What should be done about illegal immigration?

Foxfyre and the rest are wrong on another point... they consistently imply that they speak for the "US citizen" (as if all US citizens agree with them).

The way the US citizens decide the direction our country takes is through elections. The fact is that anti-immigrant politicians have been losing an awful number of elections says something. The fact is there is a great number of US citizens who are sympathetic to immigrants and don't like seeing families broken and communities disrupted.

This is why I am confident that the outcome will be some variation of McCain/Kennedy compromise (which had a majority support in Congress and was killed by a filibuster).

There will eventually be a path to citizenship combined with border security and workplace enforcement. Politicians who oppose this (except in the decreasing number of very "red" states) will continue to be punished.

Any sane person knows the eventual outcome (based on political reality). It seems to me the obstructionist tactics use by the anti-immigrant side prevent us from resolving the issue. This is not a good thing for our country.

ebrown, You're using a straw man argument that they are human beings. What you ignore completely are laws of the land. Every country has laws, but many do not enforce the laws they legislate and make into laws. That's our government's problem and failure.

Who ever said they were not humans? Killers are also humans. If they break the law, they go to prison.

ebrown wrote:

It seems you don't want any of our immigration laws to be enforced. If they had not come here illegally in the first place, they wouldn't have all the problems "they" created by themselves.

You are resorting to setting up straw men. No one denies that the illegals are inherently just like all other people, and deserve sympathy. Perhaps we should send more aid and assistance to their home countries. But a country must guard its borders, or it ceases to be an independent country. We have generous legal quotas, and we must insist that immigrants come in under them.

Our economy is in a ditch, and the number of unemployed is soaring. We must ensure that citizens get the jobs held by illegals, and that no more illegals come in to get other jobs.

If it will make you feel better, invite a few illegals to come and live with you.

ci, if I was a liberal, I would now accuse you of comparing illegals to killers!
Shame on you.

I just could not resist pointing out your own type of operation here, ci. I look for ebrown to post something close to the above.

This fails to consider the citizen who is starving and out of work because an illegal took his or her job. Somehow, this is never in the equation for the pro-illegals.

okie, That's where your brain goes dead; I'm only talking about "law enforcement." You miss the analogy like you do everything else. We are a country of laws - for a reason.

Bull Cicerone! Immigration is not murder-- not even close (in spite of the anecdotes that someone will pull out that some immigrants have committed murder).

We are talking about what enforcement is appropriate for people who break immigration law-- whether we should jail them, or deport them, or give them a fine.

When speaking about enforcement of any law-- it is appropriate to discuss things like:

- Is the enforcement too harsh-- particularly compared to suffering it causes to communities and families?
- Is the enforcement proportionate to the crime (this is why comparing crossing a border to taking a life is ridiculous).
- Is the enforcement effective.
- Does the enforcement have negative effects on society.

It is obvious that someone who commits murder should be jailed for life. The enforcement is proportionate to the crime. It is effective in keeping others from murdering. And the benefit to society of keeping murderers off the street is clearly greater than any negative effects of jailing them.

However, many people question the enforcement of drug laws. They are harsh and arguably non-proportionate (breaking families for non-violent crimes). Drug enforcement doesn't seem very effective. And jailing non-violent offenders for drug crimes not only costs millions of dollars, it also has deep social costs.

This blind "laws should enforced without question" stance is silly.

Law enforcement measures that aren't effective, proportionate to the offense, and do damage to families and communities should be changed through legislation.

Two points for Okie!

So you think that only the laws you agree with should be enforced. Murder is against the law but because you disagree with the immagration laws they are not illegal. Would you feel this way if it were muslems instead of mexicans?

First... the answer to the stupid question about "muslems" is an emphatic yes. Bigotry against Muslims is every bit as wrong as bigotry against Mexicans.

Second, we live in a democracy. I believe laws I disagree with should be changed through a democratic process. This involves getting lawmakers who support my position elected, and pressuring lawmakers who are elected to support my position. (Of course any US citizen who disagrees with me can try to do the same; and it wouldn't mean they are any less of a US citizen).

There is a lot of support from American citizens to overhaul immigration law in a way that includes a path to citizenship. This is why you see more and more support for compassionate immigration reform from political candidates and elected officials.

In comparison, there is very little such political support for changing the murder laws.

If they cared about obeying the law, they wouldnt be here illegally in the first place.

You and I have had this discussion before, but I will repeat a few things.



Nobody is saying they arent humans, so that is a non-starter of an argument.
You have constantly refused to acknowledge that they are breaking our laws, and should NOT be rewarded for that.

As for your argument about families, I have already proposed the solution.
Its simple, easily done, and puts the choice entirely on those here illegally.

Every time an illegal immigrant is arrested, we give them the choice.
We can deport them AND any others in their family that are here illegally OR we can deport them and allow their children (if they are here illegally) to stay here in the US.
We would give the children US citizenship, but the parents would be deported and never see their children again.
OR, we deport them all and that allows the family to stay together.

The choice would be entirely up to the parents, so nobody could complain the families were being broken up.
After all, if the parents choose to break up their family, thats up to them.
Either way, it would be their choice to make.

Nobody is proposing "starving them out".

But, I would have no problem with denying illegal immigrants, and the key word is ILLEGAL, all but the most essential services.
If they need emergency medical care, we give it.
If they need food, we give it.

BUT,we do NOT allow illegal immigrants to register in our schools, we do NOT provide housing or any other type of service that isnt essential.

And before you cry that housing is essential, what I mean by that is that we do NOT allow them to stay in any type of public housing, nor do we provide them any type of assistance to get housing.

If we make it uncomfortable for them, they will leave, IMHO.

The problem (for you) is that too many of us US citizens find this stance overly harsh. I believe this idea is a political non-starter. We don't want our country to act this way.

This decision will be made by our elected officials in the legislature. If I am correct about the American electorate, you won't see this proposal even seriously raised (except by a couple hardliners in the minority party).

It may be harsh, I admit that.
But, if you want to stop someone from doing something, you make the penalty harsh enough to be a serious deterrent.

So far, all we are doing is giving illegal immigrants a slap on the wrist.

Your bigotry charge is just a red herring. I have never seen where anyone in this thread has said that only, say, Mexican illegals should be expelled. I would also expell illegals from, say, the UK, Ireland, et al. I guess you are unable to discuss this matter intellectually. In fact, I know you cannot.

There are lots of us who feel that current immigration law-- particularly the enforcement, is excessively harsh.

My point, though, is that this judgment will be made (and is being made) by the US electorate. Personally, based on recent elections and and comments coming even from some conservative Republicans, I feel quite hopeful.

This is not a fight of US citizens versus "illegals" as some want to portray it.

This is a debate between different groups of US citizens over what kind of country we want to live in.

I'm pretty sure that capital punishment for littering would reduce littering.

One that believes in the rule of law, and one that believes that those who break the law should NOT be rewarded.

Apparently you dont believe in those simple concepts.