What should be done about illegal immigration?

53% in favor of earned citizenship is a key number in my mind.

The number of Americans that oppose protests isn't surprising or even worrisome-- that's how these things go with protests. The protests make people uncomfortable, but that's how they work. It doesn't mean they aren't effective in getting people to pay attention to the issues.

But 53% is a nice number.

.

0 Replies

Quote:

By the early 1990s, employer sanctions was a dead letter, rarely enforced by the government and mostly ignored by the nation's employers. Not one American in 50 today knows what an I-9 form is, although the law still requires those of us who work to complete them.

Criminal people, those. Should be send to prison, not allowed to do any kind of job in the USA anymore, their families should get no state or federal money of any kind, everyone who knows abou such and didn't report it, should get the very same punishment ....

I'm just asking to obey the law, isn't it?

0 Replies

Still not getting it. What's wrong with offering amnesty to anyone who can prove gainful employment? My guess is that would cut the necessary deportments and associated costs by at least 90%.

My Sou Chef blew us off tonight (born and raised here in the States). Not being a Minority, I can't quite see the rationale behind punishing the non-bigots (like us) as such... but I've convinced my partner (who has 100% discretion of kitchen employees) to give him a pass, just in case there is a good explanation.
I have one questionable employee, who has papers, but they may not be up to snuff. He's one of my best, and the highest paid at his position, and worked tonight without comment on the goings on. Must be our pseudo-Pura Vida. :wink:

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:
By the early 1990s, employer sanctions was a dead letter, rarely enforced by the government and mostly ignored by the nation's employers. Not one American in 50 today knows what an I-9 form is, although the law still requires those of us who work to complete them.

Criminal people, those. Should be send to prison, not allowed to do any kind of job in the USA anymore, their families should get no state or federal money of any kind, everyone who knows abou such and didn't report it, should get the very same punishment ....

I'm just asking to obey the law, isn't it?

I have notified the proper authorities.

We know who you are.
You know who you are.

Joe(Please have a bag packed)Nation

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Still not getting it. What's wrong with offering amnesty to anyone who can prove gainful employment? My guess is that would cut the necessary deportments and associated costs by at least 90%.

My Sou Chef blew us off tonight (born and raised here in the States). Not being a Minority, I can't quite see the rationale behind punishing the non-bigots (like us) as such... but I've convinced my partner (who has 100% discretion of kitchen employees) to give him a pass, just in case there is a good explanation.
I have one questionable employee, who has papers, but they may not be up to snuff. He's one of my best, and the highest paid at his position, and worked tonight without comment on the goings on. Must be our pseudo-Pura Vida. :wink:

Pragmatically three major reasons:

1) Amnesty programs with increased enforcement in the Carter and Reagan administrations did absolutely nothing to slow the tide of illegals that are now quadruple the number that they were then with a half million to a million more arriving every year. Amnesty is a giant flashing welcome sign: "Ya'll come and if you make it in and are careful for just a little while, the Americans will take care of you and let you stay forever." Many, if not most, Americans think we cannot any longer reward illegal behavior.

2) It is unfair and unjust to let those who broke the law cut in line in front of all the people who have been going through the process and have waited patiently for years to be admitted legally.

3) If we do not control our borders and retain control of who will be here legally, we will continue to incur greater security risk in a post 9/11 world and will also lose the very qualities that make us America and so attractive to much of the rest of the world.

0 Replies

1) The amnesty programs meant millions of hardworking people could become Americans. They now can contribute openly as full citizens instead of being pressured to live in the shadows.

Evidently these amnesties did not hurt the economy much as the next ten years (1986-1996) showed that these new Americans contributed to a strong American economy.

If you want to reduce the amount of illegal immigration, harsh measures to make the lives of immigrants unbearably miserable are not the answer. You might start by providing the immigration levels that business needs.

2) The majority of legal immigrants understand that the current laws are both unfair and inhumane. That is why legal immigrants who are organizing, promoting and participating in the protests.

3) What can I say about the threat of Latin American terrorists crossing the border (we all know how many Latin American terrorists there are). Using fear tactics from 9/11 here is simply ridiculous.

We are talking about the 12 million people who are already here and are now forced to live underground lives.

The best way to ensure security is to have these people become legal, so they can live their lives here above board-- preferably many of them will become American citizens. You will note that not one of the recipients of the "Carter and Reagan" amnesties was involved in 9/11.

If people who are here just to work and build a life here don't have to live lives under the radar, it will be much easier to find the people who really want to hurt us (none of them crossed the border anyway).

How is your proposal going to help people become legal?

(This using 9/11 for every dubious conservative political cause is boorish).

0 Replies

Amnesty is NOT an option. This is one reason why it should NOT be.

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/67873.htm

May 2, 2006 -- Federal agents rounded up 66 people in a series of raids yesterday that officials said smashed a suspected human-trafficking ring that smuggled Mexicans into the United States, and may have forced the women to work as prostitutes.
Officers with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided 15 locations in New York City, Union City and West New York, N.J., early yesterday after New Jersey State Police pulled over two vehicles containing at least 10 women who worked in brothels in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., said Kyle Hutchins, special agent in charge of the bureau's Newark office.

Thirty-six women and 30 men were taken into custody; all but two were being held on immigration charges for being in the United States illegally.

"How many were doing it willingly, we don't know," he said.

"We believe some of them had been trafficked."

The operation was at least the third major immigrant-smuggling ring operating in New Jersey in recent years. "

Some some system has to be developed so the Govt can PROTECT the poeple against illeagl traffickers. Some system needs to be developed to determine how each illegal got here, why etc...

The issues is much broader than just "the thousands who work here".

You all must have heard of the Chinese doing similiar acts and basicly turning these people into slaves.

Do you just want to leagalize that smuggling activity?

0 Replies

Senator Frist just promised a new Bill in the next two weeks. He claims it will be "compassionate", "fair" and "not amnesty" (these words coming from a politician can mean whatever you want them to mean).

I am going to guess that he is going to offer a guest worker program where illegal immigrants who register (i.e. give their names to authorities) can stay for six or so years, but then (having given their names to authorities) would be compelled to leave ... perhaps with a Kyl-Cornyn provision that they could apply again "at the end of the line".

This measure will be a great political move in the short term (i.e. it sounds good in a 30 second sound bite) and will make Foxfyre happy.

I think this measure will be rejected by labor the Latin American community (and the Democrats) and ultimately will lead to an even more contentious debate.

Another obvious problem is that a plan like this will only work if it is accepted by the immigrants themselves. I know that this idea will be hated by the conservatives (Foxfyre, you can start screaming 'how dare they... no rights' now...), but it is fact. If you end up with no one taking a bum deal, we end up in the same place we are now.

The fact is that this will be a horrible plan. It will not keep families together, it will take kids out of school. Worse yet, it will put the workers in a position to be mistreated even more... without rights and without a path to citizenship.

This unfortunately is good strategy for the Republicans because it will provide ammo that they had a plan that Foxfyre likes but the evil liberals blocked it.

Expect more yelling starting next week...

0 Replies

Fox wrote:
2) It is unfair and unjust to let those who broke the law cut in line in front of all the people who have been going through the process and have waited patiently for years to be admitted legally.

I agree with this concern; many people that come to the US do it the legal way, and must wait their turn. I don't see why illegals should have preferential treatment to become citizens; that's the only issue I have, but we all know our government will do as they please.

0 Replies

Cicerone,

The fact that most legal immigrants don't feel this way doesn't change your mind on this?

This argument assumes that the current laws are fair. To me this is a false argument raised by the anti-immigrant right-- but the real people who should have a say on this are the recent legal immigrants.

Legal immigrants are largely sympathetic to the plight of illegal immigrants who have been working here. They feel that the immigration laws are currently overly punitive and support an amnesty.

Doesn't this mean something?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Cicerone,

The fact that most legal immigrants don't feel this way doesn't change your mind on this?

This argument assumes that the current laws are fair. To me this is a false argument raised by the anti-immigrant right-- but the real people who should have a say on this are the recent legal immigrants.

Legal immigrants are largely sympathetic to the plight of illegal immigrants who have been working here. They feel that the immigration laws are currently overly punitive and support an amnesty.

Doesn't this mean something?

I'm sorry, but the REAL people who should have a say on this is the law makers and law-enforcement agencies of the United States.

0 Replies

I have to agree with McG on this one; the government will make laws and enforce them as they see fit. What Americans think is secondary.

0 Replies

So that means that if (and when) the lawmakers agree on a path to citizenship, and the law enforcement agencies go along with it... that you both will be fine with that?

0 Replies

e-brown, That's not what I said; and my position is rather clear. I do not think it right for illegals to have priority before those trying to become citizens legally. What our government does about my opinion has little to do with how the government will make laws or enforce them.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

e-brown, That's not what I said; and my position is rather clear. I do not think it right for illegals to have priority before those trying to become citizens legally. What our government does about my opinion has little to do with how the government will make laws or enforce them.

I like when we actually agree on something.

0 Replies

McG, I agree or disagree on issues, and not necessarily the person involved. That's the reason I have many disagreements with my siblings on religion and politics.

0 Replies

Many employers in the US are ignoring the laws in hiring illegal immigrants. I don't think that issue will ever get to our court system, because our government are too scared of the consequences. They will make laws, but will not enforce them depending on the issue at hand.

We've seen too many issues ignored by our government including universal health care, social security, medicare, and illegal immigrants. They will not change any time soon - nor will the citizens of our country.

0 Replies

Re: immigration

hamburger wrote:

I don't have any quarrel with the notion that the nation's government and its laws ultimately reflect the will of the people. There are limits, of course. The people may demand that a provision of the Constitution be overridden, and this must not happen without amending the Constitution....which of course the people consent to the amendment via national referendum. In the examle you cited, the judge here can also set aside the decision of the jury when the jury obviously comes to a conclusion contrary to law. It is a brave judge who does so though.

In the national immigration debate, of course everybody wants the majority to prevail if the majority agrees with him/her, but niether the people nor their elected representattives should be allowed to ignore the law without due process no matter how large a majority wants to ignore it. The fact that this is often done, does not, in my opinion, change what the due process should be.

Years ago we lived in a tiny little town in the north Texas Panhandle. The way the one postoffice was positioned, just about everybody approached it from the same direction and then made a u-turn in front to pull into the parking spaces. This was the process for years and years, until one day a cop waited just inside the door to ticket every one of us--yes, me too--who made what was in effect an illegal turn in front of the postoffice. The fine was nominal - $1 - but of course the people were furious at being fined for what the government had allowed them to do for such a long time. But you know what? Nobody ever made that illegal turn into the post office parking spaces again.

Enforcing the law in the immigration matter will certainly tick a lot of people off who have ignored it for such a long time. But enforcement usually stops a lot of the illegal practices just the same.

The small town softened the 'correction' by making the fine a nominal one. It was still effective. We can probably soften the impact of immigration enforcement too by making it possible for people to leave and come back legally right away. Employers could be advised that they need to have their acts cleaned up before the immigration authorities come calling on them. But if people want to do something and we just allow them to do what they have always done whether or not it is legal, it's a pretty safe bet they'll keep right on doing it.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

We've seen too many issues ignored by our government including universal health care, social security, medicare, and illegal immigrants. They will not change any time soon - nor will the citizens of our country.

You are an odd bird Cicerone.

Health care, universal social security and medicare are all progressive values. They all involve helping the less fortunate.

Hatred for illegal aliens is the wish of the radical right wing-- people who think universal health care and social security and medicare are for commies. Most would put school prayer, saving unborn fetuses and gun ownership in the list with illegal immigrants.

The phrase "the citizens of our country" is a strange phrase. Usually this group is pretty evenly divided between left leaning (blues) and the right wing red.

Let me assure you that a fair number of the "citizens of our country" are getting fed up with the garbage from Tancredo and the Christian right.

This is not Americans vs. illegals. You will find a growing number of Americans who are demanding a path to citizenship for people who are here illegally.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know