What should be done about illegal immigration?

squinney wrote:

Thomas - Background and health checks on people applying to come here legally (after amnesty is granted to those already here) only goes back to the red tape and backlog that was the reason given for people crossing the border unchecked to begin with. Not to mention, you've just added major payroll to the government.

I don't think so.

(1) To my knowledge, the backlog is mostly coming from the mismatch between the high number of applicants and the low immigration quotas. It does not come from red tape.
(2) Even if you calculate $1000 per background and health check, 12 million immigrants would make that a one-time $12 billion. That's peanuts in a federal budget of more than $2000 billion a year.

0 Replies

What is ironic is that most of the issues that Foxfyre and Squinney are raising are solved by providing a path to citizenship.

When the people who are here are given the chance to become legal and a path to citizenship...

1) They will have rights at work and can demand higher wages, decent treatment and can't be taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers. The Conservatives want to stop this.

2) They will be full taxpayers. They won't get free education for their kids any more than you or I do. They will pay through their taxes.

3) With the education they receive, their kids in school will become citizens and productive employees are good for the country. Many of them will go to college and go on to successful lives. We need more educated American workers. The end up benefitting society.

4) The will be able to get jobs that will provide for health care (just like the rest of us) and again pay taxes for people can;t afford it.

5) They will have access to good healthcare meaning they any diseases they have are screened and treated (just like the rest of us).

Compassion is not a difficult concept... It simply means don't treat people harshly or institute policies designed to make their lives as difficult as possible. It means that you provide a way for people to pay for their crimes in a way that doesn't uproot their lives or break their families.

The funny thing is that compassion also works for the country. The 1986 amnesty shows that the immigrants were successfully assimilated and the economy survived. There are now doctors and teachers and many productive American citizens who are giving back to their country.

If you care about the people involved, the 1986 was a great success. If you think that the border is more important than people... then you will call it a failure-- but don't call this "compassion" .

I am not making any argument about what we should do to close the border.

I am saying that we should treat the people who are here with compassion-- not only because it is the moral thing to do, but also because it is a good thing for our country.

0 Replies

The point of illegal imigration is cheap and unrepresented labour.

That is why the boarder has never been secured and the employer has never been criminalized or convicted unlike the "illegal" employ.

That is why Bush's new policy is just as I perdicted which is "guest worker program" (legal illegals).The return in cheap labour is Bush's prioirity not what the citezens think. That is incedental. They have proved easily lead and manipulated.

Bush has no country he is a globalist. At his level of power and money coming from every corner of the globe we are all Mexicans now. It's only a matter of what Mexican will work the cheapest.

0 Replies

Thomas writes

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
The majority of Americans consider hundreds of thousands of illegals entering the U.S. through our southern border to be an unacceptable risk
.

(1) If you legalize immigration, they are no longer illegals.
(2) That wasn't your original claim. Your original claim about security concerned terrorists, not illegal immigrants.

Yes, security concerns include terrorists using a porous border as a relatively easy access and certainly a way to slip into the country unnoticed. That is not the ONLY security concern, but just one of many. Those of you who think this is some vendetta against Mexicans because they are Mexicans are the ones creating the strawmen. I haven't seen anybody on the pro-enforcement-protect-the-border side of the debate who has any problem whatsoever with Mexicans. The Mexicans are just the most visible group because there are more of them than any other group.

What we do have a problem with hundreds of thousands of people--that's ANY people--who think they have the right to just move in and thumb their noses at our laws. And a minority within these are definitely not good people who just want to work and be part of the American dream.

Some of us are willing to look at the broad picture and not leave out the inconvenient truths. Some are not apparently.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

The point of illegal imigration is cheap and unrepresented labour.

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Amigo wrote:
The point of illegal imigration is cheap and unrepresented labour.

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

Depends on who you are. Ethically I believe it is bad to deny somebody a living wage. Inless you are joking?

0 Replies

Demanding higher wages depends on many variables. Just because illegals become legal, that doesn't give them the "power" to demand higher wages in every case. There are legals in this country that are earning the federal or state minimum wage; their demands have hardly helped their situation. Many work two-three jobs to survive.

The desparity in pay between the CEOs of big corporations, and the worker in a privately owned company have different opportunities and limitations. Even large companies are now reducing employee benefits, because they must compete or survive.

No easy answer; it certainly isn't based on "demanding higher wages."

0 Replies

foxfire wrote :
"Yes, security concerns include terrorists using a porous border as a relatively easy access and certainly a way to slip into the country unnoticed. That is not the ONLY security concern, but just one of many ."

i doubt that many (any ?) terrorists have slipped across the porous border from mexico .
terrorists usually come into a country (any country) with passports and other required legal documents . they likely don't want to take the chance of dying while crossing illegally into a country in the back of a truck or walking throug unhospitable countryside , and they usually don't want to work illegally on farms either .
it's not much different with illegal drugs coming into a country . while there are some smalltime mules , much comes in large shipments by truck , ship or airplane - often with falsefied documents .
anyhow , as long as there is a good demand for drugs , drugs will enter a country ... unless we want to apply justice the way it's done in singapore (i believe you can be executed there for drug possession . i doubt that there is much appetite for that kind of justice in western nations ) .
hbg

this a report from 'amnesty international' on the executions carried out in singapore for drug offences :
...AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT ON SINGAPORE EXECUTIONS...

as the singapore government states : "...there has been a reduction in the number of serious crimes committed...".
so perhaps this a way to reduce serious crimes ? all we need to do is specify what constitutes a serious crime ... presto !

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

foxfire wrote :
"Yes, security concerns include terrorists using a porous border as a relatively easy access and certainly a way to slip into the country unnoticed. That is not the ONLY security concern, but just one of many ."

i doubt that many (any ?) terrorists have slipped across the porous border from mexico .
terrorists usually come into a country (any country) with passports and other required legal documents . they likely don't want to take the chance of dying while crossing illegally into a country in the back of a truck or walking throug unhospitable countryside , and they usually don't want to work illegally on farms either .
it's not much different with illegal drugs coming into a country . while there are some smalltime mules , much comes in large shipments by truck , ship or airplane - often with falsefied documents .
anyhow , as long as there is a good demand for drugs , drugs will enter a country ... unless we want to apply justice the way it's done in singapore (i believe you can be executed there for drug possession . i doubt that there is much appetite for that kind of justice in western nations ) .
hbg

this a report from 'amnesty international' on the executions carried out in singapore for drug offences :
...AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT ON SINGAPORE EXECUTIONS...

as the singapore government states : "...there has been a reduction in the number of serious crimes committed...".
so perhaps this a way to reduce serious crimes ? all we need to do is specify what constitutes a serious crime ... presto !

Well admittedly the largest group of illegals incarcerated in American jails and prisons are there for drug offenses, mostly possession with intent to sell. The Sheriff of Maricopa CO Arizona has reported confiscating hundreds and hundreds of pounds of illegal drugs from illegals they are able to apprehend trying to get through that jurisdiction.\

But there are lots of OTM's (other than Mexicans) coming across too:

The following links (and one excerpt) are from sources of various credibility, but all seem to agree:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/non-mexican_illegals.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050726-12054400-bc-us-illegals.xml

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060424-4.html

Quote:

Most of the illegals are poor Mexican laborers looking for work. But officials are alarmed that a growing number hail from Central and South America, Asia, even Mideast countries such as Syria and Iran. In 2003, the Border Patrol arrested 39,215 so-called "OTMs," or other-than-Mexicans, along the Southwest border. In 2004, the number jumped to 65,814.

Those figures worry intelligence and Homeland Security officials, who say al-Qaeda leaders want to smuggle operatives and weapons of mass destruction across the nation's porous land borders. James Loy, deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, told Congress last week, "Several al-Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons."

T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, says the Border Patrol has "reliable intelligence that there are terrorists living in South America, assimilating the culture and learning the language" in order to blend in with Mexicans crossing the border.
"We really don't know who comes into this country illegally over the Southwest border," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., says. "This is a big problem."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-22-border-patrol_x.htm

0 Replies

Quote:

In 1978, the U. S. government set an annual world-wide quota of 290,000. This ceiling was raised again in 1990 to 700,000. Immigrants have arrived at a pace that at times has exceeded 1,000,000 new arrivals per year.

source

Quote:

The Senate bill includes a major increase in legal immigration, with built-in quota hikes.

It raises the annual cap on employment-based green cards fivefold in 10 years. It more than doubles the annual cap on green cards given to relatives of immigrants. It also nearly doubles quotas for high-skill H-1B visas.

It creates a new H-2C visa category for low-skilled temporary workers and a new H-4 visa category for their families.

source

Can someone help me with these numbers? If we are going to allow 2 million immigrants per year, but only something like 250,000 jobs are being created each month (3 million annually, right?) where are all these people going to work?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
a) You want as many illegals to move here as want to move here

I want as many people to move here as there are jobs that need to be filled, Simple supply and demand, a conservative economic principle.

So if there are 10 million jobs to be filled,and 12 million American citizens or LEGAL immigrants looking for work,you want 10 million ILLEGAL immigrants to move to the US and take those jobs??

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
a) You want as many illegals to move here as want to move here

I want as many people to move here as there are jobs that need to be filled, Simple supply and demand, a conservative economic principle.

So if there are 10 million jobs to be filled,and 12 million American citizens or LEGAL immigrants looking for work,you want 10 million ILLEGAL immigrants to move to the US and take those jobs??

Yes, it's called capitalism. You may have heard of it or not. A very conservative republican idea dating back at least one hundred years. Can I assume you're a democrat in opposition?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
j) You don't care if the United States becomes just another overpopulated, under resourced third world country unable to take care of its own people, much less able to help out others in time of need.

Considering that China can feed 1.3 billion people on less fertile ground, this is not a real concern for me for the time being.

Then why is this happening...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040724/news_1e24geyer.html

"In the North China Plain, for instance, which produces half of China's wheat, water tables are falling by 3 to 10 feet per year, and Brown predicts that soon China will be, for the first time in its history, dependent upon the outside world to feed itself. And Americans, with our $120 billion export deficit with China, will be sharing our food with the giant Asian power."

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
a) You want as many illegals to move here as want to move here

I want as many people to move here as there are jobs that need to be filled, Simple supply and demand, a conservative economic principle.

So if there are 10 million jobs to be filled,and 12 million American citizens or LEGAL immigrants looking for work,you want 10 million ILLEGAL immigrants to move to the US and take those jobs??

Yes, it's called capitalism. You may have heard of it or not. A very conservative republican idea dating back at least one hundred years. Can I assume you're a democrat in opposition?

Yes,I have heard of capitalism.
And at least you are now on record as wanting illegals to come in and take jobs,and work for low wages,and generally get abused.
At least now we know where you stand.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
a) You want as many illegals to move here as want to move here

I want as many people to move here as there are jobs that need to be filled, Simple supply and demand, a conservative economic principle.

So if there are 10 million jobs to be filled,and 12 million American citizens or LEGAL immigrants looking for work,you want 10 million ILLEGAL immigrants to move to the US and take those jobs??

Yes, it's called capitalism. You may have heard of it or not. A very conservative republican idea dating back at least one hundred years. Can I assume you're a democrat in opposition?

Yes,I have heard of capitalism.
iAnd at least you are now on record as wanting illegals to come in and take jobs,and work for low wages,and generally get abused.
At least now we know where you stand.

Well we have progress in your understanding, limited as it may be. I can only assume you chose to understand with bias aforethought as well as iignorance. Not all that unusual for a republican.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
a) You want as many illegals to move here as want to move here

I want as many people to move here as there are jobs that need to be filled, Simple supply and demand, a conservative economic principle.

So if there are 10 million jobs to be filled,and 12 million American citizens or LEGAL immigrants looking for work,you want 10 million ILLEGAL immigrants to move to the US and take those jobs??

Yes, it's called capitalism. You may have heard of it or not. A very conservative republican idea dating back at least one hundred years. Can I assume you're a democrat in opposition?

Yes,I have heard of capitalism.
iAnd at least you are now on record as wanting illegals to come in and take jobs,and work for low wages,and generally get abused.
At least now we know where you stand.

Well we have progress in your understanding, limited as it may be. I can only assume you chose to understand with bias aforethought as well as iignorance. Not all that unusual for a republican.

YOU are on record wanting illegal immigrants to come in and take jobs,you admitted that.
You cant say you didnt say it,because its on record here.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
a) You want as many illegals to move here as want to move here

I want as many people to move here as there are jobs that need to be filled, Simple supply and demand, a conservative economic principle.

So if there are 10 million jobs to be filled,and 12 million American citizens or LEGAL immigrants looking for work,you want 10 million ILLEGAL immigrants to move to the US and take those jobs??

Yes, it's called capitalism. You may have heard of it or not. A very conservative republican idea dating back at least one hundred years. Can I assume you're a democrat in opposition?

Yes,I have heard of capitalism.
iAnd at least you are now on record as wanting illegals to come in and take jobs,and work for low wages,and generally get abused.
At least now we know where you stand.

Well we have progress in your understanding, limited as it may be. I can only assume you chose to understand with bias aforethought as well as iignorance. Not all that unusual for a republican.

YOU are on record wanting illegal immigrants to come in and take jobs,you admitted that.
You cant say you didnt say it,because its on record here.

Yes, of course I said that, not at all unlike the WOPS coming to america in the 1880's to work the coal mines of Colorado or the Chinks working the railroad. I got no problem with that. I do have a problem with unequal treatment and fair labor laws not enforced mostly because I am not a republican who can avert their eyes to inhumane degradation of labor (see Ludlow massacre)

0 Replies

You can see how your Senators voted on the recently passed immigration bill below. At least 8 senators jumped ship from the "yea" to the "nay" column in the last two weeks if we can believe Frist's boast that they had well over 70 safe yea votes two weeks ago. The several organizations that are lobbying against the bill see this as a sign of erosion of resolve in the Senate and as leaving the door open for a reasonable compromise with the House.

YEA'S - 62
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAY's - 36
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

Not Voting - 2
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)

0 Replies

Interesting that the percentage of Senators supporting an earned path to citizenship for people who have been here a long time is very close to the percentage of Americans who said they would support this.

Representative government at work.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Interesting that the percentage of Senators supporting an earned path to citizenship for people who have been here a long time is very close to the percentage of Americans who said they would support this.

Representative government at work.

If that was the only issue in that bill, it would be an easier matter to reconcile. But there are so many objectionable pieces to it, I will be amazed if they can get a majority in the House to support even most of it. Actually I think improving the immigration policy and making immigration easier would be supported by virtually 100% of the people. But a repeat of the 1986 bill is not going to be received favorable by even any plurality I think, and I think given a choice between not applying the law at all and in asking everybody to go home and come back right away legally, I think maybe 80% or more Americans would opt for the second option.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know