NationStates Jolt Archive

I agree.

What we have here, is a platform for projections of the sins of society onto one group.

We've seen that before.

Some say "I dislike it because it's illegal" - but they object to the idea of legalising it, so 'illegality' isn't the REAL issue.

Some say "I dislike it because it costs money" - but they'll back imprisonment, or the construction of an armed border (think of the cost of THAT), so 'cost' isn't the REAL issue.

I've even seen the argument that illegal immigrants are a vector for disease... and yet the two big disease outbreaks of recent history (BSE and HIV) came from imported meat resources, and commercial airline flights.

Not to mention the fact that this is one of the few nations that still has a NATIVE population of Bubonic Plague.
Look, I can't speak for everyone and I do realize that anti-illegal immigration sentiment can be hijacked by racists, but I have posted perfectly reasonable proposals that most people I think woudl find completely reasonable and taht cannot be difened as racist. Earlier you asked for an example of why ilegal immigration is "bad" and I posted one. If you actually read the story you'll find that the most vocal opponents are immigrants themselves who are worried about the impact on the community they built.

And this is a situation different to what we can expect in another few hundred years. At some point, EVERY time was 'now'.

The historical point is, this nation was FOUNDED on principles of equality and freedom. No other nation makes such vocal claims to equality and freedom... and yet, the US seems reluctant to keep it's founders' word.

We were also founded on laws. laws that these people who enter illegally are breaking.

The oppression your talking about is the puritans believeing that the catholic curch was to flashy. By the way law is man made and we have created a law that the majority of americans agree with. In the west we practice whatever is good for the greatest number.

(It's a little hypocritical to get precious about the borders now that WE 'own' them.)

I dont understand what that meant in the ().

Actually, our law is directly designed to protect those who are NOT the 'greatest number' FROM 'the greatest number'.

If we operated on a pure policy of 'good for the greatest number', there would be no 'free negroes' in the United States.

You also trivialise the 'oppressions' of which I speak to the point of almost nonsense... 'flashy catholicism' is not a phrase I would have employed for the problems MOST of the original immigrants fled.


Regarding: "It's a little hypocritical to get precious about the borders now that WE 'own' them"...

When 'natives' owned these borders, we considered them entirely permeable... and our population today is large, in great part, BECAUSE we continued streaming accross those native borders without regard.

Now that we have 'filled the country up' to our liking, and reworked THEIR world to suit us... all of a sudden crossing these borders is 'a bad thing'.

Not to mention the fact that the governments were glad that they left. How do you think Quebec got colonized by the Hugonauts? Not to mention those who came to America did have actual charters from the King of Great Britain so....

So - if the Mexican government approves, it's all good?

Look, I can't speak for everyone and I do realize that anti-illegal immigration sentiment can be hijacked by racists, but I have posted perfectly reasonable proposals that most people I think woudl find completely reasonable and taht cannot be difened as racist. Earlier you asked for an example of why ilegal immigration is "bad" and I posted one. If you actually read the story you'll find that the most vocal opponents are immigrants themselves who are worried about the impact on the community they built.

And Hitler was Jewish.

What was the reason you posted as to why immigration was 'bad'?

We were also founded on laws. laws that these people who enter illegally are breaking.

We were 'founded' on British (mostly) Common Law. Since this nation is ONLy 'independent' through breaking British Law, that might not be the best place to take the argument.

I also believe that what you are talking about, is the last stages of 'founding' the nation... the point at which the 'ratification' was carried out.

A system being abused, is no reflection on how good an idea that system is. Medical insurance is abused. Is medical insurance a 'bad idea'?
no, medical insurance isn't a bad idea. but that doesn't mean it can't be done better. i didn't say your idea of having some form of national identification was a bad idea... just that the SS card was not a good choice of identification.

No - think about it. It is easier to NOT ahve to have ANY identification, than it is to have to have SOME. As i said, only because of a lack of trying. if an illegal immigrant TRIED to have a SS card, he could. If he doesn't try, then he's taking the easy way out and risking not having identification.
If you asked for a social security card before transactions could be made, you would immediately stop some (probably most) of the 'illegal' money funneling.
i respectively disagree. I don't think it would stop most of the money. On that speculation, i could see people selling money orders under the table for more than they're legally allowed to if II's couldn't show identification.

I don't think a 'national ID card' would actually help. why not? i would say that's all a SS card is, but it's a tiny bit more than that.

You are talking to someone who legally changed status to become a permanent resident. It took me more than six months to get a Social Security card, AFTER my work authorisation was validated.
my g/f had one before i knew her, but i know she got it in college, and she didn't make it sound like it was a big deal to get one (unlike her H1)

Trust me - it is not always easy.
sorry, trust my g/f more.

The system NEEDS to be expedited. You should be able to get one in a week.
i have no qualms about expediting gov't procedures. It shouldn't take me 8 weeks to get a passport.

Not by a long way. Don't be ridiculous.
how is it not the easiest of national documents to forge? it's a piece of paper. Doesn't even have a magnetic strip. No photo. as i said, and i'll stand by it, probably the easiest to fake.

And this is a situation different to what we can expect in another few hundred years. At some point, EVERY time was 'now'.

The historical point is, this nation was FOUNDED on principles of equality and freedom. No other nation makes such vocal claims to equality and freedom... and yet, the US seems reluctant to keep it's founders' word.

i don't think the founding fathers meant equality like you mean it. They definitely didn't want the slaves freed. I agree that it's good to learn from history. But to use that as your main arguing point... i disagree with it.

So - if the Mexican government approves, it's all good?

Oh hell no. We already know they approve of Illegal Immigration. However, it is the US that objects to it and rightfully so. I do not care if they had the territory they are crossing into now. It hasn't been theirs since 1848.

I do not like illegal immigration and I wish the government does more to crack down on it. If these people want to be in the United States then there are legal ways of crossing the border and doing just that.

We were 'founded' on British (mostly) Common Law. Since this nation is ONLy 'independent' through breaking British Law, that might not be the best place to take the argument.

Sorry buddy. We may have been founded on Common Law but then we ratified a thing called the Constitution. We were founded on laws as any nation should be founded on. Now we have idiots who decide to break such laws and they need to be punished by jail and deportation or just deporting them.

I also believe that what you are talking about, is the last stages of 'founding' the nation... the point at which the 'ratification' was carried out.

It took us 8 years to through the British off our lands and another 3 years to tell them to stop harassing our ships at see and secure our independence. Of course, if King George had just accepted the Olive Branch Petition, the Revolutionary War would've been over.

i don't think the founding fathers meant equality like you mean it. They definitely didn't want the slaves freed. I agree that it's good to learn from history. But to use that as your main arguing point... i disagree with it.

Actually, some of the founding fathers did want to free the slaves. They just couldn't because they needed the South to ratify the Declaration of Independence. Also look at the Constitutional debate.

It's irrelevant to what I was saying. I'm saying that pointing out the dire urgency of the problem stems from xenophobia, so proposing a solution to a problem does not necessarily.The urgency of the problem stems from the dramatic increase in illegal immigration in a short period of time.
But as for your solution.

1. I don't have a problem with that.
ok
2. I see that as unnecessary.In light of the fact that what looks like Mexican Army troops who were escorting drug dealers into the US recently fired upon border control officers and in light of the fact that coyotees have been responsible for untold deaths while smuggling illegal immigrants across the desert and in light of the fact that there is a terrorist organization taht has vowed to cause as many American deaths as possible and in light of the fact that immigration is often a vector for disease you do not feel that we need to defend our borders?
3. I agree, but it directly conflicts with #2.How does allowing immigration through border checkpoints and legal means conflict at all with preventing coyotes and drug dealers from smuggling people across the borders?
4. Interferes with business too much for my liking. And see, this applies to "immigrant" not just illegal ones, so again is immigration something you have a problem with in general? No.
5. I have no opinion on this til I know what law enforcement currently does to people they know are here illegally.
They do nothing, for the most part. As a matter in fact, in some cities merely being illegal means you get to break laws that citizens do not.

And Hitler was Jewish.

What was the reason you posted as to why immigration was 'bad'?

all's i know is that there was an "undocumented" worker here in Dallas who killed a police officer. The illegal immigrant had previously been arrested in Arizona, but for some reason wasn't deported(or was and he came back). But he ended up having a record in mexico, and several arrests in the US. However, due to the lax enforcement of illegal immigration laws, he was allow to kill a citizen of the US.

If that's why ILLEGAL immigration isn't bad, then i don't know what is. As far as LEGAL immigration... i see nothing wrong w/ that.

And Hitler was Jewish.:confused: Not sure what this means...

What was the reason you posted as to why immigration was 'bad'?http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10649829&postcount=243

Oh hell no. We already know they approve of Illegal Immigration. However, it is the US that objects to it and rightfully so. I do not care if they had the territory they are crossing into now. It hasn't been theirs since 1848.

I do not like illegal immigration and I wish the government does more to crack down on it. If these people want to be in the United States then there are legal ways of crossing the border and doing just that.

But your argument was "Not to mention the fact that the governments were glad that they left"... therefore... if the Mexican Government is 'glad they left', you should see no problem in a historical equivalence.

WHY don't you like illegal immigration? Stop pussyfooting around the issue, and tell me how it impacts YOU adversely, and why MY tax dollars should pay for YOUR little war?

... and tell me how it impacts YOU adversely, and why MY tax dollars should pay for YOUR little war?

is this what it comes down to? You bellyaching because it "wastes" your tax dollars?

But your argument was "Not to mention the fact that the governments were glad that they left"... therefore... if the Mexican Government is 'glad they left', you should see no problem in a historical equivalence.

Big difference here Grave_n_idle. The illegals cross illegally to obtain money to send back to their families. All noble and good except for the fact that they violated the law. The Government actually encourages this. I do not believe that they are glad that they left. They are glad that they left to send back money.

For the colonial age, colonization happened to supplant the locals and to establish their rule over a certain place or in America's case, to escape oppression with the King's blessings.

WHY don't you like illegal immigration?

Because it is illegal to cross into this country illegally. How many times do we have to say this? You violate the law, you deserve to be punished.

Stop pussyfooting around the issue, and tell me how it impacts YOU adversely, and why MY tax dollars should pay for YOUR little war?

Because my tax dollars are going to them instead of to what really matters.

In light of the fact that what looks like Mexican Army troops who were escorting drug dealers into the US recently fired upon border control officers

I remember that. But I don't remember anything about the Mexican Army firing on border control officers. And the whole thing was painted in the same frantic light as an invasion. Do you think there's an invasion, and the illegal immigrants are just the 5th column? (Or is that 4th column... can never remember)

and in light of the fact that coyotees have been responsible for untold deaths while smuggling illegal immigrants across the desert

That could be solved by making immigration easier as you yourself suggested in #2. Increasing the defensibility of the borders would have nothing to do with this.

and in light of the fact that there is a terrorist organization taht has vowed to cause as many American deaths as possible

Yeah, there's terrorists out there. And everything else bad and spooky. You really think some more border guards is the answer to terrorism?

and in light of the fact that immigration is often a vector for disease you do not feel that we need to defend our borders?

I think you're going overboard, yes. Disease? WTF, are border guards going to be wearing those green spacesuits to prevent them from getting contagious diseases when someone comes up to the border point? Otherwise, look, disease is always a possibility and it's not a good reason for building the Berlin Wall.

How does allowing immigration through border checkpoints and legal means conflict at all with preventing coyotes and drug dealers from smuggling people across the borders?

Streamlining the immigration process while adding more guarder guards and walls and obstacles are things that aim for two different goals. They contradict by nature. One looks to limit transit, the other to make it go faster. Coyotes and drug dealers have nothing to do with this.

They do nothing, for the most part. As a matter in fact, in some cities merely being illegal means you get to break laws that citizens do not.

"Nothing, for the most part." Is that from the police manual? I wasn't actually asking a question, because I didnt think you would know what a police officer is supposed to do in a given situation. I need to know more, and knowing what you think does not count.

no, medical insurance isn't a bad idea. but that doesn't mean it can't be done better. i didn't say your idea of having some form of national identification was a bad idea... just that the SS card was not a good choice of identification.


SS card is a 'minimum'. Theoretically, everyone has one. We don't all (even have to) register to vote, and we can't all drive. The Social Security card is the one document we ALL (theoretically) have.


As i said, only because of a lack of trying. if an illegal immigrant TRIED to have a SS card, he could. If he doesn't try, then he's taking the easy way out and risking not having identification.


I'm not talking about it from the immigrant perspective... and talking about from the government and money-order perspective. If you make it slightly harder to get, you cut down the number of actions performed with it.


i respectively disagree. I don't think it would stop most of the money. On that speculation, i could see people selling money orders under the table for more than they're legally allowed to if II's couldn't show identification.


That could happen. And then, since the money-orders are a legal document, you have a papertrail. So, then you can (much more easily) crack down on the illegal fund funnelling.


why not? i would say that's all a SS card is, but it's a tiny bit more than that.


That's the point. We already have a legal document that is effectively 'required'.


my g/f had one before i knew her, but i know she got it in college, and she didn't make it sound like it was a big deal to get one (unlike her H1)


She 'didn't make it sound like it was a big deal'? So - you don't actually KNOW how big a deal it was?


sorry, trust my g/f more.


Why? Is she a 'better' immigrant than I?


how is it not the easiest of national documents to forge? it's a piece of paper. Doesn't even have a magnetic strip. No photo. as i said, and i'll stand by it, probably the easiest to fake.

'National' document isn't what you said before, is it?

Of course... a photograph isn't the difficult part of a document to 'fake', anyway.

I remember that. But I don't remember anything about the Mexican Army firing on border control officers. And the whole thing was painted in the same frantic light as an invasion. Do you think there's an invasion, and the illegal immigrants are just the 5th column? (Or is that 4th column... can never remember)An invasion implies that a military force is entering your country without permission, so, no. I do think that 500,000 people crossing illegally every year puts strain on our infrastructure and is a huge vector for any manner of lawlessness.



That could be solved by making immigration easier as you yourself suggested in #2. Increasing the defensibility of the borders would have nothing to do with this.The point isn't just to make immigration easier, its to make it easier and to funnel it through the proper channels so that we know who is coming and who is going and we can do things like screen for health and crime pruposes.



Yeah, there's terrorists out there. And everything else bad and spooky. You really think some more border guards is the answer to terrorism?No, it's part of a number of precautions that need to be taken to help make terrorist acts less likely.



I think you're going overboard, yes. Disease? WTF, are border guards going to be wearing those green spacesuits to prevent them from getting contagious diseases when someone comes up to the border point? Otherwise, look, disease is always a possibility and it's not a good reason for building the Berlin Wall. Immigration has long been known as a major vector for disease. Ask the native Americans.



Streamlining the immigration process while adding more guarder guards and walls and obstacles are things that aim for two different goals. They contradict by nature. One looks to limit transit, the other to make it go faster. Coyotes and drug dealers have nothing to do with this.See above.



"Nothing, for the most part." Is that from the police manual? I wasn't actually asking a question, because I didnt think you would know what a police officer is supposed to do in a given situation. I need to know more, and knowing what you think does not count.
Actually, it is. In LA its called "Special Order 40."
http://www.mayorno.com/specialorder40.html

It took us 8 years to through the British off our lands and another 3 years to tell them to stop harassing our ships at see and secure our independence. Of course, if King George had just accepted the Olive Branch Petition, the Revolutionary War would've been over.

Yeah, yeah...

And if George hadn't been insane from syphilis, he wouldn't have thought that America was a small island just off the coast of France, and y'all would still be part of the Empire...

I remember that. But I don't remember anything about the Mexican Army firing on border control officers.
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3430815
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/03/01/mexico.gangs.reut/index.html

Are you thinking about this with an open mind?

Just out of curiousity... why should we only allow Mexicans that fit these 'conditions' accross the border? I know people that have lived here all their lives that have criminal records. We aren't talking about sending them out of the country. I know people here with no financial support... and yet, because they were born here, they get to stay. I know afair number of people with NO means of support... but, they are priviliged by birth. Why require a 'bond' or 'sponsor'... there are no such conditions on a foetus awaiting it's 'transition' into America.

Those folks are citizens by a lucky accident of birth. That's just the way it works.


What you are saying is... just bgecause a person might have been born half a mile to the wrong side of a certain point, they should be firced to bear an entirely different set of rights and responsibilities in this nation.

That is exactly what I'm saying. A miss is as good as a mile, or thousand miles. The fact is that they are citizens of another country. If they are legal immigrants, then they have all the same rights and responsibilities.

That is exactly what I'm saying. A miss is as good as a mile, or thousand miles. The fact is that they are citizens of another country. If they are legal immigrants, then they have all the same rights and responsibilities.
Should also note that because I was born just a few miles north of the Mexican border I do not have any of the rights afforded Mexican citizens in Mexico. This is exactly the same way every other country in the world does it except that in most of them being born there isn't enough. If your parents aren't citizens then neither are you.

So a bunch of Latinos in major cities in the US are protesting a bill that would make illegal immigration a felony. It's already illegal, so in effect they're protesting for the right to violate US law without facing serious penalties.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060325/D8GIA4982.html


Yea I've read the bill, and not only would illegal immigrants become felons, but anyone caught helping them would also become felons, church groups included.

Those folks are citizens by a lucky accident of birth. That's just the way it works.


I don't know about you, but complacency has never been justification enough for me. I've never been content with "That's just the way it works"...


That is exactly what I'm saying. A miss is as good as a mile, or thousand miles. The fact is that they are citizens of another country. If they are legal immigrants, then they have all the same rights and responsibilities.

No, they don't.

They have to be more than just resident to get some 'rights', and there are some doors that are never open to a 'foreigner'.

Are you thinking about this with an open mind?

Just out of curiousity... why should we only allow Mexicans that fit these 'conditions' accross the border? I know people that have lived here all their lives that have criminal records. We aren't talking about sending them out of the country. I know people here with no financial support... and yet, because they were born here, they get to stay. I know afair number of people with NO means of support... but, they are priviliged by birth. Why require a 'bond' or 'sponsor'... there are no such conditions on a foetus awaiting it's 'transition' into America.

What you are saying is... just bgecause a person might have been born half a mile to the wrong side of a certain point, they should be firced to bear an entirely different set of rights and responsibilities in this nation.

So - why not let ALL LEGAL Mexicans cross the border as they wish, so long as they 'register'? Expedite residency, and the social security program, and get them STRAIGHT into the workforce.

I'm not saying grant them instant citizenship... but then, I don't believe people BORN in this country should get AUTOMATIC citiznship, either.
Because they are the same standards that have been applied to immigrants to this country throughout history? What you think back in the day they let the Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, and what not in with out any background and health requirments just because they were white? That seems to be what your saying by suggesting this is all about race. Personally my problem with illegal immigration is that it gives corporations like Walmart an easy disposable population to exploit, which is why I would advocate harsh penalties for the hireing of illegales. If there was less demand for illegal workers their would be fewer people coming to meet that demand. And don't feed me that crap about that would hurt the economy cause you know what I don't care if our economy is so messed up that it is dependent on the explotation of illegale immigrants than it is in need of some serious reform that wouldn't happen so long as we can bury the problem. As for the immigration laws being implemented in a racist manner know what I'm pretty sure thats illegale and should be treated as such same as illegale immigration, and if that means lightening the requiremets a bit fine, however that doesn't mean that it is alright for those coming illegaly to do so.

I don't know about you, but complacency has never been justification enough for me. I've never been content with "That's just the way it works"...



No, they don't.

They have to be more than just resident to get some 'rights', and there are some doors that are never open to a 'foreigner'.
You mean to say that the US distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens, the horror. I mean its not like this is the case for every single other country on the planet, oh wait it is. If I'm not born in England I have to become a citizen before I have the same rights as an English citizen why should the US be any diferent?

You mean to say that the US distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens, the horror. I mean its not like this is the case for every single other country on the planet, oh wait it is. If I'm not born in England I have to become a citizen before I have the same rights as an English citizen why should the US be any diferent?

So, we've got one poster hiding behind "It was like that when I got here"... and now we have "Yeah, but you can't fly, either"...?

America prides itself on being a bastion of the American dream... not on being 'about as good as most of the others'.



All of which is actually irrelevent. The other poster made an untrue statement, and I called him/her on it. I wasn't opening up for debating the relative merits implied BY that refutation.

Because they are the same standards that have been applied to immigrants to this country throughout history? What you think back in the day they let the Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, and what not in with out any background and health requirments just because they were white? That seems to be what your saying by suggesting this is all about race. Personally my problem with illegal immigration is that it gives corporations like Walmart an easy disposable population to exploit, which is why I would advocate harsh penalties for the hireing of illegales. If there was less demand for illegal workers their would be fewer people coming to meet that demand. And don't feed me that crap about that would hurt the economy cause you know what I don't care if our economy is so messed up that it is dependent on the explotation of illegale immigrants than it is in need of some serious reform that wouldn't happen so long as we can bury the problem. As for the immigration laws being implemented in a racist manner know what I'm pretty sure thats illegale and should be treated as such same as illegale immigration, and if that means lightening the requiremets a bit fine, however that doesn't mean that it is alright for those coming illegaly to do so.

Nope. Can't even work out what this says...

Nope. Can't even work out what this says...
Sorry little convloluted, mainly that the problem with illegal immigration is that it puts the illegals at the mercy of their employers and they are easier to exploit because of that and that the only way to stop that is to prosecute those that hire illegal immigrants.

Sorry little convloluted, mainly that the problem with illegal immigration is that it puts the illegals at the mercy of their employers and they are easier to exploit because of that and that the only way to stop that is to prosecute those that hire illegal immigrants.

That's so NOT the only way.

Indeed, it's neither the only way, nor the best.

If you legalised ALL the Mexican immigrants, they could do all the things other legals can do - like join Unions, etc.

They could be protected by law, which means companies could be pressured into paying them a fair wage.

And that's good for the immigrant (fair wage and benefits), the native worker (no sub-class of cheap labour flooding the market), AND the country (legal immigrants, taxed like other workers).

The ONLY people who get 'hurt' by legalising the illegal immigrants, are the industries that hire illegals... and, to be honest... I don't see why our sympathies should lie with big business.

That's so NOT the only way.

Indeed, it's neither the only way, nor the best.

If you legalised ALL the Mexican immigrants, they could do all the things other legals can do - like join Unions, etc.

They could be protected by law, which means companies could be pressured into paying them a fair wage.

And that's good for the immigrant (fair wage and benefits), the native worker (no sub-class of cheap labour flooding the market), AND the country (legal immigrants, taxed like other workers).

The ONLY people who get 'hurt' by legalising the illegal immigrants, are the industries that hire illegals... and, to be honest... I don't see why our sympathies should lie with big business.
I have no problem with the relaxing of may regulations, I woudn't say all because we should still screen for criminal background and such, in addition to prosecuting those who hire illegal workers. Had that in my original post just forgot to add it to the summary.

I have no problem with the relaxing of may regulations, I woudn't say all because we should still screen for criminal background and such, in addition to prosecuting those who hire illegal workers. Had that in my original post just forgot to add it to the summary.

Why screen for criminal backgrounds, even?

After all - I don't get screened for a criminal background just for living here (not that I have one, anyway)... but I WILL get screened when I go for job interviews, etc.

Seems like an extra level of unnecessary paperwork, to me.

Just set up border stations for legal immigration, and ask for VALID Mexican citizenship at the border. Check their papers are in order, and grant them entry THERE AND THEN with a temporary social security card (that only lasts say... three months... that way they have to keep 'checking in') and a work authorisation.

Make the process take about half an hour. You'll constantly have lines on the border (a guaranteed legal entry would drastically reduce illegal entries, even if you MIGHT have to wait days or weeks for it), and EVERY immigrant coming in would be legal, on the system, and have incentives for keeping in touch with the government... rather than the government spending hundreds of millions chasing after them.

Those who know me will be surprized to hear me come out against this law. It is bad. You may find my reasoning unexpected.

Many of you may remember after 9/11 INS got in some pretty hot water for flubbing up so much and letting in the terrorists. Feb 02 one deceased hijacker even received their final approval from INS!...

My wife and I laughed. We had no love for the former INS. We looked at their beurocratic mess they made for themselves and thought 'they deserve this. Maybe now they will start doing things differently.' Sadly, they did, they got worse.

You see, my wife is a skilled worker (RN) and a legal alien. (from Canada) When we married she had a work visa which we had to change to permanent residence status. I thought her being married, a professional with a legal permit (green card) things would go smoothly. It didn't. Two years later, pregnant with our second child - we were still trying to sort out the issue. They would lose forms, call senseless metings in a town two hourts drive away, change case workers and start from scratch, etc. etc. etc.
After nearly five years and with some intervention from our congressman we finally had it resolved. It was an absolute PITA.

Now, I agree that all these folks who are complaining about illegals have a valid point. There needs to be controls over the borders. However - we also need to treat the people who are trying to move here LEGALLY with more respect. There were many times in our process we both felt like 'fuck em'. I can't imagine any unskilled laborers would want to come here and face years worth of bullshit just for the privilege of washing our dishes/cleaining hotel rooms or picking our fruit. They look at the process and say 'fuck it' - and I don't blame them.

Putting up walls and barriers and soldiers may look like a solution, but it fails to address the REAL problem - the behemoth of a beurocracy which impedes legal immigration.

If it were easier to become a legal immigrant there would be FAR more compliance. It would const CONSIDERABLY less expensive and be SUBSTANTIALLY more in the American spirit than if we built walls and stationed soldiers on the border.

I say we modernize our immigration process and place a two-week time limit. If someone applies for residency legally and we don't deny them within two weeks then they are in. Period. We can do a firearms background check in the same amount of time. Maybe we can give four weeks, but there is no reason it should take five years.

If illegal immigration was still a problem after this I would be amazed, but then I would be willing to consider more extreme options. Until then - fuckem - every single goddam beurocrat.

Why screen for criminal backgrounds, even?

After all - I don't get screened for a criminal background just for living here (not that I have one, anyway)... but I WILL get screened when I go for job interviews, etc.

Seems like an extra level of unnecessary paperwork, to me.

Just set up border stations for legal immigration, and ask for VALID Mexican citizenship at the border. Check their papers are in order, and grant them entry THERE AND THEN with a temporary social security card (that only lasts say... three months... that way they have to keep 'checking in') and a work authorisation.

Make the process take about half an hour. You'll constantly have lines on the border (a guaranteed legal entry would drastically reduce illegal entries, even if you MIGHT have to wait days or weeks for it), and EVERY immigrant coming in would be legal, on the system, and have incentives for keeping in touch with the government... rather than the government spending hundreds of millions chasing after them.
We have enough criminals of our own, no reason to let more in and cause even more trouble.

Those who know me will be surprized to hear me come out against this law. It is bad. You may find my reasoning unexpected.

Many of you may remember after 9/11 INS got in some pretty hot water for flubbing up so much and letting in the terrorists. Feb 02 one deceased hijacker even received their final approval from INS!...

My wife and I laughed. We had no love for the former INS. We looked at their beurocratic mess they made for themselves and thought 'they deserve this. Maybe now they will start doing things differently.' Sadly, they did, they got worse.

You see, my wife is a skilled worker (RN) and a legal alien. (from Canada) When we married she had a work visa which we had to change to permanent residence status. I thought her being married, a professional with a legal permit (green card) things would go smoothly. It didn't. Two years later, pregnant with our second child - we were still trying to sort out the issue. They would lose forms, call senseless metings in a town two hourts drive away, change case workers and start from scratch, etc. etc. etc.
After nearly five years and with some intervention from our congressman we finally had it resolved. It was an absolute PITA.

Now, I agree that all these folks who are complaining about illegals have a valid point. There needs to be controls over the borders. However - we also need to treat the people who are trying to move here LEGALLY with more respect. There were many times in our process we both felt like 'fuck em'. I can't imagine any unskilled laborers would want to come here and face years worth of bullshit just for the privilege of washing our dishes/cleaining hotel rooms or picking our fruit. They look at the process and say 'fuck it' - and I don't blame them.

Putting up walls and barriers and soldiers may look like a solution, but it fails to address the REAL problem - the behemoth of a beurocracy which impedes legal immigration.

If it were easier to become a legal immigrant there would be FAR more compliance. It would const CONSIDERABLY less expensive and be SUBSTANTIALLY more in the American spirit than if we built walls and stationed soldiers on the border.

I say we modernize our immigration process and place a two-week time limit. If someone applies for residency legally and we don't deny them within two weeks then they are in. Period. We can do a firearms background check in the same amount of time. Maybe we can give four weeks, but there is no reason it should take five years.

If illegal immigration was still a problem after this I would be amazed, but then I would be willing to consider more extreme options. Until then - fuckem - every single goddam beurocrat.

It took me more than three years to get permenant residency, despite being 'legal', authorised and married (in this country, no less) to a US citizen.

They lost paperwork, scheduled meetings for stupid times, didn't care about work schedules (they gave me less than a week to get my cover sorted for my final interview)... they couldn't manage to keep track of my social security data, and kept mis-sending my work authorisation data to social security... they would fail to get my authorisations sorted (meaning I couldn't work for up to 3 months)... THEN they'd 'backdate' my authorisations to when I SHOULD have got it - meaning I was effectively applying for an annual authorisation, about every 6 months, and only being able to work 9 months on it.

Not only (all) that - but, EVERY interview except the last, they would keep me there for about half a day, until ALL of the other days interviews had been done, and then they'd ask me to go to a little interview room, where they'd start asking me a load of questions about my criminal record, and the errors on my application. And, every time, I'd do the same thing - show them my passport and get them to check my passport number.

Turns out that there's another English guy with the same first and last name as me. Who'd have thought it -there are only 60+ million of us....

INS (BCIS, now?) is painful.

We have enough criminals of our own, no reason to let more in and cause even more trouble.

You don't see how this is totally illogical, do you?

Those who are career criminals will still come across the border illegally, even if we have open borders with background checks.

Indeed, at the moment, we are MAKING most of these people criminals by our ridiculous border controls... and once they are in illegally, where is the incentive to go straight?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189279,00.html

Here's something for ya.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189279,00.html

Here's something for ya.

Everything that's wrong with America at the moment... there is no problem so bad, that you can't make it worse by wasting a few hundred million dollars on sending a few of our boys to shoot each other there.

You don't see how this is totally illogical, do you?

Those who are career criminals will still come across the border illegally, even if we have open borders with background checks.

Indeed, at the moment, we are MAKING most of these people criminals by our ridiculous border controls... and once they are in illegally, where is the incentive to go straight?
At least than they have to sneak.

At least than they have to sneak.

Which they do now... and you said that was the problem....

Which they do now... and you said that was the problem....
No I said it was a problem for decent people just looking for a job to have to do that, not that it we should up our boarders to those with a history of criminal activity.

INS (BCIS, now?) is painful.

Amen bro. You had the same type experience. Doncha just love hanging out at their office all day? That's all it took form me to realize the fewer things the government runs - the better off we all are.

No I said it was a problem for decent people just looking for a job to have to do that, not that it we should up our boarders to those with a history of criminal activity.

But, by making almost everyone sneak, we are 'hiding' criminals... by making the routes more 'available' on the black market.

And, by making them all sneak, we are making generation on generation of immigrants that have to break the law just to get here... and, like I said, if you HAVE to break the law to get here, and you CAN'T work legally once you ARE here... where is the incentive to go straight?

As far as I know, you don't have to declare a criminal record when you travel betwen states IN the US... so why make such a big deal about Mexican crime?

What about the fact that, if we checked for criminal records... Mexico might just stop recording petty crime?

What about the fact that we'd just start a blackmarket in 'alternate identities' on the Mexican border?

Amen bro. You had the same type experience. Doncha just love hanging out at their office all day? That's all it took form me to realize the fewer things the government runs - the better off we all are.

I have no problems with the govenment running stuff, if it is made to work.

My wife got her residency sorted for the UK (we lived there for a while, first)... in two weeks... including postal service time.

UK population 60+ million. US population 350 million.

No reason WHY it should take 75 times as long...

But, by making almost everyone sneak, we are 'hiding' criminals... by making the routes more 'available' on the black market.

And, by making them all sneak, we are making generation on generation of immigrants that have to break the law just to get here... and, like I said, if you HAVE to break the law to get here, and you CAN'T work legally once you ARE here... where is the incentive to go straight?

As far as I know, you don't have to declare a criminal record when you travel betwen states IN the US... so why make such a big deal about Mexican crime?

What about the fact that, if we checked for criminal records... Mexico might just stop recording petty crime?

What about the fact that we'd just start a blackmarket in 'alternate identities' on the Mexican border?
When did I say anything about making everybody sneak, I said I had no problem relaxing the rules for most people just that one should check for criminal backgrounds, by which I mean guilty of crimes we would consider felonies. I'm pretty sure the federal goverment at least keeps track of such criminals and I would think the states do as well when it comes to felons moving to their state. As for Mexico responding in that mater, I think thats the reason so many people don't like the mexican immigration issue the impression Mexico gives that they don't give a damn about our laws.

I have no problems with the govenment running stuff, if it is made to work.

My wife got her residency sorted for the UK (we lived there for a while, first)... in two weeks... including postal service time.

UK population 60+ million. US population 350 million.

No reason WHY it should take 75 times as long...

I wonder what the differential is between people coming to the states vs UK is. Where is your import from? Are the rules the same in the UK no matter what country one is coming from? Isn't there a stink right now about making it more difficult for some nations (Arab) immigrants in the UK? Or was that another European country? I don't recall. Seems to me I can recall that there are some unique difficulties to immigrate to the UK but I don't recall - had to have a job first or something like that. Still - sounds better than the bullcrap in the states.

In my opinion, who says we have to let anyone into America, especially those who are illegal. Build up that border-wall high and the illegal Mexicans can't get across (kinda like this: :headbang:). If you see some on try to climb over, well then shoot first, then ask questions( kinda like this: illegal :sniper: :mp5:)

Hey, you Americans should make a gameshow of it. Just lay down a really thick minefield, and those who don't die get citizenship.

If they lose a leg but survive they have to start again.

I would pay to see that!!! :D

Neat. Serve time and then get tossed out! I like that arrangement. Good. I think those aiding these lawbreakers should get more time in prision.

Aiding another country in illegal actions, hmmm, sounds alot like treason, so maybe instead of prison time the solution could be just like other acts of treason, which is: http://cc4truth.com/images/uploads/electric-chair.jpg

In my opinion, who says we have to let anyone into America, especially those who are illegal. Build up that border-wall high and the illegal Mexicans can't get across (kinda like this: :headbang:). If you see some on try to climb over, well then shoot first, then ask questions( kinda like this: illegal :sniper: :mp5:)

Okay... and, of course, well be hiring illegals to BUILD that wall, because Joe America ain't buildin a fifty-foot wall on minimum wage...

You haven't really been reading the thread, have you...? I've already given a couple of reasons why we NEED immigrants... in greater numbers than we are getting them... and hopefully, given amnesty or whatever, sp the can pay legal taxes.

When did I say anything about making everybody sneak, I said I had no problem relaxing the rules for most people just that one should check for criminal backgrounds, by which I mean guilty of crimes we would consider felonies. I'm pretty sure the federal goverment at least keeps track of such criminals and I would think the states do as well when it comes to felons moving to their state. As for Mexico responding in that mater, I think thats the reason so many people don't like the mexican immigration issue the impression Mexico gives that they don't give a damn about our laws.

The point was, most everyone has to sneak, now.

If we are going to fix the problem, let's stop hiding behind our timeworn comfort zones, and actually work out what would WORK.

I wonder what the differential is between people coming to the states vs UK is. Where is your import from? Are the rules the same in the UK no matter what country one is coming from? Isn't there a stink right now about making it more difficult for some nations (Arab) immigrants in the UK? Or was that another European country? I don't recall. Seems to me I can recall that there are some unique difficulties to immigrate to the UK but I don't recall - had to have a job first or something like that. Still - sounds better than the bullcrap in the states.

I don't really know about immigration to the UK - I've been out of that scene for a while. But, even when we were sorting that end out... there wasn't really enough time to build a BAD impression.

My wife didn't have to have any different qualification to go there (from Georgia), than I did to get here.

Okay... and, of course, well be hiring illegals to BUILD that wall, because Joe America ain't buildin a fifty-foot wall on minimum wage...

You haven't really been reading the thread, have you...? I've already given a couple of reasons why we NEED immigrants... in greater numbers than we are getting them... and hopefully, given amnesty or whatever, sp the can pay legal taxes.

I have no problem with immigrants. Its just those that come here illegally that I have a problem with.

The point was, most everyone has to sneak, now.

If we are going to fix the problem, let's stop hiding behind our timeworn comfort zones, and actually work out what would WORK.
What so letting just people with out a criminal record in wouldn't work?

I have no problem with immigrants. Its just those that come here illegally that I have a problem with.

We've already discovered that that isn't the case... because you object to legalising all Mexican border crossing.

We've already discovered that that isn't the case... because you object to legalising all Mexican border crossing.

:confused:

What so letting just people with out a criminal record in wouldn't work?

Sure it'd work... and it would be a HUGE improvement.

But why do half a job?

:confused:

Okay - perhaps I've confused some of your replies.

Where do you stand on the idea of making 'illegal' Mexican immigration 'legal'.

Effectively, making an open border with Mexico (for Mexican citizens), so they can come across at leisure... picking up Social Security cards and work authorisation on the way?

Sure it'd work... and it would be a HUGE improvement.

But why do half a job?
How's that half a job it lets in those that would contribute and keeps out those that would be more likely to do stuff thats actually bad.

Okay - perhaps I've confused some of your replies.

Where do you stand on the idea of making 'illegal' Mexican immigration 'legal'.

I don't. I want them out of my country. I only want those who come here legally to stay.

Effectively, making an open border with Mexico (for Mexican citizens), so they can come across at leisure... picking up Social Security cards and work authorisation on the way?

Forget it. We have border crossings for a reason. We have a set process to immigrate here to this country. Those who don't want to follow it should be tossed right out of this country for violating US Law.

I don't. I want them out of my country. I only want those who come here legally to stay.

Forget it. We have border crossings for a reason. We have a set process to immigrate here to this country. Those who don't want to follow it should be tossed right out of this country for violating US Law.

Evasion.

You really don't like being put on the spot, do you?

I didn't ask you about what to do with immigrants that ARE here... I said, what did you think about CHANGING the immigration law, so those that are currently becoming 'illegals' would become 'legals'?

Re-read the question in the previous post, and respond please... I'd hate to misrepresent you.

How's that half a job it lets in those that would contribute and keeps out those that would be more likely to do stuff thats actually bad.

Do you trust the Mexican legal system? I sure as hell don't.

I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it...
Throughout history, people/governments have invaded other countries and taken them over. After they win it through any means necessary it is theirs to protect and run how they wish. Right or wrong, that is the way. Or was since current laws make it much harder to invade countries. Argue it as much as you want. Mexicans are not native to Mexico and Australia wasn't always filled with Australians. There were entire separate cultures there.
I'm still not sure how I feel about this new law. i just wanted to say what i did. Maybe we should just leave it alone.

Evasion.

You really don't like being put on the spot, do you?

How did I evade? I answered you freakin question.

I didn't ask you about what to do with immigrants that ARE here... I said, what did you think about CHANGING the immigration law, so those that are currently becoming 'illegals' would become 'legals'?

I don't. I want those who are illegal to be tossed in jail followed by immediate deportation. I said that three different times now. My answer is not going to change anytime soon.

Re-read the question in the previous post, and respond please... I'd hate to misrepresent you.

In regards to legalizing those who are illegal, my answer to that would be I would oppose such a bill. They are lawbreakers and we should not reward those who break the law by making them legal.

I think he means those who want in to the country now and are willing to come illegally.

How did I evade? I answered you freakin question.

I don't. I want those who are illegal to be tossed in jail followed by immediate deportation. I said that three different times now. My answer is not going to change anytime soon.

In regards to legalizing those who are illegal, my answer to that would be I would oppose such a bill. They are lawbreakers and we should not reward those who break the law by making them legal.

And yet, despite your heated retort... if you look carefully, you have STILL managed to answer a question I didn't ask.

Ignore those already resident in this country... I'm not talking about them.

If I had the power to change the law, and tomorrow, went and built 'immigration' booths all along the Southern Border, and started letting Mexicans immigrate 'legally' by simply walking through the half-hour process - handing them ALL the required papers at the border... how does that appeal to you? What do you think of that idea?

I think he means those who want in to the country now and are willing to come illegally.

Thank you, yes.

Those that may come illegally... if the law does not change first.

Okay... and, of course, well be hiring illegals to BUILD that wall, because Joe America ain't buildin a fifty-foot wall on minimum wage...

You haven't really been reading the thread, have you...? I've already given a couple of reasons why we NEED immigrants... in greater numbers than we are getting them... and hopefully, given amnesty or whatever, sp the can pay legal taxes.

I've read this thread and I have no problem with legitimate immigrants, but illegal immigrants I do have a problem with.

I've read this thread and I have no problem with legitimate immigrants, but illegal immigrants I do have a problem with.

Why?

I think I've demonstrated fairly convincingly that most times someone says they dislike the 'illegal' part of 'illegal immigration'... it's less than ENTIRELY true.

If I had the power to change the law, and tomorrow, went and built 'immigration' booths all along the Southern Border, and started letting Mexicans immigrate 'legally' by simply walking through the half-hour process - handing them ALL the required papers at the border... how does that appeal to you? What do you think of that idea?
Make the process last long enough to do meaningful criminal and health checks, probably a couple of days depending on how fast mexican authorities can provide criminal information, have prospective employers post jobs that these immigrants can fill and that they can apply for there and also have real border control so that it is much harder to just walk across and we have a deal. :)

Make the process last long enough to do meaningful criminal and health checks, probably a couple of days depending on how fast mexican authorities can provide criminal information, have prospective employers post jobs that these immigrants can fill and that they can apply for there and also have real border control so that it is much harder to just walk across and we have a deal. :)

The 'health checks' thing is a red herring. As I pointed out earlier, the worst 'disease' outbreak in near history could be argued as HIV... and that came in through legitimate channels. Also - we have bubonic plague IN THIS COUNTRY, yet I don't see Americans arguing that WE should be quarantined when we visit other nations. It is also nonsensical to carry out that kind of intense medical check on those destined to become residents, when US tourists can cross the border there-and-back (through any amount of disease vectors) at whim.

I mean - if someone is coughing bits of lung, sure... hold them in containment, but we don't do manatory healthchecks on everyone from the US... so it's little more than a gesture to do it on immigrants.

Regarding the criminal information... how about having the Mexican government send ALL criminal records (above, say, misdemeanour level) to the border, and screen them ourselves?

Personally, I don't think criminal records are a big deal... but we might as well try to filter paedophiles and rapists.


I like the idea of employers posting work to the border, and I like the idea of making facilities available to apply from the border... both measures could reduce the number of unemployed 'drain-on-the-economy' immigrants.


But - the border control... why would we NEED to tighten that border any more than it is now (if that)... if it was so accessible to gain entry?

The 'health checks' thing is a red herring. As I pointed out earlier, the worst 'disease' outbreak in near history could be argued as HIV... and that came in through legitimate channels. Also - we have bubonic plague IN THIS COUNTRY, yet I don't see Americans arguing that WE should be quarantined when we visit other nations. It is also nonsensical to carry out that kind of intense medical check on those destined to become residents, when US tourists can cross the border there-and-back (through any amount of disease vectors) at whim.

I mean - if someone is coughing bits of lung, sure... hold them in containment, but we don't do manatory healthchecks on everyone from the US... so it's little more than a gesture to do it on immigrants.In order for Americans to travel to many countries they have to get shots, I see nothing worng with it going the other way around. All I am talking about is simple precaustions. A basic physical. Listen to their lungs, check their heart, 10 minutes. If there are any current outbreaks in Mexico that we shoudl worry about we can give them treatment at the border for free, in many cases. A lot of the diseases that afflict third world countries are readily curable here and in the West. I'm just talking about checking for things like TB, whooping cough, etc... Hell, I had to go through that just to get a job at a restaurant in Las Vegas I see no problem doing that for immigrants, especially in food handling jobs.

Regarding the criminal information... how about having the Mexican government send ALL criminal records (above, say, misdemeanour level) to the border, and screen them ourselves?Okay. :)

Personally, I don't think criminal records are a big deal... but we might as well try to filter paedophiles and rapists.And drug dealers and gang members and cop killers.


I like the idea of employers posting work to the border, and I like the idea of making facilities available to apply from the border... both measures could reduce the number of unemployed 'drain-on-the-economy' immigrants.Good.


But - the border control... why would we NEED to tighten that border any more than it is now (if that)... if it was so accessible to gain entry?
Because if we are doing criminal checks then the criminals that want to come in, and there are many of them, will still be taking the 20 mile treck through the open desert. Also, those who do not have a job available to them may still try to come here and work illegally.

In order for Americans to travel to many countries they have to get shots, I see nothing worng with it going the other way around. All I am talking about is simple precaustions. A basic physical. Listen to their lungs, check their heart, 10 minutes. If there are any current outbreaks in Mexico that we shoudl worry about we can give them treatment at the border for free, in many cases. A lot of the diseases that afflict third world countries are readily curable here and in the West. I'm just talking about checking for things like TB, whooping cough, etc... Hell, I had to go through that just to get a job at a restaurant in Las Vegas I see no problem doing that for immigrants, especially in food handling jobs.


A basic diagnose-and-dose? I see no real problems with that.


And drug dealers and gang members and cop killers.


Drug-dealers might be a genuine concern. I'm not so sure about cop-killers, coming from a nation with such an allegedly corrupt police force.

Any kind of killer who hasn't served time should, perhaps, be filtered. But - if the sentence is disharged..?

Also - gang members... you have to allow for the fact that, in some areas the ONLY way to NOT be in a gang, is to be dead.

I'd say it's more important to filter for known-Cartel connections, than for gang affiliation.


Because if we are doing criminal checks then the criminals that want to come in, and there are many of them, will still be taking the 20 mile treck through the open desert. Also, those who do not have a job available to them may still try to come here and work illegally.

But, we've already looked at the fact that legalising the immigrant population gives power to the immigrants. The current 'illegal' employment economy would find it hard to survive mass legal immigration, and the fact that so many legals WOULD be able to work for decent wages and get benefits, etc... would actually be an encouragement to Mexicans wanting 'in'... to wait until they could get legitimate employ.

Regarding the idea that criminals will still try to cross the border: I don;t doubt there is some truth... but there is currently a whole blackmarket (both sides of the border) dedicated to illegal immigration... and it survives on an 'economy of scale'. If you make legal immigration a real, daily, possibility... Mexicans are going to be less willing to scrimp and save 3000 dollars to try to buy an illegal way across.

That means an effective atrophy of the blackmarket... which means a criminal wanting to cross the border is going to have to pay a much greater premium to buy help. And, most criminals are more likely to focus their attentions elsewhere if they need to front BIG money.

A question for both Grave n Idle and PsychoticDan:

What should be the conditions for permanent citizenship, and how long should gaining it take? And, in the meanwhile, whilst one waits to gain this, should they be given partial, full or no access to welfare?

A question for both Grave n Idle and PsychoticDan:

What should be the conditions for permanent citizenship, and how long should gaining it take? And, in the meanwhile, whilst one waits to gain this, should they be given partial, full or no access to welfare?

Personally, I think citizenship should be much like it is now (legally resident for five years, or whatever).

I think everyone who has been resident legally for the required time should be able to apply for citizenship... but I think the same requirements should exist for those born here, too. So - if immigrants have to pass a test to become citizens, so should non-immigrants. If immigrants have to serve two years national service, so should non-immigrants.

I think ALL legal residents should have equal access to welfare - after all, we expect them to pay for it.

Personally, I think citizenship should be much like it is now (legally resident for five years, or whatever).

I think everyone who has been resident legally for the required time should be able to apply for citizenship... but I think the same requirements should exist for those born here, too. So - if immigrants have to pass a test to become citizens, so should non-immigrants. If immigrants have to serve two years national service, so should non-immigrants.

I think ALL legal residents should have equal access to welfare - after all, we expect them to pay for it.
Sounds reasonable to me. Just one clarification; when you say those born here, do you mean the children of immigrants?

On the welfare bit, so long as they contribute as everyone else, then I see no problem for them to receive as much as they would be entitled to.

Personally, I think citizenship should be much like it is now (legally resident for five years, or whatever).

I think everyone who has been resident legally for the required time should be able to apply for citizenship... but I think the same requirements should exist for those born here, too. So - if immigrants have to pass a test to become citizens, so should non-immigrants. If immigrants have to serve two years national service, so should non-immigrants.

I think ALL legal residents should have equal access to welfare - after all, we expect them to pay for it.
I have no beef with that except that the Constitution says that if you're born here you're a citizen and I'm not into fucking with that.

Sounds reasonable to me. Just one clarification; when you say those born here, do you mean the children of immigrants?


No - I mean ANYONE that is born here. After all - how is it fair that an immigrant has to name... say, the 13th President of the United States... but if you're born here, it's no big deal if you can't name the President today.


On the welfare bit, so long as they contribute as everyone else, then I see no problem for them to receive as much as they would be entitled to.

Agreed.

No - I mean ANYONE that is born here. After all - how is it fair that an immigrant has to name... say, the 13th President of the United States... but if you're born here, it's no big deal if you can't name the President today.
Agreed, although I am not sure how US Constitutional concerns would affect this.

I have no beef with that except that the Constitution says that if you're born here you're a citizen and I'm not into fucking with that.

Does the Constitution actually say that, or is it implied? (Honestly not sure).

But, whichever way - I was asked what I thought should be the conditions for citizenship. I think, mere birth should not guarantee citizenship... but it isn't really up to me. :)

Agreed, although I am not sure how US Constitutional concerns would affect this.

No - I'm not sure... and, right now, I don't have time to check into it.

If there were a movement for a Constitutional Amendment, I'd support it.

Of course, most of the other 350-something million residents of the USA might choose to NOT support it. :)

ADrug-dealers might be a genuine concern. I'm not so sure about cop-killers, coming from a nation with such an allegedly corrupt police force.

Any kind of killer who hasn't served time should, perhaps, be filtered. But - if the sentence is disharged..?

Also - gang members... you have to allow for the fact that, in some areas the ONLY way to NOT be in a gang, is to be dead.

I'd say it's more important to filter for known-Cartel connections, than for gang affiliation.
Might want to look at this: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-102905gang,1,4832178.flash



But, we've already looked at the fact that legalising the immigrant population gives power to the immigrants. The current 'illegal' employment economy would find it hard to survive mass legal immigration, and the fact that so many legals WOULD be able to work for decent wages and get benefits, etc... would actually be an encouragement to Mexicans wanting 'in'... to wait until they could get legitimate employ.

Regarding the idea that criminals will still try to cross the border: I don;t doubt there is some truth... but there is currently a whole blackmarket (both sides of the border) dedicated to illegal immigration... and it survives on an 'economy of scale'. If you make legal immigration a real, daily, possibility... Mexicans are going to be less willing to scrimp and save 3000 dollars to try to buy an illegal way across.

That means an effective atrophy of the blackmarket... which means a criminal wanting to cross the border is going to have to pay a much greater premium to buy help. And, most criminals are more likely to focus their attentions elsewhere if they need to front BIG money.But under these conditions the incentive to hire immigrants over citizens will diminish so there won't be as many jobs, particularily in carpentry and construction so I doubt it will increase the flow of immigration, though maybe it will increase the flow of legal immigration. That being the case there will still be incentive to try and work here illegally.

But aside from all that, I just think its in any countries best interest to patrol their borders and to monitor them and to arrest people who cross illegally, especially when you are threatened the way the US is. We've got people out there that are looking for ways to get in here and kill as many of us, immigrants and citizens alike, as possible.

Does the Constitution actually say that, or is it implied? (Honestly not sure).

But, whichever way - I was asked what I thought should be the conditions for citizenship. I think, mere birth should not guarantee citizenship... but it isn't really up to me. :)
No, it actually says it.



Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Not to sound rude, but we generally don't like being called Latinos. And I'm here legally.

Plus, every American's (besides Native Americans) decendants just waltzed in here and decided to claim this land for themselves. I'm not saying that I hate Americans, or the US, nothing like that, but it's true.

No shit. These small-minded latinos can't see past their latino identity to support their newly adopted country.
SMALL-MINDED LATINOS?!?! That is extremely racist if you ask me! HISPANICS do jobs that Americans reject! They pick oranges and other fruits! And you know what? Us Hispanics are smart as well! We have rights just like the rest of you!

SMALL-MINDED LATINOS?!?! That is extremely racist if you ask me! HISPANICS do jobs that Americans reject! They pick oranges and other fruits! And you know what? Us Hispanics are smart as well! We have rights just like the rest of you!
You are digging up ancient thread history. Let it rest.

Sorry, I havn't been here long, but this makes me really angry.

Sorry, I havn't been here long, but this makes me really angry.
I know, but really, don't waste time on this. The whole thing has been debated to death.

It makes me sick when people advocate small-mindedness.
There's a huge difference between small-mindedness and common sense.

Small mindedness would say in this case we let them run free.

Common sense says we send them back.

Not to sound rude, but we generally don't like being called Latinos. And I'm here legally.

Plus, every American's (besides Native Americans) decendants just waltzed in here and decided to claim this land for themselves. I'm not saying that I hate Americans, or the US, nothing like that, but it's true.
The difference between you and the protesters is that you're here legally. They aren't. If someone is not a legal citizen of the United States, why should the taxpayer pay for their healthcare, lawyers, welfare, and so on, when they shouldn't even be here.

The point is not that the illegal immigrants are the backbone of the economy. A lot of them don't even work. The point is the fact that they did not come here respecting the laws of this country by filling out the necessary paperwork and getting permission.

Hispanics aren't bad people. Many Hispanics are decent, hard-working, and consider family to be of the utmost importance. Those same Hispanics, such as yourself, are the ones who have came here legally. Its the opposite with those who have came here illegally.

No - I'm not sure... and, right now, I don't have time to check into it.

If there were a movement for a Constitutional Amendment, I'd support it.

Of course, most of the other 350-something million residents of the USA might choose to NOT support it. :)
90% of American citizens(who are here legally) support a deportation of all illegal immigrants.

90% of American citizens(who are here legally) support a deportation of all illegal immigrants.
Digging up ancient history a hobby of yours? Just let this thread die already.

No shit. These small-minded latinos can't see past their latino identity to support their newly adopted country.

SMALL-MINDED LATINOS?!?! That is extremely racist if you ask me! HISPANICS do jobs that Americans reject! They pick oranges and other fruits! And you know what? Us Hispanics are smart as well! We have rights just like the rest of you!

Umm, the sentence "These small-minded" is a modifier. The person in question is not painting all latinos with a broad brush (or at least, his sentence isn't) but merely describing the people who march in the streets waving mexican flags. People who don't want to embrace or at least respect the country they live in are small minded. Nothing racist about it.

Also remember, rights can be suspended. This usually happens when people break the law (as illegals are doing). I empathize with all who come to this country, legally or not. I have great respect for people who come to this country legally. But these people do not have the right to be here. We may be nice and bequeath them certain privileges, but ultimately it's the decision of any country whom they choose to allow into their country. That's the way it is in any country in the world, no matter how 'enlightened.'

Umm, the sentence "These small-minded" is a modifier. The person in question is not painting all latinos with a broad brush (or at least, his sentence isn't) but merely describing the people who march in the streets waving mexican flags. People who don't want to embrace or at least respect the country they live in are small minded. Nothing racist about it.

Also remember, rights can be suspended. This usually happens when people break the law (as illegals are doing). I empathize with all who come to this country, legally or not. I have great respect for people who come to this country legally. But these people do not have the right to be here. We may be nice and bequeath them certain privileges, but ultimately it's the decision of any country whom they choose to allow into their country. That's the way it is in any country in the world, no matter how 'enlightened.'
Precisely.

Might want to look at this: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-102905gang,1,4832178.flash



But under these conditions the incentive to hire immigrants over citizens will diminish so there won't be as many jobs, particularily in carpentry and construction so I doubt it will increase the flow of immigration, though maybe it will increase the flow of legal immigration. That being the case there will still be incentive to try and work here illegally.

But aside from all that, I just think its in any countries best interest to patrol their borders and to monitor them and to arrest people who cross illegally, especially when you are threatened the way the US is. We've got people out there that are looking for ways to get in here and kill as many of us, immigrants and citizens alike, as possible.

You seem to be arguing contradiction... on the one hand, there are going to be less jobs because of the equity achieved... on the other hand, you still see people coming in over the borde to work illegally... but - were we not just saying there will be no jobs?

Patrolling borders is almost impossible, especially when you are talking borders as vast as those of the US. To make the kind of attempt politicians kep suggesting... is to make a gesture.... and a HUGELY expensive gesture, at that.

You seem to be arguing contradiction... on the one hand, there are going to be less jobs because of the equity achieved... on the other hand, you still see people coming in over the borde to work illegally... but - were we not just saying there will be no jobs? There probably isn't any change under the couch cushion either but that doesn't stop me from looking when I'm broke.

Patrolling borders is almost impossible, especially when you are talking borders as vast as those of the US. To make the kind of attempt politicians kep suggesting... is to make a gesture.... and a HUGELY expensive gesture, at that.
We still have to do something about the ease with which drug dealers and other criminals cross into our country. I know we can't just line up a wall of 200,000 border agents to watch every square inch of the border, but we can do a better job than we are doing especiallly with the technology we have today. Other countries do.