What should be done about illegal immigration?

.................as well as away from the overwhelming majority of the American people - which is really what makes you so very, very afraid - try honesty for a change.....

I do wish we could attract some people to this thread who are interested in discussing immigration policy, however. I have outlined my own ideas as how best to do it with what I think would be the maximum benefit to everybody concerned. (Ebrown ignored that of course.) But I know there must be better ideas out there than mine, or there must be some reasons that my ideas might be counter productive, and I would like to hear them.

The pro-illegal-immigration crowd and/or anti enforcement crowd however seem incapable of such a discussion. They all seem to be too busy trying to make racists bigots out of any of us who aren't pro-illegal-immigration and who are pro law enforcement.

I suppose I should go back and try one more time to explain slowly and patiently the point I was making that Ebrown completely missed, but after years of this, I do get tired of the exercise in futility.

Very funny Foxfyre... its cute when you talk out of both sides of your mouth like that-- even though it may (as you said) "very well end America as we have known it".

Here is a good piece from the Wall Street Journal

Immigration Should Suit the Interests of the USA

In "Obama and the 'Amnesty' Trap" (op-ed, April 20) Jason Riley says that previous efforts to control illegal immigration failed to address "the root cause," which he explains as "too many foreigners chasing too few visas." This may be true, but in a world of 6.8 billion people in which the U.S. population is outnumbered by more than 20 to 1, that cause is unlikely ever to go away. This is especially true if we are perceived as supplying social support and jobs to all comers.

Mr. Riley and employers of illegal aliens may believe they are only importing cheap labor. The fact is that they are bringing in or allowing entry to millions of people who may be "cheap labor" for their employers but only because the taxpayers are absorbing social costs that these employers should be paying. Mr. Riley claims that illegals tend not to compete with American citizens for jobs.

Tell that to my brother, whose job driving trucks in California used to pay $40 per hour and is now done by $15-per-hour illegal immigrants with fake papers and stolen identities. Tell it to our local backhoe contractor, who was so undercut by employers of illegal aliens that he quit the business.

Our elected representatives are supposed to represent our interests, not those of scofflaws, greedy employers, deadbeats and criminals -- especially not the interests of those who are here in direct violation of our laws and who are sponging off our social support systems. How about putting our interests above those of Mexico? That would be a good start.

She's caught, ebrown. It is beyond obvious that any elaboration will only serve to fortify the obviously bigoted position as you've highlighted it.
To Foxy: Amnesty equals the end of our country. How could she possibly reconcile such an absurd statement with her feigned indignant claims of not fearing the brown man?

The problem is that you, like many employers, like the cheap, very malleable, illegal worker. You have no concern for the citizens who the illegals force out of their jobs, or whose wages are driven down. Nor are you concerned about the drain on government treasuries and resources supporting the illegals, who are overwhelmingly poor, under-educated, and unhealthy.

Perhaps I am being insufficiently charitable. The real problem may be that you are just too dense to understand the problem.

I will say one more time: I was NOT saying, infering, suggesting, or proposing that immigration, legal or illegal, will end America as we know it. When I was discussing that, I was responding to another member on a different track entirely. I don't expect the hate mongerers and numbnuts to have the intellectual honesty or integrity to acknowledge that--they much prefer to accuse others of bigotry and racism. I suppose it makes them feel righteous and important.

I will have much more hope for this country when there are actually more thinking people in it again rather than those who are out to destroy anybody who is different or has a different point of view. I refuse to drink the kool-ade that makes one blind to anything other than the must disgustingly hateful perspective. I wish you hadn't.

The following is indicative of the dangers of Muslim encroachment. Ad



Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.


Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.




Here's how it works.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%




At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%




From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.




When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%




After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%




At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%




From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%




After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%




100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

Here's one of the Central Asia country I visited last year, and their muslim political situation. It's nothing like you describe it.



The five muslim countries I visited last year are more secular than the US about christianity. As a matter of fact, one or several of those countries makes it illegal to push religion in public when the majority are muslim - and several countries are 90% muslim.

You cannot assume how people live their religious lives or how moderate or extreme they are just because they practice one major religion. You can't just hear about Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan, and understand anything about the whole of muslim countries. That borders on ignorance.

Here's info on Indonesia with 86% muslims.



I have visited Bali several times, and they practice Hinduism. The people there are one of the most gentle I have ever experienced.

Your argument is silly and childish. There are exceptions that prove the rule in virtually everything..

Hindus are not Moslems.

Here is an open letter to Obama concerning his advocacy for illegal aliens.

President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.

Dear President Obama:

As you are well aware, America is in the throes of an economic crisis of such grave consequence that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan described it as a "once in a hundred years" occurrence, which would make it potentially more devastating than the Great Depression.

In reacting to this once in a century crisis, your administration and that of your predecessor have committed trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase bad debt from failing U.S. banks and other financial institutions, and to stimulate the sputtering economy.

We Americans face other overwhelming economic challenges: Social Security and Medicare are reportedly headed toward insolvency. You would like to implement universal health care, and our nation absolutely must achieve energy independence for both national security and economic security reasons.

Furthermore, this nation and the entire world is facing an enormous challenge in combating a new, deadly strain of swine flu. This devastating medical crisis originated in Mexico, and may soon be officially designated as a pandemic by the World Health Organization.

Given the swine flu crisis and the already precarious state of the nation's economy, is it not clear that America can no longer afford to feed, house, educate, and provide medical care for tens of millions of foreign, non-English speaking aliens who have violated U.S. borders and laws and who have no legal basis for being here?

With all due respect, Mr. President, your advocacy on behalf of illegal aliens ignores the medical, economic, social, educational, and cultural burdens that would be unfairly dumped on the backs of American citizens, most of whom are also taxpayers.

Illegal aliens currently here already cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Amnesty would dump additional billions onto the backs of overtaxed citizens.



Moreover, a significant majority of illegal aliens in America are from swine-flu ravaged Mexico and, as such, must be regarded as potential carriers of the new swine flu killer.

Mr. President, "comprehensive reform" anything like the McCain-Kennedy proposals from the summer of 2007 would simply encourage additional millions of people now living in Mexico to come here illegally.

That would bring even more disease to the U.S. and would further jeopardize homeland security, thereby adding more distress to American citizens.

Mr. President, in light of the severe medical crisis and economic meltdown facing the American people, why not embrace a plan that immediately secures our borders, deports those here illegally, and requires an orderly and lawful process for all people wishing to migrate to America?

Why not a plan that respects American citizens and honors immigrants who stand in line, wait their turn, and follow the rules?

Why not a plan that is America First, even mildly jingoistic?

Why not abandon that commitment to amnesty and replace it with a vow to restore the rule of law to our suffering nation?

Why not a plan to bail out American citizens from the devastation that illegal aliens have brought, and threaten to bring, to our homeland?

Thank you for your consideration, Mr. President.

Sincerely,

John W. Lillpop is an independent columnist

--www.postcronicle.com

More mindless bigotry… What devastation have illegal aliens brought or threaten to bring?

Swine Flu, like Malaria and every other illness, where possible, should be treated with medicine, not quarantine. Our ongoing policy to allow our fellow man to suffer and die from curable disease is itself, an ugly stain on our collective soul. But to use the sick and dying as a tool to create fear of the brown man is a shameless, morally bankrupt tactic… and the Advocate for the Master Race should be ashamed of himself for promoting it.

You should be ashamed of constantly throwing around inflamatory terminolgy, such as bigotry, brown [race], etc. I have seen no evidence of this in this thread. It is all about illegally invading our country, and the effects of this invasion.

If US troops had just done landscaping for the Iraqi's, taken care of their kids and cooked them hamburgers... maybe that invasion would have gone as well.

I guess you have not lost your job, or had your wages driven down, because of illegals. Your taxes are probably a lot higher, and your kids will have to pay off the debt built up because of various welfare programs for illegals, educating their kids, prison costs, etc.

You guys said the same thing about the blacks and the Jews...

it is still bigotry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

You and many others of your ilk at a2k sure throw the label "bigot" around a lot. What you need to own up to is that a person making a value judgement that there is a difference in the quality of behaviours, or a difference between classes (and races) of humans, is not necessarily a bigot. If the value judgement has been made after taking consideration of the facts and evidence then the person is definitely not a bigot. It is high time for claims of bigotry to be ignored unless they can be substantiated. The false accusation rate it so high for this social crime that all individual allegations should be considered not true until they are proven. We Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty anyways.