I don't think these two goals are at odds with each other. But, I also recognize that illegal immigrants will get blamed for a high unemployment rate whether they are to blame or not.

"Many people want to do"?? What many people want to do means nothing. You need not apoligize. This is a discussion forum and there is nothing for you to apologize about. You do not seem to be like some who do not approve of anyone who does not agree with their every word. What a boring group that would be.

Of course, the Johnson-Reed Act was racist. But it was passed with the approval of millions of Americans at the time.

And you are correct in saying that immigrants will be blamed for a high unemployment rate even if they are to blame or not. PERCEPTION trumps reality. But, please examine your sentence. It may be true that some immigrants will not take jobs away from long term residents but it certainly cannot be true that, even under the best of conditions, some illegals will take some jobs away from residents.

In the political game, one side will minimize the damage, the other will try to enlarge it,but there will be some damage.

It is President Obama's task to fill a two pound bag with five pounds of offal.

A tough job!

A post I agree with 100%.

We are often told that illegals take jobs citizens don't want. This is total nonsense. Moreover, this issue is critical as unemployment soars and the availability of jobs in general plummets. Citizens will take jobs when they are treated respectfully relative to wages and benefits. If necessary, prices should rise to finance this. Another consideration is that the illegal holding an entry-level job will very often soon move on to a job very desirable to citizens.

For a good discussion of this issue, please see http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/afl_cio.htm

You know Avocate... the folks at VDare are really pissed at Bruce Springsteen (who many of us working Americans see as a spokesman).

Thank you for the compliment Genoves. I think you have brought some level headedness to the debate as well and I appreciate that. I wish I could say that others agree eith you on my 'wonderful job' here. A few, including Occum Bill and ebrown, have called me bigoted and racist so many times I long ago lost count. C.I. is frequently unkind/insulting to people he disagrees with and seems to have gotten worse since he no longer has to worry about being suspended, but he rarely contributes to the debate with a thought out argument for his own point of view.

My thought is that we do need to explore all the pros and cons and benefits and unintended negative consequences and everything that is included in this difficult problem. Certainly all of us who generally label ourselves 'conservative' are not in agreement. When this thread was first initiated it included a poll with high participation. I think those who describe themselves as 'liberal' outnumber the 'conservatives' about 4 or 5 to 1 on A2K, but the poll came out 2 to 1 in favor of enforcing the immigration laws and stopping illegal immigration. Based on that, I know that all those who call themselves 'liberal' are not in agreement on this either.

I don't know if I have it all figured out, but I do base my opinions on what I have read on the subject, my first hand experiences, and (I hope) common sense, and my opinions have nothing to do with racism and bigotry.

For instance, I have a slight disagreement with you on the path to citizenship, but I think both of us need to be heard and understood before that decision is made.

My only problem with giving ANY illegals a path to citizenship ahead of those who have applied through legal channels and are patiently waiting to be admitted is a matter of a) fairness and b) my personal belief that rewarding bad/illegal behavior encourages more of the same.

Until somebody gives me a good reason why I am wrong, I think we need to get a sensible and efficient system in place, and then provide a very short (no more than 3-month) amnesty to illegals to give them a chance to return to their home countries and re-enter legally on a green card or whatever authority we provide. Then and then only should people be eligible for citizenship and everybody should have to get in line and wait their turn.

And, as I have said previously, there will be a few special hardship cases in which the main plan simply is not feasible. A kid who wasn't born here but grew up here and has no 'home country' to return to for instance is in a pickle. Maybe we could evaluate these on a case by case basis and use congressional action or guberanatorial pardons or some such to handle those. I can't imagine there would be enough of those to be a serious logistical problem.

I don't think the length of time a person has already been here should be a factor. Already I think many illegals know that in the past those who snuck in and avoided the law could expect that sooner or later they would be provided amnesty and allowed to stay. I have described that as having a huge neon flashing sign over America saying 'ya'll come and if you can just stay low for awhile, they'll let you stay'. People shouldn't be rewarded for breaking the law longer than other people have broken it.

So there's all sorts of ways to approach this and look at it without bigotry or racism being a factor in any way. It is too bad that some resort to that kind of name calling when they have no defense for the reasoned arguments. I think we cannot enforce our laws on the basis that we love or sympathize with those who break them no matter how minor we perceive the offense to be. The worst serial killer is loved by people who do not see him as a bad person and hope the full force of the law is not thrown at him.

Foxfyre,

What do you think of my new signature?

No, Foxie, you have that wrong. I only challenge people who cannot make a stand on issues, but end up contradicting their own posts - frequently. The proof is in the pudding; look at all the a2kers who have shown your own contradictions.

Rather than use ad homonyms, spell out for me where I'm wrong.

No dear. You show me where I have contradicted myself. You never specify when you call me racist or bigot or any of the other uncomplimentary slurs you have attached to me. I have never been unkind to you, have never ridiculed you, or called you stupid or ignorant or anything else when I have disagreed with you. I allow you your own opinions and do not presume to judge you. But I think you cannot justify being insulting or hateful to those with whom you disagree. I have accepted that you seem to get great enjoyment out of doing that and mostly ignore it anymore. But every once in awhile I just feel like saying that I think it is a really unpleasant way of discussing/debating an issue.

I don't think anything about it ebrown. I could interpret it that you see yourself as bad as a bigot because you approve of illegal immigration?

It's not my problem you have failed to read all those posts by a2kers who have shown by cut and paste your own contradictions.

Dear Cicerone:

Foxfyre is easily twice as intelligent as you. Your problem is that you are unable to understand sentences which are complex. Work on it and you will see the light.