50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 02:41 pm
@ebrown p,
Being intellectually bankrupt, you resort to lying. I never said that illegal aliens have no rights. But they lack the right to enter and stay in this country. Would-be immigrants have the right to apply for entry, as millions have done. But, for whatever reason, they prefer to sneak into the country, often taking jobs that citizens need. And, indeed, many end up in prison for crimes, should they be caught. They must love people like you who suck up to them.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 02:42 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate dear, you and I seem to be mostly on the same side in this issue--a rare situation as you know--but you aren't helping by being personally insulting either. Don't let the dogs drag you down to wallow in their ****.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 02:47 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:

I separate racism and bigotry from the issue of illegal immigration and I focus on the non racist and non bigoted components of the issue.


This has not been my impression.

Quote:

Your and my disagreement is that you seem to see ANY enforcement of the immigration laws to be racist or bigoted. You seem to think that ANY criticism of illegal activities by illegal immigrants is based on bigotry and racism. The fact that some may be is not logically translated into an assumption that all are.


This is not true. I support border control, I support workplace enforcement. I certainly support deporting of violent criminals.

I have several issues wit current immigration law (and I am advocating changing them, not scrapping them). I don't like that the focus is on immigrants (many of them poor and vulnerable) rather than employers. I don't like that the penalties toward immigrants are so harsh (while employers get off with a wrist slap). I don't like that there is no room for considerations such as family ties, community ties and no room for compassion or human decency. And... perhaps most of all, I don't like the underlying current of bigotry that seems to drive this political debate.

Quote:
I separate racism and bigotry from the issue of illegal immigration and I focus on the non racist and non bigoted components of the issue.

You and those like you don't seem to be willing to do that.

Until you can, we can probably never have a reasoned discussion targeted at arriving at a solution that is the best solution for everybody.


I would be perfectly happy to separate the issue of immigration (I don't believe you can't address illegal immigration separately from our idiotic laws defining immigration in general) from issues of bigotry and racism.

If we can expand the discussion to how we might change the current laws to deal better with both illegal immigrants and legal immigrants, then maybe we could get beyond the shouting match that this discussion has become.

roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 02:54 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

roger wrote:

Still, I don' know why you bother. No matter the topic is illegal immigration, your replies seem directed to immigration - period. A completely different subject which not many seem interested in.


You obviously haven't read all my posts then Roger.


Bad writing on my part, Foxy. I meant the replies to you ignored the difference between legal and illegal immigration. You and others speak of illegal immigration, and you get replies involving the need for immigrant labor. Period.

Uh, no, I don't read all of anyone's posts on the topic. It does get a little repetitious.
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 03:00 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Quote:

I separate racism and bigotry from the issue of illegal immigration and I focus on the non racist and non bigoted components of the issue.


This has not been my impression.


I know. But in my opinion, your impression/characterization/conclusions have been wrong. But I can't change your impression if you will not change it.

Quote:
Quote:

Your and my disagreement is that you seem to see ANY enforcement of the immigration laws to be racist or bigoted. You seem to think that ANY criticism of illegal activities by illegal immigrants is based on bigotry and racism. The fact that some may be is not logically translated into an assumption that all are.


This is not true. I support border control, I support workplace enforcement. I certainly support deporting of violent criminals.

I have several issues wit current immigration law (and I am advocating changing them, not scrapping them). I don't like that the focus is on immigrants (many of them poor and vulnerable) rather than employers. I don't like that the penalties toward immigrants are so harsh (while employers get off with a wrist slap). I don't like that there is no room for considerations such as family ties, community ties and no room for compassion or human decency. And... perhaps most of all, I don't like the underlying current of bigotry that seems to drive this political debate.


I hate racism and bigotry as much as you do and, from time to time, my vocations and/or avocations have allowed me to fight it head on. I don't know if I have the same compassion or human decency that you see in yourself, but I sure know that I hurt for people who are hurting, and I object to indecent treatment of anybody. If you could just get past your opinion of me as a racist or bigot, you might even be able to see that.

Quote:
Quote:
I separate racism and bigotry from the issue of illegal immigration and I focus on the non racist and non bigoted components of the issue.

You and those like you don't seem to be willing to do that.

Until you can, we can probably never have a reasoned discussion targeted at arriving at a solution that is the best solution for everybody.


I would be perfectly happy to separate the issue of immigration (I don't believe you can't address illegal immigration separately from our idiotic laws defining immigration in general) from issues of bigotry and racism.

If we can expand the discussion to how we might change the current laws to deal better with both illegal immigrants and legal immigrants, then maybe we could get beyond the shouting match that this discussion has become.


How many times must I post what I think the law should be before I will be heard? How many times must I say that our current laws must be made more effective and efficient to accommodate discouraging/elimination of illegal immigration while encouraging and allowing orderly immigration for those we need to be here either temporarily or permanently before I will have made my point?

But as long as either side is using racism as the crutch for non action, it won't happen.

And that is why I think we not only can take racism/bigotry out of the discussion, but we have to do that in order to solve the problem.


0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 03:03 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

roger wrote:

Still, I don' know why you bother. No matter the topic is illegal immigration, your replies seem directed to immigration - period. A completely different subject which not many seem interested in.


You obviously haven't read all my posts then Roger.


Bad writing on my part, Foxy. I meant the replies to you ignored the difference between legal and illegal immigration. You and others speak of illegal immigration, and you get replies involving the need for immigrant labor. Period.

Uh, no, I don't read all of anyone's posts on the topic. It does get a little repetitious.


Smile I do hear that. And it does to help having the ability to clarify when we have communicated or been heard differently from what we intended.
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 11:19 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre--I think your posts are needed more than ever. People must become aware of the fact that we may be headed into Armageddon with relation to illegals. Note:

Culture, Society, & ReligionFeatured ArticlesForeign AffairsPolitics, Economics, & Public PolicySententiaNeoConstantJournal of Politics and Foreign Affairs
SubscribeSubscribe by emailAboutRegular ColumnistsContactWriters WantedTagsindiepunditMexico dangerously close to failing as state. What does America do?
By Jason Corley on January 17th, 2009



Could North America become militarized in the next decade? Has the War on Drugs become more important than the War on Terror?

A report released earlier this week by the Joint Operations Environment (JOE: go here for report) warned that Mexico is in danger of becoming a failed state. The country’s government and infrastructure has nearly succumbed to its vicious and bloody drug war. It is common place in Mexico for police officers to bribed, tortured and murdered and even more alarming, especially near the United States southern border. In the past year alone more people have died from drug related criminal activity in Mexico than American casualties suffered in Iraq. The losses in Mexico add up to 5,300 people in the past year.

So bad are the social and political affairs in Mexico the JOE report said that Mexico was just as close to collapsing as Pakistan.

Often time drug gangs will mete out violence in open public killing rival gangs, civilian authorities and even innocent bystanders. The witnesses are usually too scared to talk or are also murdered before anything can be said. With illegal immigration just below a boil in America, many government officials and politicians are watching this closely.

The outgoing secretary for Homeland Security Michael Chertoff fears that it may be just a matter of time before Mexican drug war spills across the border. It is a known fact that Mexico exports gangs, drugs, and criminals into U.S. cities. It is only a matter of time before these wars spread here to settle old scores, expand operations in a more market friendly environment, or leave Mexico altogether. He proposed the idea that the federal government will have to entertain a possible “surge” of military and police personnel to the border as a serious possibility.

The plans would call for aircraft, armored vehicles and special operation teams to deploy to trouble spots along the border, and perhaps into Mexico if needed. However, it isn’t likely that military forces would be used if civilian agencies like the Border Patrol and local law enforcement were unable to control the violence, or until Mexico was unable to function and ensuing anarchy emerged.

The drug feud has taken its toll on Mexico’s economic and social stability. Because corruption is an institution itself in the the Mexican government, most of the gangs have filled the vacuums left open by an inefficient and corrupt government and the price for this is a staggering loss of lives and economic activity. If matters only get worse or a complete collapse of the government is imminent, the U.S. can expect a humanitarian disaster and a deluge of Mexican immigrants seeking security across the border.

Joel Kurtzman writes in the WSJ about Mexico’s economy suffering from illegal criminal activity brought on by the drug cartels.

In 2008, Mexico ranked 31st out of 60 countries studied in the Milken Institute/Kurtzman Group Opacity Index. The cost to ordinary Mexicans from poorly functioning institutions has been huge. My colleague, Glenn Yago, and I calculate that if Mexico were to reduce corruption and bring its legal, economic, accounting and regulatory standards up to U.S. levels (the U.S. ranks 13th and Finland ranks first), Mexico’s nominal per capital GDP would increase by about $18,000 to roughly $28,000 a year. And it would also receive a lot more direct foreign investment that would create jobs.

If a hardline response on government employees were adopted by Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón by jailing and firing personnel caught up in corruption scandals, some fear that the state of affairs are so bad that it would be impossible to feasibly make a difference without disrupting government functions. Perhaps, a suspension of civil liberties and military order would be a better and safer alternative? Speculation is that that things may get that bad in Mexico.



So what will the American government do to protect the U.S. border and what is the result of a neighboring government collapsing?

Glenn Williamson, CEO of the Canada Arizona Business Council, tells the Phoenix Business Journal he expects Obama to push harder for a step towards a North American Union. “I am starting to see a trend here from the new administration " possibly pulling in some U.S. assets in far-off countries that don’t even like us, and focusing more on a continental North America where Canada, the U.S. and Mexico could almost be energy self-sufficient. The U.S. and Canada need a strong Mexico for that to succeed. The concept of a broken Mexico or Canada on either border of the U.S. does not work.”

The report itself warns that “any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.” In the Joint Forces report, Marine Gen. J.N. Mattis said: “If we do not try to forecast the future, there is no doubt that we will be caught off guard as we strive to protect this experiment in democracy that we call America.”



And central to the theme of the economic consequences facing America if Mexico should fall the JOE report added:

“A central component of America’s global military posture is its massive economic power. This power is predicated on a financially viable, globally connected domestic economy. Should this central feature of American power be weakened, it is highly likely that military capabilities will be diminished or otherwise degraded as a result”

U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., warned that Mexican violence and instability could be one of President-elect Barack Obama’s first security challenges. The same Phoenix Business Journal report offered this about Obama’s possible intentions.

Obama is not highly supportive of international trade policies and has promised to draw down American troops in Iraq. In addition, Democrats gained seats in Congress this year and could push for more protectionist and domestic-oriented policies.

The former US Drug Czar, Gen. (ret.) Barry McCaffrey, warned that Mexico is on the verge of becoming a “narco-state.” McCaffrey, who participated in a three-day meeting last month in Mexico of the International Forum of Intelligence and Security Specialists, an advisory body to Mexican federal law enforcement, issued a report to West Point’s Department of Social Sciences, where he serves as an adjunct professor of international affairs.

“Mexico is on the edge of the abyss"it could become a narco-state in the coming decade. Chronic drug consumption in Mexico has doubled since 2002 as has cocaine use"while US cocaine consumption has dropped by 70% in the past two decades. An estimated 5% of the Mexican population now consumes illegal drugs. None the less, 90% of all U.S. cocaine transits Mexico, and Mexico is also the dominant source of methamphetamine production for the US market. It is time to deflate the myth that US demand alone fuels Mexican drugs. However, President Calderón and Mexico’s senior leadership have launched a serious attempt to reclaim the rule of law from the chaos of the drug cartels. President Calderón has also for the first time boldly used the tool of extradition to the US, sending 83 major drug criminals north.”

Former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich also joined in on the potential disaster and seriousness of the situation in Mexico. He told several business leaders in Newport Beach, CA: “We have to rethink our entire strategy for working with Mexico. The war that’s under way in Mexico is an enormous national security threat to the US. If we allow the drug dealers to win we will have a nightmare on our southern border and no amount of fence and no amount of national security would compensate for the collapse of Mexico.” (Orange County Business Journal)

President Bush, President-elect Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon met last week in Washington to discuss the challenges facing them. (Chicago Tribune)

For his part, Calderon said cooperation was necessary in the fight against drug cartels and mutual security. ”It will be the beginning of an extraordinary age in the relationship between the United States and Mexico.”

This new age Calderon is referring to may come on top of Bush’s $1.4 billion package in security aid, known as the Merida initiative, which gave Mexico aircraft, high-tech scanning gear, safety equipment and military and security training. The first $400 million, has already been approved by Congress last year. Should violence and political instability escalate, the President-elect may find himself militarizing the border and perhaps conducting joint military operations with Canada inside of Mexico.

And that may bring profound changes changes to North America.

Categories: Foreign Affairs, US Politics
********************************************************************

Note especially the following line from the above___

If matters only get worse or a complete collapse of the government is imminent, the U.S. can expect a humanitarian disaster and a deluge of Mexican immigrants seeking security across the border.

****************************************************************

I wonder what the apologists for the illegals would say then?
okie
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 11:29 pm
Posters like ebrown, when they run out of logical arguments, they resort to accusations of racism and bigotry, which is standard operating procedure for liberals on this forum, and other forums. I have pretty much given up on using reason with these folks, because they are not reasonable. I am not sure of it is intentional blindness or a hidden agenda from which they post the same old standard arguments as a cloak to their true agenda, which they do not enumerate. Their arguments therefore end up being a hodge podge of illogical attacks and standard cookbook junk that you see on forums like this.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 11:37 pm
@okie,
The problem with this, my dear Okie, is that we are winning elections. Part of this is because many Americans see racism and bigotry in your position on immigration (and they say as much in polls)

Even some in the Republican party are now turning to the logical arguments you say we have run out of. But, far be it from me to interfere in the internal conflicts among conservatives.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 11:37 pm
@genoves,
What would EBrownose reply to your detailed post? He would merely make the baseless assertion that you are a bigot. He lacks the intelligence to do anything else.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 11:44 pm
@Advocate,
I was getting to that, my dear Advocate.

Obama's immigration solution addresses the problems with Narco-traffickers just fine. Points of this plan include...

- Beef up Border Security.
- Cooperate with Mexico to address the drug and weapon problem (the problem is two-way... illegal drugs flow north, illegal weapons flow south there is a healthy market both ways).
- Provide a path to citizenship to people working here who have nothing to do with drug trafficking.

I was very happy to be a part of Obama's victory.
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 11:47 pm
@Advocate,
I think he is sincere but even so, if he lived anywhere near the border and his home or home town was overrun by immigrants fleeing Mexico as outlined in the article above, he would probably be one of the first to demand that the US government protect him,his family and his home.

I don't think he can deny that Mexico is in very bad economic and social shape. It is a fact.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 11:48 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

The problem with this, my dear Okie, is that we are winning elections. Part of this is because many Americans see racism and bigotry in your position on immigration (and they say as much in polls)

Even some in the Republican party are now turning to the logical arguments you say we have run out of. But, far be it from me to interfere in the internal conflicts among conservatives.
What do you expect when the media spoonfeeds them the claptrap on a daily basis, ebrown, that is the business you are in, so I am not surprised. We need more informed voters, but do not think your party has a mandate, it doesn't, the country is pretty much split. And you now have close to half of the population paying absolutely no income tax, so is it surprising they will vote for the party that promises them a free lunch, all the groupees, unions, government employees, minorities, etc. etc. If you think winning an election is an indicator of which path is the most correct, think again.

The internal conflicts with conservatives, there are several, but one is that some actually believe we should leave the basis of conservatism which is the rights, freedoms, and responsibilities of individuals, and also start catering and pandering to groups on a group identification mode. Well, McCain tried that and it didn't work, and I think we need to return to the roots of conservatism, and it does work if articulated by a leader that can inspire.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 11:51 pm
@okie,
Quote:
o is it surprising they will vote for the party that promises them a free lunch, all the groupees, unions, government employees, minorities, etc. etc.


Okie... I think I love you.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 11:56 pm
@ebrown p,
I would like to see a color blind society. For starters, I would instruct the Census Bureau to quit counting groups, period, that would be a start. From now on, we judge people by their character and achievement, not color of their skin. And if they illegally immigrate, sorry, go back and do it right, pretty simple policy.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 03:28 am
@ebrown p,
Quote:
Provide a path to citizenship to people working here who have nothing to do with drug trafficking.


I have no problem with that, as long as those people are here LEGALLY.
Its that word, LEGALLY, that you seem to miss.
If they are here illegally, then they are breaking our laws and should not be given any type of "path to citizenship", unless they return too their home country first and apply legally.

You seem to think its about hate, when we simply want our laws respected.
As long as you continue to believe that, then this entire argument is going in circles.
Advocate
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 10:32 am
@mysteryman,
Don't bother to send sensible things to eBrownose. He will just reply with baseless assertions and call you a bigot.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2009 09:18 am
Watch out -- the Mexicans are ticked.

This is a good one!!!!!!!!!!!
The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from Sonora don't like it. Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny.

State of Sonora is angry at Influx of Mexicans into Mexico .
Nine state legislators from the Mexican state of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona 's new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico .
It seems that many Mexican illegals are now returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off about it.
A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to say Arizona 's new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.
At a news conference, the legislators said Sonora - Arizona 's southern neighbor, made up of mostly small towns - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers here return to their hometowns without jobs or money.
The law, which took effect Jan.1, punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don't have valid legal documents to work in the United States
Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license.
The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on their state government.
'How can they pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales .
'There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona ,' she said, speaking only in Spanish.
'Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs,' she said.
'We are one family, socially and economically,' she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona
Wrong!
The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico, and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico's citizens.
It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop parasitically feeding off of the United States and to start taking care of its/their own needs.
Too bad all the US states don't pass a law just like Sonora Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will not do anything!
New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message...
1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
* * * * * * * *
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
* * * * * * * *
3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.
* * * * * * * *
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
* * * * * * * *
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
* * * * * * * *
6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
* * * * * * * *
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
* * * * * * * *
8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
* * * * * * * *
9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
* * * * * * * *
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Too strict?......
The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO !!!
These sound fine to me. NOW, how can we get these laws to be America 's immigration laws??

WAKE UP, AMERICA -
we are losing our country.........

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2009 09:56 am
@mysteryman,
I agree with mm; it's about the legality of the immigrants that our country fails to determine. It's our government's failure to enforce laws already on the books.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2009 10:05 am
Okie is also right. Stop evaluating any situation based on whether somebody is brown, black, or polka dot green. We have laws and rules in place to enforce them. So long as there are bleeding hearts who think some people should be able to ignore the law and/or the rules to enforce them just because of who they are, the law is ineffective and impotent. The law should be applied even handedly across the board no matter who anybody is, how much money they have, what race they are, or where they were born. Those who discriminate either pro or con via race are the racists. Not those who advocate enforcing the law.

There is certainly room to amend and make the law better to accomplish what we need to do to promote the general welfare as well as the Constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense. But that will be much harder to do as long as the bleeding hearts are screaming "racism!" every time there is a call to enforce existing laws.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 05:07:19