What should be done about illegal immigration?

I listened to some of Bush's comments from yesterday, talking about how someone here illegally for five or more years would pay a fine and then enter into the line for citizenship at the back of the line.... all well and good, but they would have to pay any income taxes that they should have paid (maybe we can waive the penalty and interest and let them have five more years to pay up) and there is the little matter of their employers not withholding Social Security taxes for them. Those arrears must be made up too.

Right?

Joe(or is this a bee's nest)Nation

0 Replies

Yeah Foxfyre is the bad one because she thinks all aspects of the issue should be looked at before a policy is adopted, and doesn't accept proposals that sort of overlook stuff she thinks is pretty important. She is too stupid to be sure that anybody has come up with a foolproof plan and lacks the certainty of what absolutely must be done at this time. Oh well. She's used to being stupid in that regard.

Amnesty By Any Other NameSOURCE

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

You have had 84 pages to take a position.

The impression I am getting is that you are afraid to face the consequences. I accept the criticism that is leveled against my position (as in the article you just posted) and I am willing to live with it based on my values. You could do this to, it just takes a little courage.

It is time for us to take a stand on this issue... It has been around a long time and everyone, from Kennedy to Tancredo (to me) agrees that the status quo is horrible. The time for reform is now.

Are you saying that you support the Kyl-Conryn proposal? My take is that this is pretty unfeasible both economically and politically, but it would be nice to see you take a stance.

Besides, Kyl is looking awfully weak in his upcoming election. He is being challenged directly on the issue of immigration and I am enthusiastically watching this race. If he loses it will be because his views on immigration are too harsh. That will be an interesting development for this debate.

But please, tell us something new about what you think that doesn't involve criticizing the liberals.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Foxfyre is the one who refuses to find a solution. She continues to whine about "difficult problems" but refuses to take any kind of positive stand other than criticize the reasonable position that is on the table and the people who support it.

So you're saying she's acting like a liberal ...

0 Replies

I would suppose that means that I am not?

(From you Tico, I will take that as a compliment).

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Foxfyre,

You have had 84 pages to take a position.

The impression I am getting is that you are afraid to face the consequences. I accept the criticism that is leveled against my position (as in the article you just posted) and I am willing to live with it based on my values. You could do this to, it just takes a little courage.

It is time for us to take a stand on this issue... It has been around a long time and everyone, from Kennedy to Tancredo (to me) agrees that the status quo is horrible. The time for reform is now.

Are you saying that you support the Kyl-Conryn proposal? My take is that this is pretty unfeasible both economically and politically, but it would be nice to see you take a stance.

Besides, Kyl is looking awfully weak in his upcoming election. He is being challenged directly on the issue of immigration and I am enthusiastically watching this race. If he loses it will be because his views on immigration are too harsh. That will be an interesting development for this debate.

But please, tell us something new about what you think that doesn't involve criticizing the liberals.

My position has been 100% consistent for all those 84 pages. I am opposed to any policy that encourages people to ignore or thumb their noses at U.S. law or that has the long range effect of hurting both the Americans who are here and the immigrants who come here. I am in favor of and admire those people who come to the United States legally and oppose those who circumvent the system in place. All serious proposals I have seen so far seem to me to reward lawlessness and encourage more of it. I am interested in seeing all aspects of the issue explored with all the pros and cons laid out to examine and seriously consider before I take a position on what I think the policy should be.

I'm sorry you think that is an unreasonable and inferior position, but it's mine just the same.

0 Replies

rjb, The reality about wages for illegals working in this country is no different than what most people feel about their own low pay/salary scales. Most of us do not have any control over them; we don't have control over Made In China products and how much those people are paid. We only buy what is affordable according to our various disposable income. Are the illegal workers in this country being taken advantage of? I'm sure some are as are some people working in blue collar and white collar jobs - and even in the so-called professions of medicine and law.

Most workers will work jobs that they accept as their wage; they are not held at gunpoint to work those jobs. If they wish, they can improve their potential by going to school or learning a skill that is in high demand.

Everybody makes choices; both worker and consumer. I see many Hispanics working in restaurants in our area. I know their wages are low relative to the cost of living in this area, so I leave a tip of at least 20 percent - and when the service deserves it, more.

Most Americans are able to still buy groceries at reasonable prices, because the cost of labor is still relatively low. Some of that results from the simple fact that many illegal immigrants works on our farms at lower wages.

When my siblings and I were young, we all had to go out to do harvesting work to earn money during the summer months. It was back-breaking, hard physical work. We rarely saw whites working in the fields or in the sheds; they were always Asian, Hispanics and blacks.

Why we were able to complete our college education is anybody's guess, but we did. The long and short of it is, we all lived pretty comfortable lives in our adult life, because the opportunies were there for us to take advantage of. That's how the world works for most who live in this country.

We can help ourselves to the fruits, then try to help others accomplish as much as their motivations takes them; no more, no less.

0 Replies

ebrown writes

Quote:

Are you saying that you support the Kyl-Conryn proposal? My take is that this is pretty unfeasible both economically and politically, but it would be nice to see you take a stance.

The post shows how full of holes the McCain-Kennedy proposal was and why it is unacceptable with the majority of Americans that I believe agree with me. I don't know if the Kyl-Conryn proposal is any better. I haven't decided what the policy should be yet, but I do know what I think the policy should accomplish. I admit I don't have the answers to that, and I have also been 100% consistent in these 84 pages in saying that I don't think this is a Republican vs Democrat or Liberal vs Conservative issue. I also have tried not to personally attack people who disagree with me or make this a partisan issue.

I'm also sorry that this doesn't measure up to your standards. If you and Tico think that makes me a liberal, I sure have a different definition of that than you guys do. Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

My position has been 100% consistent for all those 84 pages.

I am still waiting to hear what this consistent position is....

Quote:

I am opposed to any policy that encourages people to ignore or thumb their noses at U.S. law or that has the long range effect of hurting both the Americans who are here and the immigrants who come here.

OK we get what you are opposed to.

I am opposed to policies that break up families, send kids who have grown up here to a country that is foreign to them, and harshly punish workers who contribute to our communities and our economy whose only crime is crossing a border (or overstaying a visa).

What we are opposed to says a lot about our respective values... but it certainly doesn't bring us any closer to a solution.

Quote:

I am in favor of and admire those people who come to the United States legally.

That's very sweet, but we all feel that way.

Quote:

All serious proposals I have seen so far seem to me to reward lawlessness and encourage more of it.

No. HR-4337 (the bill the house passed) doesn't reward lawlessness nor encourage more of it. Of course it has the nasty side-effects that I oppose (as listed above).

But I would stop haranguing you for a proposal you support if you just say this is it.

Quote:

I am interested in seeing all aspects of the issue explored with all the pros and cons laid out to examine and seriously consider before I take a position on what I think the policy should be.

84 pages of debate, plus months of a national debate. How much do you need?
-------

As I have said before... I think the reason that you are afraid to take a position is that you know what the obvious drawbacks to any position that meets your criteria would be.

The humanitarian concerns-- family, kids, poverty, broken communities and uprooted lives are clear.

You are being forced to choose between accepting that people break the law... or harsh penalties.

... and you don't have the courage to make this decision.

Look! The debate has been had both here and nationally. There simply is no solution that satisfies both your values (strict adherence to the law) and mine (compassion and decency). If there were, the debate would be over and we wouldn't be having 84 pages of rigorous argument.

Make up your mind please. Take a stance and have the courage to accept the consequences.

0 Replies

Quote:

The post shows how full of holes the McCain-Kennedy proposal was and why it is unacceptable with the majority of Americans that I believe agree with me.

You are still under the delusion that you represent most Americans..

CNN Poll

The majority of Americans are no closer to you than they are to me.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

My position has been 100% consistent for all those 84 pages.

I am still waiting to hear what this consistent position is....

Quote:

I am opposed to any policy that encourages people to ignore or thumb their noses at U.S. law or that has the long range effect of hurting both the Americans who are here and the immigrants who come here.

OK we get what you are opposed to.

I am opposed to policies that break up families, send kids who have grown up here to a country that is foreign to them, and harshly punish workers who contribute to our communities and our economy whose only crime is crossing a border (or overstaying a visa).

What we are opposed to says a lot about our respective values... but it certainly doesn't bring us any closer to a solution.

Quote:

I am in favor of and admire those people who come to the United States legally.

That's very sweet, but we all feel that way.

Quote:

All serious proposals I have seen so far seem to me to reward lawlessness and encourage more of it.

No. HR-4337 (the bill the house passed) doesn't reward lawlessness nor encourage more of it. Of course it has the nasty side-effects that I oppose (as listed above).

But I would stop haranguing you for a proposal you support if you just say this is it.

Quote:

I am interested in seeing all aspects of the issue explored with all the pros and cons laid out to examine and seriously consider before I take a position on what I think the policy should be.

84 pages of debate, plus months of a national debate. How much do you need?
-------

As I have said before... I think the reason that you are afraid to take a position is that you know what the obvious drawbacks to any position that meets your criteria would be.

The humanitarian concerns-- family, kids, poverty, broken communities and uprooted lives are clear.

You are being forced to choose between accepting that people break the law... or harsh penalties.

... and you don't have the courage to make this decision.

Look! The debate has been had both here and nationally. There simply is no solution that satisfies both your values (strict adherence to the law) and mine (compassion and decency). If there were, the debate would be over and we wouldn't be having 84 pages of rigorous argument.

Make up your mind please. Take a stance and have the courage to accept the consequences.

What more stance do you want?

1) Anybody who comes to the United States to visit, work, or live should do so legally and should be prepared to be a guest, resident, or citizen who respects American law, values, and culture. They should expect to adapt and fit into to the American way of life and not expect America to change its policies and procedures to accommodate them. The United States must be able to control its borders and control entry into the country.

2) Nobody should be either encouraged or allowed to break or circumvent American law and should not be rewarded in any way if they do. Certainly they should not be allowed to cut in front of the line ahead of those who have been actively seeking and patiently waiting to immigrate legally. If the law is a bad law, work to change it, but don't ignore it and don't replace it with one no better or even worse.

3) All who do circumvent American law should be subject to the penalties or processes required by law.

That's my position and has been consistently my position since Page 1. I do not know exactly how a policy to accomplish it will look. I am envious of those who have such 100% certainty on how the policy should be structured as I certainly do not. I have rejected the McCain-Kennedy bill, however, as being mere window dressing and accomplishing little to correct the situation that exists.

One suggestion is to put a guest worker program in place but those who apply for it must do so from their home country. That has been thoroughly ignored, rejected, or excoriated by some on the thread, but it was a suggestion and I'm still waiting for a good explanation why it wouldn't work.

0 Replies

The first two aren't policies... the question is how do you encourage/enforce them.

But your third point has promise, if you will back it up with a policy stance...

Quote:

All who do circumvent American law should be subject to the penalties or processes required by law.

This is the big question. There are 11 million (or more or perhaps less) people here who have "circumvented" American law.

The $60,000 question is what those penalties or processes should be.

There are two proposals on the table (if you want to stand behind a third I won't mind.)

1) Deport anyone here illegally to avoid the "amnesty" that you oppose. I am lumping the making life as harsh as possible for those who resist as part of this (again you can separate them if you want to make a different stance).

2) Provide a path to legalization for those who are here (which will probably include penalties and processes but not deportation).

So...

1) Are you willing to stand behind the deportation of people who are here illegally and proposals to make life unbearably difficult for people who stay?

2) Conversely are you willing to stand behind a process of legalization that involves penalties other than deportation?

3) If you won't stand behind either of these, what is your alternative?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Everybody makes choices; both worker and consumer.

Thank you, cicerone, for responding to what was a bit of a throw away line on my part (i.e. a comment that was not really central to the argument I was making). I have, the last time they all stood still long enough that I could count them, 36 employees. I see ads in the newspaper offering wages at Walmart or Target well above what I can afford to pay. But I don't lose people. Quite the contrary; I get a lot of folks willing to work for less in exchange for not being treated like...I don't know.
This is not at all pertinent to the illegal immigration issue, but is intended as as brief respite from the ongoing foodfight beween foxfyre and ebrown.

0 Replies

I say the first two are absolutely policies and they are policies advocated by a substantial majority of Americans.

Re the 11 million illegals here now, I have no problem with smoothing a path for them to be here legally, but I think they are going to have to go back to their home country and apply for legal status. For them to do this voluntarily would be far preferable to the pain, difficulty, if not impossiiblity of rounding them all up and throwing them out. Once this process was in place with a reasonable time for its implementation, then I would say anybody still here illegally could be deported and denied legal status forever.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Re the 11 million illegals here now, I have no problem with smoothing a path for them to be here legally, but I think they are going to have to go back to their home country and apply for legal status. For them to do this voluntarily would be far preferable to the pain, difficulty, if not impossiiblity of rounding them all up and throwing them out. Once this process was in place with a reasonable time for its implementation, then I would say anybody still here illegally could be deported and denied legal status forever.

Thank you. This is what I was looking for. The is basically Kyl-Cornyn.

Whether it get's much play in Congress will be interesting to see. I think it will be a non-starter for logistical and political reasons.

But we will see. At least you have a stance now.

0 Replies

Quote:

But we will see. At least you have a stance now.

If you weren't so sure I was some evil person, you would have seen that I have had a stance all along. Smile

I just haven't been able to write a policy nor have I seen a policy put out there that would accomplish what I think should happen, I know what won't work or at least what hasn't worked in the past. I am looking for something that will.

0 Replies

From my viewpoint, I will never assume to predict what our lawmakers in Washington will do. Many of the laws are self-serving or are payoffs to their election campaigns. I don't trust our government to do the right thing - either for Americans or illegal immigrants.

I wouldn't even offer an opinion on what I think is the best solution, because it's a waste of time and effort. We just have to live by what they legislate and enforce or not enforce; it's a kay-sera-sera kind of thing.

0 Replies

I didn't say that I don't think that Kyl-Cornyn is evil.

It still pulls high school kids (who didn't break any law) out of school to send them out of the country (presumably they will finish high school in their twenties?)

It still breaks up marriages -- although now it is a temporary break up?

The big reason it will never pass is that it hurts business. It simply doesn't make sense to send millions of workers out of the country only to replace them with millions of new workers? then to have the old workers trickle back in...

And, of course it doesn't fix the problem of deportation and measures to make the lives of immigrants unbearable... it just postpones it.

The thing I like about Kyl-Cornyn (above objections notwithstanding) is that it would stop the amazingly stupid and arbitrary system of "bars" that is currently part of immigration policy.

When an immigrant now tries to change their status... one of three things happens. They are either granted a visa. Or they are sent out of the country for three years (a 3 year bar); Or they are sent out of the country for a 10 year bar; Or they are given a lifetime bar.

The problem is the current rules are unclear and no one (not even the lawyers) have a clue about how a case will turn out until it arbitrarily decided by a judge (some of whom seem to feel their life's mission is to kick foreign nationals out).

A friend of mine is a citizen married to a Salvadoran national (who is illegal). They have two kids (i.e. one step kid) and one is a citizen. Any lawyer will tell them to continue living out of status, since you never know what is going to happen... and one option is being kicked out for life.

With luck, Kyl Cornyn would at least fix this.

But I still don't think it has a chance of being the final result.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I say the first two are absolutely policies and they are policies advocated by a substantial majority of Americans.

Re the 11 million illegals here now, I have no problem with smoothing a path for them to be here legally, but I think they are going to have to go back to their home country and apply for legal status.

This is the part I don't get. Why leave and come back? How do poor people pay for that? Who puts the bread on the table in the mean time? After turning the blind eye for as long as we have; is it not reasonable that millions of people took advantage especially after millions of people had? Failure to say no is akin to saying yes, yes? Why is that so different now? After all this time is it so all-important to make this point, NOW?

Why not offer an amnesty that anyone who can show gainful employment, lack of criminal behavior, ability to sustain themselves and their families and perhaps get their current employer to sign off as sponsor/monitor for a probationary period leading to legal status? Who would be hurt by that?

Other than bigotry; why does the "you shouldn't have done that" lesson, that's been lacking to the point of non-existence suddenly have to be employed to such an extreme right now? It's not like another "last chance" is going to destroy our credibility or anything... as we have none on this issue to begin with. What's wrong with "last chance"->amnesty AND a policy change towards enforcement for future violations that's actually enforced?

It's not like we've never given multiple "last chance"s before. Wasn't Saddam on his last, last, last, last last, last, last, last, last, last chance before the boom was finally lowered? And he didn't deserve it. Millions of these people do.

Aside; the entire rule of leaving the country before you can change your status that is currently under effect is idiotic. By design, it favors those who can afford such procedures and mostly serves to punish people who've harmed no one. If it's the sanctity of law at stake; scrap the law and write one that makes more sense. Uncle Sam need not have any say whatsoever in whom I choose to marry, whatever the circumstance.

0 Replies

Occam Bill asked:

Quote:

Why not offer an amnesty that anyone who can show gainful employment, lack of criminal behavior, ability to sustain themselves and their families and perhaps get their current employer to sign off as sponsor/monitor for a probationary period leading to legal status? Who would be hurt by that?

Nobody, except the millions of folks who came here legally, got a green card, paid income taxes and social security taxes and waited for their citizenship papers to be approved so that they could stay here permanently. You want to tell them, "Shucks, you didn't need to do all that, all you had to do was get here, get paid in cash and lay low until we give everyone a free pass."?

I like large illegal actions as much as the next liberal, but how easy do you want to make this process? (Why, we can guess. I have friends in the restaurant business whose entire staff will stay home today.) It shouldn't be impossible to become a US citizen, but it shouldn't be a cakewalk either.

Joe(Mother's side arrived in 1908)Nation

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know