Illegal Immigration

[Jeff Dutton]

I know this probably isn't as fun as Bush-bashing, but what do you all think about the debate going on about illegal "immigration"? I'll start off by sharing my opinion:

First of all, I have no problem with anyone from anywhere coming into the United States legally and obeying our laws.

However...

So-called illegal "immigrants" are not immigrants. They are aliens.
I have seen enough photos of the American flag being flown upside down beneath the Mexican flag on United States soil. I have seen enough
illegal alien mobs making demands of the United States government on United States soil. I have heard enough screaming from illegal
aliens and their supporters demanding that they be given the right to break United States laws with impunity and be given amnesty.

Citizens of the United States have the right to assemble and petition the government. Illegal aliens are not citizens and therefore do not have the right to make demands of our government.

First, we need to enforce the laws we have and close the borders to illegals. If illegal workers can get in so easily, we are just as vulnerable to terrorists coming in the same way.

We need to find a reasonable way to deal with people who are here illegally. It would NOT be reasonable to grant them blanket amnesty. There are many LEGAL immigrants who have followed the law and deserve to be here as a result. Amnesty to illegals would be a slap in the face to everyone who has legally immigrated as well as those who are currently in the process of doing so.

So, what are your thoughts?

Jeff

[Shapley]

Jeff,

Too many people in Washington and elsewhere don't want to solve this problem, but want to look like they're doing something. Remember "Nannygate"? Lots of wealthy people hire illegal immigrants and otherwise flout the laws on immigration, hiring, and wages. Many of these people have considerable political clout, and work to ensure that the laws are not enforced too tightly. The most commonly cited instance of this is the farmers who employ migrant workers to harvest their crops, but there are other areas where 'undocumented' workers are used.

In addition, the economy of Mexico presubably cannot handle the number of workers who would fnd themselves without the income they earn in America. The money they send or bring home with them plays an important part in keeping many of Mexico's poor fed.

What's the solution? Hard to say. The President has proposed a 'guest worker' program which would ease restrictions to allow poor people, primarily from Mexico, to come to America to work, without the normal cost and restrictions imposed. It seems like a logical compromise to a problem that has been existant throughout the past century. However, it would require that some method of documentation be implemented to track these workers and ensure compliance with the new, relaxed, standards in place. There would also have to be stronger enforcement of the law.

Such a program, if properly implemented, would allow us to tighten border security without harming the economy. If my understanding of the program is correct (and I must confess to not having read the proposal thoroughly, only the magazine synopses of it), the program will allow the 'guest workers' to continue to cross the border with only minimal documentation, as opposed to imposing the full work visa requirements normally required for workers.

There isn't a simple solution to problem. In the best of all possible worlds, we would work to improve Mexico's economy to the point that the influx of illegal immigrants would no longer be needed. However, efforts to do so would be seen as "sending our jobs to Mexico" by Labour unions and others who lack an eye for global economic issues. If we could elevate the economy to the level of, say, Canada, then the problem would be non-existant, at least along the porous Mexican border. We would still have to deal with the problem of illegal immigrants from other poverty-stricken countries in the Caribbean and the far East.

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I'm firmly in the ambivalent camp. We do have to do something about the fact that it's so easy to slide across the border, and it leaves us vulnerable to individuals of ill-will.

At the same time, there are lots of folk in Mexico and points south who are coming here because they have to. There is no criminal intent, they don't want anything but a job with a living wage to support their families. The Mexican nationals working in the US are generally here because they need to work, need to be paid, need to support their families. I have a feeling the Latino immigrants who come through Mexico from Central and South America might well be in the same situation. Considering them felons for no other reason than their location on this side of the border is just wrong.

Giving illegal immigrants blanket amnesty and a penalty-free chance at citizenship is unfair to the legal immigrants who DID jump through all the hoops, and is also wrong.

I think that the first thing the US government needs to address is the Mexican government's reliance on US jobs and our economy. They are not making a reasonable effort to control their borders, nor do they have any incentive improve their performance when our open border solves their social problems.

[Nicole Marie]

Hear, Hear! (This one issue I agree with the Republicans on... not Bush but many other members of the Rep party. Yes, hell will freeze over soon.)

I've stated this before - My family came here LEGALLY from Italy. My husband came here LEGALLY from Portugal. And yes they did have to jump through hoops to get here. But they did it legally and can benefit from the rights afforded to them by doing that.

Those that come over illegally have broken the law. Why should we reward them for their illegal behavior? I am sorry their home countries may not give them all the opportunity they want, but it's really not the US's problem. We cannot fix the world.

I support the plan that states if you are here for less then 2 years - you have to go back to your home country. If you've been here for 3-5 years, you have to go back but can then apply for re-entry. If you have been here for more than 5 years you can stay but you must pay all back taxes, must be of good moral character (no arrests) and must apply for citizenship or PRA status (greencard). And when you apply for legal status it will be 11-year process. Good! It should not be easy for those that broke the law.

I also support the House's bill on Boarder Security. It has some excellent points.

Now if the Democrats would stop blocking this bill, maybe we could get something done around here.

[Shapley]

Brrrrr! It's suddenly getting very cold in here.

V/R
Shapley

[piqaboo]

Just how do you propose to ensure those that made it here, and have managed to stay for up to two year, go 'home'?
Its not like telling them they are not welcome is going to work.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Apparently, some of the tax preparers (I think it was H&R Block mentioned in the news article) are seeing illegal immigrants filing current year returns, for the first time, and also filing returns and paying back taxes for previous years. Apparently, this is an effort to document length of presence.

[Giant Communist Robot]

A thorny problem.


I do see an analogy here with civil disobedience. People broke those laws and were eventually rewarded with civil rights. I think the issue in both cases is the larger picture of the law.

There is a problem with the law and it likely is rooted in people's attitudes. At some point a solution will be found.

<small>[ 04-19-2006, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Giant Communist Robot ]</small>

[Jeff Dutton]

Originally posted by Giant Communist Robot:
A thorny problem.


I do see an analogy here with civil disobedience. People broke those laws and were eventually rewarded with civil rights. I think the issue in both cases is the larger picture of the law.

There is a problem with the law and it likely is rooted in people's attitudes. At some point a solution will be found.

GCR - Please be more specific. With what law is there a problem? What do you see as the problem? What attitudes?

[Giant Communist Robot]

With what law is there a problem?

Immigration, of course.

What do you see as the problem?

Legislation will not stop illegal aliens from entering. I mean, this is the problem with the law.

What attitudes?

Attitudes about illegal aliens. If we can't find a non-combative solution, then maybe we should look for something positive here.

[Jeff Dutton]

You're right. Legislation doesn't accomplish anything. You still did not state what the problem with the immigration law is. Are you saying that the law needs to be changed? How?

As far as I can see, there is no problem with the law, other than the fact that it is not being enforced. We need to enforce the existing laws, which would initially require putting a lot more manpower and probably technology to work on the borders. We also need to convince the Mexican government to participate.

What kind of positive solution to illegal aliens do you have in mind?

[Shapley]

GCR,

Is there any significant level of illegal immigration in Hawaii? I'm not being facetious, I'm really curious.

I know that poverty level in some of the South Pacific Islands is rather high, and there is a significant volume of travel and trade between Hawaii and those locations, so I could see a potential opening for an influx of immigrants. In addition, being in the path from the Orient to the U.S. would place you at risk for 'ship jumpers' from those areas as well. I wouldn't expect to see it anywhere near the degree experienced in the Southwestern U.S., but the potential is there.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

I think Nicole Marie said it best and very succinctly.

These demonstrations by illegal immigrants really frost me. Their premise is that "I have been here long enough and now deserve to be a citizen". Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no issue with people coming into this country legally and honorably, as did many many immigrants. I welcome them and their contribution. But for the millions of illegals who come here and think they have a ticket to citizenship simply because they work at below-min.-wage jobs is wrong. Look at the burden on our schools, health care, (been to an ER lately?), and even welfare. I am tired of paying premiums for uninsured motorists. Many of the illegals get cars...they drive without sharing the burden of social responsibility (such as insurance). I like the guest worker programs, but more than anything, the US must gain control of the border

[Giant Communist Robot]

Shapley queried:

Is there any significant level of illegal immigration in Hawaii?

No.

Jeff Dutton posted:

As far as I can see, there is no problem with the law, other than the fact that it is not being enforced. We need to enforce the existing laws

The law is unenforceable without brutal confrontation. Do we really want to do this? And what's the point of the law? To stop people from coming here? What's that about?

<small>[ 04-19-2006, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Giant Communist Robot ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

One piece of legislation that offered the best chance of truly solving the issue, with the added bonus of improving our border security was the McCain-Kennedy bill. Everything else is fantastical political grandstanding.

But unfortunately, the wallies in Washington killed it, so now we're back to square one.

If our leaders really wanted to address the issue, as opposed to using it to get the populace frothy-mouthed, we would have solved it long ago.

This time around the issue was used merely to take our collective eye off the disaster in Iraq.

I'm mainly ambivalent about the protestors, mostly sorry to not see that kind of energy being used to protest the high crimes and misdemeanors of the GWB administration.

[Jeff Dutton]

GCR - So far all of your statements are about what is wrong, but you have not contributed a single constructive comment. How about some creative suggestions?

The confrontation does not have to be brutal unless the lawbreakers decide to make it so. Nobody is going to shoot them on sight.

No, the point is not to stop people from coming here. The point is to stop people from coming here ILLEGALLY. Are you intentionally misunderstanding the issue, or have you just not taken the time to think about it? Many people enter the U.S. by visa and immigrate to the U.S. legally, and they are welcome.

[Giant Communist Robot]

These people have an identity, so let's call them by that: Hispanics. Likely most are Mexican, so maybe we could say Mexicans.

And let's look at a few ideas here:

1. No law will stop illegal immigration, or even slow it down

2. Putting troops with guns on the border is highly confrontational

3. At some point, people will be killed.

and I asked earlier if this is what we want to do. To extend this thought further, why not take a preemptive strike against Mexico?

Just what is the point of this law? Is it to protect someone's financial interest? Is it based in racial hatred? What is the motive behind the law?

One constructive point is that people need to get over the concept of ILLEGAL immigration. You can't stop it, so get past it. These people need to be integrated into our country in ways that we can all benefit from. I'm sorry if I'm not specific, but at this point broader perspectives are needed.

and

have you just not taken the time to think about it?

well......maybe not.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

We have illegal immigrant Chinese (significant population), Filipino (mostly relatives of legal immigrants), Ecuadorian, Peruvian, Bolivian, Costa Rican, Mexican, Russian (!), Iranian, Iraqi, Pakistani, Afghani, Thai, Cambodian. Those are the ones I know of, in my county.

Mexican remains the largest population of illegal immigrants, largely because they're family. And close. We already have a wall up, they dig tunnels.

[piqaboo]

I know of one Belgian, a Jamaican family and an Aussie who were at least for some period of time illegally present, to add to Selma's extensive list. Lots of Indians (relatives).

[Jeff Dutton]

Originally posted by Giant Communist Robot:
These people have an identity, so let's call them by that: Hispanics. Likely most are Mexican, so maybe we could say Mexicans.

Not all illegal aliens are Mexican or even Hispanic, which is why I did not want to label them. "Illegal aliens" covers them all without regard to race.

And let's look at a few ideas here:

1. No law will stop illegal immigration, or even slow it down

2. Putting troops with guns on the border is highly confrontational

3. At some point, people will be killed.

1. No law will stop people from running stop signs, so lets just let them go on killing people.

2. Who is creating the confrontation? Those who are attempting to enter illegally.

3. Which will be their own fault for CONFRONTING those who are attempting to enforce the law.


and I asked earlier if this is what we want to do. To extend this thought further, why not take a preemptive strike against Mexico?

:p Seriously, what brought that on? My suggestion was to convince the Mexican government to work with us - not confrontational. Your suggestion is to blow them away - somewhat confrontational.

Just what is the point of this law? Is it to protect someone's financial interest? Is it based in racial hatred? What is the motive behind the law?


Typical response. You are the one who brought up race. I've already answered your question as to the motive. Others have as well. Many of these illegal aliens end up being the recipients of my tax dollars without contributing anything to the economy. Any argument on your part about how they graciously take the low income jobs nobody else wants is not provable and very arguable. They are not doing us any favors. In a nutshell, yes it is to protect the financial interest of the legal citizens and residents of our country.


One constructive point is that people need to get over the concept of ILLEGAL immigration. You can't stop it, so get past it.

One could make the same argument about speeding, drunk driving, vandalism, rape and murder. You can't stop it, so get past it. That is not constructive, it is anarchy. Can you prove otherwise? Or is that the kind of society you want?

These people need to be integrated into our country in ways that we can all benefit from. I'm sorry if I'm not specific, but at this point broader perspectives are needed.

So what do we do about the next 10 million who come in over the next few years, and the 10 million after that, and the 10 million after that...?

Here's another question for you to ponder. How would the Mexican government and people respond to a few hundred thousand people from poorer countries invading Mexico?