50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 08:02 am
@ebrown p,
That is a stupid comparison. Blacks and Jews are not illegal immigrants.
ebrown p
 
  4  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 08:37 am
@Advocate,
Quote:
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 blacks, educating their kids, prison costs, etc.


Yet the people who hate blacks and Jews also hate "illegal" people.

And the reasons for hatred seem to be the same... regardless of who the target is.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 09:53 am
@ebrown p,
Why do you equate people who hate with people who want law abiding people to come to our country. We as a country have the right to set standards for the immagrants just as most countries in the world do. And we have a right to tell illegals that they cant come here just whenever they want to and make them leave.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:03 am
@rabel22,
That's also what I wonder about why ebrown is so pro-illegals to this country. We are a country of immigrants, but we also have laws for legal immigration.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:09 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

That's also what I wonder about why ebrown is so pro-illegals to this country. We are a country of immigrants, but we also have laws for legal immigration.
welalso, until 2 years ago, had laws prohibiting asians from owning properity. repeat UNTIL 2 YEARS AGO.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:12 am
@dyslexia,
Funny, that! We've owned homes in this country since the early sixties. Two years ago?
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:13 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Funny, that! We've owned homes in this country since the early sixties. Two years ago?
apparently you are not aware of law outside of california.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:21 am
@dyslexia,
No, just the laws in California and Illinois where we have owned homes. However, home ownership based on racial discrimination is against US laws.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:23 am
@dyslexia,
California's Alien Land Law was the first to be repealed in 1952 thanks largely to the Japanese American Citizens League. (Other states did so later, a lot later partly.)
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:29 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
(Other states did so later, a lot later partly.)


A newspaper article from Friday, October 24, 2008 [sic!]:

Repeal of alien land law long overdue, some say

Quote:
California passed the first alien land law in 1913, prohibiting “aliens ineligible for citizenship” from owning property. Over a dozen other states, including Florida, followed suit. The wording was originally inserted into the Florida constitution in 1926.

Amendment 1 would delete provisions from the state constitution that authorize the Legislature to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens (legal or illegal) that are ineligible for citizenship.

For years U.S. naturalized citizenship had been limited to “free, white persons” under the 1790 Naturalization Act, so the term “aliens ineligible for citizenship” directly targeted Asian immigrants and non-U.S. born people of color.

It was not until 1952 that the restriction was lifted. In addition, most of the alien land laws were repealed between 1940 and 1960.

Florida is the last state in the country with such wording still in its constitution.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:39 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter, That is true; many Japanese families were able to get around that by caucasian friends who used their name to purchase property.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 12:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Walter, That is true; many Japanese families were able to get around that by caucasian friends who used their name to purchase property.


Wouldn't this have been..... illegal?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 12:53 pm
@ebrown p,
Yes, but the California law was "illegal." It was discrimination pure and simple. Too bad you fail to see it. Show me where those who purchased land with caucasian names were illegal immigrants?

Both my parents were American citizens by birth; they could not buy land in California.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 01:59 pm
NPR's Morning Edition today interviewed an economist/political scientist who has a novel idea which, by his own admission, is certain to rankle a lot of folks.
We have this huge glut of unsold homes hanging over the residential real estate market. We need to get them into the hands of owners.
We also have a large number of folks who are legally in the country, legally working. Many of them are researchers, professors, professionals with other (needed?) skills. They are reluctant or unable to purchase homes because they don't know how long they will be allowed to stay.
Why not allow those folks (say there are a million) to purchase a primary residence and occupy it for 5 years at which time they would be granted legal immigrant status and be on their way to becoming citizens.
Canada has such a program and (this I was not aware of) the U.S. has a program under which someone can come to this country, invest $1m in a start up business and hire 10 workers, that investor gets a bump up in the line towards becoming a legal immigrant.
You are more than welcome to go to npr.org to read/hear the story. I could well have some facts wrong.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 02:04 pm
@realjohnboy,
rjb, Sounds like an excellent idea to me! It's somewhat similar to how communities in our area are building homes for teachers, because their salaries are not sufficient to buy homes at their income level, but we must still attract teachers to our area.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 02:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
There were Asian Exclusion laws that created the first illegal immigrants (who were, incidentally, Asian). This law was passed with vitriolic rhetoric decrying an "invasion" of Asian immigrants who were stealing jobs, committing crimes and spreading disease.

The Asian Exclusion law was passed in the late 1800s and made permanent in the 1924 immigration Act.

These laws specifically targeting Asians were undoubtedly racist-- yet they were never ruled unconstitutional. After all, as any of the anti-immigrant folks here will tell you, "we" (this pronoun is silly in this context) have the right to decide who we want to let in.

These laws were only changed when enough Americans decided that such racism was wrong (and changed them through their elected officials) .

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 02:06 pm
@ebrown p,
You're missing the whole point; it's against our Constitution and Bill of Rights. That "enough Americans can decide" about racism is baseless; the Constitution is the "law of the land."
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 02:07 pm
@realjohnboy,
That is too logical it would never fly with the left wing liberals. In addiotion Browne would no doubt claim it is a biggoted concept.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 02:11 pm
@au1929,
That would be short-sighted for liberals to challenge, because many who work in the high tech and bio-tech areas are immigrants who contribute greatly to our economy.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 02:20 pm
@realjohnboy,
I certainly have no objection to such a program provided those provided such benefits came into the country legally to begin with and the law is in place. That certainly should be something for the immigration reform process to consider. I am of the school that thinks we should be inviting the brightest and best from wherever to come to the USA to be Americans--that's what Canada does. And certainly property owners paying their fair share of taxes and being productive members of society as well as committed citizens is something we should all want. Still nobody should be able to crowd in line ahead of those who have been waiting patiently for legal admission, some for many years, so no form of amnesty should be adopted except in perhaps extremely selective hardship cases that perhaps could require a Presidential or Congressional action to solve.
 

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 04/10/2021 at 04:36:47