50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 05:22 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
I am just pointing out Foxy, that you don't speak for Americans.

I am an American and I (yes an American citizen) am the one who is demanding that you treat immigrants (both legal and illegal) with decency and compassion.

Your fight is not really against "illegals" (who can't vote and don't really have any political leverage to defend themselves.

Your fight is with us-- Americans who believe that our nation should be a nation of decency and compassion and who believe that diversity and understanding are good things.

And let me tell you WE are pissed off.


Your anger is misdirected. If those crossing our borders illegally were treated with "decency and compassion" in their own country we wouldn't be building the fence. Send an angry letter to Vincente Fox if it will make you happy.

There are millions wanting to enter this country from dozens of countries. Where's your compassion and decency for them?

If that Brit really wanted to honor America's immigrants, why didn't he write the lyrics in German or Gaelic since that's the heritage of most of our immigrants?

Amusing to see a sanctimonious, bleeding-heart Bostonian criticizing those of us that are only advocating the laws of this land be recognized and followed.

Oh, and you're wrong (dead wrong) about the polls. Most Americans are pissed off at the Mexicans who want to shut down as much of this country as they can out of spite. I hope every Mexican who walks off the job on Monday gets fired and I plan to shop and spend the entire day.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 05:24 pm
Someone named "Sierra" from Tejas with your point of view.

That's kinda funny.

The "Brit" who wrote the National Anthem was descended from immigrants. He used a tune from his native land and wrote the words in his native tongue. (Ironically the enemy happened to be from the same country that he was from.)

History is funny that way.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 05:42 pm
SierraSong
Quote:
Oh, and you're wrong (dead wrong) about the polls. Most Americans are pissed off at the Mexicans who want to shut down as much of this country as they can out of spite. I hope every Mexican who walks off the job on Monday gets fired and I plan to shop and spend the entire day.


IMO all those who take part in the boycot,or if you will attempted blackmail, should have their papers checked. All those found to be undocumented should be marched to the border and sent packing.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 05:47 pm
I will be one of those participating in the rallies.

I bet this won't happen (but I will let you know if it does).
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 05:55 pm
ebrown,I have a question...

Lets assume,just for a minute,that you are right about illegal immigration (for the record I dont think you are),but lets assume you are.

If the 12 million illegal immigrants that are here now,do become legal,then what?

How many of them will then go on public assistance,and tax a system already overburdened?
Before you get your panties in a knot,I am not saying that all of them,or even a majority of them will,but you know that some of them will.
What happens then?
With the system already bursting at the seams,what do you propose to do with the influx of immigrants that can suddenly qualify?

Also,if they have been working illegally,they have either been using a fake SS#,or getting paid under the table.
If they have had taxes withheld,including income tax,SS tax,medicare,and all the other taxes that are withheld,should they be allowed to apply for a refund,based on their fake SS#?

When should their SS benefits be figured from?
The day they entered the country illegally,or the day they become legal?
If the day they become legal,should they be given a refund of all the taxes withheld before then?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 06:00 pm
au1929 wrote:
SierraSong
Quote:
Oh, and you're wrong (dead wrong) about the polls. Most Americans are pissed off at the Mexicans who want to shut down as much of this country as they can out of spite. I hope every Mexican who walks off the job on Monday gets fired and I plan to shop and spend the entire day.


IMO all those who take part in the boycot,or if you will attempted blackmail, should have their papers checked. All those found to be undocumented should be marched to the border and sent packing.


After quick thought, I realized that this suggestion is even stupider than it appears.

For all of Au's bluster about respect for US law, he comes up with a solution that would violate US law. It is impossible for these checks that Au wants to take place without demanding papers of US citizens who will probably tell them to 'Go to Hell' (on second thought for Irony's sake I would probably say 'Vete a la chingada').

Since the first amendment protects my right to free speech, and the fourth amendment says they can't demand papers even if they don't know if I am a citizen or not... this plan is simply illegal.

Au proposing to break US law.... I love it.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 06:05 pm
Mystery,

These details aren't that important to me- I care much more about the big picture. Any economic burden is certainly less than the cost of your solution to the problem. The SS problem seems easy as it is calculated by the amount contributed. But, I am not going to argue over details.

Let's a earned path to citizenship-- then we can argue over the little stuff.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 06:11 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Mystery,

These details aren't that important to me- I care much more about the big picture. Any economic burden is certainly less than the cost of your solution to the problem. The SS problem seems easy as it is calculated by the amount contributed. But, I am not going to argue over details.

Let's a earned path to citizenship-- then we can argue over the little stuff.


So you admit that the details of how our economy will be affected doesnt matter?
Interesting,coming from you.

As for your statement...

Quote:
The SS problem seems easy as it is calculated by the amount contributed.


How do you prove who contributed what?
REmember,they are using false SS#'s,and have not legally contributed.
So,how do you find out who paid how much?
0 Replies
 
el pohl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 07:12 pm
Woah! Lots of posting done recently. Anyways, have you heard the news? Someone seems to be harrassing inmigrants that will support the boycot...

au1929:
You still believe that you can actually send millions "packing"? Wow, you are funny.

But I laugh more when Bush mentions the word "God".

Does the american Constitution states something regarding an "official language"?

And, regarding legality, its obvious that this people are illegals. Duh. If law would be applied - and I wonder why that hasn't happened - this people would be in jail, or back in Chiapas. The issue needs to be tackled from a moral or/and ethical front.

What is ethical? What is moral? That is the question, IMHO.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 07:39 pm
I admit to being conflicted. A lot of people wanting to become US citizens play by the rules, going through a long process before they finally get to the day when they take their oaths of allegiance to their new country. The notion that a whole bunch of illegal immigrants should suddenly be given the same status troubles me.
The idea that they should all be sent back home is nonsensical. The "official" number used by the government and the press is 11 million illegals, but according to a story on NPR a week or so ago (sorry, I can't cite the date) some demographers come up with 12 or 15 or even 20 million. The cost of rounding those folks up, if it could be done, was estimated by one commentator to be 500 billion dollars. I don't know how that was calculated.
It is interesting, once yall seem to have gotten beyond assaulting each other, to hear about the economics in play. What would be the effect if say six or eight million minimum wage earning folks disappeared? Who would replace them, and at what wage rate? I would contend, although I certainly can't prove it, that a lot of those folks are having income tax withheld and social security contributions withheld which their employers have to match. How much will that cost the US economy?

Congress doesn't know what to do about this six months before the elections in November. I suspect they will figure out a way to delay doing anything.
Thanks for reading this. Yall be nice to each other.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 08:24 pm
el_pohl wrote:
Woah! Lots of posting done recently. Anyways, have you heard the news? Someone seems to be harrassing inmigrants that will support the boycot...

au1929:
You still believe that you can actually send millions "packing"? Wow, you are funny.

But I laugh more when Bush mentions the word "God".

Does the american Constitution states something regarding an "official language"?

And, regarding legality, its obvious that this people are illegals. Duh. If law would be applied - and I wonder why that hasn't happened - this people would be in jail, or back in Chiapas. The issue needs to be tackled from a moral or/and ethical front.

What is ethical? What is moral? That is the question, IMHO.


The Constitution does not mention an "official language". Nor does it mention abortion, or any number of other issues. What's your point?

Ethics? Morality? Is blackmail ethical or moral? Do you hold the corrupt Mexican government to your same high standards of ethics? I notice you leave out any mention of them.

Oh, and I suppose you don't consider the blackmail by Mexicans on May 1 as any type of "harrassment". You're all about ethics, though.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 08:43 pm
SierraSong wrote:

The Constitution does not mention an "official language". Nor does it mention abortion, or any number of other issues. What's your point?

Ethics? Morality? Is blackmail ethical or moral? Do you hold the corrupt Mexican government to your same high standards of ethics? I notice you leave out any mention of them.

Oh, and I suppose you don't consider the blackmail by Mexicans on May 1 as any type of "harrassment". You're all about ethics, though.


No Mija. The Constitution mentions democracy.

This fight will be won by people who vote. This means American citizens who agree with El_Pohl about morality and American Citizens who are Latinos and Irish and Asian and even African-Americans and don't like the White Christian world view..

The theme of the marches on April Tenth was "Hoy Marchamos, Manana Votamos" (Today we march, tommorow we vote).

This is why HR4437 doesn't have a chance. This is why the Senate is considering passing a law that includes earned citizenship for those here illegal. This is why the Republican party is being split. This is why Conservative Christian groups like "Focus on the Family" are being so awkwardly silent.

You are not fighting illegals. You are fighting American citizens who disagree with you about what being American stands for.
0 Replies
 
el pohl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 09:46 pm
SierraSong, welcome to A2K. Probably no one has told you before, but you actually need to read the thread - well, it's suggested - before you blatantly attack someone.

I don't have a definitive posture in this matter. Hell, I've said before that if a similar situation would exist in Mexico, with illegal american inmigrants, probably I would act similar to you. Therefore, I think I understand your visceral posture.

And um... abortion IS legal in the US, to varying degrees and depending on the state. You should educate yourself thorougly before posting irrationally. Whats your point SierraSong?

Theres a fine yet evident difference between "harassment" and a civil manifestation. And yes, unfortunately my government has a lot to account for in this problem. I'm surely not defending them, because simply, at least myself, can't.

I'm gonna ignore you from now on.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 10:27 pm
el_pohl wrote:
I'm gonna ignore you from now on.


Seems to be the status quo for those that can't answer the hard questions, so I'll just assume you consider blackmail to be perfectly ethical and moral.

And, no, you can't defend the indefensible. You may want to remember that the next time you choose to criticize the policies and laws of my country, which I can defend.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 10:53 pm
CalamityJane wrote:
May 1, 2006 will be "nothing gringo day" in Mexico and the United States.
It will be interesting to see how much impact this day has on our
economy. My guess is, that the service industry will struggle beyond belief,
and especially in agricultural regions.

Nothing will change in redneck counties, granted, but the rest of
us will feel a tremendous impact, and hopefully will change the minds of
many Americans who have doubted thus far.

Quote:
For some, the boycott is fueled not just by debate on the immigration bill, but by long-standing resentment over the perceived mistreatment of Mexicans in the United States.

"We want to show the power we have as Mexicans," said Carlos Chavez y Pacho, vice president of the chamber of commerce in Piedras Negras, across from Eagle Pass, Texas. Chavez y Pacho is also urging Mexicans not to shop in U.S. border cities on May 1, in part to protest what he calls arrogant behavior by U.S. customs officials and border officers.

Rafael Ruiz Harrell, who writes a column in the Mexico City newspaper Metro, predicted the boycott could give rise to a broader, pan-Latino movement.

"If we could get all of Latin America, for one day, to leave the U.S. firms without customers, we would be sending the kind of clear message they seem incapable of understanding," he wrote.


Source: CNN


Remember Y2K?

It was a non-event and so will May 1 be, except for those poor illegal aliens who have been suckered into missing work for a day and who will lose their jobs as a result.

"Nothing will change in redneck counties."

This statement is enormously revealing:

For some reason Jane has tremendous sympathy for foreigners who are breaking our laws, but thinly veiled contempt for fellow Americans who might object to this lawlessness.

Without question she would rant and rave against the use of "wetback," or "greaser" to describe these illegal immigrants, but she has no qualms what-so-ever about using similarly derogatory terms to describe those with whom she disagrees.

This is the ignorant hypocrisy of the Liberal programmed mind that just drives me nuts.

Mexican officials should be either too ashamed to say a word, or be devoting their energies to making Mexico a place where Mexicans want to stay. Likewise Mexican journalists.

There is no legitimate reason why Mexicans should be scrambling to cross the border into America, come hell or highwater. Mexico need not be the third world country it is. It is not a poor country because it has no resources (physical or intellectual), nor is it a poor country because America is somehow keeping it under her thumb. It is a pathetic excuse for a nation because corruption is systematic, elitism is the norm, and justice is unattainable.

Consider this: If Mexicans (legal or otherwise) or being mistreated in this country, why are they flooding our borders? Do none of these poor oppressed Mexicans ever communicate back to the Motherland that life in Gringo USA is hell for The People?

I am sympathetic to the plight of illegal aliens and support an approach that will enable them to remain in this country and contribute and prosper - under the law, but I have lost all patience with these dishonest and/or insipid charges that the US somehow owes these people something, and that we are systematically abusing them. It is utter tripe!

The notion of a Pan-Latino movement expressed as a rebuke of America is pathetic, ignorant, and sad. Again, how embarrassed and ashamed would we be if millions of Americans felt compelled to cross the borders of Canada and Mexico to provide for their families and make something of their lives? All of these Latino countries could support the dreams and aspirations of their people and make emigration to America a non-issue. Obviously they will not, and the clap-trap of any member of their Elite criticizing us for the treatment of their citizens infuriates me, and should infuriate not only any American capable of reasonable thought, but the citizens of these two bit, banana republics.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 10:55 pm
Hey Sierra, you wanna hang around a day or so before you go so on the offensive? You're not going to have much luck having any kind of satisfying exchanges with folks here (assuming you have anything poitive like that in mind) if you're perceived as combative right out of the gate.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 11:00 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Call me naive, but if I was serious about gaining sympathy and acceptance as an illegal in another country, I don't think thumbing my nose at my employer or his/her customers would be the way to go.


Precisely.

These people are being poorly served by the Leftist organizers who have their heads firmly planted in their asses. When the dust settles and they are in worse shape than they were before the heady demonstrations, where will the Leftist American activists be? Will they be offering them substitute jobs of a helping monetary hand? Of course not.

It is important to note, however, that not all Americans of latino origins are supporting this foolish stunt.

Only a Liberal has no problem with a foreigner who has entered our country contrary to the laws that bind us all, bitching about his or her situation.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 11:19 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I really like this conclusion (from an interesting report in the Guardian/Observer):

Quote:
It is strange though that the fiercest critics of the migration - those who panic most about a supposed loss of identity - often paint themselves in the most patriotic terms. Yet for patriots, they don't seem to have much confidence in their own country's ability to influence those who travel to its shores.


Typical insipid nonsense from the Guardian.

First of all, criticism of illegal immigration is not the same thing as criticism of "migration." The Left is desperate to frame this issue in terms of racism or xenophobia, but it is a hollow charge.

Secondly, we "patriots" might be entirely willing to rely upon America's ability to influence immigrants, if it weren't for the fact that Liberals in this country insist on hamstringing the process of assimilation, and making it easy for those who travel to our shores to remain foreigners within our shores.

Again, infuriating hypocrisy: Imagine American emigrants to France, England or any country in Europe, demanding that the natives bend not only their cultural mores but their laws to accommodate us. These same wooly-headed idiots would be decrying Ugly Americans and their arrogant expectations.

I appreciate that there are people with deprived wisdom and challenged logic who will reliably find fault with America in all things, however, as I am not a Liberal, I am not compelled to consider their arguments as anything more than reeking effluence.

In the final analysis it comes down to the fact that those who have not, will, inevitably, find fault with those who have.

That any UK institution (press or otherwise) might lecture the US on it's regard for foreigners is absurd and, frankly, nauseating. Guardian, deal first with your own issues before even considering an opinion on ours! But, of course, they will not because for their Liberal readers the produce of their coin is the bashing of America.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 11:30 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I really like this conclusion (from an interesting report in the Guardian/Observer):

Quote:
Quote:
It is strange though that the fiercest critics of the migration - those who panic most about a supposed loss of identity - often paint themselves in the most patriotic terms. Yet for patriots, they don't seem to have much confidence in their own country's ability to influence those who travel to its shores.


Most Americans still don't realize some simple fact and history: Most new arrivals on America's shores back in the 1700s and 1800s were discriminated against - ansd surprise, they were white.
Except for the American Indians, all of us are decended from immigrants.
And lastly, those that criticize other people's opinions about America and Americans and are offended by them hardly understands anything about democracy.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 11:31 pm
I suppose, Finn, people outsite the USA have a (legitime? perhaps not in your opinion) inetrest to be informed via news and opinions about what's going elsewhere.

And the Guardian truely is not a apple-polisher of British politics - you might have missed some pages of a couple of issues.

On the other hand, I've read some opinions about France, Germany, Europe etc in some US-papers, too. They weren't always favourite, if at all.

Americans, deal first with your own issues before even considering an opinion on ours?
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/10/2025 at 09:07:39