50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 07:23 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown, I think we believe in some compromise to let illegals become legal citizens, but you're asking about "asian exclusion laws" that seems like an issue that doesn't apply to today's illegal immigration problems. Why are you asking me, a third generation Japanese-American, about Chinese exclusion laws?

You also seem to label people who are against any compromise "bigots." I don't see them the same way you do.
ebrown p
 
  4  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 08:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
You also seem to label people who are against any compromise "bigots." I don't see them the same way you do.


No I don't. I will say it again... you can be against immigration compromise and not be a bigot.

It is people here who are making exaggerated and defamatory attacks on "illegal" people and Hispanics in general; who use the term "invasion" to refer to people who do landscaping; who quote completely false statistics about the percentage of prison inmates who are "illegal"; who quote the most grotesque stories of murder to tar all "illegal" people with; who repeat false stories about the resurgence of leprosy; who attack well-respected Hispanic civil rights groups with charges of racism and unfaithfulness to the nation.

These things are things that I am calling bigotry-- and all of these things are common in the anti-compromise argument-- and all of these bigoted arguments have been used on this very thread by Advocate and Foxfyre (and others).

I have said and I will say again... Anyone who argues against the coming immigration compromise without saying bigoted things is not a bigot. If you would simply admit that bigotry is bigotry even when it comes from people opposed to immigration compromise... I will feel we are getting somewhere.



.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 08:11 pm
@ebrown p,
It seems to me "invasion, prison inmates, murder, leprosy," and everything else that sounds negative are besides the point. They are not bigots because their view of illegal immigrants may include those adjectives. If that is so, argue those points individually, and prove your point against their claim. If they are false, it should be easy to prove. Otherwise, how can you claim they are false?

FYI, all cultures are or have been guilty of most crimes humans commit including what you listed by US citizens. How can that translate into "bigot?"
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 08:17 pm
I don't believe I have ever used the term 'invasion'. Nor do I see "brown" people when I see people of Mexican descent nor do I presume that Mexican people are too fragile and needy to make it without 'Whitey's" help or too incapable to arrange for legal entry all by themselves. In fact I don't lable immigrants or illegal immigrants by race or any other criteria than legal or illegal. So I would like to know what criteria somebody so unbiased and unbigoted as ebrown who DOES seem to see people in such terms and does seem to see each ethnic group as different from other ethnic groups uses to determine that I am the bigot and he is not?

I maintain that he has labeled as 'bigot' virtually every member who has taken the pro enforcement side of the debate.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 09:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I call you and the others, who consistently lie about Israel's relations with Pals, anti-Semites. You constantly lie about every aspect of the relationship, from the beginning of the country, who started wars, how many civilians were killed, etc. After a time, with the lying so repetitive, it is quite clear you are an anti-Semite.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 09:40 pm
@Advocate,
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but you're still a liar. Show me where I've lied about any aspect of Israel and the number of Palestinians killed? PLEASE; I'm pleading with you to show me evidence.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 09:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
stay tuned to this channel for a round of "liar, liar, paints on fire!", coming up next.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 09:51 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

To answer your question (and tell me if I am answering the wrong question)-- although I have answered this question many times before.

You can be against illegal immigration without being a bigot. Relying on racial stereotypes to inspire; making exagerrated claims about disease or crime or using incendiary words like "invasion" for people who come to do landscaping... these are all examples of bigotry.

You can be against illegal immigration (or amnesty or whatever you are against) without using bigotry... somehow not to many people try.

To deny that there is significant anti-Hispanic bigotry coming from anti-immigrant people is ridiculous. (This is different from saying that everyone in this camp is a bigot).

Now a question for you: If you found out your grandparents had come from Italy illegally, how would this change your feelings about them?

Your question is not reasonable. My grandparents were legal and did what they had too legally to come to this country.

Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:29 pm
@rabel22,
I think it is a reasonable question.

If you found out that your grandparents, still living, were illegal, how would you respond to that? I know that I would want my grandparents to not have to suffer the consequences for breaking the law. I feel the same way about the many illegals that I have run across and dealt with and provided services to over the last dozen years or so. I haven't turned a single one in to the law though the few who wound up in jail or prison absolutely deserved to be there.

But my sympathy/empathy for the people I meet and my love for my family does not override the bigger principle of what is best for the country overall and what is best for the illegals overall. Compassion is finding a solution that does not overburden social services to the detriment of everybody. Compassion is finding a solution that does not jeopardize national security. Compassion is finding a solution so that those who need to be here can be here without fear and and without worrying that they could be deported at any time. Compassion is finding a solution that prevents people from abusing and misusing other people and subjecting them to little better than slave labor and forcing them into a permanent underclass. And Compassion is finding a solution that accomplishes all that without enlarging the huge neon sign over America that flashes: "YA"LL COME....and if you avoid the law for a little while, they'll let you stay."

I want a solution that assimilates newcomers to America in positive ways and that makes us a stronger, more productive nation. That is best for us who are already here and that is best for those yet to come.

And yes all this can coexist side by side in a rational person's convictions.

ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:56 pm
@Foxfyre,
Gee Foxfyre... when you talk that way you seem so reasonable.

I understand the point about the neon sign. This is your strongest argument. If we are going to be reasonable, we are going to have to accept there is no perfect solution. The question is how we prioritize the various goals (i.e. reuniting families versus dissuading future illegal immigration).

Most reasonable people along the range of opinions understand that this issue is damaging the country the longer we take to resolve it-- from people who are worried about broken families and communities, to business people who are being put at a disadvantage with an unclear law they shouldn't be asked to enforce-- to people who either feel they are being unjustly accused of being bigoted or unjustly attacked for being Hispanic.

I hope that there can be reasonable discussion nationally when this issue comes up again in the next couple of years.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:58 pm
@ebrown p,
I have not changed my position on this one whit since this thread started ebrown. Perhaps I have been 'reasonable' all along? If some had not been so eager to paint me as a rabid rightwing bigoted racist, they might have seen that all along.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:59 pm
@Foxfyre,
That is not my impression of your behavior on this thread.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 11:04 pm
@ebrown p,
Well I don't think you have correctly identified, recognized, or represented my behavior on this thread so focused have you been to paint me as a rabid rightwing racist bigot.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 May, 2009 08:30 am
@ebrown p,
It occurred to me that people like you are dupes for the very wealthy. The latter love the illegals, who by driving down wages and working for next to nothing enhance their profits and wealth. Those wealthy have no concern for citizens who have lost their jobs to illegals, or who receive lower wages because of the illegals.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 May, 2009 09:36 am
@Foxfyre,
If I thought the way you and e brown do I would insist that the U.S. allow all my foriegn relatives to come here in order to better thier lives no matter how much it hurts the rest of the citizens of our country. Do I love my relatives, of course. Well most of them anyway. What we are talking about is the legal verses illegal immagration. If they are willing to break our laws in order to slip into our country how many other laws will they be willing to break after they get here?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 May, 2009 10:00 am
@rabel22,
I don't think you read carefully what I said. I was admitting my empathy, sympathy, feelings for the various people who are or might be in this country illegally. I was admitting that I wouldn't want my friends and relatives to be deported. I wouldn't want to see my friends and relatives go to jail if they broke other laws either. Wanting the law enforced does not change those feelings.

But I see the necessity and importance of the law to be a separate issue and irrelevent to my feelings. We can't be a people of law and let our feelings dictate what will and will not be enforced.

In fact most illegals aren't breaking other laws any more than citizens do once they come here. But enough of them do to make it a serious problem especially in the border states. And there are some really bad characters coming in with them.

No matter how much empathy we feel for the illegals, there is a limit to how much we can stretch our social services to accommodate them before everybody gets hurt. We simply cannot have both national security in a dangerous world and also have open borders. We do nobody any favors if we so weaken ourselves as a nation that we are far less able to help others pull themselves up and unrestricted illegal immigration has and will continue to weaken us.

Far better to enforce the law, but also improve it to make it easier for those who need to be here to come here while not producing all the negatives that illegal immigration now causes.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 May, 2009 10:38 am
@rabel22,
We really should reduce the number of legal immigrants. I read of an Indian couple who are new citizens. They were able to legally bring in about 60 relatives. Moveover, after being in the country for only five years, the older entrants would be able to enter nursing homes, with the costs funded by Medicaid. The cost to the taxpayer for each person in the nursing home would be between $40,000 - 50,000.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 May, 2009 11:20 am
@Advocate,
Advocate, I'm not sure what a good legal immigration policy would be concerning total numbers per year or their ability to bring family members to the US.

However, immigration is still a good idea to attract the best and brightest around the world to maintain our economic standing. Our workforce needs to increase as the baby-boomers begin to retire, because we will have more retirees than workers if we do not allow immigration.

Places like Japan and Germany are suffering from their aging of the population, and that's one of the primary reasons for their financial difficulties.

Having said that, we also need to improve our educational system; NCLB is a huge failure simply because children do not grow intellectually at the same rate, and they all have different interests. Our educational system needs to help all children grow to their full potential in whatever endeavor they wish to pursue; and not by some government mandated standards. Our teachers are teaching our children to meet some subjective standards that differs from state to state and school district to school district. Almost half of minority students are dropping out of school, because they can't meet those standards. All students do not fit into a square box. Our young children are our country's future, and they are the ones who are missing out on creativity that is much needed in this world.





rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 May, 2009 02:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Your right. Teachers spend a large portion of of their time teaching kids to pass tests. Not thinking for themselves.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 May, 2009 02:32 pm
@rabel22,
It's so self-evident that the current teaching to some arbitrary standards misses the whole concept of "education." They're trying to teach memorization at the expense of diversity and creativity.

It makes me wonder how all those PhDs who create the current curriculum for our children even got their bachelor's degree in Education.
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 0.11 seconds on 04/11/2021 at 01:47:04