50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 10:32 pm
Let's see some documentation that the 'vast majority' of people who came into this country through the standard legal means support granting legal status to 10 to 12 million people who came here illegally. Let's see some data on how those on waiting lists to come in legally feel about it.

You are told you cannot park in a handicapped zone no matter how late you are or how badly you need the parking space. But the car that is already there is okay because it has been there awhile even though that driver isn't handicapped either. How do you feel? If there are lots and lots of empty handicapped spaces and you know you won't be ticketed or you car won't be towed, do you park there?

For that matter, let's see where Jesus supported treating one group of people one way and another group of people a different way.

Here is some more history on the previous 'amnesty program' or you guys can use whatever word for amnesty suits you better:

The last immigration 'reform'In 1986, Congress passed a law that was all 'carrot' and no 'stick.' Will they do it again?pinion
By Steve Britt

It's 2006 and time for the decennial immigration reform. As in 1986 and 1996, Congress is again pondering comprehensive amendments to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.

The most recent proposal is Sen. Arlen Specter's compendium of other bills that promises increased enforcement while granting legalization to perhaps 9 million illegal aliens already here. If a new immigration law is enacted this year, it probably will resemble Specter's bill.

The Specter bill would have a profound effect on immigration policy for a while but will do nothing to solve the immigration issue. To see why, look at the last time Congress "fixed" immigration.

In 1986, I was a veteran U.S. immigration officer in Philadelphia. Congress perceived that there was an immigration crisis, with millions of foreign "undocumented workers" (Jimmy Carter's felicitous phrase), and the Border Patrol capturing about 200,000 illegals in 1985. The result was the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).

IRCA tried to eliminate the illegal alien problem by making most of the aliens in the country legal, and removing the incentive for others to enter. Like the Specter bill, IRCA was a "carrot-and-stick" bill. The carrot was permanent resident status for most illegal aliens who could establish "continuous presence" from Jan. 1, 1982. They had a year to apply. The stick was "employer sanctions."

Congress assumed that the opportunity to work drew most illegal aliens, so IRCA put the enforcement burden on America's employers, who were required to ensure that alien employees were authorized to work. If an alien could not establish legal presence and permission to work, no employer would hire him under penalty of sanctions (a $50 fine!), and the illegal alien, rebuffed at every turn, would go home. Or so Congress reasoned. (This seemed just as idiotic to those of us in immigration enforcement then as it sounds now.)

To promote employer compliance, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ordered its force of special agents to curtail enforcement work and personally deliver informational packets to any business the agents could find. In 1986-87, there were about 950 immigration agents responsible for interior enforcement in the United States (about 20 in Philadelphia); most interior enforcement virtually stopped for months while agents drove around handing out I-9 forms.

This was about the time the "crack" cocaine epidemic was starting, fueled largely by Jamaican drug gangs. Yet calls to INS from police, prosecutors and prisons reporting criminal aliens were ignored while the agents were busy on public-relations work. At the same time, adjudications officers were reassigned to "legalization offices" and the perennial backlog of immigration petitions (always a problem) soared. Illicit border crossings and alien smuggling swelled.

What were the results of IRCA?

By 1990, the Washington Post reported that the nation's prisons and jails held 125,000 criminal aliens who should have been tracked for possible deportation but were unknown to the INS. This was a direct result of diverting enforcement resources to the sanctions publicity program.

By the early 1990s, employer sanctions was a dead letter, rarely enforced by the government and mostly ignored by the nation's employers. Not one American in 50 today knows what an I-9 form is, although the law still requires those of us who work to complete them.

Oh, and Congress estimates that there are between 9 and 13 million illegal aliens here waiting for the next legalization law. So much for the stick.

IRCA's carrot, the legalization program, had a happy ending for the hundreds of thousands of aliens who got green cards. In addition, aliens who missed the one-year deadline (even some who had never been in the United States) sued for an extension and the federal courts obliged. In 1997, aliens were still litigating their "right" to apply for amnesty under the 1986 law. Many of those aliens entered the country long after the one-year deadline, yet presented "proof" of their presence prior to that.

If Specter's bill becomes law, we will do this all over again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Britt ([email protected]) is a former U.S. immigration officer and assistant U.S. attorney.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/14218120.htm
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 10:43 pm
Quote:

Let's see some documentation that the 'vast majority' of people who came into this country through the standard legal means support granting legal status to 10 to 12 million people who came here illegally.


Quote:

Majorities of about 70 percent or more oppose all these steps: arresting illegal immigrants and charging them with a felony; deporting all illegal immigrants; imposing stiff penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants or groups that help them; or building a wall between the United States and Mexico to discourage illegal immigration.

On the other hand, two-thirds of the legal immigrants favor President Bush's proposal to provide work permits for temporary employment, with a proviso that the recipient return to the home country. And even more — eight out of 10 — favor the kind of legislation that came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee that would open a path to eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants who remain in this country for an extended period, learn English, pay a fine and have no criminal record.

...


Disturbingly, the survey found that two-thirds of the legal immigrants believe that anti-immigrant sentiment is growing in the United States, and more than half said it has affected them and their families personally. Racism against Latino and Asian immigrants is blamed by more than six out of 10 for fueling this development.



Source: The Seattle times
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 10:51 pm
Foxfyre,

The problem with your argument is that you are all rhetoric and no compassion.

Would you make this argument to the face of a person who is now a productive American raising a family as citizens?

Would you tell a real person that there life here is a bad mistake?

As you may have gathered, I am very involved in the immigrant community. I know both legal immigrants, and illegal ones. To me they are all people, they all have made understandable decisions to build lives here that I respect.

But let's take one example.

Elena is a a friend of mine came here illegally with her parents as a child, it must have been the early eighties. I don't know the reasons that they came, but she is a good person and I trust she must have come from a decent family.

But she became an American citizen with her parents because of the Reagan amnesty.

She graduated from school, earned a law degree and now works as a lawyer.

She is an American. Her life is a success story and she worked harder to make her American dream come true than you did. She has a husband and a family here.

Now, would you tell Elena and her family that her being here is a bad idea? Does your family have any more right to be here than hers.

And... just what "stick" are you proposing to use?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 10:53 pm
Interest EBrown and thanks. Here's a bit more feed for the mixer though that may be meaningless or may raise some interesting questions:

Mar 28, 2006 9:18 pm US/Pacific

Spanish-Language Media Organized Protests

(AP) LOS ANGELES The marching orders were clear: Carry American flags and pack the kids, pick up your trash and wear white for peace and for effect.

Many of the 500,000 people who crammed downtown Los Angeles on Saturday to protest legislation that would make criminals out of illegal immigrants learned where, when and even how to demonstrate from the Spanish-language media.

For English-speaking America, the mass protests in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities over the past few days have been surprising for their size and seeming spontaneity.

But they were organized, promoted or publicized for weeks by Spanish-language radio hosts and TV anchors as a demonstration of Hispanic pride and power.

In Milwaukee, where at least 10,000 people rallied last week, one radio station manager called some employers to ask that they not fire protesters for skipping work. In Chicago, a demonstration that drew 100,000 people received coverage on local television more than a week in advance.

"This was a much bigger story for the Latino media," said Felix Gutierrez, a professor at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication. "If the mainstream media had been paying better attention, there would not have been the surprise about the turnout."

Adrian Velasco first learned of House legislation to overhaul immigration policy on Los Angeles' Que Buena 105.5 FM. Over two weeks, the 30-year-old illegal immigrant soaked up details about the planned march against the bill from Hispanic TV and radio. On Saturday, he and three friends headed downtown.

"They told all the Hispanic people to go and support these things," Velasco said. "They explained a lot. They said, 'Here's what we're going to do."'

One of those doing the most talking was El Piolin, a syndicated morning show radio host who is broadcast in 20 cities.

El Piolin, whose real name is Eduardo Sotelo and whose nickname means "Tweety Bird," persuaded colleagues from 11 Spanish-language radio stations in Los Angeles to talk up the rally on air.

He said he devised the idea of telling protesters to wear white and carry flags to symbolize their peaceful intent and love of the United States. He also urged parents to bring their children to minimize chances of violence and reminded everyone to bring plenty of water and trash bags.

"I was talking about how we need to be united to demonstrate that we're not bad guys and we're not criminals," said Sotelo, 35, who crossed into the United States as a teenager and became legal in 1996.

In Milwaukee, the Spanish-language station WDDW 104.7 made a point of publicizing the House legislation and the protest against it on its morning and drive-time shows two weeks ahead of time.

Operations manager Armando Ulloa said his goal was at least 10,000 people -- and police estimated that was what the rally attracted. After the march, Ulloa said, he called some employers and asked them to be lenient on protesters who missed their shifts.

In Los Angeles, 10 prime-time Spanish-language news anchors filmed a promotion urging demonstrators to show respect, said Julio Cesar Ortiz, a television reporter who covers immigration.

"The Spanish media said, 'Do it in a proper way. Do it in a way where's there's pride behind it when you're done,"' Ortiz said.

Telemundo Chicago, a Spanish-language TV station, began its coverage blitz 1 1/2 weeks before a recent rally, though there was no urging that viewers attend, said news director Esteban Creste.

"We just told them what was going on," Creste said. "While we were not trying to mobilize people, it might have prompted people to decide to go there."

The protests continued Tuesday in at least four states, with thousands of students leaving school again in California, Arizona, Texas and Nevada.

In Los Angeles, the numbers were far smaller than the tens of thousands who marched Monday. Authorities thwarted efforts to block freeway traffic, rounding up some youngsters and issuing truancy citations.

In Phoenix, students marched to the state Capitol for the second day in a row. In Las Vegas, they rallied near the Strip after being directed away from casinos.

And in Dallas, students crowded in front of City Hall, waving Mexican and Salvadoran flags and shouting "We can do it" in Spanish.

The protests jammed roads. A Dallas school district spokesman said a girl's hand was severed when the sport utility vehicle she was in sped into an intersection and overturned.


(© 2006 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_087231321.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 10:56 pm
EBrown, I have worked with and for Mexican, Central American, and South American nationals--both those here legally and some here illegally-- for a good many years. Anybody who has done so has very strong mixed emotions about people they have come to admire and appreciate. I certainly do.

But in forming national policy that is good for the whole, we have to get past the heart wrenching anecdotal instances. Good policy can't be based on feelings. It has to look at the big picture and projected results from all sides of an issue.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 10:58 pm
You are funny Foxfyre. Your arguments contradict each other.

First you don't believe that legal immigrants support new immigrants coming illegal. Then you point out that Spanish media (which is made up of legal immigrants) are organizing the protest.

Wonderful.

But this story made me laugh. There were very similar sensational stories when the "Negros" were organizing (queue sinister music...)

Of course the protests are organized by the immigrant community (and it is not just Hispanics, the Asian, Irish and Hatian community are all getting involved). That is how movments work. Martin Luther King certainly organized and the results were great.

It should be no secret that we are planning more protests, gathering support and getting the word out.

People who feel they are being mistreated tend to band together and when immigrants Unite they are much stronger.

United We Stand

... as true in this case as ever.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 10:59 pm
And EBrown, I have not yet said what I do or do not believe about this. Asking questions is not disbelieving. I think smart people do ask questions before formulating a firm opinion however. Honest people read ALL a person's comments, not just the ones they wish to dispute. And people of conviction are not afraid of dealing with the sticky issues that have to be dealt with in formulation of any serious national policy.

And you have yet to show me where Jesus ever advocated treating one group of people differently than another group of people is treated.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 11:04 pm
Quote:

And you have yet to show me where Jesus ever advocated treating one group of people differently than another group of people is treated.


Did I tell you I was once training for the ministry?

Jesus (Matt 20) wrote:

"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' So they went.

"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 12:16 am
Quote:
"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius?


A more accurate translation of the verse is:
"But he replied to one of them, "Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denaius? Take what belongs to you, and go; I choose to give to this last as I gave to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity? So the last will be first and the first last." (RSV)

Disregarding for the moment that Jesus was illustrating the principle of how folks get into heaven with this passage, there are some pertinent points to be made:

1) The master of the vineyard was only giving that which was his to give.
2) He went and hired those he wanted to work in the field--they didn't presume to go to the vineyard without invitation.
3) Nobody was doing anything illegal.
4) Everybody was being treated the same, not differently.

Ironically, in this same chapter, Jesus told the mother of James and John that he could not assign them the status in heaven that she requested as that was not his to assign.

I will concede that if you reeeeeeeaaallly stretch here, you could make a case that Jesus advocated paying people different rates for the work they did, but that really wasn't the point of the parable.

(Did you know that I AM studying for the ministry? Smile )
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 12:50 am
This is GWB way of gratitude to trick Latinos to vote for him. Once his term of office is over he introduces Immigaration laws.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 06:53 am
Foxfyre,

This is an issue of morality. The position you are tepidly putting forward judges and hurts real people, including people that I care about.

You are advocating (or not advocating, you haven't really said) harsh punishment for people who have commited the crime of crossing the border. This will break families, send kids who have grown up in the US to a foreign country, and cause hardship. You aren't answering the issues of compassion.

Your only justification for supporting these punitive and vindictive measure is one of fairness?

You are claiming that treating one person with compassion and understanding is unfair... you treat another harshly and callously, but if you treat everyone harshly it is OK because it if fair? What scripture will you use to back that up?

The point of the parable I posted is that you can treat everyone fairly and generously. The fact that the owner is generous to the newcomer doesn't give the person who worked all day the right to complain.

But Foxy, this argument is a trick. It is an excuse for people who oppose immigrants be harsh and vindictive by pretending to be defending the very people they are attacking.

If there really was an issue of fairness in giving people here now a way to become legal... the people who advocate for immigrants, understand immigrants, care about immigrants... and the immigrants themselves would be the ones raising it.

Your argument is an cyni zl attack on immigrants. Legal immigrants (that I know) say that it is an example of racism and this is why hundreds of thousands of them are now uniting to oppose it.

The people making this argument are the people who oppose immigration. How cynical... we oppose immigrants harshly, but we will say we are defending immigrants with mass deportations. Sick!

You are using the Christian faith to oppose forgiveness and compassion. You are justifying a harsh penalty for crossing a border that will cause suffereing with the purpose of protecting the privileged from the poor.

You are showing again that following Jesus, who lived and preached a morality based on love compassion and forgiveness, doesn't make you any more loving, compassionate or forgiving. One wonders what good the gospel is when it doesn't make the people alledgedly following it more moral.

How do you jusitify your position with the gospel of love for ones neighbor, compassion for the poor and forgiveness?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 06:57 am
I am in complete agreement with ebrown, except that I don't give a tinker's damn for the laws against immigration.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 07:07 am
Another tragically ludicrous side to this story is the plight of thousands of Evangelical Christians who are here illegally.

Their brothers in Christ are telling them it is their duty to put an American law about crossing the border above their duty to family and community. But more than that, White Christians are actively opposing the efforts to solve their problem. The McCain-Kennedy bill which would mean they could take care of their families, stay in their communities and still follow the law.

A couple of the people in my community are Evangelical Christians and the lack of compassion, and even the spite, they are feeling from other Evangelicals is a source of conflict.

Quote:

Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.

And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 09:17 am
ebrown writes
Quote:
Foxfyre,

The problem with your argument is that you are all rhetoric and no compassion.

This is an issue of morality. The position you are tepidly putting forward judges and hurts real people, including people that I care about.

. . . .You are advocating (or not advocating, you haven't really said) harsh punishment for people who have commited the crime of crossing the border. This will break families, send kids who have grown up in the US to a foreign country, and cause hardship. You aren't answering the issues of compassion.

Your only justification for supporting these punitive and vindictive measure is one of fairness?

You are claiming that treating one person with compassion and understanding is unfair... you treat another harshly and callously, but if you treat everyone harshly it is OK because it if fair? What scripture will you use to back that up?


Jesus also said, "Judge not lest you be judged also."

You do not have a clue what I am advocating or what I think should be done as I have not said what I am advocating or what I think should be done.

What I am doing is attempting to bring in all the myriad facets and issues surrounding the problems associated with illegal immigration and looking at all the suggested ways of dealing with them. I have seen many of these first hand both from the point of view of the illegals and from the point of view of those dealing with the illegals.

Now you can continue to focus on me and attempt to make me symbolic of the bad guy here, or you can focus on these issues and help come to a consensus of the best way to deal with them.

Some people are focusing on the real issues, separated from emotional and knee jerk responses, and look for the most positive solutions available. Other people--mostly liberals so far it seems--focus on criticizing or demonizing those who are looking for positive solutions because the criticized are looking at the whole problem, not just the 'feel good' part of it.

Now which of these two groups is taking the more constructive approach do you think? Or do you think that good intentions, even compassionate good intentions, cannot produce unintended bad consequences and thus we can just ignore previous policies, go with the 'feel good' approach and hope for the best?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 10:32 am
Quote:

Jesus also said, "Judge not lest you be judged also."

You do not have a clue what I am advocating or what I think should be done as I have not said what I am advocating or what I think should be done.


You are right about this. I would like to hear what you are advocating and if I have misjudged you, I am sorry.

However... this is an issue of morality, and the dvocating mass deportations is immoral. Demonizing immigrants legal or legal is immoral. Breaking families is immoral.

Whether crossing a border to feed your family is immoral is open to debate... but it is certainly not at the same level of immorality is a "solution" that hurts families.

I am taking a constructive approach. The McCain-Kennedy bill is a compromise (as Dyslexia and Edgar are pointing out) to a true amnesty which many people are advocating.

The anti-immigrant movement, and the anti-illegal-immigrant movement (if there is really a distinction) are advocating policies that hurt people, some of whom I personally know and care about.

I don't think caring about people more than borders policies is a knee-jerk response.

As far as your claim that a immigrant friendly policy has "bad results". You offered the 1986 amesty as an example.

The 1986 gave people a chance to become Americans. Another person I use to go to church with is a social worker. She is one of the people I respect the most, compassionate and wise and always doing extra to help people in a difficult job.

She came from Haiti and was granted her citizenship in the 1986 amnesty and worked hard to get an education so she could live a productive life.

The result of the 1986 amnesty is that people were able to build lives here as citizens.

Is this what you mean by bad effects?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 10:34 am
To whatever extent Fox claims not to have given "a clue" about what she thinks, the poll posted at the head of this thread speaks volumes about what the author considers to be the relevant positions on the subject of illegal immigration.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 10:36 am
I asked what poll you would have written Setanta or what I left out of mine. Please offer it now. I have asked the moderators to amend mine but perhaps they cannot do that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 10:38 am
It is incredible to me that after these several years it has still not sunk in with you that you cannot force me to play rhetorical games on your preferred terms.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 10:40 am
As well, the apparent inability of the author to see the bias inherent in the poll options speaks volumes.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 10:40 am
Foxfyre,

A path to legalization for undocumented immigrants was conspicuously missing.
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 © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/11/2021 at 12:14:07