50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 11:38 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Setanta wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
a question though;

what is proposed to be done with illegal entrants arriving after the implementation of McC-K ?

what happens with those who fail, or refuse, to register for the program?

what about those who actually are involved, or get involved in criminal activities ?


These same questions were advanced during the Reagan administration, at the time of the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986--no one bothered to answer those questions then, either.


har! looks like we're the only ones wonderin' about it in 2006, too.


---

it feels to me that in one way or another that at the very least, some final bill will be hammered out that will allow illegal entrants with familial circumstances to remain in the country and have some "path" to legal residency. mass deportations are not a realistic idea.

so you can come down off the roof for a few minutes now, e. Laughing


but what comes after ? anybody know what solutions are included for the questions i asked above ? set reminds us that the same issues where brought up in 1986, but that no plan was put in place back then.

what resulted was a growth from 3 million illegal entrants to a whopping 12+ million.
-----

and i just heard this interesting thing this morning; apparently, vicente fox is saying that for the first time, mexico has a shortage of workers.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 11:41 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Should I go find that quote of you nattering on about identifying emphasis added to quotes in our posts, out of your concern for others who "might not know better"?


Knock yourself out.

It is quaintly puerile of you (and not at all unexpected) to see you characterize the remark as nattering. Nattering seems to be a particular skill of yours. After all, you didn't come to this thread this morning to discuss immigration or the law as a general concept. You only came here to attempt to cast slurs at me. What a silly boy you are.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 11:54 am
ebrown writes
Quote:
We are a nation built by immigrants, both legal and illegal. I think your fears that immigrants will now destroy our nation are exagerrated.


What fears would those be ebrown? You (and one other) seem to want to make this debate about me. I'm not accepting it, however, until I express a fear or an opinion or a suggestion, etc. about what I think should be done.

But as a hypothetical, you don't have any idea in mind about how many illegal immigrants we can take without hurting people who are already here? Are you certain in your own mind that the 12 million illegals already here aren't hurting anybody? I am not suggesting that you are in any way. I am asking in the interest of exploring all those facets of the problem that I mentioned earlier.

(And 'I don't know' is a perfectly acceptable answer. Smile)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 11:57 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
and i just heard this interesting thing this morning; apparently, vicente fox is saying that for the first time, mexico has a shortage of workers.


I'd heard several comments today about Fox, Bush and Harper meeting--but i hadn't heard that. That's a real corker, ain't it ? ! ? ! ?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 12:01 pm
DTOM's report about Fox's remark sent me to do some online news hunting.

This story from ABC News tells of Bush's plan on the immigration issue.

(The photo shows the two conservative wonder boys mugging for the cameras.)
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 12:06 pm
Setanta wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
and i just heard this interesting thing this morning; apparently, vicente fox is saying that for the first time, mexico has a shortage of workers.


I'd heard several comments today about Fox, Bush and Harper meeting--but i hadn't heard that. That's a real corker, ain't it ? ! ? ! ?


i mean ta tell, ya.. made me move the clock ahead to 12:00 pm. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 12:09 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Setanta wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
a question though;

what is proposed to be done with illegal entrants arriving after the implementation of McC-K ?

what happens with those who fail, or refuse, to register for the program?

what about those who actually are involved, or get involved in criminal activities ?


These same questions were advanced during the Reagan administration, at the time of the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986--no one bothered to answer those questions then, either.


har! looks like we're the only ones wonderin' about it in 2006, too.


---

it feels to me that in one way or another that at the very least, some final bill will be hammered out that will allow illegal entrants with familial circumstances to remain in the country and have some "path" to legal residency. mass deportations are not a realistic idea.

so you can come down off the roof for a few minutes now, e. Laughing


but what comes after ? anybody know what solutions are included for the questions i asked above ? set reminds us that the same issues where brought up in 1986, but that no plan was put in place back then.

what resulted was a growth from 3 million illegal entrants to a whopping 12+ million.
-----

and i just heard this interesting thing this morning; apparently, vicente fox is saying that for the first time, mexico has a shortage of workers.


This is why I am so madly in love with you, DTOM. (With my husband's permission of course. Smile)

And thank you. I am hearing on so many fronts (not on this thread necessarily) that deporting 12 million people is not at all realistic. But the other side of that coin is that coming up with legal provisions to make it easy for them to stay here legally is just waving others on in. And that is having its own repercussions in our prison populations, crime rates, strain on social services, depressed wages, etc. etc. etc. that simply cannot be ignored.

Ebrown's suggestion that we make the climate in Mexico more hospitable there so people will stay there is another good one. But how do you do that? We have tried for years to relieve poverty in the Third World nations in Africa et al only to know that our contributions were swallowed up by corrupt governments and other graft and little or nothing went to help relieve the suffering of the people. The sad fact is that some of the same kinds of conditions exist in Mexico which, at least some think, is why it is a poor country despite an excellent climate and major natural resources.

The Mequiladora border projects were intended to do just that with no noticeable effects on the total Mexican situation, but a lot of American businesses relocated in Mexico just the same. I still remember the Briggs Stratton people debating whether they would move to Mexico with their jobs at much lower pay or take their chances finding new jobs here.

And thanks to McGentrix and Tico for daring to keep us focused on the issue of the law and the consequences of enforcing it or not enforcing it.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 12:32 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
This is why I am so madly in love with you, DTOM. (With my husband's permission of course. Smile)

aahhhhh,.... garsh, miss... i...,i...., loves you too. <blush, shuffle, blush..>


Ebrown's suggestion that we make the climate in Mexico more hospitable there so people will stay there is another good one. But how do you do that? We have tried for years to relieve poverty in the Third World nations in Africa et al

and that could be the problem. there's a much better chance of having oversight on our investment closer to home.

mexico is the logical choice. good for us and good for them. the last 20 years has seen a measurable change in the political direction of that country. fox is sort of a "eehhhhhh" president, but still an improvement.

we should probably take a more focused approach. central and south america are at a cathartic point where what happens now will dictate the next century or so. that may be an inoccuous statement. dunno..

but, i just feel like if we are going to assert bucks and muscle to "change the world" we'd behoove ourselves to start on our own continent.

it starts like an ice crystal. it begins with a center and grows outward in a delicate, yet insistant walk through an ever changing world.

how's that for some beautiful #*@&^! poetry ?? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 12:40 pm
Something to think about for sure, DTOM, and I will. Gotta go to an appointment now. Back later, but wanted to post the Rasmussen poll that was run on this subject this week:

Immigration Issue Remains Divisive
Survey of 1,000 Adults


March 28-29, 2006

More Important

Reduce Illegal Immigration 65%
Expand Legal Opportunities for Foreign Workers 25%
RasmussenReports.com

Should there be a way for illegal immigrants with a job to stay in US Legally?
Yes 39%
No 44%
RasmussenReports.com


Trust More on Immigration
Republican 38%
Democrats 37%
RasmussenReports.com

March 30, 2006--As Congress considers legislation to reform the immigration process, the nation remains divided on how to proceed.

By a 65% to 25% margin, Americans say it is more important to reduce the number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. than it is to expand legal opportunities for foreign workers to get jobs in the U.S.

However, that doesn't translate into an overwhelming public desire to force illegal aliens out of the country. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans say there should be some way for illegal aliens with a job to stay in the U.S. legally. Forty-four percent (44%) disagree while 17% are not sure.

Fully a quarter (25%) of those who believe reducing illegal immigration is the top priority also believe that some way should be found to keep illegal immigrants in the country legally.

Earlier surveys on immigration have found support for building a barrier along the Mexican border and positive attitudes towards citizen patrols along the border. Another survey found that most Americans consider current immigration laws a threat to both national security and the economy. Three-fourths of all Americans believe it is too easy for people from other countries to enter the United States.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/March%20Dailies/Immigration.htm
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 12:44 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
And thanks to McGentrix and Tico for daring to keep us focused on the issue of the law and the consequences of enforcing it or not enforcing it.


This is so much sh!t. Tico and McGentrix diverted the topic of the thread, and Tico for the sole purpose of casting slurs at me. I was the one who pointed out that he hadn't come here to discuss the topic of immigration. You are so full of it.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 12:46 pm
I think I started my thread three days too early.

Some good reading though.

and a better poll if I do say so myself.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 12:47 pm
It is worth noting that Fox is not apparently interested in a solution so much as a narrow and shallow appeal to the canard of "legality."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 12:48 pm
Joe, whenever i click you link, it takes me to the "my topics" page--meaning the topics i created myself. As my prior response prevented you from editing, perhaps you could provide us a reliable link to your thread.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 12:50 pm
Someone mentioned opinions of the general public concerning immigration issues, and after nine pages no one has posted any stats thereof. Yesterday NPR featured a story on the Pew Reserch Center's report on US public opinions concerning immigration. The bottom line is that there is no consesus on the issue, and there is a lot of ambivalece concerning compasion and law enforcement.

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2006/mar/pew_immigration/immigration_graph1.gif

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2006/mar/pew_immigration/immigration_graph2.gif

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2006/mar/pew_immigration/immigration_graph3.gif

Illegal Immigration Divides Americans, Poll Says

All Things Considered, March 30, 2006 ยท Americans are split three ways over illegal immigration, with about one-third saying undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States permanently and about one-third saying such immigrants should be granted only temporary worker status, according to a new poll. Another 27 percent say illegal immigrants should be required to return to their native countries.

"So the public is really very divided on this issue," says Andrew Kohut, director of the the Pew Research Center, which conducted the survey. "The ambivalence is remarkable."

A 70 percent majority of those polled said illegal immigrants should be denied local social services, but 71 percent favored allowing the children of illegal immigrants to attend school. "It's not all one way with respect to the problem of immigration, and certainly with respect to immigrants themselves," Kohut tells Melissa Block.

About half of Americans (49 percent) say increasing the penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants would be most effective in stemming the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico. One-third prefer boosting the number of border patrol agents, and 9 percent say more fences should be built along the Mexican border.



From the Pew Reserch Center's website itself:

http://people-press.org/reports/images/274-1.gif

http://people-press.org/reports/images/274-2.gif

This is the introduction to their report,
America's Immigration Quandary No Consensus on Immigration Problem or Proposed Fixes

The introduction discusses a facinating exploration on the basis of the ambivalence in opinion:

The Bases of Ambivalence


The survey finds a number of opinions about immigrants that may well contribute to ambivalent attitudes toward immigration, especially in areas where immigrants are most numerous. First, attitudes toward both Latin American and Asian immigrants are more positive now than in the 1990s, even as concern over the problems associated with immigration has increased. Both groups are overwhelmingly seen as very hard working and having strong family values. Impressions of Latin American immigrants, in particular, have grown much more positive, with 80% describing them as very hard working compared with 63% nearly a decade ago.

Moreover, native-born Americans who live in areas with the highest concentration of immigrants hold more positive opinions of them. Analysis of the survey indicates that their more favorable views do not merely reflect their demographics or political composition, but suggests that exposure to and experience with immigrants results in a better impression of them. However, Americans living in areas with more immigrants rank immigration as a bigger community problem.

And while there is concern about the impact of immigration on the availability of jobs, nearly two-thirds (65%) say that immigrants coming to the country mostly take jobs that Americans do not want, rather than take jobs away from Americans. In this regard, the recent influx of immigrants into such metropolitan areas as Phoenix, Las Vegas and Raleigh-Durham has not undermined the generally positive perceptions residents have of the local job market.

Yet at the same time, a sizable minority (16%) says they or a family member have lost a job to an immigrant worker. And the perception of being passed over - more common among those with less education and lower incomes - is strongly associated with negative views of immigrants and high levels of support for strong measures to deal with the problem. For example, 75% of those who say they or a family member has lost a job to an immigrant view them as a burden compared with 47% of those who do not think this has happened.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 12:52 pm
I find it very interesting that a majority favor penalizing employers of illegal immigrants. That is a point of view which is long overdue.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 01:01 pm
Setanta wrote:
Joe, whenever i click you link, it takes me to the "my topics" page--meaning the topics i created myself. As my prior response prevented you from editing, perhaps you could provide us a reliable link to your thread.


same here.

have ya joined the nsa, joey ?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 01:09 pm
Setanta wrote:
This is so much sh!t. Tico and McGentrix diverted the topic of the thread, and Tico for the sole purpose of casting slurs at me. I was the one who pointed out that he hadn't come here to discuss the topic of immigration. You are so full of it.


Huh? I cast no slurs at you. I corrected your misquote of a Dickens' character ... and instead of simply thanking me for the correction (which I would have done had the shoe been on the other foot), you bristle because your ego does not allow you to be corrected. You're so transparent.

----

Meanwhile, I found a definition of "natter" for you.

http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/9228/natter9ky.jpg
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 01:11 pm
Setanta wrote:
I find it very interesting that a majority favor penalizing employers of illegal immigrants. That is a point of view which is long overdue.


yup. $50 is not a fine. $50,000 per instance, multiplied by even 25 or so is gonna make the cigar chompers sit up and pay attention.

might as well ding 'em for crappy work environments too. illness and injuries sustained from the work environment and treated by the system are an additional drag on things.

hey! maybe we can pay down the deficit. talk about a silver lining...
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 01:17 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Setanta wrote:
This is so much sh!t. Tico and McGentrix diverted the topic of the thread, and Tico for the sole purpose of casting slurs at me. I was the one who pointed out that he hadn't come here to discuss the topic of immigration. You are so full of it.


Huh? I cast no slurs at you. I corrected your misquote of a Dickens' character ... and instead of simply thanking me for the correction (which I would have done had the shoe been on the other foot), you bristle because your ego does not allow you to be corrected. You're so transparent.

----

Meanwhile, I found a definition of "natter" for you.

http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/9228/natter9ky.jpg


That's pretty good!
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 01:39 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Setanta wrote:
I find it very interesting that a majority favor penalizing employers of illegal immigrants. That is a point of view which is long overdue.


yup. $50 is not a fine. $50,000 per instance, multiplied by even 25 or so is gonna make the cigar chompers sit up and pay attention.

might as well ding 'em for crappy work environments too. illness and injuries sustained from the work environment and treated by the system are an additional drag on things.

hey! maybe we can pay down the deficit. talk about a silver lining...


That aint gonna happen (not that I would object, mind you).

Suggesting harsh penalties for "illegal" immigrants is easy. They are vulerable, mostly poor and politically weak.

Suggesting harsh penalties for big corporartions is stupid. Even if they don't chew you up and spit you out politically, they will get their laywers to find away around them anyway.
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 05:17:55