Illegal Immigration

cicerone imposter wrote:

As for me, all I want to see is that when our government decides on immigration legislation, that it would be handled humanely, fair and reasonably. I'll leave the details up to congress.[/[/color]quote]

You got more faith than I, C.I., but what else is there.

Good deal, Diest. It kind of looks like we're after the same bottom line. I have some concerns about exploitation, too. I would really worry if having the job terminated meant more or less immediate deportation. I don't know if that occurs now, or not, but it would certainly give management the control of labor they would like to have.

0 Replies

roger, I don't have much confidence in congress, but they are the ones who will write the legislation. After they approve it, they must enforce it. I don't have much confidence they'll even do that!

There's a simple reason why the American public gives our congress such low marks; they're a do-nothing congress, and the majority of Americans are beginning to realize what we've created.

The next term turnover should be pretty large.

0 Replies

(ebrown steps up to the unenviable task of defending Congress).

What do you mean congress did nothing about immigration.

You can't say this. They have tried several times.

Congress has brought up several immigration bills over the past couple of year. It was the angry immigration hardliners (who are American voters) that demanded that Congress do nothing. Congress reluctantly obliged.

In other issues (like the war for instance) I would agree with you. In this case, it appears the American people prefer that Congress do nothing.

The American voter blocked the "grand compromise" and the American voters blocked enforcement only legislation before that.

It looks like the status quo is what the American people really want.

0 Replies

ebrown, Tell us something; does our country already have immigration laws? If we don't, then a "new" immigration law is needed. Otherwise, congress must support the laws already on the books, and enforce them. Right or wrong?

0 Replies

Clearly wrong.

Congress makes laws. Congress has the ability to change laws. Congress has the responsibility to fix laws that aren't working.

The implication that Congress can't change laws to make them more fair, compassionate or enforceable is obviously incorrect.

Think of how many laws in the past Congress has changed when it found that they weren't just or enforceable... civil rights and prohibition are two examples.

0 Replies

If congress can make laws but can't/won't implement them, why bother?

I always knew congress was 90 percent hot air, but this is ridiculous!

0 Replies

You are being silly Cicerone.

Congress' job is to make legislation. It is not their job to implement them.

If the problem is the the legislation on the books is flawed (i.e. it is either unfair, bad for society or unenforceable) then the Congress should change the law (which is exactly what I am saying they should do).

The only thing they can do is pass more legislation... and each piece of legislation they pass (by definition) changes existing law.

Of course if the legislation on the books is fine as it is, then there is nothing further for Congress to do on this issue. I don't think anyone here thinks this is the case.

You are arguing that Congress should change existing law in such a way that it doesn't change existing law.

This doesn't make sense.

0 Replies

Back to square one: if congress makes laws, and are not required to enforce them, where's the beef?

Example: Laws to secure our borders. Congress: Good luck!

0 Replies

The laws on the books aren't enforced because they stink. It is the job of Congress to fix this.

0 Replies

And when is the "fix" supposed to come? Congress wrote the first law on immigration, didn't they? What makes you think the "fix" will be enforced?

0 Replies

When they come up with a "fix" that meets the needs and values of a large majority of our society, then it will be much better enforced. This is what the current debate is about.

The current laws are obviously unworkable to many segments of society.

Small businesses are family farms are yelling that they can't get the workers they need.

Communities are upset because they don't like seeing families broken.

Civil rights groups are upset because minority communities are being targeted.

You can argue that the complaints of any number of segments of American society are invalid. But the fact is that many important groups of American citizens are deeply unhappy with the current laws.

Laws that the vast majority of Americans support are well-enforced.

There are many parts of American society that hate the current immigration laws, and this is why your idea of piling more of the same is such a bad idea.

0 Replies

Cicerone, let me ask this question as a hypothetical...

Suppose there were a law whose enforcement hurt important legitimate parts of American society (like small businesses)...

... and suppose the penalties mandated by this law were seen as excessive and unfair by many Americans.

... and suppose that ethnic groups of American voters fell particularly targeted by the enforcement efforts

... and suppose the enforcement of this law, and the consequences of enforcement were much more costly then the benefit

... and further suppose that many Americans felt that there was a better way that would be less harsh and less costly but still meet the basic needs of society.

So in this hypothetical situation (not arguing the whether these suppositions match any real situation) wouldn't you agree that Congress should change this law?

0 Replies

You mention the ethnic minorities of our population feeling like they are targeted... THEY SHOULD. The immigration laws DO target illegal immigrants. So who cares if they feel they are targeted? If they were to apply for naturalization in accordance with the law, this problem wouldn't exist.

It would be nice if we could just let in an unlimited number of immigrants to the US each year, but we can't afford it. A huge influx of poor, unskilled workers would be a huge tax on the welfare resources of our nation. Where is the money going to come from to take care of all of these people that can't take care of themselves?

As for the businesses that want them here... That's true, a lot of places do want the workers. But, I wonder how many of them would want the workers if they were citizens and had to be paid at least minimum wage? I bet a lot of them would find themselves unemployed.

0 Replies

Until congress changes the law, the existing laws stand. If congress deems it "unfair," change the laws, but you still have the responsibility to enforce current laws. If you don't want to enforce current laws, who's to determine which laws are enforceable and which ones aren't?

0 Replies

If laws aren't enforced it's the faut of the executive branch. I think that's all ebrown is saying.

The sad thing that comes to mind is how the roles of the three branches has got so out of hand. Judicial branch can make laws by court rulings. The President makes hundreds of signing orders when a bill passes (which effectively changes a law). I'm left to feel liek our legislative branch is really at a disadvantage because they themselves are unable to enforce or inturpret the laws they make, while the other two branches seem to be able to do all three.

T
K
Oh the insanity

0 Replies

If congress funds those laws, they can usually be "enforced." Isn't that how it works?

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

You mention the ethnic minorities of our population feeling like they are targeted... THEY SHOULD. The immigration laws DO target illegal immigrants. So who cares if they feel they are targeted? If they were to apply for naturalization in accordance with the law, this problem wouldn't exist.

It would be nice if we could just let in an unlimited number of immigrants to the US each year, but we can't afford it. A huge influx of poor, unskilled workers would be a huge tax on the welfare resources of our nation. Where is the money going to come from to take care of all of these people that can't take care of themselves?

As for the businesses that want them here... That's true, a lot of places do want the workers. But, I wonder how many of them would want the workers if they were citizens and had to be paid at least minimum wage? I bet a lot of them would find themselves unemployed.

Hokie,

Latinos who are American citizens are feeling targeted. About 80% of them say in polls that the current immigration debate is motivated by racism.

Whether you agree with them that this is racism or not doesn't matter. As American citizens they get to vote even if you don't like their viewpoint.

This debate will be won in the next couple of elections. I promise we will do our part to motivate the Latino vote (although the Republicans are doing more on this front then we could possibly hope for).

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

If congress funds those laws, they can usually be "enforced." Isn't that how it works?

Cicerone,

Congress is bitterly divided on immigration because the American public is bitterly divided.

The conservatives want to portray this as the mythical "American people" against "Congress and the illegals"-- but this is fiction.

0 Replies

Deist,

I am saying more than that. I am saying the current laws are unenforceable and that too many segments of the American public don't want them enforced.

It is the job of Congress to fix them.

0 Replies

Of course latinos say it's racism... just like whenever a black guy is arrested for having dugs, that's racism. they can call it whatever they want, the point is their mexican brethren are coming here illegally. this issue arrises becasue they choose to ignore the laws of our country.

0 Replies

Illegal Immigration

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know