What should be done about illegal immigration?

One thing is for certain. Unless the honest legislators are convinced of what the majority of Americans actually do want, no solution will be forthcoming as long as one faction says open the borders, let everybody in, and to hell with the law.

And one faction says let's compromise by accepting that faction's point of view which also includes not enforcing the law.

And one faction has nothing more to contribute but a steady repetition of a mantra that everything about the government sucks, it's the American people's fault, and don't expect anything better.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

The congressional battle is not over open borders... neither is our discussion here.

The question is whether we should have compassion and understanding on the people who have built lives, raised families, become part of our comunities and contributed to our economy here.

You keep talking about what the majority of Americans want.

Polls consistantly say that the majority of Americans will accept a solution that includes a path to citizenship for hard working immigrants who are here illegally, but contribute, pay taxes and live good lives.

I am arguing that you can have both; changes to ensure border security including workplace enforcement combined with providing a way to become legal and a path to citizenship that will ensure compassion for families and workers here now.

I want both.

The House Republicans appear to prefer neither.

0 Replies

Dennis Rader had a nice family, he was involved in civic organizations, raised a family and contributed to the economy there.

Problem is he committed a crime. Actually a number of crimes. Should we overlook his crimes out of sympathy for his family?

Migrating to America illegally is a crime. True not as serious as the ones committed by Rader, but a crime is still a crime. Otherwise why do we bother having a legal system at all if we are not going to enforce the laws equally to all criminals?

0 Replies

McG, Your point about laws is well taken, but you're fighting an uphill battle when our government makes and laws and doesn't enforce them.

Talking about immigration laws is useless in this kind of discussion. Our government has no problem ignoring it; why should we be concerned?

The only thing we can do as voters is to vote all those legislators out of office; they're useless scum.

0 Replies

McGentrix,

I am not arguing that there should be a consequence for breaking the law. The Senate bill imposes a penalty.

It is not just immigrants who are breaking immigration laws. There are small business and family farms who depend on breaking immigration laws.

No one is suggesting that their businesses are broken up (or their families). Even the republicans are suggesting a fine-- even though without the immigrant labor they depended on, they would not have been able to build their businesses.

If you need to punish people for breaking the law-- give a fine.

I am complaining about the harshness and cruelty of the punishments.

The crime is crossing a border or overstaying a visa. The Senate bill offers a penalty and a plan that is good for both the immigrant, the economy they are a part of and the county. This involves paying a fine (and back taxes, having a clean record and learning English ).

Mass deportations, and harsh policies that will leave immigrants homeless, put strain on families and eventually force kids who have grown up here to a country they have never known.

These penalties that are supported by social conservatives are extreme and cruel. They aim to give the harshest punishment possible in a way that benefits no one.

0 Replies

The current law on the books is that those in the country illegally be deported. The Senate bill ignores the existing law in favor of allowing the lawbreakers to buy their way into legality. I'm sure that people who break laws in all other ways would like the opportunity to buy their way out of the penalty required by law too, especially if it would result in their illegal activity being legal.

But that isn't even the worst of the Senate bill. The worst is that it is no better, in fact little different from the 1986 bill which cooled the passions temporarily, but opened the floodgates so that the original problem increased fourfold or more. Now they want to do that again but make it even easier to do..

Kudos to the House that doesn't intend to let them.

0 Replies

Hiring an illegal is a crime. True not as serious as the ones committed by Enron's CEOs , but a crime is still a crime.

0 Replies

Did you hear? Ken Lay is dead.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Hiring an illegal is a crime. True not as serious as the ones committed by Enron's CEOs , but a crime is still a crime.

Does anyone here want to rip the small family farms that depend on undocumented workers from their owners?

Foxfyre thinks that breaking up families, and sending kids who have spent most of their whole lives here to a country they don't know anything about is necessary for following the law.

Even if you accept Foxyfyre's claim... doesn't it seem unfair that one side of the "crime" get's a fine, while the other end gets broken families and uprooted lives...

0 Replies

foxfire wrote ;
"...I'm sure that people who break laws in all other ways would like the opportunity to buy their way out of the penalty required by law too, especially if it would result in their illegal activity being legal.
..."

seems to happen fairly often . the SEC slaps a fine on a corporation (executive) , the corporation pays the fine (and bills it to the shareholders) and the game continues .
or even better , corporations pay a 'settlement' but say they do not admit to any wrongdoing ! WOW !
hbg

0 Replies

ebrown writes

Quote:

Foxfyre thinks that breaking up families, and sending kids who have spent most of their whole lives here to a country they don't know anything about is necessary for following the law.

Remind me to laugh out loud the next time you suggest 'putting the ugliness behind us." Or when you sanctimoniously judge others for their exaggerated or erroneous observations. Since you claim to be so religious and up on your Bible, you might want to reread that passage about the mote in the other's eye.

0 Replies

The ugliness we agreed to put behind us was your side's use of ethnic stereotypes and my side's charges of racism. Since then, I think we have both been upholding this.

This is an argument about compassion versus strict enforcement of laws.

It is a valid point that if your side gets its way, it will mean broken families and uprooted lives for people who have been working here, contributing to our economy, raising families and participating in our communities.

This has nothing to do with race... It has everything to do with real people.

I don't think pointing out the hardships that will be faced by real people is "ugliness", especially as a response to your valid point that they have in fact broken a law.

The question is whether the fact that they have crossed a border warrants the harsh punishment that you are insisting they pay.

My prime concern is compassion for people I care about. Compassion is the most important point of my arguments here.

It isn't fair for you to equate compassion with ugliness.

0 Replies

ebrown writes

Quote:

It isn't fair for you to equate compassion with ugliness.

I see, and of course you are within your rights to say that when absolutely nobody has done that.

And of course you are within your rights to put words in my and other's mouths and keep making ad hominem comments that we want what you cannot support that we want or have said what has not been said or intend what has never been expressed.

And I am within my rights to think you're completely off base and have no argument to offer other than feelngs.

I do not believe it is useful to debate on the basis of feelings and it is damn sure not useful to make policy on the basis of feelings.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Foxfyre thinks that breaking up families, and sending kids who have spent most of their whole lives here to a country they don't know anything about is necessary for following the law.

You seem to have taken particular exception to this sentence... and I am not sure why. I think it is the core of our disagreement, but I could be wrong.

If you say that my claim about your position is incorrect... I will retract it.

Are you going to argue that the policies you would like to see would not result in broken families and kids who have spent nearly all of their lives in the US being sent to a country they never knew?

Or am I incorrect in saying that you believe that following the law is more important than the the hardship that immigrnats, who have broken the law when they crossed the border or overstayed a visa, will experience?

My understanding of your position is that strict enforcement of the law is more important than the hardship it's harsh provisions will cause-- and that since they have in fact broken a law, the hardships placed on lives and families are not important compared to the need for us to impose the perscribed penalties.

Tell me how I am mistaken about your position.

0 Replies

My position is and has always been that a nation of laws that disregards the law cannot sustain a democratic republic. And also a nation that cannot defend/control its borders is also doomed to founder. My position is based on the big picture of both and not defined by any narrow definition or anecdotal illustration.

I believe it helps nobody should we give it to the individual to decide what laws will be kept and what laws will not. And I believe that if we were less generous and/or less prosperous our borders would need much less defending, but I see no advantage to anybody, those already here or those yet to come, for us to allow our economy to be weakened or for us to be less able to help those who truly must have our help.

Few people who break the law and get caught can say that their families and loved ones were not hurt. Sometimes they lose all that they have. But a lawless nation would hurt far more people. We can't just ignore other laws because the innocent are hurt or inconvenienced. And violation of our immigration policies are no different.

Nobody wants to break up any families. It is heart wrenching when the sole breadwinner of the family goes to jail and there is precious little safety net for his family. But do we want people to think they can break other laws with impunity just because they have a family and thus they will not have to face the consequences of their crime?

But even within that principle, once we share a common goal of law enforcement and defense re illegal immigration, and we share a will to keep it, then we will have the luxury of finding the most humane policies of immigration, assimilation, and a path to citizenship, and the most efficient and practical means of enforcement.

I offered one suggestion that I think would work. I'm sure others will come up with other ideas. Amnesty has already been tried twice, and it has created a much much bigger problem than we started with. I think America has always found a solution for every problem, however, when there has been a will to find it.

The Senate bill isn't the way to go for sure, and the House bill has some fatal flaws that need to be addressed before it will be workable too. But there is a solution for this one out there, and if we want to find one, we will.

0 Replies

The way to find a solution is to take the two bills from the House and Senate in conference commitee and try to work out a compromise there to bring to the floor for debate.

The House Republicans are not only avoiding their responsibility (they are paid to legislate), they are defying the will of the majority of Americans for the loud dogmatic objections of the right wing minority.

This political game the House Republicans are playing-- opposing the immigration reform they said they wanted in a cynical election year ploy to their right wing base-- is shameful.

0 Replies

Well I disagree. I, and at least my elected legislators, believe most of the Senate bill to be unacceptable, and my own congressperson also voted against the House bill because it had not been crafted with enough thought and consideration for the long reaching and long lasting unintended consequences that would almost certainly result.

They need to think this through very very carefully and with great care and wisdom. And we the people need to encourage them to do it. I don't think partisan ad hominems gives them either encouragement or incentive.

0 Replies

We all know the real issue is the November elections. If you are wrong we will know in a few months.

The funny thing is that no one expects the Senate to change very much.

We may have a much easier time solving these issues if, God willing, Belosi becomes the House Majority leader next year.

0 Replies

This is about compassion for real people. I think this story would have come out a lot worse had it been about strict enforcement of the law.

Quote:

I was born into extreme poverty. My parents lived in a shack in Morelos, Mexico. Whatever fish my dad caught was the food for the day. My grandparents were migrant workers. When I was 3 weeks old, my grandmother came to have a look at me. I was this little, malnourished thing, and she said, “He’s going to die if you stay here.” She took me across the border the next day, and my parents followed as soon as they could.

Technically, I was an illegal alien, but I felt like an American even before I became a citizen in 1995. Immigrant life for my parents was hard. My parents divorced when I was 4. My mom has been waiting tables at the same Mexican restaurant for 25 years. She didn’t even finish eighth grade. But she’s a wise woman who has devoted herself to giving her kids a chance at a better life. When I got to kindergarten, I couldn’t even speak English. But I learned quickly and, by second grade, something clicked and I took off.

I made it to college at U.C.-Irvine and got into every medical school I applied to. But when I got the letter from Harvard, I broke down and cried. My dream had come true! I have a profound sense of debt to this country.
...

Source: Parade Magazine

0 Replies

Quote:

Transcript:

SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Yesterday, by the way, I have 1,000 illegals in a jail out of 10,000, including 2,000 we have in tents, so yesterday I started a new program, everyone will have to listen to the national anthem and god bless America. We did it four times yesterday, but every day from now on, in the morning, at night, they'll listen to the patriotic songs.

BANDERAS: Apparently you dress them up in colorful jumpsuit, tell me about that?

ARPAIO: We've been doing that for six years, we put them in pink underwear and striped uniforms and pink handcuffs.

BANDERAS: Why the pink underwear?

ARPAIO: They were stealing the white underwear several years ago, smuggling it out of the jail. So I dyed the underwear pink because they hate pink, especially in this county they hate pink. Why give them a color they like?

BANDERAS: Why would you, that's a great question. All right, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, thank you very much. Keep it up, I guess.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know