What should be done about illegal immigration?

Quote:

It is your side that wants to make TB treatment inaccessible for "illegal" immigrants.

No, it is the side of common sense.

I favor a program which gives those immigrants who are here, a path to become legal within 5 years, as long as they have no felonies on their record.

I favor extremely harsh penalties for those employers who knowingly and regularly hire illegals. I don't give a good god damn if that makes the price of goods go up. It's the right thing to do.

I favor increasing the ability for foriegners to apply for citizenship and recieve it in a fair manner. I believe the foreign legion would be a great way to go as well as an avenue for citizenship.

I favor making the southern US border a line of death. I don't blame anyone for trying to sneak into America; but they shouldn't blame us for trying to keep them out. The most effective way to do this is to make it abundantly clear that those who attempt to cross illegally rarely survive the process.

I favor, once the 5-year period is up, removing government services of all kinds from Illegals. I favor deportation of those illegals who will not comply with our regulations; I really don't give a damn about breaking up families or any of that mess. The law is the law.

People sometimes act as if our history must guide every action that we take. There was a time when the US was wide open for immigration, because we needed the people. We don't need the people any longer.

I'm a card-carrying Democrat, and I believe all these things. These beliefs are not incompatible with my beliefs on other issues. Maybe up in Boston you haven't seen the effects of illegal immigration, but just wait until you are rear-ended by an illegal alien like my Mother was; he had no id, no insurance, no anything, and the cops had to let him go because they can't detain illegals for any length of time. Now he's splitsville and I doubt my Mother's back pain will ever go away.

You act as if any position other than yours is heartless and immoral, and that's just wrong. You seem to forget that these people are breaking the law in the first place.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Jp,

I said nothing about racism in my response to your post.

The main point of the article you posted was that immigrants are dangerous as disease carriers. The author is certainly not pro-immigration. It is clear that your post was anti-immigrant.

Sensationalistic descriptions of TB, polio and a desease that the author enthusiastically points out was called "the disease of the soul" is designed to make a political point through fear.

In a balanced article, the author would have pointed out that all polio and leprosy are not a public health threat at all if there is a good public health policy in place. Polio is prevented through vaccination and leprosy is treatable with anti-biotics (and even when not treated is very hard to contract).

Drug resistant TB is a problem and is correlated with poverty. My sister works in public health and was part of a program to eradicate TB.

The solution is to make sure that patients continue with a multidrug therapy. The problem is that many very poor people (or people with another problem such as drug abuse) don't stay on there medications.

Making sure that the very poor, including immigrants , have access to health care is the solution to TB (and just good public policy in general).

This article is designed to raise fear for public health even though it leaves readers with the exact wrong impression of how to solve the problems it raises.

That is the definition of fear-mongering.

0 Replies

I gotta say, good post Cyclop.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I gotta say, good post Cyclop.

I gotta say the same. (Did you see my new signature?)

0 Replies

Yes, thanks! I believe it's one of the first times I've been quoted.

You have nothing other to say on the matter?

Cjhsa, I like to point out all the time that there is no Liberal/Conservative position on this issue; this is another issue which transcends traditional party lines.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, thanks! I believe it's one of the first times I've been quoted.

You have nothing other to say on the matter?

Cjhsa, I like to point out all the time that there is no Liberal/Conservative position on this issue; this is another issue which transcends traditional party lines.

Cycloptichorn

Nothing else except that, although you call youself a Democrat, I expect you won't be voting for a Democratic candidate in the next election.

Don't worry, we are working getting out the Latino and minority vote to take up the slack.

0 Replies

Well, the traditional "minority" vote isn't very pleased with the alien problem either.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Cjhsa, I like to point out all the time that there is no Liberal/Conservative position on this issue; this is another issue which transcends traditional party lines.

I think that this is correct in that it is splitting the Republican party. I think that a path to citizenship is becoming a Democratic position (and wisely so). Most liberals are very much on the side of immigrant rights. Look at the upcoming congresssional votes if you don't believe this.

You are doing a Lieberman. (I don't think he will be a Democrat for long either).

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Well, the traditional "minority" vote isn't very pleased with the alien problem either.

Do you want to post the poll numbers for this (I have seen them, and you are quite wrong).

0 Replies

Quote:

Nothing else except that, although you call youself a Democrat, I expect you won't be voting for a Democratic candidate in the next election.

Don't worry, we are working getting out the Latino and minority vote to take up the slack.

What makes you think I won't vote Democratic next election? I fully expect to.

See, while you may believe this is the most important issue in the world, I don't. Immigration reform isn't even in my top 5 important issues right now.

Are you claiming that I cannot have my opinion on this and be a 'good' Democrat? Because frankly, that's BS.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Jp,

I said nothing about racism in my response to your post.

No, but it is a common theme and often used fall back response in many of your posts concerning this topic.

ebrown_p wrote:

The main point of the article you posted was that immigrants are dangerous as disease carriers. The author is certainly not pro-immigration. It is clear that your post was anti-immigrant.

No it isn't. It may be anti-illegal-immigration but it is certainly not clear that it is anti-immigration.

ebrown_p wrote:

Sensationalistic descriptions of TB, polio and a desease that the author enthusiastically points out was called "the disease of the soul" is designed to make a political point through fear.

In a balanced article, the author would have pointed out that all polio and leprosy are not a public health threat at all if there is a good public health policy in place. Polio is prevented through vaccination and leprosy is treatable with anti-biotics (and even when not treated is very hard to contract).

She was specifically targeting MTB which has been common in Mexico. Cases here have been traced back to Mexican immigrants. MTB is not easily cured, as you claim, considering that MTB is drug-resistant and takes lots of time, money, and drugs to cure it.

ebrown_p wrote:

Drug resistant TB is a problem and is correlated with poverty. My sister works in public health and was part of a program to eradicate TB.

The solution is to make sure that patients continue with a multidrug therapy. The problem is that many very poor people (or people with another problem such as drug abuse) don't stay on there medications.

Yet you want to keep allowing immigrants to come through our borders illegally and perpetuate the low wages (that americans won't work for) and poverty levels that, you claim, are part of the problem. Besides, I never knew that communicable diseases cared how much money you made.

ebrown_p wrote:

Making sure that the very poor, including immigrants , have access to health care is the solution to TB (and just good public policy in general).

Souds fantastic... who is going to pay for it all? A better solution, IMO, is to not allow those with communicable diseases cross our borders and focus on healthcare for those already here instead of providing healthcare for the whole world.

ebrown_p wrote:

This article is designed to raise fear for public health even though it leaves readers with the exact wrong impression of how to solve the problems it raises.

That is the definition of fear-mongering.

Do you doubt that there has been a rise in such diseases and the origin of them? Should we just not worry about who comes across our borders or what diseases they carry? MTB... come on down. Polio... come on down. malaria... come on down. Bird Flu... come on down.

0 Replies

Cyc... I knew you and I could agree on something.

0 Replies

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

Cyc... I knew you and I could agree on something.

Amendment: Although I'm not sure about the line of death thing. We do need to make it hard to enter illegally... but a line of death might be a bit to harsh.

0 Replies

Quote:

Amendment: Although I'm not sure about the line of death thing. We do need to make it hard to enter illegally... but a line of death might be a bit to harsh.

Perhaps it was too harsh. I don't really wish for anyone to die, just want to have the most efficient way to keep illegals from entering America, which I feel must happen.

Part of the 'line of death' argument is in deterrence. We simply don't have the resources IMO to fully man the border at all times. Fences can be useful, but only act as a passive deterrent to illegal entry into our country and can be easily defeated.

The situation becomes drastically different once the illegal realizes that he is actively taking his life into his own hands by attempting to break the law. You or I wouldn't try and rob a bank, not just because of the criminal consequences, but because we could get shot doing so. You don't try to assault police officers, because you get shot for doing so. What is so different about protecting our borders?

I understand that this is a difficult subject, and I guarantee that no matter what solution is worked out, not everyone - perhaps noone, really - is going to be happy with the compromise. But I do feel that there is no harm in considering all ideas for solving this problem.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The situation becomes drastically different once the illegal realizes that he is actively taking his life into his own hands by attempting to break the law. You or I wouldn't try and rob a bank, not just because of the criminal consequences, but because we could get shot doing so. You don't try to assault police officers, because you get shot for doing so. What is so different about protecting our borders?

I think the only difference is that we would have to place people on the borders for the sole purpose of killing a person. A policeman's first duty is to serve and protect... killing a person is usually only a last resort kind of thing. I do agree that it would act as more of a deterent, though.

I saw an article awhile back about a canal that is going to be relined because it is leaking water. One of the criticisms, above the mexicans that depend on the leaking water for farming, was that it would make crossing the border to dangerous because the now muddy canal provides vegetation to grab onto as a person is trying to swim across. They are going to build ladders into the canal so that those crossing over illegally have something to grab onto. We may as well build a freaking bridge.

I do agree that we should make it perilous, dangerous and difficult to cross illegally, but don't want to take specific direct steps to purposefully harm a person.

0 Replies

It's what birdshot is for. Ask Cheney's lawyer.

0 Replies

When the Border Patrol stepped up enforcement on the Rio Grande and in Southern California in response to political pressure, the Coyotes simply started dumping their victims across the border in the Chihuahuan Desert, in southern Arizona and New Mexico. People did, literally, die in the attempt to get across the border. This is well known in Mexico, Central and South America. It didn't stop the or even abate the flow. I think that "line of death" idea is horseshit.

0 Replies

Well, if they hadn't been born in the first place....

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

No, that was his second post.

His first was an image talking about fortified borders.

Taken out of a summary of the results of that said geography poll.

0 Replies

But it wasn't even a geography question!

Have you found Michigan yet?

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know