NationStates Jolt Archive


Amnesty for Immigrants??

Very Liberal Intent
27-05-2006, 18:46
What are some of the advantages of granting all illegal immigrants (who can provide proof of employment or an active search for employment) perminant resident status? (aka, what are the advantages of legalizing all of the illegal immigrants who are here?)

Not necessarily giving them citizenship automatically...just giving them legal status.

And if such a thing were to be done, how would we deal with the immigrants who waited years and years and filled out form after form after form to come to the country legally?
Bluzblekistan
27-05-2006, 18:52
And if such a thing were to be done, how would we deal with the immigrants who waited years and years and filled out form after form after form to come to the country legally?
We'll just tell em "sorry folks, but these people broke the law and we have to make sure they get legality first!"
That is what makes me sick! We reward people for breaking the law and pat them on the head!
Very Liberal Intent
27-05-2006, 19:06
But say that it was going to happen anyway, and you had no control to stop the amnesty. What do you give to the people who legally immigrated here? Tax breaks? Well, that'd be stupid, considering that you've got eleven million more people that now apply for welfare, public education, health care, the whole nine yards, and you need the federal money. Do you just give the benefits to legal permenant residents but not to naturalized foreign-borm citizens, or do you give it to all foreign-borns? And what can you even give them?

(I'm not asking this to try to prove a point or anything...it's not rhetorical...it's a legit question to which an answer would be highly appreciated.)
DesignatedMarksman
27-05-2006, 19:09
What are some of the advantages of granting all illegal immigrants (who can provide proof of employment or an active search for employment) perminant resident status? (aka, what are the advantages of legalizing all of the illegal immigrants who are here?)

Not necessarily giving them citizenship automatically...just giving them legal status.

And if such a thing were to be done, how would we deal with the immigrants who waited years and years and filled out form after form after form to come to the country legally?

Encouraging illegal activity?
Very Liberal Intent
27-05-2006, 19:19
Not allowing every single illegal person to come into the country....granting permenant resident status to thsoe who are already here and contributing to the American economy anyway...which will, might I add, force them to pay federal taxes, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars to the government...

It's less of a program to encourage illegal immigration than it is to promote legal immigration. The amnesty program would only be open to those who could provide proof of work/active seeking of employment for a certain amount of time...there are some other measures in the proposal to make legal immigration possible to more try and promote that than anything else.

But that doesn't answer my original question.
Ashmoria
27-05-2006, 19:22
ask the other question.

what is to be gained by leaving them with no legal status?

if having people in the country illegally is such a bad thing, then they need a way to gain legal status.

if it hurts the feelings of those who immigrated here legally, tough luck, if they dont like it then can go back. its not like it made it harder for them to get in.
JuNii
27-05-2006, 19:25
ask the other question.

what is to be gained by leaving them with no legal status?

if having people in the country illegally is such a bad thing, then they need a way to gain legal status.

if it hurts the feelings of those who immigrated here legally, tough luck, if they dont like it then can go back. its not like it made it harder for them to get in.without legal status, they will be deported, those harboring and aiding them (employing them for example) will be fined and those funds can go to better use.

we add confiscation of materials to be sold to add to funds and you'll make it less desireable to come to the US illegally.

giving them Legal status for illegally entering the US is like giving criminals a reward for comitting crimes.

and if the feelings of those who depend on Illegal Aliens are hurt, then to quote you... Tough Luck.
Vittos Ordination2
27-05-2006, 19:25
That is what makes me sick! We reward people for breaking the law and pat them on the head!

We acknowledge poor legislation and allow them to provide for themselves through productive manners without penalizing them.

giving them Legal status for illegally entering the US is like giving criminals a reward for comitting crimes.

No, its decriminalizing individuals who were not criminals in the first place.

How crossing a river or getting off of a boat can be a criminal act makes no sense to me.
Celtlund
27-05-2006, 19:47
No, its decriminalizing individuals who were not criminals in the first place.

How crossing a river or getting off of a boat can be a criminal act makes no sense to me.

It is a crime because our law makes it a crime. Speeding is also a crime because we have a law against that. By granting amnesty or providing a "path to citizenship" for people who have come into the country illegally, we will be sending a message that we are not a nation of laws and we condone breaking our laws.

It sends the wrong message to those who are trying to come here legally. It is telling them that if they want to come here more quickly they should break the law to do so.

If we go ahead with this, people can always get forged papers to "prove" they have been here long enough. I think the best thing we can do is say, OK you can apply for a guest worker job but you have to do so from your home country.
Ashmoria
27-05-2006, 20:05
without legal status, they will be deported, those harboring and aiding them (employing them for example) will be fined and those funds can go to better use.

we add confiscation of materials to be sold to add to funds and you'll make it less desireable to come to the US illegally.

giving them Legal status for illegally entering the US is like giving criminals a reward for comitting crimes.

and if the feelings of those who depend on Illegal Aliens are hurt, then to quote you... Tough Luck.
no they wont.

illegal aliens will stay in the country just as they have before. they wont be hunted down and deported. there is no popular will for something like that. what horrible scenario that is.
JuNii
27-05-2006, 20:57
No, its decriminalizing individuals who were not criminals in the first place.

How crossing a river or getting off of a boat can be a criminal act makes no sense to me.How? simple. how is me breaking your glass window to enter you home illegal?

or me camping out in your yard or back yard and going through your mail illegal?
JuNii
27-05-2006, 20:59
no they wont.

illegal aliens will stay in the country just as they have before. they wont be hunted down and deported. there is no popular will for something like that. what horrible scenario that is.
oh, yes they will. especially when those who do hire illegal aliens are hit with fines and penalties.

any Legal Aliens (but not naturalized) can stand to loose their chance for citizenship.

it's call punnishment for breaking the law. a wonderful tool to keep civilians safe from criminals.
Llewdor
27-05-2006, 21:09
Not allowing every single illegal person to come into the country....granting permenant resident status to thsoe who are already here and contributing to the American economy anyway...which will, might I add, force them to pay federal taxes, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars to the government...

It's less of a program to encourage illegal immigration than it is to promote legal immigration. The amnesty program would only be open to those who could provide proof of work/active seeking of employment for a certain amount of time...there are some other measures in the proposal to make legal immigration possible to more try and promote that than anything else.

But that doesn't answer my original question.

But it woud encourage illegal immigration because you would have granted legal residency to millions of illegal immigrants.

The only way to deter illegal behaviour is to make it appar to have negeative consequences. Amnesty hands positive consequences to millions of illegals.
An archy
27-05-2006, 21:09
We'll just tell em "sorry folks, but these people broke the law and we have to make sure they get legality first!"
That is what makes me sick! We reward people for breaking the law and pat them on the head!
The fact is that people shouldn't have ever had to fill out so many forms and wait so many years to immigrate to the U.S. The way immigration used to work, people waited in line, for literally a few hours at Ellis Island, and recieved citizenship the same day. I understand that, with the threat of terrorism, we need to be a bit more careful, but I've heard of people waiting up to 10 years to become citizens. The way the system works now, we are currently punishing the people who try to go through the system legally. 10 years! No wonder there are so many people who try to go around the system. Heck, I can't blame them one bit for trying to avoid a ridiculously cumbersome process that shouldn't exist in the first place. The system is pathetic. I believe that it is very unfortunate that many honest, hard working immigrants had to deal with such a terribly beurocratic system, but that is no excuse to continue such an idiotic system in the name of "fairness." If anything, most of them would be glad that future generations of immigrants wouldn't have to deal with all this crap.
It is a crime because our law makes it a crime. Speeding is also a crime because we have a law against that. By granting amnesty or providing a "path to citizenship" for people who have come into the country illegally, we will be sending a message that we are not a nation of laws and we condone breaking our laws.

It sends the wrong message to those who are trying to come here legally. It is telling them that if they want to come here more quickly they should break the law to do so.

If we go ahead with this, people can always get forged papers to "prove" they have been here long enough. I think the best thing we can do is say, OK you can apply for a guest worker job but you have to do so from your home country.
The way I see it, these people are breaking laws that shouldn't exist. Providing an easier path to citizenship condones breaking our laws in the same sense that the state of Alabama condoned criminal behavior when it released Rosa Parks. The only message that we will be sending is that we are not so stubborn as to perpetuate ignorant laws.
The Black Forrest
27-05-2006, 21:12
Meh.

I have mixed views on it all.

My grandparents went through the process. As did their brothers and sisters.

We make skilled people jump through about 20000 hoops to get H1B and yet we should immediately grant citizenship to the ones who "bucked the system?"

I don't know.
An archy
27-05-2006, 21:22
Meh.

I have mixed views on it all.

My grandparents went through the process. As did their brothers and sisters.

We make skilled people jump through about 20000 hoops to get H1B and yet we should immediately grant citizenship to the ones who "bucked the system?"

I don't know.
Like I said before, it's terrible that people such as your family had to experience such a difficult process. The arbitrary difficulty of the process is the reason that so many people in that situation have chosen to go the illegal route. I firmly believe that we should make the process of immigration much easier. We can't go back and take away the absurd difficulties that legal immigrants faced, but we can change the system so that noone has to face those difficulties again.
JuNii
27-05-2006, 21:32
Like I said before, it's terrible that people such as your family had to experience such a difficult process. The arbitrary difficulty of the process is the reason that so many people in that situation have chosen to go the illegal route. I firmly believe that we should make the process of immigration much easier. We can't go back and take away the absurd difficulties that legal immigrants faced, but we can change the system so that noone has to face those difficulties again.
changing the system to make it easier/smoother/faster/cheaper is one thing (and that I am fore.) but to grant Illegal Aliens a status that others are working to get through the established processes just slaps those honest people in the face.
An archy
27-05-2006, 21:45
changing the system to make it easier/smoother/faster/cheaper is one thing (and that I am fore.) but to grant Illegal Aliens a status that others are working to get through the established processes just slaps those honest people in the face.
I don't think very many immigrants, legal or illegal, would be terribly upset if we made the process easier for both groups. That would be my policy. I understand and agree with the sentiment that legal immigrants deserve a great deal more respect than the illegals. After all, they have willingly put in all the strenuous effort that our system requires, whereas the illegals took the easy way out.
Nevertheless, I find it difficult to place any sort of blame on the illegals. They have only tried to avoid a system that is far more difficult than it should be.
Not bad
27-05-2006, 22:02
Encouraging illegal activity?

Granting amnesty did exactly this last time.
The Black Forrest
27-05-2006, 22:10
changing the system to make it easier/smoother/faster/cheaper is one thing (and that I am fore.) but to grant Illegal Aliens a status that others are working to get through the established processes just slaps those honest people in the face.


Yes.

There is also things such as the local news coverage of one of the protests.

I thought it was interesting they were screaming they had a right to belong here while waving flags of Mexico.....
Vittos Ordination2
28-05-2006, 00:58
It is a crime because our law makes it a crime. Speeding is also a crime because we have a law against that. By granting amnesty or providing a "path to citizenship" for people who have come into the country illegally, we will be sending a message that we are not a nation of laws and we condone breaking our laws.

It sends the wrong message to those who are trying to come here legally. It is telling them that if they want to come here more quickly they should break the law to do so.

You are begging the question, illegal and criminal are the same for our purposes, so simply saying that they are criminal because they are illegal makes absolutely no point.

Our law is not set in stone, we control our laws (in a round about way). So when I say I don't understand how this act could be a crime, I am saying I don't understand how there could be a law against it.

You also make the mistake of assuming that there are people trying to come here illegally. They are only trying to come here, they are forced to come here illegally. Presumably, the decriminalization of the act and the incentive of potential citizenship will greatly cut down on if not eliminate crossing the border illegally.
Vittos Ordination2
28-05-2006, 01:01
How? simple. how is me breaking your glass window to enter you home illegal?

or me camping out in your yard or back yard and going through your mail illegal?

Because you are violating my personal property. What right of yours is being violated in this situation?
JuNii
28-05-2006, 01:01
Because you are violating my personal property. What right of yours is being violated in this situation?National Boundries.

you know. established borders agreed upon between nations.
Vittos Ordination2
28-05-2006, 01:03
changing the system to make it easier/smoother/faster/cheaper is one thing (and that I am fore.) but to grant Illegal Aliens a status that others are working to get through the established processes just slaps those honest people in the face.

I don't understand why. Presumably they will have to go through a legal process to have their citizenship once they recieve amnesty, just the same as everyone else.
Vittos Ordination2
28-05-2006, 01:04
National Boundries.

you know. established borders agreed upon between nations.

and....?
JuNii
28-05-2006, 01:10
and....?
by crossing Illegally, that is not through established procedures and protocols, it is Illegal.

thus to say that those who were here illegally should be given visa's and a chance for citizenship when others are waiting and following protocols, but still have to wait is wrong and just encourages others to break set laws.

Change the procedures to make them better and processed faster? yes, give amnesty to those already here but illegally? no.

EDIT: sorry mis read your post. the right that they violate is the right to security.
JuNii
28-05-2006, 01:14
I don't understand why. Presumably they will have to go through a legal process to have their citizenship once they recieve amnesty, just the same as everyone else.
no they didn't go through the process, and with amnesty, they wont.

That's why the term Illegal Aliens.
Vittos Ordination2
28-05-2006, 01:26
by crossing Illegally, that is not through established procedures and protocols, it is Illegal.

thus to say that those who were here illegally should be given visa's and a chance for citizenship when others are waiting and following protocols, but still have to wait is wrong and just encourages others to break set laws.

Change the procedures to make them better and processed faster? yes, give amnesty to those already here but illegally? no.

Why not allow those who didn't go through the process before to go through the process now? Shorten the process for everyone, eliminate the quotas, and start over again.

EDIT: sorry mis read your post. the right that they violate is the right to security.

Even assuming we have this "right to security", I don't see how these immigrants violate it.
Vittos Ordination2
28-05-2006, 01:28
no they didn't go through the process, and with amnesty, they wont.

That's why the term Illegal Aliens.

Granted I don't know how amnesty is granted, I cannot imagine the government does it without some sort of process of registration.

And from the day laborers I have met from working in real estate, they would gladly register with the government if they were able to.
JuNii
28-05-2006, 01:30
Granted I don't know how amnesty is granted, I cannot imagine the government does it without some sort of process of registration.

And from the day laborers I have met from working in real estate, they would gladly register with the government if they were able to.
then encourage them to go through the process.
JuNii
28-05-2006, 01:33
Why not allow those who didn't go through the process before to go through the process now? Shorten the process for everyone, eliminate the quotas, and start over again.exactly. but that means that those here gets no special treatment no hand out, they got to do what everyone else does. inother words, go back to their country and do it properly.



Even assuming we have this "right to security", I don't see how these immigrants violate it.
look up Illegal. they are breaking set rules that citizens as well as those wanting to be citizens must follow.

it's not up to us (private citizens or citizens to be) to determine with rules to arbitrairly discard. if we want the rules changed, then we, as citizens, must work to change it useing set procedures and guidlines.
Neu Leonstein
28-05-2006, 01:35
What are some of the advantages of granting all illegal immigrants (who can provide proof of employment or an active search for employment) perminant resident status?
Well, you'd immediately start raking in extra tax money, extra payments for insurances etc and your GDP would go up because many wages would no longer be paid on the black market.

On the negative side.......well, other than something bordering a slippery slope fallacy, I can't think of anything.
Vittos Ordination2
28-05-2006, 01:35
then encourage them to go through the process.

They cannot, that is the point. If they could, they would.
Unitaridom
28-05-2006, 01:39
It wouldn't be right that some people would have to go through the process in order to become legal, whereas others were automatically given "legality".

Maybe if there weren’t such a thing as "legal" and "illegal" aliens, the problem wouldn't exist. Free boarders.
Neu Leonstein
28-05-2006, 01:41
Maybe if there weren’t such a thing as "legal" and "illegal" aliens, the problem wouldn't exist. Free boarders.
Best. First. Post. Ever!

Except the font, but that's a minor detail.
Vittos Ordination2
28-05-2006, 01:45
exactly. but that means that those here gets no special treatment no hand out, they got to do what everyone else does. inother words, go back to their country and do it properly.

What is the point of making them go back to "their country"?

look up Illegal. they are breaking set rules that citizens as well as those wanting to be citizens must follow.

Does this mean that you can't explain how your rights are violated?

it's not up to us (private citizens or citizens to be) to determine with rules to arbitrairly discard. if we want the rules changed, then we, as citizens, must work to change it useing set procedures and guidlines.

Certainly it is up to us to choose which laws we follow or violate, it is up to the government what the punishments should be.
Unitaridom
28-05-2006, 01:57
Best. First. Post. Ever!

Except the font, but that's a minor detail.
Why thank you. Although, I do rather like the font.
Anti-Social Darwinism
28-05-2006, 02:10
Give them 30 days to return to their country of origin and begin the process for legal entry. They can take their turn and follow the rules as they're supposed to. If they're found in this country after 30 days, deport them and refuse them the right to come back legally.

Either that or annex Mexico.
Psychotic Mongooses
28-05-2006, 02:13
Give them 30 days to return to their country of origin and begin the process for legal entry. They can take their turn and follow the rules as they're supposed to. If they're found in this country after 30 days, deport them and refuse them the right to come back legally.

Do you realise how difficult is would be to find 11 million undocumented 'citizens' that don't want to be found?
Anti-Social Darwinism
28-05-2006, 02:24
Do you realise how difficult is would be to find 11 million undocumented 'citizens' that don't want to be found?

It is a big "if".

The point is that people should not be rewarded for breaking the law, nor should people be penalized for trying to follow the rules.

I do agree with a previous poster that the process should be streamlined. I do, however, believe that the number of immigrants from anywhere should be limited - I don't think we could begin to manage the influx if there were no limits.
Hakubi
28-05-2006, 02:54
ask the other question.

what is to be gained by leaving them with no legal status?

if having people in the country illegally is such a bad thing, then they need a way to gain legal status.

if it hurts the feelings of those who immigrated here legally, tough luck, if they dont like it then can go back. its not like it made it harder for them to get in.

You know what, go to hell. Have you been through immigration? My wife legally immigrated from another country to the US. We went through the legal process. It was a pain, but we did it. It included a criminal history check and a medical examination. Is that happening with the illegals? No. Those checks are there for a reason, moron.

Why should a bunch of illegal free-loaders be allowed status just because they broke the law? Let them go back home and work. What no jobs back home, well then do something about it back home.

If they get legal status as a guest worker they're going to pay taxes??? HAH! Thats a joke. Ever heard of the earned income tax credit? They won't be paying a freakin cent. They just get their big fat state and federal checks back and send them off to Mexico.

The illegals need to go back and start filing for their green card. If they come in honestly good, if not then send them home.
Hakubi
28-05-2006, 02:57
Do you realise how difficult is would be to find 11 million undocumented 'citizens' that don't want to be found?

I'm tired of this straw man argument. You find the illegals one at time through law enforcement. You make it undesirable for businesses to want to keep them. You make it undesirable for private citizens to hire them as servants. You send them back as you find them.
Kazus
28-05-2006, 03:05
Who cares?
Hakubi
28-05-2006, 03:05
You are begging the question, illegal and criminal are the same for our purposes, so simply saying that they are criminal because they are illegal makes absolutely no point.

Our law is not set in stone, we control our laws (in a round about way). So when I say I don't understand how this act could be a crime, I am saying I don't understand how there could be a law against it.

You also make the mistake of assuming that there are people trying to come here illegally. They are only trying to come here, they are forced to come here illegally. Presumably, the decriminalization of the act and the incentive of potential citizenship will greatly cut down on if not eliminate crossing the border illegally.

This is how they do it. They go to the American Embassy in Mexico and file and application for a visa. If they are not lucky in the green card lottery then they try again next year. Its the process, countries have boarders. Countries have the right to enforce their boarders and to control immigration as they see fit. If we need more cheap labor then we need to increase the number of visas.
Psychotic Mongooses
28-05-2006, 03:06
I'm tired of this straw man argument. You find the illegals one at time through law enforcement.
How is that a straw man argument exactly?

You make it undesirable for businesses to want to keep them. You make it undesirable for private citizens to hire them as servants. You send them back as you find them.

You make it undesirable for businesses to have the ability to hire cheap labour and pay them next-to-nothing? In an uber-Capitalist society? Ha.
Derscon
28-05-2006, 03:13
You also make the mistake of assuming that there are people trying to come here illegally. They are only trying to come here, they are forced to come here illegally. Presumably, the decriminalization of the act and the incentive of potential citizenship will greatly cut down on if not eliminate crossing the border illegally.

So legalizing it will make it happen less frequently...

Are you proposing the dissolution of the American/Mexican border? That's what Vicente Fox basically wants. But then again, the second largest source of income for Mexico is what the illegals send back to Mexico.


Hakubi, please watch the personal attacks. Only you can prevent forum fires.

And PM, I must laugh at your "uber-captitalist society" remark, simply because you're that wrong as for your statement to be laughable.

Other than that, Hakubi, I agree with you. Make the wrath of God come down upon businesses who knowingly hire illegals over citizens/legals.
Sel Appa
28-05-2006, 03:13
We'll just tell em "sorry folks, but these people broke the law and we have to make sure they get legality first!"
That is what makes me sick! We reward people for breaking the law and pat them on the head!
Deport all illegals.
Hakubi
28-05-2006, 03:15
How is that a straw man argument exactly?


You make it undesirable for businesses to have the ability to hire cheap labour and pay them next-to-nothing? In an uber-Capitalist society? Ha.

Because the whole "how do you find 11 million people" is a misrepresentation of the argument. The answer to it is simple as I stated. Yet this is the new retort. "Oh we can't possibly do anything about now, we need to grant amnesty." Yes, something can be done about it.
Psychotic Mongooses
28-05-2006, 03:17
Because the whole "how do you find 11 million people" is a misrepresentation of the argument.
How is it a misrepresentation?

The answer to it is simple as I stated. Yet this is the new retort. "Oh we can't possibly do anything about now, we need to grant amnesty." Yes, something can be done about it.

I never said that. Or anything close to that. Don't put words into my mouth ok? ;)
Derscon
28-05-2006, 03:18
It wouldn't be right that some people would have to go through the process in order to become legal, whereas others were automatically given "legality".

Maybe if there weren’t such a thing as "legal" and "illegal" aliens, the problem wouldn't exist. Free boarders.

BOO INTERNATIONALISM! :p
Hakubi
28-05-2006, 03:25
How is it a misrepresentation?



I never said that. Or anything close to that. Don't put words into my mouth ok? ;)

It is a misrepresentation because the truth of the matter is being obfuscated by the proponents of illegal immigration / amnesty / "defacto guest worker" program. The fact that is being ignored is the illegality of their presence in the country. Their quantity is not germane to the argument neither is the lack of will to enforce the law.

As for putting words in your mouth I was only speaking of you in a purely rhetorical sense.
Psychotic Mongooses
28-05-2006, 03:30
It is a misrepresentation because the truth of the matter is being obfuscated by the proponents of illegal immigration / amnesty / "defacto guest worker" program. The fact that is being ignored is the illegality of their presence in the country. Their quantity is not germane to the argument neither is the lack of will to enforce the law.

As for putting words in your mouth I was only speaking of you in a purely rhetorical sense.

I think the 'quantity' of them, will have a significant impact. The amount of manpower, resources, agencies, coordination, tax dollars, logistics et al increases paralell to the amount of illegals.

You'd be surprised but when people realise the effort it will takes to physically remove 11 million people, their enthusiasm will wane.
Vittos Ordination2
28-05-2006, 03:32
This is how they do it. They go to the American Embassy in Mexico and file and application for a visa. If they are not lucky in the green card lottery then they try again next year. Its the process, countries have boarders. Countries have the right to enforce their boarders and to control immigration as they see fit.

Way to not make a single point. Certainly our government maintains the ability to control immigration by placing stringent restrictions and quotas on it. Nobody will argue that.

We are saying that they shouldn't.

If we need more cheap labor then we need to increase the number of visas.

Demand for labor is a result of demand for goods. Increased immigration both lowers prices and raises population, increasing demand for goods.

The economy will automatically grow to incorporate immigrants, while at the same time improving the economic standing of those already here.

You know what, go to hell. Have you been through immigration? My wife legally immigrated from another country to the US. We went through the legal process. It was a pain, but we did it. It included a criminal history check and a medical examination. Is that happening with the illegals? No. Those checks are there for a reason, moron.

So you support the laws that created a unnecessary hassle for your wife, who is presumably an honest, productive, valuable member of society?

Why should a bunch of illegal free-loaders be allowed status just because they broke the law? Let them go back home and work. What no jobs back home, well then do something about it back home.

This entire statement shows that you refuse to look at this from a reasonable position.

If they get legal status as a guest worker they're going to pay taxes??? HAH! Thats a joke. Ever heard of the earned income tax credit? They won't be paying a freakin cent. They just get their big fat state and federal checks back and send them off to Mexico.

I have never paid income taxes, perhaps I should be shipped off with the rest of the "free-loaders".

The illegals need to go back and start filing for their green card. If they come in honestly good, if not then send them home.

And what do they do if they are rejected due to a ridiculous lottery system?
Vittos Ordination2
28-05-2006, 03:36
So legalizing it will make it happen less frequently...

No, it will eliminate it altogether. If we make all drug use legal, then no one could possible illegally use drugs. If we eliminate laws against immigration, then there is no illegal immigration.

Are you proposing the dissolution of the American/Mexican border? That's what Vicente Fox basically wants. But then again, the second largest source of income for Mexico is what the illegals send back to Mexico.

Is that what borders are to you? The separating of the people of one nation from the other? I guess it is easier to be ethnocentric when you can deliniate where us stops and they begin.
Hakubi
28-05-2006, 03:46
Way to not make a single point. Certainly our government maintains the ability to control immigration by placing stringent restrictions and quotas on it. Nobody will argue that.

We are saying that they shouldn't.

I disagree.


Demand for labor is a result of demand for goods. Increased immigration both lowers prices and raises population, increasing demand for goods.

The economy will automatically grow to incorporate immigrants, while at the same time improving the economic standing of those already here.


Legal immigration, yes.


So you support the laws that created a unnecessary hassle for your wife, who is presumably an honest, productive, valuable member of society?


Yes I do, support the laws because there is a purpose to those laws. There needs to be a screening process.


This entire statement shows that you refuse to look at this from a reasonable position.


What is reasonable about your position? I have never said that I oppose legal immigration.


I have never paid income taxes, perhaps I should be shipped off with the rest of the "free-loaders".


Nope, you're legal I presume so we're stuck with you. Hopefully some day you'll be in a position to pay property taxes.


And what do they do if they are rejected due to a ridiculous lottery system?

They try to do something to make their home country a better place to live. I keep on hearing how wonderful Mexico and South America is when I listen to NPR. Why do they ever want to leave?
Hakubi
28-05-2006, 03:49
I think the 'quantity' of them, will have a significant impact. The amount of manpower, resources, agencies, coordination, tax dollars, logistics et al increases paralell to the amount of illegals.

You'd be surprised but when people realise the effort it will takes to physically remove 11 million people, their enthusiasm will wane.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step, Grasshopper.
Derscon
28-05-2006, 03:50
No, it will eliminate it altogether. If we make all drug use legal, then no one could possible illegally use drugs. If we eliminate laws against immigration, then there is no illegal immigration.

What a good idea! Lets decriminalize murder, too! Then we can have the lowest illegal deaths in the world!



Is that what borders are to you? The separating of the people of one nation from the other?

Well, that's what a border is, yes. Borders are the lines between two nations.

I guess it is easier to be ethnocentric when you can deliniate where us stops and they begin.

ETHNOcentric? No. Nationalistic? Yes. Get it right, and don't you dare play the race card, or Al Sharpton is going to be ass-raped by a six foot bunny....

on second thought, play the race card. That'd be pretty funny. :D
Derscon
28-05-2006, 03:53
Nope, you're legal I presume so we're stuck with you. Hopefully some day you'll be in a position to pay property taxes.

I don't. Property taxes should be unconstitutional.

They try to do something to make their home country a better place to live. I keep on hearing how wonderful Mexico and South America is when I listen to NPR. Why do they ever want to leave?

Indeed. It sounds like a great place. Why aren't Americans going to Mexico?

Oh, that's right, Mexico has some of the strictest borders in the world.
Vittos Ordination2
28-05-2006, 04:31
I disagree.

Obviously.

Legal immigration, yes.

No, all immigration. The only thing that hurts this process is the enforcement of immigration laws.

Yes I do, support the laws because there is a purpose to those laws. There needs to be a screening process.

I agree that there needs to be a screening and registration process, but adding other legislation that provides disincentive to submitting to that screening and registration process is just dumb.

What is reasonable about your position? I have never said that I oppose legal immigration.

That immigration laws are what cause the problems most people assosciate with immigration, not the immigration itself.

The sound economic argument that immigration actually improves the well-being of existing residents.

That borders should only decide where governments can and cannot go, not people.

Nope, you're legal I presume so we're stuck with you. Hopefully some day you'll be in a position to pay property taxes.

I am sure that, in 2006, I will report income that is sufficient to pay taxes on, but that is beside the point.

Now, remembering that legality is the issue we are discussing here and shouldn't weigh in on your answer, what is the difference between an immigrant on welfare and someone who is born here on welfare.

They try to do something to make their home country a better place to live. I keep on hearing how wonderful Mexico and South America is when I listen to NPR. Why do they ever want to leave?

Their economy must support it, apparently it doesn't. Meanwhile our economy thrives on their labor.
Vittos Ordination2
28-05-2006, 04:42
What a good idea! Lets decriminalize murder, too! Then we can have the lowest illegal deaths in the world!

You must be the captain of Liberty University's debate team. Maybe God's personal debate team, even.

I am thoroughly devastated by this point. I mean, how could an argument so purely rational and logical have evaded my thinking to this point?

You have not only completely changed my mind on this issue, but you have also completely destroyed my self-confidence, and made me question what my purpose truly is. I am going to go hang myself in shame after finishing this post. Maybe then the Ordination name can begin to regain respectibility, and one day my decendents can look back on me in pity instead of scorn.

Well, that's what a border is, yes. Borders are the lines between two nations.

I didn't ask if you thought it was a border between nations, that is the definition of national borders, I asked if you thought it was a division between people?

ETHNOcentric? No. Nationalistic? Yes. Get it right, and don't you dare play the race card, or Al Sharpton is going to be ass-raped by a six foot bunny....

on second thought, play the race card. That'd be pretty funny. :D

This is not a matter of nationalism, we are discussing people here, not governments or nations. Unless, of course, you consider Americans to be better people or more deserving than Mexicans based on their place of birth or residence?
Vittos Ordination2
28-05-2006, 04:43
Oh, that's right, Mexico has some of the strictest borders in the world.

Since you think America should be more like Mexico, you should probably support a fully open Mexican-American border, plus total voting rights for all immigrants.
Derscon
28-05-2006, 05:07
You must be the captain of Liberty University's debate team. Maybe God's personal debate team, even.

I am thoroughly devastated by this point. I mean, how could an argument so purely rational and logical have evaded my thinking to this point?

You have not only completely changed my mind on this issue, but you have also completely destroyed my self-confidence, and made me question what my purpose truly is. I am going to go hang myself in shame after finishing this post. Maybe then the Ordination name can begin to regain respectibility, and one day my decendents can look back on me in pity instead of scorn.

o.O


I didn't ask if you thought it was a border between nations, that is the definition of national borders, I asked if you thought it was a division between people?

Depends what kind of division you're talking about.

This is not a matter of nationalism, we are discussing people here, not governments or nations. Unless, of course, you consider Americans to be better people or more deserving than Mexicans based on their place of birth or residence?

It depends, again, on what you're saying they'd be more/less/equal deserving for based on birth or residence.

Specify your points, then I can answer them. They're too vague right now.

Since you think America should be more like Mexico, you should probably support a fully open Mexican-American border, plus total voting rights for all immigrants.

What an excellent way to twist my words, but this is the General Forum, you're excused. :D

I don't know how to respond to this, as I really don't know what you're getting at.
Vittos Ordination2
28-05-2006, 05:15
Depends what kind of division you're talking about.

A division of interaction, travel, any division whatsoever.

It depends, again, on what you're saying they'd be more/less/equal deserving for based on birth or residence.

Specify your points, then I can answer them. They're too vague right now.

Are they less deserving than you of basic rights because they are from Mexico?

Do you deserve more rights than them because you were born in the US?

What an excellent way to twist my words, but this is the General Forum, you're excused. :D

I don't know how to respond to this, as I really don't know what you're getting at.

You perjoratively stated that Mexico had strict borders, yet you are calling for the same thing here.

If you want the legislation here in the US to resemble that of Mexico, you should allow more Mexican voters into the United States.
Derscon
28-05-2006, 05:28
A division of interaction, travel, any division whatsoever.

Yes, there should be controls on travel.

Are they less deserving than you of basic rights because they are from Mexico?

Do you deserve more rights than them because you were born in the US?

Define basic rights.

You perjoratively stated that Mexico had strict borders, yet you are calling for the same thing here.

If you want the legislation here in the US to resemble that of Mexico, you should allow more Mexican voters into the United States.

I was pointing out that Mexico was being hypocritical, not that it was bad. I support strict borders.
Vittos Ordination2
28-05-2006, 05:32
Yes, there should be controls on travel.

Complete restrictions on travel?

Should one be allowed to move from one society to another at his own personal expense and benefit?

Define basic rights.

I can abide by your definition.

If it becomes a problem, we can reconcile our beliefs on what constitutes basic rights.
Alabamamississippi
30-05-2006, 04:27
Amnesty and illegal immigration helps the following people:

big corperations who exploit the immigrants
private contract makers who pay them less than mimimum wage
politicians who want the hispanic vote
political rabble rousers who make money off of duping people into protesting

Amnesty hurts:

workers who are already here
the American system of low and order ( if you break the law well enough or long enough you get rewarded???)
national security: Illegal immigrants have a much higher crime rate than the general public ( a fact that the national news always ignores)
common sense: I saw a protestor waving a sign that said "nobody is illegal"

It is time for people to check into reality and realize that America is not an idea or an entitlement. It is a place that has value inside of it. Any other place with value inside of it ( whether it is a car dealership or a bank) is surrounded by walls or razer wire fencing...or both.