What should be done about illegal immigration?

Do you know what our current policies are for legal immigrants, Thomas? Do you have a problem with them as they are?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you know what our current policies are for legal immigrants, Thomas? Do you have a problem with them as they are?

Yes -- as a legal Green Card holder, I know what your current policies for legal immigrants are. I have no problem with them except the quotas, which were absent before 1922.

0 Replies

Note to those who are not interested in discussing the subject but who are just playing the 'gotcha' game: The Rasmussen Reports are a for profit polling group that sells (for a stiff fee) comprehensive data to interested groups. They are funded by nobody but themselves so far as I know. A comparable service would be Zogby. I believe Scott Rasmussen, as recently as a year ago, identified himself as a registered Democrat.

Rasmussen also had the best track record for accuracy of anybody in the 2000 election and has done pretty darn well since.

0 Replies

If you go to the page at which you spend your money to join Rasmussen's band of merry slack-jawed yokels, you learn the following:

Quote:

Slate magazine proclaimed Rasmussen #1 in accuracy for Election 2004. This assessment was confirmed by Matthew Dowd who noted that "Scott's polling data was dead on this election. Both nationally and at the state level, his numbers were hard to beat." Dowd was Chief Strategist for Bush-Cheney '04. (emphasis added)

Undoubtedly, fair and balanced polling.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Do you know what our current policies are for legal immigrants, Thomas? Do you have a problem with them as they are?

Yes -- as a legal Green Card holder, I know what your current policies for legal immigrants are. I have no problem with them except the quotas, which were absent before 1922.

Before 1922 there was no welfare state of any kind in the United States and the courts weren't mandating that services be provided to anybody. Those coming into the United States were, as you said, required to be healthy and able to suppot themselves, were expected to renounce citizenship in any other country, pledge loyalty to the U.S. flag and Constitution, and learn English. They were guaranteed nothing other than equal protection under the law.

Why do you oppose quotas? Do you think we can assimilate unlimited numbers of people coming in forever?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Note to those who are not interested in discussing the subject but who are just playing the 'gotcha' game:

I've been trying to discuss this topic, and pointed out that you have an obsession with slanted views of legality, but rather than discussing that, you simply said that you would "put Setanta in the doesn't want any laws camp"--effectively stating your intention not to discuss the subject of a narrow and shallow view of legalism.

Quote:

The Rasmussen Reports are a for profit polling group that sells (for a stiff fee) comprehensive data to interested groups. They are funded by nobody but themselves so far as I know.

As far as you know, which is to say, you don't know, or have no information, or don't care to reveal any information you may have. Your point throughout this thread is to define a narrow view of legality, and to ignore that legality changes with legislation. You've shown no interest in discussing effective legislation to ameliorate this problem, because the sole interest you've shown is to declare that there a millions of people here illegally, and that the law must be enforced, whatever the consequences--and hence your appeal to a Rasmussen Report which suggests that yours is the majority opinion.

Quote:

A comparable service would be Zogby. I believe Scott Rasmussen, as recently as a year ago, identified himself as a registered Democrat.

Oh yeah, you believe that, eh? Do you know if for a fact? Do you know in which state he was registered as a Democrat? Are you aware that states have long ago abandoned the practice of registering voters as members of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party? Are you aware of the extent to which it appears that you are making this up as you go along?

Quote:

Rasmussen also had the best track record for accuracy of anybody in the 2000 election and has done pretty darn well since.

What basis do you have for this statement from authority--because they say so themselves at their home page? Because someone described as the Bush/Cheney "Chief Strategist" says so? Are we just to take your word for it, or do you have something to back this up?

You don't want to discuss solutions, you just want to rant about legality, and to attempt to make it appear that yours is the majority point of view.

0 Replies

Setanta, you're not attempting to discuss this subject at all. You're trying to take shots at me or others, and trying to make the Rasmussen poll an issue. I acknowledge that you consider the Rasmussen poll to be a crock and that you have nothing but contempt for me and any position I hold. Now with that out of the way, can we please stay with the topic.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Before 1922 there was no welfare state of any kind in the United States and the courts weren't mandating that services be provided to anybody.

I agree. And if the only way to maintain unlimited immigration was to dismantle the welfare state, I would dismantle it. But I don't believe this is the only option -- especially as the US can withhold welfare payments from immigrants. (I had to sign language to this effect as a precondition of getting my Green Card. Of course, I remain welcome to pay taxes that fund Americans' welfare and medicaid payments.)

Foxfyre wrote:

Those coming into the United States were, as you said, required to be healthy and able to suppot themselves

True.

Foxfyre wrote:

were expected to renounce citizenship in any other country, pledge loyalty to the U.S. flag and Constitution, and learn English.

Untrue on all three counts.

Foxfyre wrote:

Why do you oppose quotas? Do you think we can assimilate unlimited numbers of people coming in forever?

The United States have a 140 year record of virtually unlimited immigration. If there is a limit to how many immigrants the US can assimilate, it has never reached this limit over those 140 years.

0 Replies

How very interesting, Scott Rasmussen is a columnist on polling at WorldNetDaily, the online conservative rag set up by Joseph Farah. Rather odd for an alleged "registered Democrat."

Farah bills himself as having 25 years of newspaper experience (see the "About Us" link at WorldNetDaily)--Oh Yeah! Went to The Sacramento Union, and that newspaper went out of business; went to The Los Angeles Herald Examiner, and that newspaper went out of business.

So we find out that Soctt Rasmussen, the alleged member of the Democratic Party, writes a column for Farah's WorldNetDaily, and Fox expects us to conclude that he has nothing but fair and balanced data to provide us.

I believe i'll pass on swalling that crap.

0 Replies

If you want to stay on topic, Fox, then how about addressing all of the valid suggestions which have been offered for changing the law to effectively deal with the current situation, instead of hewing to a narrow and shallow legalism, and attempting to provide bogus poll data to back up your position?

0 Replies

I'm still searching for the legislation that Fox refers to has using the term "amnesty" so I can sign up my support.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Before 1922 there was no welfare state of any kind in the United States and the courts weren't mandating that services be provided to anybody.

I agree. And if the only way to maintain unlimited immigration was to dismantle the welfare state, I would dismantle it. But I don't believe this is the only option -- especially as the US can withhold welfare payments from immigrants. (I had to sign language to this effect as a precondition of getting my Green Card. Of course, I remain welcome to pay taxes that fund Americans' welfare and medicaid payments.)

Foxfyre wrote:
Those coming into the United States were, as you said, required to be healthy and able to suppot themselves

True.

Foxfyre wrote:
were expected to renounce citizenship in any other country, pledge loyalty to the U.S. flag and Constitution, and learn English.

Untrue on all three counts.

Hey I helped teach citizenship classes for a number of years and was present at the swearing in of most of my students. I guarantee you these people were pledging to be loyal Americans and they were damn proud of it. I'll stand by my statement.

Foxfyre wrote:
Why do you oppose quotas? Do you think we can assimilate unlimited numbers of people coming in forever?

The United States have a 140 year record of virtually unlimited immigration. If there is a limit to how many immigrants the US can assimilate, it has never reached this limit over those 140 years.

Many in the U.S. feel it has reached its limit now with all the illegals here. I know that some states certainly feel they've got all they can handle--see the links I posted earlier today. Up until illegal immigration became a matter of millions and millions, the controlled immigration (i.e. quotas) ensured that there would be sufficient jobs, housing, services, etc. to efficiently assimilate those coming in. It has only been a problem since these periodic 'amnesty' or quasi-amnesty policies that some feel are a beacon waving folks to come on in however they can get here.

In 1922, the U.S. population was just over 1/3 of what it is now. Don't you think that needs to be considered along with everything else re how many people we can efficiently assimilate? Even with our large land area and considerable resources, one must acknowledge that our capacity is finite.

Now the option of denying all but emergency services to illegals is up there and has drawn some criticism, but there are those who think that if most or all public assistance was withdrawn, only those who can support themselves would come. I think that's a bit unrealistic as testified by the growing number of illegals in our jail and prison populations.

I'm still looking for a solid position here, though, as everybody has a point of view worthy of consideration.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I'm still searching for the legislation that Fox refers to has using the term "amnesty" so I can sign up my support.

Perhaps you could define amnesty. To me, the word means not applying the penalty of law to a group. Perhaps you could enligten me on how a law allowing millions of people to stay in the United States in violation of the previous law is not 'amnesty'.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

By some accounts, 33% of our prison population now consists of people here illegally and some 36 to 42% of the illegal immigrants already here are on some kind of public assistance mandated by the courts.

It doesn't sound a good idea to use criminal data for the purpose of regulating imigration (besides, 27% is said to be the official number).

I suppose, there's a large number of whites, blacks, Hispanic, Chinese etc US population in the prisons as well.
There big advantage is that they are legally there, e.g. don't need "to behave suspiciously" when e.g. appoached by the police.

Generally, IMHO, there is no correlation using prison democraphics to correlate crime with illegal immigrants. You don't do that with the other population the same way. On a serious basis, I mean.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

If you want to stay on topic, Fox, then how about addressing all of the valid suggestions which have been offered for changing the law to effectively deal with the current situation, instead of hewing to a narrow and shallow legalism, and attempting to provide bogus poll data to back up your position?

Why don't you demonstrate how I should do that by doing it yourself? That would be very helpful. Thank you.

0 Replies

Two successive dodges, not a substantive answer in the pair. We expect no less from you, Fox.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
By some accounts, 33% of our prison population now consists of people here illegally and some 36 to 42% of the illegal immigrants already here are on some kind of public assistance mandated by the courts.

It doesn't sound a good idea to use criminal data for the purpose of regulating imigration (besides, 27% is said to be the official number).

I suppose, there's a large number of whites, blacks, Hispanic, Chinese etc US population in the prisons as well.
There big advantage is that they are legally there, e.g. don't need "to behave suspiciously" when e.g. appoached by the police.

Generally, IMHO, there is no correlation using prison democraphics to correlate crime with illegal immigrants. You don't do that with the other population the same way. On a serious basis, I mean.

Please clarify Walter. Are you saying that that the numbers of people who are in the country illegally and have committed crimes should not be a factor? Especially when they are a substantial percentage of our jail and prison population? Race or nationality is not the issue here, but we are discussing the pros and cons of policy re illegal immigration.

I know here in Albuquerque, it is a significant problem. And from what I'm reading, we are by no means unique.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Are you saying that that the numbers of people who are in the country illegally and have committed crimes should not be a factor?

Yes, I am - at least in the way, you do it.

0 Replies

Meanwhile, I'm sure nobody will mind if I just ignore the annoying little gnats (not meaning you Walter or anybody else who is seriously discussing the issue).

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Are you saying that that the numbers of people who are in the country illegally and have committed crimes should not be a factor?

Yes, I am - at least in the way, you do it.

Okay I asked you to explain. How is a disproportionate number of people here illegally populating our jails and prison not a factor in this discussion? How did I use the data improperly?

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know