What should be done about illegal immigration?

@OCCOM BILL,

OBill wrote:

Quote:

Allowing them to pay a fine and make payments towards back-taxes is a fitting enough punishment. Serious criminals plea bargain their way to lesser punishments for worse crimes, every day.

Sounds like a good compromise, but that's only MHO.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Glad to hear it C.I. Welcome to the reasonable side of this debate.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Here is an interesting story concerning an illegal immigrant...

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2009/apr/10/Paralyzed-roofer-at-crux-of-legal-debate-over-what/?feedback=1

Quote:
WEST PALM BEACH " Victor Leon is alone in the hospital most days.

The 26-year-old was paralyzed nearly three years ago when he fell from the roof of a three-story building in Palm City while working for Jupiter-based Altec Roofing. Since then, Leon has been mired in a legal battle to get workers' compensation benefits or legal damages from Altec.

Leon is an illegal immigrant. His status puts him at the crux of a legal debate over what rights, if any, illegal workers have after being injured on a job for which the American government says they never should have been hired.

So he fell off of a roof and became paralyzed.
The company is refusing to pay his medical bills or to pay workers comp.
And here is part of the reason why...

Quote:
A urine test taken at the hospital revealed traces of cocaine and marijuana in Leon's system. In addition to Leon's legal status, Altec is using this test to fight his claims to benefits.

Now, I dont know of any state or company that will pay workers comp if you have drugs in your system.

New Mexico does. If we could prove they were intoxicated or on any illegal substance, we could reduce their temporary or permanent disability payments by 10%. We could not deny the claim. And there had to be some reasonable expectation that the worker being under the influence could have contributed to his injury even then. In other words if another employee dropped a brick or something on him and there was no way he could have anticipated that if stone sober, then being drunk or on an illegal substance made no difference. And in any case, whether they are legal or illegal makes no difference.

And re your comment of providing for immediate needs of people, legal, or illegal, or unknown, I don't know a single one of us pro-enforcement people who suggests that you don't feed somebody who is hungry or deny medical care to somebody who is hurt/seriously ill or whatever. I have certainly said in this thread and probably elsewhere that of course we take care of any immediate emergencies, but then the illegal person goes home. But because the suggestion was made to deny employment, welfare benefits, and other freebies to those who are in the country illegally, some numbnuts carry that to extremes and say we want to starve children. Speaking of being unreasonable and unwilling to make any kind of compromise.

And that is the problem. The pro-amnesty side want to give the illegals the very same rights and privileges that any citizen in this country has. No wonder that they keep coming and coming. It was roughly 20 years ago that President Reagan's administration and that Congress gave the estimated 3 million illegals in the country that kind of deal and with the expectation that we would then enforce the laws. The result was that we now have at least quadruple that number to deal with again and, by some estimates sevenfold more than then.

So we do the same thing all over again and expect different results?

.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

O'Moron, you are such a big liar. I never said anything about "no food" or "no healthcare." Nor have I ever said that illegals are of an inferior race. I think that all people are inherently the same.

But I have never seen a word from you on the damage done by illegals to the people who have lost their jobs to them, or to the taxpayers who are being driven into poverty due to the government expenditures related to illegals (prisons, medical, education, etc.). I know you have no regard to the environmental damage caused by illegals, or their demands on our strained resources. (After all, we could handle several billion more illegals.)

You are beyond stupid; you are sick.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

You are so full of ****. Welfare is the safety net that provides food and healthcare to indigent people. Claiming to oppose welfare, but not oppose providing food and healthcare for needy children is straight bullshit. How can you write such nonsense and think you're making sense?

The latest theory of the bigoted A-holes is to deny work AND welfare (food & health care) to illegal immigrants. This is supposed to make them uncomfortable so they leave on their own. Yeah, I imagine I would be pretty uncomfortable if I were unable to provide FOOD OR HEALTHCARE to my children. But just where the **** would I come up with the dough to move to another country? Such an idiotic plan would all but force me into a life of crime.

This is a heartless, brainless approach, and proponents of same should be ashamed to look in the mirror.

Fortunately, as Ebrown has repeatedly pointed out; the majority of the country is neither so bigoted nor so idiotic. It would require a reverse evolution of our collective sense of humanity for the bigoted idiots to get their way.

Ps. You know Foxfyre; I’ve mostly known you to be a decent human being outside of this issue. It’s never too late to abandon a morally bankrupt position. Cyclo did, and he’s a better man for it.

2 Replies

US immigration policy has been rooted in bigotry from the beginning of national immigration policy, specifically restricting Asians (primarily chinese and east indians) as well as eastern and southern europeans ie italians following the completion of the building of railroads across america.
from wikipedia we have;
The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson-Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, Asian Exclusion Act, (43 Statutes-at-Large 153) was a United States federal law that limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, according to the Census of 1890. It excluded immigration of Asians. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who were immigrating in large numbers starting in the 1890s, as well as prohibiting the immigration of East Asians and Asian Indians.

Congressman Albert Johnson and Senator David Reed were the two main architects. In the wake of intense lobbying, the Act passed with strong congressional support.[1] There were six dissenting votes in the Senate and a handful of opponents in the House, the most vigorous of whom was freshman Brooklyn Representative Emanuel Celler. Over the succeeding four decades, Celler made the repeal of the Act into a personal crusade. Some of the law's strongest supporters were influenced by Madison Grant and his 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race. Grant was a eugenicist and an advocate of the racial hygiene theory. His data purported to show the superiority of the founding Northern European races. But most proponents of the law were rather concerned with upholding an ethnic status quo and avoiding competition with foreign workers

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

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.

okie wrote:

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.

As predicted, heres ebrown:

ebrown wrote:

Re: cicerone imposter (Post 3622533)
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).

0 Replies

Questions for all the people obsessed with bigotry accusations, such as O'Bill, ebrown, and all the other race baiters:
If a person is against smoking and thinks it is very bad for that person, is that person bigoted against people that smoke?

If a person is against stealing and think stealing should be punished, is that person bigoted against people that steal?

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Welfare is the safety net that provides food and healthcare to indigent people.

And its breaking California, just one example, Bill. I read that education, health care, and crime control including incarceration of illegals, for illegals costs California something like 10 billion.

Most people believe in compassion, but most people do not allow the homeless to take over their houses. Do you house the homeless at your house? Or do you not do that and therefore are a bigot?

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Well if I have to emulate Cyclop in order to be a non bigot or wonderful person in your eyes, I suppose I'll just have to resign myself to being a bigot and unwonderful person in your eyes. It is you Bill, who absolutely refuse to see any other point of view or any other reasonable option other than essential unconditional amnesty for anybody who wants to be here. And you go further than that and accuse those of us who are actually doing something to help people who need help of wanting to deny help to such people. You accuse us of being racist and bigots and wanting to starve children.

Oh yes, and I'm full of **** according to you.

Oh hail, Lord Bill. He knows how to run the country and presumes the authority to judge us all. Why don't you run for office so you can really call the shots? I suggest you spend some time working with people who have been trapped in the U.S. welfare system for awhile though before you buy into the idiocy that this is the way you respect and help people. I have, and I know better.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Interesting that you'd call me a liar for telling the truth.

Advocate wrote:

O'Moron, you are such a big liar. I never said anything about "no food" or "no healthcare."

Sure you did, you lying piece of ****: See this post

Advocate for the Master Race wrote:

No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. [...]These sound fine to me

2 Replies

one would think, if one was inclined to think, that free-market capitalists would favor the free-market to regulate labor migration (those that seek employment are free to locate where employees are needed). apparently modern free-market advocates aren't actually advocates for a free-market.

3 Replies

Hispanic Population and Race Distribution for Non-Hispanic Population
......................... 1980 ................. 1990 ........... 2000
............ Number ... Pct...... Number... Pct...... Number ... Pct
Total Pop 226,545,805 100.00% 248,709,873 100.00% 281,421,906 100.00%
Total Hispanics 14,608,673 6.45% ...22,354,059 8.99% 35,305,818 12.55%
White*........... 180,256,103 79.57% 188,128,296 75.64% 194,552,774 69.13%
Black*........... 26,104,285 11.52% 29,216,293 11.75% 33,947,837 12.06%
American Indian and Eskimo*
............... ....... 1,417,110 0.63% 1,793,773 0.72% 2,068,883 ..0.74%
Asian*........... .3,489,835 1.54% 6,968,359 2.80% 10,123,169 3.60%
Hawaiian and Pacific Islander* ................. - - - - 353,509 0.13%
Other*.............669,799 0.30%.... 249,093.. 0.10%.. 467,770 0.17%
Two or More Races* .................................. - - - - 4,602,146 1.64%

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

You can have a free market with a monarchy or dictatorship and with anarchy. But something over two hundred years ago we decided that we did not want a monarchy or dictatorship and we did not want anarchy. We chose to be a people of laws. Every single one of us has broken one or more of those laws, but honorable people also accept the consequences of disobeying the law, and the more incentive there is to obey the law, the more likely we are to obey it.

Yes the market should definitely dictate our immigration policy to ensure that we can respect, accommodate, and assimilate those who come while at the same time promoting the general welfare. The more complex (and crowded) our society becomes, the more laws and regulation is necessary to keep things running smoothly. A town of a few hundred people has little need for a traffic light. A city the size of Albuquerque would be in in terrible shape without lots of them.

Personally I think our immigration system is clumsy, inefficient, and needs to be overhauled and streamlined to make it easier for people to want to be here to come. And we need a sensible and manageable guest worker program. But we cannot open our gates without restriction to the world for even the USA with all its wealth cannot accommodate all of the world's poor. We are far more likely to be in a position to help others if we keep ourselves strong, healthy, and prospering and do what we can to help others prosper too. Human rights and free trade are usually the keys for that to happen.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Questions for all the people obsessed with bigotry accusations, such as O'Bill, ebrown, and all the other race baiters:
If a person is against smoking and thinks it is very bad for that person, is that person bigoted against people that smoke?

If a person is against stealing and think stealing should be punished, is that person bigoted against people that steal?

Bigoted wouldn't really fit the context... but I'll give you prejudice. Many people hold a prejudice against smokers and most hold a prejudice against thieves. Many people hold a prejudice against those who cross borders without permission, too.

The question becomes; is this prejudice justified? And if so, where is the happy medium between my rights and those I am prejudiced against?

Is it reasonable to ban stealing? Yep.
Is it reasonable to hold thieves in jail? I think so.
Is it reasonable to exile them from the country? Probably not.
Is it reasonable to execute them? I'd say no.

Is it reasonable to ban smoking in public restaurants? Probably.
Is it reasonable to ban smoking in bars? Probably not.
Is it reasonable to ban smoking altogether? I'd say no.
Is it reasonable to exile smokers from the country? I'd say no.

Is it reasonable to ban Illegal entrants from the country? Probably.
Is it reasonable to punish those who come in illegally? Probably.
Is it reasonable to execute them? I'd say no.
Is it reasonable to exile them from the country? I say no.
That punishment doesn't fit the crime in any of the above situations, IMO. It is entirely too harsh.

Tell me Okie, what other crimes do you consider heinous enough for the perpetrators of same to deserve to be exiled away from their families?

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

one would think, if one was inclined to think, that free-market capitalists would favor the free-market to regulate labor migration (those that seek employment are free to locate where employees are needed). apparently modern free-market advocates aren't actually advocates for a free-market.

Very well put. Strip away the nonsense, and the hypocrisy becomes clear.

Why is it that those who feel themselves so superior; feel a need to mandate an advantage at the point of a gun? Have feelings of superiority always been the false bravado of an inferiority complex?

How the **** does a proud American Capitalist fear competition? Guest worker programs are a poorly disguised back door to a second class. Personally, I… I hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable Rights, and that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

one would think, if one was inclined to think, that free-market capitalists would favor the free-market to regulate labor migration (those that seek employment are free to locate where employees are needed). apparently modern free-market advocates aren't actually advocates for a free-market.

First of all, its a lousy analogy, it doesn't fit for more than one reason.

Favoring illegals is not a free market, because many illegals do not pay taxes, they work for cash, do not have insurance, nor do they social security, etc., thus in many areas, things like yardwork are being unfairly taken from people that play by the rules. Actually, the free market would in fact favor a liberal immigration policy, but all immigrants would be screened, to weed out criminals, drug dealers, gangsters, etc., and then those immigrants would pay income tax, social security tax, buy workmens comp insurance, and generally play by all the rules the rest of us are expected to do, (unless your name is Geithner or some other cabinet member.) Then yes, free market capitalists love a labor pool that is not afraid of work, they are willing to work hard and compete.

2 Replies

@okie,

Come on okie. What respectable American who can afford a computer would do yard work? Surely it is beneath his dignity.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Actually, the free market would in fact favor a liberal immigration policy, but all immigrants would be screened, to weed out criminals, drug dealers, gangsters, etc., and then those immigrants would pay income tax, social security tax, buy workmens comp insurance, and generally play by all the rules the rest of us are expected to do...

It would appear you, too, are arguing the wrong side if those are your genuine concerns. Just like a screening process; a conditional amnesty like the last one proposed would weed out criminals, drug dealers, gangsters, etc., and then those immigrants would pay income tax, social security tax, buy workmen’s comp insurance, and generally play by all the rules the rest of us are expected to do...

By opposing such a measure, the best you can hope for is to maintain the status quo... which leaves some 12,000,000+ people for the unscreened criminals, drug dealers, and gangsters, etc. to hide amongst.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

O'Moron, that is an article I copied and pasted. I am not responsible for all that is in the article. Are you responsible for 100 % of what is in articles you post?

You are truly a POS.

1 Reply

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know