What should be done about illegal immigration?

squinney wrote:

That's not the problem, nor are the legal immigrants who have permission to be here.

Neither the report nor the quoted persons claimed that this is a problem.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The fact is though, Thomas, had you not applied for a green card and had just slipped in past whatever guards were around and took up residence, the courts here would be requiring civil authorities to provide you emergency health care, offer you low cost subsidized housing, educate your children, and you would be eligible for almost all services and benefits availed to citizens.

Fair enough. And my response is that the proper remedy to those problems is to deny these benefits to illegal immigrants.

Foxfyre wrote:

If it was Canada or Russians illegally funneling their unemployed, poor, or other hardship cases through those common borders, we would be equally as offended.

The Statue of Liberty disagrees with you. The inscription on it says something very different, something I find much worthier of your great nation. It says: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" For 140 years since the USA was founded, this poetic vision was your actual immigration policy -- and it worked!

I see no good reason why it wouldn't work again. (But to keep the discussion fair, I'll repeat that European immigration policies are even worse.)

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Did these people not know they were breaking the law?

Did they not know they could be deported? Separated from family?

They knowingly took a risk by entering the country illegally.

Why would they have to be separated? They can take their family with them, just as they brough half their family here when they came.

Am I missing something in that argument, e_brown?

What you are missing, Squinney, is that they are human beings.

The uncomfortable core of your argument is that it requires you to make a stark difference between Americans-- human beings who at times break the law but are still worthy of compassion and human rights; and "illegals" -- "foreigners" who break the law and are not worthy of compassion nor human rights.

I am surprised by your posts here. You generally don't take a conservative position.

The struggle between conservatives and liberals has often been who is worthy of compassion and understanding.

Americans have broken the law in many ways to provide a better life for people they love. When abortion was illegal, they illegally drove friends and family accross state lines. When marrying outside of your own race was illegal they followed their love. Americans have hidden slaves and avoided the draft by fleeing to Canada.

Your "they choose and they know the consequences" is preachy and not very helpful.

The question is whether you are willing to see them as human beings and have compassion.

Americans have often, for reasons of justice and compassion, chosen to help and support people who have broken the law but were facing consequences that were overly harsh.

A similar example is the Americans who left the US to avoid having to kill in Vietnam were pardoned-- when under the law their crime should have meant either a life in exile, or a long jail term. Do you argue they should have served their sentence?

Conservatives have always used "they knew the law and chose the consequences" argument to dehumanize their targets.

Progressive Americans have always stood against this argument to urge compassion and understanding. We urged and received amnesty for the returning conscientious objectors after the Vietnam war. We fought to protect women who illegally crossed state lines to have an abortion. We fought to save and provide rights for mixed-race families.

So my question to you Squinney is this:

Do you really want to live in a country where harsh penalties are given to "lawbreakers" without compassion regardless of the human cost, morality, or the circumstances of the "crime"? Or can you accept that people break the law for various reasons and that the penalities and laws themselves should take human needs, and compassion into account?

... Or are you saying that only Americans are worthy of human compassion and understanding.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Did these people not know they were breaking the law?

They did -- so did Rosa Parks. I'm sure there were plenty of rednecks back then who didn't object to blacks sitting in the back of the bus, as long as they did it legally.

The point of the analogy is that you can't play by the rules if the rules say "you can't play". When that happens, the distinction between the legal and the illegal pursuit of an activity loses its moral force and degrades into bean counting.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I see no good reason why it wouldn't work again. (But to keep the discussion fair, I'll repeat that European immigration policies are even worse.)

AGREED!!!

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The fact is though, Thomas, had you not applied for a green card and had just slipped in past whatever guards were around and took up residence, the courts here would be requiring civil authorities to provide you emergency health care, offer you low cost subsidized housing, educate your children, and you would be eligible for almost all services and benefits availed to citizens.

Fair enough. And my response is that the proper remedy to those problems is to deny these benefits to illegal immigrants.

Agreed. Denial of all services to illegals and amend the Constitution to remove the anchor baby problem and we would have far fewer illegals entering the country. We would also be accused by our liberal brethren of being inhumane, uncompassionate, and cold hearted. After all, we are accused of such because we believe all people should obey the laws of the land and that the law should be enforced.

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
If it was Canada or Russians illegally funneling their unemployed, poor, or other hardship cases through those common borders, we would be equally as offended.

The Statue of Liberty disagrees with you. The inscription on it says something very different, something I find much worthier of your great nation. It says: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" For 140 years since the USA was founded, this poetic vision was your actual immigration policy -- and it worked!

I see no good reason why it wouldn't work again. (But to keep the discussion fair, I'll repeat that European immigration policies are even worse.)

The Statue of Liberty was unveiled 120 years ago and 30 years after the first immigration policies were enacted into law. She was put in place on what is now Ellis Island where all would-be legal immigrants to the United States would be received and processed. The lofty words on her inscription were "you are welcome here" but this included small print saying "but you have to jump through a lot of hoops first." At the time there were prejudices against some racial/ethnic groups for sure, but there was also a need for more people to finish populating the very large land mass that is the United States. There is far less prejudice and racism now, and we do have room for more workers and productive citizens who want to come here, but we have no less need to regulate how many shall come so that those who do come can be productively assimilated into the population.

In 1888 there were no weapons of mass destruction, there had been no 9/11, and there were no islamofacist militant extremists who had pledged to destroy us. The world was no more kind nor gentle than it is now for sure, but because there was less ability to create mass chaos, it was a far less dangerous planet. Also, there were no modern day liberals who manipulated people with gifts and benefits and all immigrants who came were expected to learn the language, obey the laws, and earn their own keep. Those running the government considered it immoral and unconstitutional to use public monies for charitable purposes and it was left to private charities to help those who could not help themselves.

The laws and regulations governing the people must of necessity change as the society and circumstances of the people change. So our laws and rules have changed over time, not always to the best benefit I think, but a people of laws must respect the law or chaos results. The best policy I think is to change the bad law when necessary, of course, but do not thumb your nose at it.

And I am of a large majority here who believe that if we do not control our borders and regulate who can be here legally, we will lose much or all of the very qualities that makes people by the millions want to be here. And that would benefit nobody.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The Statue of Liberty was unveiled 120 years ago and 30 years after the first immigration policies were enacted into law. She was put in place on what is now Ellis Island where all would-be legal immigrants to the United States would be received and processed. The lofty words on her inscription were "you are welcome here" but this included small print saying "but you have to jump through a lot of hoops first." At the time there were prejudices against some racial/ethnic groups for sure, but there was also a need for more people to finish populating the very large land mass that is the United States. There is far less prejudice and racism now, and we do have room for more workers and productive citizens who want to come here, but we have no less need to regulate how many shall come so that those who do come can be productively assimilated into the population

According to my tour guide from the National Park Service and the exhibition at the Ellis Island memorial ...

(1) There were other aggregation points for legal immigrants.

(2) The first- and second-class passengers never set foot on Ellis Island. They were released directly to New York city after customs officers inspected their luggage on the ship. While you are correctly note that third class passengers had to jump through some hoops, 98% of them ended up being admitted, and the hoops typically took them about six hours to jump through. Today they take about 10 years for a Mexican who tries to enter legally.

(3) There were plenty of pamphlets who contended that this "new" wave of immigrants would never assimilated. Russians, Italians, and Irish were just too different from the mainstream, in contrast to the orderly English and Germans who had come earlier. I distinctly remember reading the "there's too many of us already" argument at least once. Does any of this sound familiar?

Foxfyre wrote:

In 1888 there were no weapons of mass destruction, there had been no 9/11, and there were no islamofacist militant extremists who had pledged to destroy us.

But the terrorists who flew those planes into the World Trade center were not some poor Mexicans who crossed the Southern Border. On the contrary: Most of them lacked a criminal record, and belonged to the group of highly skilled foreigners that America's immigration policies still seek to attract. Closing the Mexican border wouldn't have prevented 9/11, and I don't see how it would prevent another one.

Foxfyre wrote:

The world was no more kind nor gentle than it is now for sure, but because there was less ability to create mass chaos, it was a far less dangerous planet.

Have you researched how many heads of state got murdered in the 19th century? Do the New York draft riots count as mass chaos?

Foxfyre wrote:

Also, there were no modern day liberals who manipulated people with gifts and benefits and all immigrants who came were expected to learn the language, obey the laws, and earn their own keep. Those running the government considered it immoral to use public monies for charitable purposes and it was left to private charities to help those who could not help themselves.

That's a very valid argument. And given that conflict of interest, I find it much less inhumane to choke off the welfare state than to choke off immigration.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I'm sure there were plenty of rednecks back then who didn't object to blacks sitting in the back of the bus, as long as they did it legally.

Correction: I meant "the front of the bus", of course.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

squinney wrote:
Did these people not know they were breaking the law?

They did -- so did Rosa Parks. I'm sure there were plenty of rednecks back then who didn't object to blacks sitting in the back of the bus, as long as they did it legally.

The point of the analogy is that you can't play by the rules if the rules say "you can't play". When that happens, the distinction between the legal and the illegal pursuit of an activity loses its moral force and degrades into bean counting.

The law that forced black people to sit in the back of the bus was bad law and Rosa Parks defied it. Her action was the primary trigger to jar the majority of Americans out of their apathy and change a bad law. Meanwhile, Rosa herself was not excluded from the consequences of breaking the law. She was arrested, convicted, and fined.

Now we have a different sort of law being broken, and those who are defying it will no doubt force a change in the law. But Rosa Parks was a citizen of this country who resented being treated differently from other citizens.

The illegals are citizens of other countries who want the rights, privileges, and benefits of this country without going tthrough the process of law to obtain them.

Those who can't see the difference between that and the Rosa Parks incident just don't want to see the difference.

0 Replies

ebrown and Thomas - As mentioned before, Rosa Parks was an American. She had rights as a citizen. So did the would be soldiers that fled to Canada during Vietnam, as well as those that crossed state lines for abortions prior to Roe. That's Americans taking a stand against unjust laws of their own country by their own representatives. They made a difference. They changed the laws of their own country to fit what they, as citizens wanted. That's completely different from millions of people entering the US illegally, without permission, without any paperwork to show who they are or what they are here for and then demanding rights equal to those of citizens.

The claim that this is a conservative / progressive/ liberal issue is partisan. It is not a political argument as far as I am concerned. It is an issue of America protecting its borders just like any other country. Its an issue of regulation and preservation just like any other country has the right to do. I'm not racist, scared by rhetoric, or inhumane. I'm a citizen that follows the law and, should I choose to move to another country, I would go through the proper channels to do so.

Why shouldn't the same be required of those crossing the Mexico / US border? What makes them special? Is the US supposed to do the same (amnesty) when millions of Arabs, Russians, Asians or any other group starts pouring across the border via Mexico?

All this energy is going into illegals demanding rights in the US. The same energy would go a hell of a long way towards improving Mexico and making Mexico a better place for everyone that lives there.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The Statue of Liberty was unveiled 120 years ago and 30 years after the first immigration policies were enacted into law. She was put in place on what is now Ellis Island where all would-be legal immigrants to the United States would be received and processed. The lofty words on her inscription were "you are welcome here" but this included small print saying "but you have to jump through a lot of hoops first." At the time there were prejudices against some racial/ethnic groups for sure, but there was also a need for more people to finish populating the very large land mass that is the United States. There is far less prejudice and racism now, and we do have room for more workers and productive citizens who want to come here, but we have no less need to regulate how many shall come so that those who do come can be productively assimilated into the population

According to my tour guide from the National Park Service and the exhibition at the Ellis Island memorial ...

(1) There were other aggregation points for legal immigrants.

(2) The first- and second-class passengers never set foot on Ellis Island. They were released directly to New York city after customs officers inspected their luggage on the ship. While you are correctly note that third class passengers had to jump through some hoops, 98% of them ended up being admitted, and the hoops typically took them about six hours to jump through. Today they take about 10 years for a Mexican who tries to enter legally.

(3) There were plenty of pamphlets who contended that this "new" wave of immigrants would never assimilated. Russians, Italians, and Irish were just too different from the mainstream, in contrast to the orderly English and Germans who had come earlier. I distinctly remember reading the "there's too many of us already" argument at least once. Does any of this sound familiar?

You are correct on this though immigration policies over the years have become more and more strict. Those considered more 'desirable' and those deemed able to be assimilated more easily definitely had an easier time of it. Racial/ethnic prejudices factored strongly into the policies implemented. (Which just goes to show we weren't really more noble and compassionate then when compared to now.)

Foxfyre wrote:
In 1888 there were no weapons of mass destruction, there had been no 9/11, and there were no islamofacist militant extremists who had pledged to destroy us.

But the terrorists who flew those planes into the World Trade center were not some poor Mexicans who crossed the Southern Border. On the contrary: Most of them lacked a criminal record, and belonged to the group of highly skilled foreigners that America's immigration policies still seek to attract. Closing the Mexican border wouldn't have prevented 9/11, and I don't see how it would prevent another one.

It is not just Mexicans, however, who are entering through our common and quite porous border with Mexico. Fbaezer himself admitted hundreds of thousands enter Mexico illegally every year and these people are not welcomed by the Mexican government. Nor are all of them caught. The next "9/11" if there is one will most likely be implemented by very different means. And the 30+% of illegals in the New Mexico prison population and the 40+% in California's prison population, all for crimes far more serious than illegal entry, testify that it is not just hard working poor folks who are getting in.

The border issue is also a security issue with a majority of Americans, and for those of us who are experiencing this first hand, nobody can tell us that our fears are ungrounded.

Foxfyre wrote:
The world was no more kind nor gentle than it is now for sure, but because there was less ability to create mass chaos, it was a far less dangerous planet.

Have you researched how many heads of state got murdered in the 19th century? Do the New York draft riots count as mass chaos?

I do not put such in the same category with terrorists intent on maiming or murdering large numbers of people.

Foxfyre wrote:
Also, there were no modern day liberals who manipulated people with gifts and benefits and all immigrants who came were expected to learn the language, obey the laws, and earn their own keep. Those running the government considered it immoral to use public monies for charitable purposes and it was left to private charities to help those who could not help themselves.

That's a very valid argument. And given that conflict of interest, I find it much less inhumane to choke off the welfare state than to choke off immigration.

I have advocated looking at our present laws and revising them to make them more equitable and reasonable as well as closing loopholes that makes it possible for illegals to exploit them. I do not however, believe that regulating and enforcing orderly and practical immigration is "choking off immigration".

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

ebrown and Thomas - As mentioned before, Rosa Parks was an American. She had rights as a citizen. So did the would be soldiers that fled to Canada during Vietnam, as well as those that crossed state lines for abortions prior to Roe. That's Americans taking a stand against unjust laws of their own country by their own representatives. They made a difference. They changed the laws of their own country to fit what they, as citizens wanted. That's completely different from millions of people entering the US illegally, without permission, without any paperwork to show who they are or what they are here for and then demanding rights equal to those of citizens.

The claim that this is a conservative / progressive/ liberal issue is partisan. It is not a political argument as far as I am concerned. It is an issue of America protecting its borders just like any other country. Its an issue of regulation and preservation just like any other country has the right to do. I'm not racist, scared by rhetoric, or inhumane. I'm a citizen that follows the law and, should I choose to move to another country, I would go through the proper channels to do so.

Why shouldn't the same be required of those crossing the Mexico / US border? What makes them special? Is the US supposed to do the same (amnesty) when millions of Arabs, Russians, Asians or any other group starts pouring across the border via Mexico?

All this energy is going into illegals demanding rights in the US. The same energy would go a hell of a long way towards improving Mexico and making Mexico a better place for everyone that lives there.

First of all... cut the "America defending its borders against the foreign invaders" line. These immigrants are here because many Americans... both for humane reasons and for business reasons... want them here.

Your fight is not against the human beings you insist on dehumanizing with the noun "illegal" as if their entire indentity (in spite of the fact they are fathers and daughters and workers and neighbors) were overridden by the fact they broke a law. But they have no political power and no vote anyway and can't really resist your attacks.

You are arguing against me, one of millions of American citizens who want our country to uphold its ideas of compassion, understanding and diversity.

But I am not arguing about closing the border (although you keep bringing us back there as if you think this is the most important thing, and perhaps to you it is).

I am arguing that the millions of people.. some of whom are my friends are a decent hardworking loving people with decent lives and children and hopes and dreams... should be treated with compassion and respect.

I strongly believe that giving families who have been here a long time should be given a chance to become legal and to continue good productive lives here. Either forced deportation, or this policy of "attrition" where lives are made unbearable until a poor family is forced to leave "voluntarily" are too cruel for me to accept from society.

The argument that compassion for people will encourage more crime is a classic conservative argument-- and a flawed one.

This is the exact argument that is the foundation of the "War on Drugs" with its emphasis on punishment instead of the amnesty of treatment and reintegration on society. The war on drugs shows that using harsh penalties an strict laws doesn't solve the problems... but only causes more human suffering and people in jail.

You assertion that non-Americans don't deserve rights or compassion makes me very uncomfortable.

0 Replies

Your assertion that I made such a statement is wrong.

"Illegal" doesn't dehumanize anyone. It distinguishes between those that went through proper channels to be here and those that didn't in this discussion.

As far as political distinctions, I'll expand on my earlier comment regarding party affiliation. If we are not going to enforce the laws we have for immigration we might as well open all borders around the world and let people come and go as they please. We could have "One World" and not distinguish between nationalities at all. We could have one government and let a UN type government rule the world via representatives from each continent / country. Until that happens, each country has a right to make its own laws, enforce them and determine who is or is not allowed to be within its borders.

I'm actually liberal enough to to envision a world where we all travel and live freely on an open planet. It would be my preference. But, under the current system regarding resources, laws, national safety etc, we aren't there yet.

0 Replies

squinney, I agree; we aren't there yet. Our government has the responsibility to control illegal immigration; it seems they're not willing to take responsibility for it. They're a bunch of useless dorks.

0 Replies

"Dorks?"

Now, that is much more compassionate than I'm currently willing to be with our representatives. Laughing

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Now we have a different sort of law being broken, and those who are defying it will no doubt force a change in the law. But Rosa Parks was a citizen of this country who resented being treated differently from other citizens.

I doubt that citizenship is an important distinction when it comes to fundamental rights. For illustratration, consider an alternative history where Parks was a citizen of South Africa who just happened to reside in Montgomery. Would that in any way excuse the law that made her sit in the back of the bus? Or for another example, would you find it acceptable if Albuquerque confined German immigrants to the backs of its buses? I don't think so.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

I'm a citizen that follows the law and, should I choose to move to another country, I would go through the proper channels to do so.

What if the US passed a law to say that the proper channels for your emigration include a 10 year waiting loop filled with red tape and harrassment by the bureaucracy? That's what East Germany did -- but of course every East German retained a right to leave the country "through the proper channels". This explains why I may well be unfairly impatient with your "proper channel" argument. As I said, you can't play by the rules if the rules say "you can't play".

squinney wrote:

All this energy is going into illegals demanding rights in the US. The same energy would go a hell of a long way towards improving Mexico and making Mexico a better place for everyone that lives there.

Incidentally, emigration to America tends to make Mexico a better place for the Mexicans who stay back. That's because each of them, on average, finds himself with more land to tile, more machines to produce with, a greater choice of schools to attend, and so forth. So your alzernatives are not mutually exclusive.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Until that happens, each country has a right to make its own laws, enforce them and determine who is or is not allowed to be within its borders.

Squinney, I am an American. I have just as much voice as you do on our laws and their enforcement. Your need to see this as Americans versus "illegals" is simply not true.

This argument is a political battle between two groups of Americans... those who are promoting law and order and harsh penalties, and those who are asking for understanding, compassion and a respect for diversity.

If it were Americans versus foreigners the solution would be very simple. We could round up "illegals" put them on trains. We could check records, kick kids out school, bar hospitals and empty jails. We could even put machine gun nests at the border.

But your side can't even get HR4437 passed. It is not the "illegals" (who can't even vote) who are stopping this bill, it is the fact that many Americans want their country to be a place of compassion and understanding.

You and I have apparently have different views of what values America should hold to, and this means that we will have the political struggle that we are now engaged in.

I am insisting (and as an American citizen I assume you agree I have as much right to a voice on the policy taken by my country as youdo) that people who are living good lives here be given the chance to become legal and eventually to become citizens. I find the idea that my neighbors are either forcibly deported or forced out through "attrition" to be unacceptable.

Your side is insisting on two things; A closed border; and no ability for people here illegally to become legal.

So we have a political battle-- me and you which will be resolved by the representative we elected based largely on our will. They certainly will pay no attention to the wishes of the immigrants themselves.

I think the current Senate compromise is a good way to go; You get border security and I get a path to citizenship for people I care about.

The choice for the House Conservative Republicans is an difficult one. They can accept the compromise on the table... and all is good, or they can insist on vicdictive enforcement.

If i were so worried about border security as you, I would accept this compromise (the alternative appears to be to do nothing). I don't see why the need to punish people who are living good lives here now is so important-- unless you still buy the drug war argument.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Now we have a different sort of law being broken, and those who are defying it will no doubt force a change in the law. But Rosa Parks was a citizen of this country who resented being treated differently from other citizens.

I doubt that citizenship is an important distinction when it comes to fundamental rights. For illustratration, consider an alternative history where Parks was a citizen of South Africa who just happened to reside in Montgomery. Would that in any way excuse the law that made her sit in the back of the bus? Or for another example, would you find it acceptable if Albuquerque confined German immigrants to the backs of its buses? I don't think so.

What fundamental right is there to sit in any particular place on a bus? What fundamental right is there to enter another country illegally and demand anything? There is (or certainly should be) a fundamental right to equal treatment under the law however for citizens of a country. Good manners, not law or rights, should offer invited and/or legal guests and visitors a seat on the bus.

In the example of Rosa Parks versus a person illegally in the country is that she was a citizen and was completely legal in the country, and, in the grand scheme of things, had every moral right to demand that she receive equal treatment under the law. Those who come uninvited and in violation of the law should be entitled to nothing and that in no way violates anybody's basic human rights.

0 Replies

So I take it your answer to my question is: "Yes, I would find it acceptable if Albuquerque confined German immigrants to the back of its buses."

That's interesting.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know