We can only hope it stays dead this time. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Okay, enough rumination. What would be a good bill? I have a few ideas but as a racist and other nasty things my opinions are suspect.1. Enforce existing laws.
2. Revisit birth citizenship.
3. Admit that national ID is inevitable and do it formally rather than let it sneak in the back door.
4. Make clear our various obligations and entitlements for citizen/resident/guest.
0th rule: make words mean something again. If you want amnesty use the word. On the other side If you are concerned about cultural or racial shifts have the balls to use those words.
But honestly I'm more interested in your suggestions.
116 comments:
FIRST
Please....please....the applause is deafening!
Murst
my domain FSBO is not going well
so ive dropped the price another 10%
https://www.tdnam.com/trpItemListing.aspx?&miid=7719233
my domain guru says this is gonna explode! i sure hope so.
your attempts to sabotage my domain sale is actually helping my reputation as the worlds most hated domain squatter. THANKS FOR YOUR HELP.
your're not haterz your just an unware supporters
1) Secure the borders Whatever it takes; do it. In a post 9/11 world, we have to know who's entering our country.
It's all about enforcement.
The problem with making new laws is they're always a compromise. So, say we crack down on illegals in one part of a bill, another part is gonna legalize "guest workers" or give amnesty.
That's bad enough, but the problem is the first part will get challenged in court or just ignored by law enforcement.
The other part, however will not be challenged. In fact, it will open the floodgates.
So every time we try and fix the problem, it gets a little worse.
shoot to kill at the borders. practically, every other country in the world uses lethal force to enforce their borders.
Except for the USA. Anyone who claims this approach is racist is implying that only people of a certain ethnicity cross the border illegally, which is racist.
There are no good reasons to not offer amnesty.
First, it's extremely hypocritical of us not to. American businesses invite Mexcian immigrants to come to the United States to work, and at this point illegal mexican immigrants make up important segments of various industries. How can we invite them to come work and then force them to live in paranoia about being forced to leave.
Second, the lack of historical memory in this debate is almost comical. Every wave of immigrants to this country has faced virtually identical arguments against immigration. You could cut and paste arguments against Irish immigration (they'll be a burden on the welfare system, increase crime, take all of our jobs, etc) and you would think they were written yesterday. The same goes for many other immigrant groups (California tried to pass a law removing birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants).
What always happens is that these groups are successfully integrated into the American patchwork, of course altering and changing it along the way. In 80 years, Americans of Mexican descent will be arguing that we should halt immigration of Group X for the same reasons.
America is simply a hodgepodge culture of many different immigrant groups who have come here with shared goals (to make a better life for their family) - it's absurd to single out Mexican immigrants as somehow being unique in this.
In fact, liberal immigration policies has arguably been the greatest strength of the US - we constantly take the most ambitious citizens from around the world with promise that they can live a better life. This constant social and cultural renewal has saved us from the stagnation that afflicts Europe and is the main reason we're the only world "superpower".
Someone in your family tree (probably not very far) immigrated to this country in the face of criticisms identical to those Mexican immigrants are facing.
1) MOIST!
2) I really enjoyed that film. Emma & Kenneth made a good pair on stage & Andy can call me anytime!
3) A National ID...I never understood why so many people are against it. For crying out loud, every time I moved a state what a schlep to go & get a new driver's license. Some states make you renew every 5 or 10 years & some issue a DL until you are 80!!
The old racist canard, the good old anti white double standard, as in only whites can be racist, whatever that term actually means. Seems to be almost as bad as child molestor or serial killer.
How come none of these anti racists are complaining about la raza...
Por la raza todo?
Por la raza todo
The thread decrying racism and gypsies was particularly hilarious.
Anonymous said...
"There are no good reasons to not offer amnesty.
Second, the lack of historical memory in this debate is almost comical. Every wave of immigrants to this country has faced virtually identical arguments against immigration. You could cut and paste arguments against Irish immigration (they'll be a burden on the welfare system, increase crime, take all of our jobs, etc) and you would think they were written yesterday"
You're ignoring huge differences. First and foremost, today we're dealing with ILLEGAL immigrants and the Irish ones you mention weren't. Maybe you don't care about this but a lot of Americans do care about the law.
Second, when the bulk of Irish immigration happened what kind of welfare was there for them to sponge up? It's nothing like today where people who break the law get welfare, free healthcare, college tuition, and lots of other misc. services (as Rob points out, in his local school there numerous translators that must be employed). In equating this wave of immigration to past ones you're comparing apples to oranges.
1. Change legal immigration to the point value proposed in the current legislation.
2. Open up legal immigration. We need the additional workers to pay off our debts and keep our economy growing
3. A national ID is going to come along. right now we use Social Security but since we aren't supposed to use Social Security, we do it poorly.
Once the above steps are in place we can worry about the illegal immigration, but until they are done, attempts to deal with illegal immigration will fail.
The Dude @ 9:51 AM:
”Secure the borders Whatever it takes; do it. In a post 9/11 world, we have to know who's entering our country.”
Damn Skippy!
But we all know in its infinite wisdom our Government will take no such action until a portable nuke (or something similar) is smuggled across one of our borders, and hundreds of thousands are affected by both short and long-term predicaments. And on THAT day (God forbid it should come) I hope the people rise up once and for all, to redress the ineptitude on BOTH sides of the isle!
If these comments make me a “racist,” so be it. I’ll wear that crown proudly, right along side other “Americans” who clean up after messes like 911.
~Mark
There are no good reasons to not offer amnesty.
Rule or law. Fairness to those waiting their turn. Fiscal responsibility. Equal protection. Shall I continue? The reasons are coming faster than I can type.
First, it's extremely hypocritical of us not to. American businesses invite Mexcian immigrants to come to the United States to work,
Prostitutes invite customers. drug dealers invite customers.
and at this point illegal mexican immigrants make up important segments of various industries.
Really which ones? The housing bubble industry? The sweatshop industry? Wow what would we do without them?
How can we invite them to come work and then force them to live in paranoia about being forced to leave.
"We?" "Force them to live in paranoia?" You need to keep your victims and innocents and perps straight.
Second, the lack of historical memory in this debate is almost comical. Every wave of immigrants to this country has faced virtually identical arguments against immigration.
Your uninformed opinion is a canard. The subject is illegal immigration. You might as well excuse bank robbery with rosy pictures of ATMs.
You could cut and paste arguments against Irish immigration (they'll be a burden on the welfare system, increase crime, take all of our jobs, etc) and you would think they were written yesterday.
Welfare? 1853? What was that about trying to teach us history?
...
First, it's extremely hypocritical of us not to.
There it is again.
Moist!!
If you seriously think the so-called immigration enforcement crowd is going to try to advance a bill that solves the problem, I've got some self-appointed civil rights leaders I'd like to introduce you to who are genuinely concerned about the difficulties that their ethnic groups face. The fact is, this is has been a gold mine of political support for the far right, for right-wing radio in particular, and they have no interest in making real progress on the problem, any more than Jesse Jackson has an interest in making real progress on the problems that face blacks.
That said, Rob's suggestions are solid ones.
1. Enforce existing laws. (Ex) Of course--but as always, enforcement needs to be balanced with reality. Every illegal immigrant can't be packed up and sent home any more than every copyright violator can be sent to prison (you'd need a BIG prison.)
2. Revisit birth citizenship. (Ex) This needed to be done a LONG time ago--unfortunately, it's Constitutional amendment territory, so even this would be a lot of work.
3. National ID. (Ex) I'm also with you on this one, but it'll be an uphill battle, every so-called privacy advocate will come out of the woodwork with the old "ohnoes just liek teh nazis" argument. Britain is already doing this, it's doable without major violations of privacy, but good luck convincing the libertarians of that.
4. Obligations and entitlements. (Ex) Of course, and this one is fairly straightforward--non-citizens shouldn't be picking up most of those entitlements and benefits. Once funding gets tight (within the next year or two) this may actually be achievable.
Rob and Telsa,
Do you honestly think there was no such thing as public housing during the waves of Irish immigration? (this doesn't apply only to irish, but the many other groups).
If you think they the fact that Mexican immigrants might "flood" the welfare system is a good reason to keep them out, you're wrong.
Have you ever looked at any economic data on the impact of immigrants, or are you going with your unfounded gut instinct? I'll save you the trouble - it's a net positive impact. Do you think the successive generations won't be paying taxes? Do you honestly think it's a bad "investment"?
Telsa - regarding your ILLEGAL point - isn't that exactly what we're debating? Whether is should be illegal?
Rob - the construction and agriculture industries are akin to prostitutes?
Changing birth citizenship would sound the death knell for this country.
Thank you Mocha.
I don't know if I can ever use my catchphrase MOIST again because I am sure you use it in reference to how you feel about the fliptard.
On the other hand, assuming you are a legal immigrant to the US of A, I for one would be interested in you opinion on THIS topic.
@Dawg - apologies for feeding the troll, just thought I could see if it could earn its keep. :)
1. We must secure the borders. This includes high-tech surveillance, 24x7, over 1951 miles to the south, and 5,522 miles to the north. We must inspect 100% of all cargo ships entering the country, including supertankers, flights, etc. Pay for this by stopping the war in Iraq. Fighting terrorism the right way will have the byproduct of stopping illegal entry into the country.
2. Massive taxes for companies that send white-collar jobs overseas to Hyderabad, which is causing many more economic problems than construction companies hiring guys outside Home Depot.
3. Automatic piercing of the corporate veil for any company found with any illegal immigrants. It is going to take a Sarbanes-Oxley style bill before companies comply.
4. Increase the number of H1-Bs available, since that's the only way to keep this pyramid scheme we call an economy running.
Rob
From Union Leader web site, here is Sen Sununnu's vision:
Sununu said he would prefer to see the immigration package divided into smaller, more digestible chunks. He suggested Congress could first pass legislation to secure the country's borders and pressure employers to hire only legal workers. Overhauling existing visa programs would be a second step.
"And then," he said, "once we've addressed those fundamental problems, we can debate the issue of how you address those who have come to this country illegally."
Admit that national ID is inevitable and do it formally rather than let it sneak in the back door.
Too late. Try doing anything worthwile in this country without a government-issued ID. You can't event use a credit card at Wal-Mart without one, for Chrissakes.
My suggestion has long been: Grant "probationary citizenship" to anyone who can produce three years of verifiable tax returns (including remittance of social security taxes). The probationary period lasts an additional three years contingent upon paying taxes and furnishing a legitimate address. You can specify some minimum dollar level of taxation if you want, but it shouldn't be a whole lot lower than the national average.
for right-wing radio in particular
Funny how talk radio is now "right wing radio". If the Left doesn't like the message, then create their own format with liberal points of view and let the market decide....wait!...they keep doing just that and nobody listens.
Why is that?
"Have you ever looked at any economic data on the impact of immigrants, or are you going with your unfounded gut instinct? I'll save you the trouble - it's a net positive impact. Do you think the successive generations won't be paying taxes? Do you honestly think it's a bad "investment"?"
Net positive impact, huh? Depends on who you ask. There was a popular study claiming that illegals paid more taxes than they consumed but it ignored things like healthcare and school expenditures. I've read other studies which claim that the net economic effects are drastically negative. So "I'll save you the trouble - it's a net positive impact" in and of itself is not going to convince me of anything.
@Anon 9:50
Please stop spamming. Nobody wants your stupid domain name. If you honestly think someone will pay four figures for a brand new domain with no content or backlinks and a very loose association with the IAFF site, then your business sense is down there with that of Casey. Just eat your $10 registration fee, admit that your plan isn't as clever as you thought, and leave the cyber-squatting to the pros.
If anyone wants a domain to go with the IAFF story, they can pick up iamfacinghomelessness.com iamfacingprosecution.com or iamfacingjailtime.com from any registrar, no auction required.
Have you ever looked at any economic data on the impact of immigrants, or are you going with your unfounded gut instinct?
Yes, where shall I send you the bill for your share of my personal burden? We have county employed translators whose job it is to translate Mixtecan to Spanish so that the 10,000 Mixtecans in the county can gain access to healthcare and other free services. How much do you think our emergency medical response team dedicated to containing drug resistant TB and Whooping Cough costs? Illegal immigrant serevices at my childs high school costs THOUSANDS per student per year. "Sorry, no free laptops, no arts, no activities this year. We need to pay extra to pander to recent attendees. Oh, and forget about a good collge, ourt scores are now too low."
It is a shame that this bill could not pass. Now the white racist redneck Ron Paul supporterss must be dancing with glee.
I hope that George Bush can revive the bill by threatening those racist RethugliKKKlan senators with cutting off their highway projects funds if they don't toe the party line.
@tesla
Anonyliberal is also ignoring the cost of crime, cost of incarcerating
criminal illegals (25% of prison population) and the fact that on average illegals kill 25 american citizens per day.
How bout those hospitals being forced to close down? How bout those car insurance rates?
Oh Tav!
Sorry, you didn't get the memo. That's what happens when you don't register. The political troll blogs are over there. Waaaay over there. Ron Paul, Bush, Klan... too far over the top. Try something a little more subtle next time or better yet no more next time. There's a good troll, run along now.
Funny how talk radio is now "right wing radio". If the Left doesn't like the message, then create their own format with liberal points of view and let the market decide....wait!...they keep doing just that and nobody listens.
Why is that?
because libs would rather listen to something other than political rants 7 hours a day.
@Paraiba
(...) the fact that on average illegals kill 25 american citizens per day.
News for you: On average, Lyme Disease kills 35 American citizens per day. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE, PEOPLE?!?
I hope that George Bush can revive the bill by threatening those racist RethugliKKKlan senators with cutting off their highway projects funds if they don't toe the party line.
Bush does not control highway fund allocation; that's Congress' responsibility....you ignorant twit.
libs would rather listen to something other than political rants 7 hours a day.
Is there really that much online porn to fill their void?
Sorry to distract from the lovely immigration debate, but just a quick question:
Dawg - Got the popcorn, I'm now sitting waist deep in the stuff. Can we have a (rough) idea of when the really fun stuff comes out?
Is it waiting for a trigger event (such as Snowflakes return trip) or is it just waiting?
Just don't want to miss it. Went away for two weeks and all the Duane 4.x stuff came out along with the "dump the wife and skip the country" saga.
Thanks weak, and your point is what?
That lime disease is spread by parasites or that it often goes undiagnosed?
By the way, it is treatable with antibiotics.
@Rob 11:02
Is there really that much online porn to fill their void?
No. We spend the rest of it burning flags, emboldening the terraists, aborting babies, and undermining our troops.
I've been majorly disappointed with the GOP for a while but since becoming the minority party they've been good goalkeepers, I must admit.
Here's an idea. For every illegal found in the US. The US should ship one of our worthless workless white trash. At least the majority of the illegals have strong work ethics. Not too many americans would walk across the desert for a better paying job.
So is Tavington a Hater pretending to be a Supporter or what?
I suspect he's an EN regular using this persona to tickle our bones a little.
@property flop
Think someone was telegraphing fireworks this 4th of July
Here's an idea. For every illegal found in the US. The US should ship one of our worthless workless white trash. At least the majority of the illegals have strong work ethics. Not too many americans would walk across the desert for a better paying job.
I agree. California is so much better now because those lazy racist whites are leaving and are being replaced by hard-working Latinos :)
@Paraiba 11:04
My point is that trying to justify your point by throwing out bullshit fear-generating statistics just makes your point all the weaker.
All of these economic / social impact statistics are bullshit. Any economic impact from illegal immigration could be gotten rid of in one fell swoop. We're blowing $200 million dollars a day in a certain excursion that you may have heard of. If we have that kind of cash lying around, we certainly have the cash/debt to throw at hospitals, DMV, etc., wherever else you think illegal immigrants are hurting the economy.
The economic and social effect isn't the problem. As a bleeding heart liberal I'm not sure what the problem is, but I'm willing to play along with the moderates and even the right wing when they say we need to close the border. That's cool, I understand that and I agree, albeit for different reasons.
>> where shall I send you the bill for your share of my personal burden?
Rob, move next door to Arizona. Seriously. Arizona just stopped financial aid to illegals enrolled in state colleges. They can enroll; as long as they pay out-of-state ("retail") tuition. English is the official language.
Based on the license plates I see in Phoenix, many refugees from the People's Republic of California are making their way to Arizona.
Rob, move next door to Arizona. Seriously. Arizona just stopped financial aid to illegals enrolled in state colleges. They can enroll; as long as they pay out-of-state ("retail") tuition. English is the official language.
Based on the license plates I see in Phoenix, many refugees from the People's Republic of California are making their way to Arizona.
I'm not worried -- the latinos will eventually follow these white refugees to Arizona as well. Latinos are doing the work that lazy Americans don't want to do.
America will be a latino country in 25 years :)
PropFlop.
The signs are there. An increase in certain posters of note and their content. My clock, fireworks for the 4th of July. Anything more specific and I risk reputations.
No. We spend the rest of it burning flags, emboldening the terraists, aborting babies, and undermining our troops.
You forgot attending gay marriges and ambushing Ann Coulter. ;-)
@Tavington:
America will be a latino country in 25 years :)
You're wrong. Within 2 generations, immigrants are absorbed into American society. America will be an American country in 25 years, just as it has always been.
Instead of people saying "I'm half German, a quarter French, and a quarter Irish" you'll hear "I'm an eighth Iraqi, an eighth Japanese, a quarter Russian, a quarter Mexican, and a quarter South African" and nobody will care.
1000 a weak:
I agree, I think everyone should race mix so that the social construct that is the 'white' race can be abolished.
But the xenophobic RethugliKKKlans aren't helping matters with their nativist rhetoric.
I give up, and in no way do I hope that anyone else thinks Tavington represents any real liberal viewpoint.
1000,
Tav doesn't represent ANY intelligent point of view. He's trolling every comment in a desperate attempt to get SOMEONE to engage him. Let it go, he's worthless.
I tried to listen to Air America, hen it came on XM. I like to listen to both sides, before I orm an opinion. I liked a lot of the people who were going to host - Chuck, Janeane (I love her), Al...but it was'nt what it could have been. It was too depressing, too angry, rarely *fun* or entertaining. It's why i can't take the Rush Limbaughs or Laura Ingrahams, it just wears on you. At least NPR does more than JUST political ranting - NPR has great content that's not political.
Plus, they blew it by not hiring Jello Biafra.
Back on topic, the first thing we need to do is make the discussion of what to do PUBLIC, no more closed door secret meetings bullshit.
Then, enforce existing laws.
Then deal with the reason why the exodus is happening - the conditions in Mexico, and the Mexican government. Until that changes, nothing will really improve.
WORSE THAN CASEY:
At least these folks are pretty clearly a fraud and paypal has already shut them down.
http://helpmybabylive.com/
-btc
R-Boy had a cryptic thread about the Martina McBride song "Independence Day".
It was about an abused spouse who took some rather decisive actions on the 4th of July. I believe ARRESTS were mentioned in the song.
I'm telling ya....all ICE has to do is through up a bid deal about enforcement and hit a few cities across the country. Illegals will scatter like you wouldn't believe.
The best idea I've heard is pay illegals to build the fence from the other side. Once complete, calculate their wages in pesos, and toss the envelopes over the fence. Jobs, money, and border security.....all rolled into one project.
WORSE THAN CASEY:
At least these folks are pretty clearly a fraud and paypal has already shut them down.
http://helpmybabylive.com/
-btc
Geez, they are pretty much blackmailing people..either give us 50K or we kill the unborn child. What a bunch of douchebags..then again, in Casey's case, it might have been a good thing. There you have it folks..America has pretty much become a bunch of beggars...we want to have a child..can you donate? No where on that scam site did it even mention that they tried to get multiple jobs...
Every high school dropout household pays about 10k to the gubmint a year (state, federal, property, sales taxes, lottery, etc), and costs the taxpayer about 30k in directly attributable costs (education, health care, social security), or about 45k when you factor in their share of common costs (national defense, NIH, highways and airports).
The funny thing is that the average high-school dropout household pays more in lottery proceeds than in federal income taxes.
For the detail study see
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/sr14.cfm
Demantoid -
Thanks, missed that.
Dawg -
Yes... propriety should be followed, reps protected, etc. Happy to wait for it just wondered when. Nice to see the story is coming out finally. Snowflake has lost control of it, it's nice to have the facts without his spin.
BTW: Good topics the last few days, you've sparked quite a bit of debate.
I kinda thought Casey may take the story in that direction.
"Guess what... that CashCall payment wasn't the only thing late this month"...
I got federal and state income taxes mixed up. They pay more in lottery proceeds than in state income taxes.
See the charts:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/images/sr14_chart3-lg.jpg
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/images/sr14_chart2-lg.jpg
king friday the 13th said...
I kinda thought Casey may take the story in that direction.
"Guess what... that CashCall payment wasn't the only thing late this month"...
yeah except in Casey's case, people would have been throwing money at him to ABORT..I mean shit..another Casey serin in the world? Might as well wait for the apocolypse next.
I personally am in favor of tying Casey to a table and chopping his balls off, just in case.
-btc
And not to beat a dead horse, but here's a good quote from the study:
Net Lifetime Costs
Receiving, on average, $19,588 more in immediate benefits than they pay in taxes each year, low-skill immigrant households impose substantial long-term costs on the U.S. taxpayer. Assuming an average 60-year adult life span for heads of household,[24] the average lifetime costs to the taxpayer will be nearly $1.2 million for each low-skill household, net of any taxes paid.[25]
This calculation assumes that a low-skill immigrant comes to the U.S. in his mid-twenties with a spouse and that both remain in the U.S. for an average of 60 years. Even if low-skill immigrants return home rather than remain in the U.S. permanently, thereby reducing costs, this argument merely underscores how costly low-skill immigrants are to the U.S. taxpayer. The less time these immigrants spend in the U.S., the lower the cost to the taxpayer. Moreover, most current immigration reform proposals would grant legal status to illegal immigrants, increasing their access to welfare and Social Security. These proposals would substantially increase the time that these immigrants remain in the U.S.
"Illegal immigrant serevices at my childs high school costs THOUSANDS per student per year. "Sorry, no free laptops, no arts, no activities this year. We need to pay extra to pander to recent attendees. Oh, and forget about a good collge, ourt scores are now too low."
Are these illegal immigrants, or American citizens whose parents are illegal immigrants?
Re: Low Scores - how is that related to the immigration debate? How is that different from any inner-city school, full of Americans, with low scores? You know, there is no constitutional right to education - put your kid in another school if you really think those darn Mexicans are sabotaging his chances at college.
Job 1:
SECURE THE BORDERS.
All of them. It's our southern border that is receiving all the attention, (rightly so, since that is the one that is most trespassed), but likewise the northern one must be sealed.
And let's not also ignore our "internal border"...the college campuses where "student visa overstayers" get their start.
Also,the "H1b workplaces".
The economic impact - whatever it "costs" to have illegal mexican immigrants now will be paid off (though all evidence points to the fact that it's a boon to the economy) by future generations making it a good "investment" to allow them to integrate into America. This has been true in every (voluntary) wave of immigration - why do you think it will be any different with Mexicans? I think you're substituting your emotional response for actually thinking with your brain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/washington/20immig.html?ex=1183176000&en=bc05a9f05b0f55ae&ei=5070
"The White House issued a report on Tuesday saying, “Immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers.”"
@The Dude: "Funny how talk radio is now "right wing radio". If the Left doesn't like the message, then create their own format with liberal points of view and let the market decide....wait!...they keep doing just that and nobody listens.
Why is that?"
Actually, I lean right on a lot of issues, and I can tell you why the right loves the radio (and the blogs): it's an open forum. The right loves open forums, and particularly loves debates, every two-sided show (possible exception being "Politically Incorrect") has had a distinctive right-wing flavor. The left loves the controlled forums, where every point of view can be carefully filtered and edited: the op-ed page of the paper, the nightly newscast, etc. I'll leave the implications of that to your consideration.
"I'm telling ya....all ICE has to do is through up a bid deal about enforcement and hit a few cities across the country. Illegals will scatter like you wouldn't believe."
The tough enforcement approach isn't going to work. Americans' attitudes shift dramatically when you move from the general case to the specific. Take a poll of who wants immigration enforced, and you'll get a solid majority of Americans; start rounding up illegals en masse, with crying children clinging to their parents while neighbors look on, and attitudes change REAL fast.
Immigration enforcement needs to be realistic about the fact that some (not all) illegal immigrants have become integrated into their communities, and forcibly removing them would cause a massive backlash against law enforcement. Law enforcement is under tremendous pressure right now to enforce immigration, and so it is starting to carry out raids, but that will change once the general public starts seeing just what those raids look like. There needs to be another solution to the problem, one that does not involve breaking up families and forcibly removing people from their communities, as many of those people have been gone from their home country so long they have nowhere to "return home" to.
I'm reading some comments in the news, and it's hard to tell which side this guy is really on:
Eliseo Medina, of the service employees union, said "The price of failure will be hundreds of more people dying in the desert. The price of failure will be more workplace raids and families separated as breadwinners are arrested and deported. The price of failure will be more public anger at the broken immigration system. More states and cities will pass punitive laws that target immigrants."
So, by "failure", I think he means the successful blockage of the cloture vote. But look at all the good things that come from that:
- More people dying in the desert: The more lethal attempting to enter the country illegally is, the fewer people will attempt to do it. Ideally, we would obtain 100% lethality, but we aren't there yet.
- More breadwinners arrested and deported: Well, duh, this is the entire idea. The more the better.
- More public anger at the broken immigration system: I disagree with him on this one. There would have been far more anger had the bill gotten out of the Senate.
- More laws that target immigrants: Well, in general, laws target criminals. If you don't like it, don't be a criminal.
So, it's funny, on the surface this guy seems like he wanted this bill to pass. But almost everything he says is in support of it not passing.
Are these illegal immigrants, or American citizens whose parents are illegal immigrants?
Re: Low Scores - how is that related to the immigration debate? How is that different from any inner-city school, full of Americans, with low scores? You know, there is no constitutional right to education - put your kid in another school if you really think those darn Mexicans are sabotaging his chances at college.
Illegal immigrants themselves. Why do you ask such obvious questions when you know I have my facts straight?
And the scores, come on. It is spelled out for you. And ummm yes, in California there is a Constitutional Right to an education. What you are saying is I should spend even more to assist in the illegal invasion. You first, where do I send your share of the costs you are causing me to bear? You clearly have no experience in these matter and are reading off a talking points checklist.
In some cases the students aren't even immigrants, just freeloaders who don't even pretend to live here, then make excuses about why they should be entitled to taxpayer support.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-schools25jun25,1,2714909.story
-btc
I can't believe you would use the word "invasion".
Send the invoice to the many American businesses that recruit illegal immigrant workers.
Or, from that article I quoted:
"The report, prepared by the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, says immigrants enhance the productivity of native-born workers and increase their earnings a significant amount, estimated at $37 billion a year."
Maybe they should send YOU an invoice.
What country was your family originally from, Rob Dawg?
"American citizens whose parents are illegal immigrants"
Why do the trolls bring up this red herring?
Just because you deport the criminal parents, doesn't mean the children can't stay behind. Now, I know it is sad to see a three-year-old who did nothing wrong separated from their parents, but that is the fault of the parents. They should have thought about the consequences of their actions before becoming criminals.
There is, of course, a simple alternative. The children are free to stay with their parents, return to their parent's country of origin, then come back to the United States when they reach the age of majority.
"The White House issued a report on Tuesday saying, “Immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers.”"
Well, duh. There they go again, conflating legal and illegal immigration.
Legal immigrants to the U.S. include, just off the top of my head, Albert Einstein, Yo Yo Ma, Sergey Brin (Google), Jerry Yang (Yahoo), Andy Grove (Intel). Mix them in with 20 million illiterates and you might get a positive net figure, but it's highly misleading.
@heritage.org: "This calculation assumes that a low-skill immigrant comes to the U.S. in his mid-twenties with a spouse and that both remain in the U.S. for an average of 60 years."
I had to check their website just to make sure that they really said that. Yep, there it is--they're assuming that immigrants will live until their early 80's. Goodness, those are some long-lived immigrants! I wonder what magical country it is that they're coming from that their life expectancy is considerably LONGER than for U.S. citizens, when for virtually every country, excluding Japan and Scandinavia, it's considerably SHORTER--especially for those born in Mexico. Given that social costs are disproportionately heavy for the elderly, I wonder how that affects the statistics?
For now, I'm going to put the Heritage Foundation down underneath the feminist groups in the "organizations whose statistics can't be trusted" category.
The study doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration (just like the American economy and businesses).
2:22 PM, Anonymous said...
What country was your family originally from, Rob Dawg?
Someplace in Central Africa about 400,000 years ago then by way of France, Canada and to New England when that was legal. Others mostly from Ireland and Germany via legal methods.
These questions are funny. Everyone sees where they are trying to lead and they are meaningless.
@Ex:
The $1.2 million cumulative cost calculation assumes a 60-year presence. The $20k per year calculation does not. Do you need some help with reading?
It's really not fair to say that hey were "legal methods" in the sense that we mean it today.
"But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them.
Customs agents kept an eye out for lunatics and the infirm (and after 1905, for anarchists). Ninety-eight percent of immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island were admitted to the United States, and 78 percent spent less than eight hours on the island. (The U.S.-Mexico border then was unguarded and freely crossed in either direction.)
"Shipping companies did the health inspections in Europe because they didn't want to be stuck taking someone back," said Nancy Foner, a sociology professor at Hunter College and author of "From Ellis Island to JFK: New York's Two Great Waves of Immigration.""
So it was more because there was no such thing as illegal immigration, hence virtually all immigration was legal. You weren't going to be turned away because of any sort of quotas.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003265600_impghistory20.html
Yep, there it is--they're assuming that immigrants will live until their early 80's. Goodness, those are some long-lived immigrants! I wonder what magical country it is that they're coming from that their life expectancy is considerably LONGER than for U.S. citizens,
I don't use idiot very often but you've earned it. Try to lecture us on actuarials eh? Well when these people start at mid 20s their infant and childhood mortality is already self selected away and yes 20s to 80s is a statistically conservative actuarial event.
I just cannot abide people who pretend knowledge and proceed to misuse math.
@flogdar: "- More people dying in the desert: The more lethal attempting to enter the country illegally is, the fewer people will attempt to do it. Ideally, we would obtain 100% lethality, but we aren't there yet."
For those wondering how the immigration-enforcement crowd got a reputation for being racist, look no further. The implication that someone is worthy of death for the crime of coming to the U.S. illegally simply because they wanted a job to support their family would seem to indicate that this is about something more than enforcing the law.
"Just because you deport the criminal parents, doesn't mean the children can't stay behind. Now, I know it is sad to see a three-year-old who did nothing wrong separated from their parents, but that is the fault of the parents. They should have thought about the consequences of their actions before becoming criminals.
There is, of course, a simple alternative. The children are free to stay with their parents, return to their parent's country of origin, then come back to the United States when they reach the age of majority."
Said in a whistful tone of voice. The implication that a child who is a U.S. CITIZEN BY LAW should "return" to a country that they aren't from would rather indicate that, once again, this is about something more than enforcing the law.
No, Mr. The Only Good Illegal Immigrant Is a Dead Illegal Immigrant does not represent the immigration enforcement point of view, but the fact that they have not distanced themselves from this not-so-subtle racism is troubling, and is not helping their cause.
Sigh. Pass. One night of this debate was mildly entertaining, but I fail to see the point of trading ad hominem attacks.
Excuse me while I send Bill Richardson $100 before the second quarter closes.
@weak
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/ia05_king/col_20060505_bite.html
"What would that May 1st look like without illegal immigration? There would be no one to smuggle across our southern border the heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines that plague the United States, reducing the U.S. supply of meth that day by 80%. The lives of 12 U.S. citizens would be saved who otherwise die a violent death at the hands of murderous illegal aliens each day. Another 13 Americans would survive who are otherwise killed each day by uninsured drunk driving illegals. Our hospital emergency rooms would not be flooded with everything from gunshot wounds, to anchor babies, to imported diseases to hangnails, giving American citizens the day off from standing in line behind illegals. Eight American children would not suffer the horror as a victim of a sex crime."
Characterizing what I wrote as fear mongering and made up bullshit statistics is just about one step above tossing your favorite term 'racist'.
@12:42 PM, Train Wreck Watcher said...
Regarding the lethality of the border: I support land mines, automated gun turrets, predators launching hellfire missiles, whatever you like.
Regarding the citizen children: First, you are wrong. They are not citizen by law, they are citizens by the constitution. Second, I am not saying that these children should be forced to their parents homelands; I am saying they should have the CHOICE of staying in the United States without their criminal parents, or leaving with their parents and returning at a later time.
That's a meaningless quote, Paraiba.
What would America look like without alcohol? Far fewer drunk driving accidents?
What would America look like without black people? fewer murders, drunk drivers . . .
What would America look like without white southerners? Fewer murders, teenage pregnancies, etc . . .
Anonydolt
What part of illegal did you miss?
Sad to see so many people who are content in making the same mistakes:
"Though we often think of our era as polarized, the political climate of the 1850s was far worse. At the center of that decade’s violence and vitriol were secret anti-immigration societies. Called “Know Nothings” because their members would play dumb if asked about the organizations, they considered themselves “Native Americans” opposed to increasing immigration. . . One popular Detroit Know Nothing even enjoined his readers to “carry your revolver and shoot down the first Irish rebel that dare insult your person as an American!”
* * *
Few Catholics had lived in America before the Irish arrived, and the nation was at heart fundamentally Protestant. This meant not only bias against Catholic foreigners but also a belief that they were inherently opposed to democracy. Many Protestants considered their Christianity a personal “republicanized” faith that could be applied to politics—to oppose slavery, to ban liquor—without appearing undemocratic. Catholics were seen as mindless “emissaries of bloody and bigoted Rome,” bishops’ pawns incapable of voting their individual consciences [not to mention stereotyped as criminals, and burdens on public resources].
* * *
The Americans ran on an openly xenophobic platform, calling for a 21-year waiting period before naturalization, literacy tests for voting, and a ban on Catholics serving in government."
http://www.americanheritage.com/events/articles/web/20061104-know-nothing-nativism-american-party-immigration-catholicism.shtml
At least we learn from our mistakes, right? Oh, wait . . .
Some good immigration quotes:
"Remember that when you say "I will have non of this exile and this stranger for his face is not like my face and his speech is strange," you have denied America with that word."
- Stephen Vincent Benet
"Everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life."
- John F. Kennedy
"Remember, remember always, that all of us... are descended from immigrants and revolutionists. "
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Paraiba,
While I can surmise that you resort to name-calling when you can't articulate a logical defense of your position, I'll say:
"What part of illegal did you miss?"
We're arguing about whether it should be illegal or not.
(it's interesting how american businesses need and invite millions of these "criminals" to work in the united states - the real reason no one really wants to "deport" illegal mexicans is the dire economic consequences it would have.)
Holiday Inn -
What about the economic contributions of the NEXT generation of Americans that come from those illegal immigrants you cite in that study? It's obvious that while the immigrants themselves (for the sake of argument) might impose a cost, that cost will be made up (and then some) by the future generations. This has always been true - why is it different with Mexicans?
Hola pendejos!
that was my "Job 1" post above, am having some keyboard freeze issues.
Look, whatever else we decide to do, can we all agree that sealing the borders is the first priority?
We thereby "contain"the problem at 12 million.(and frankly, securing our borders and making it 'stick' is going to be a job that will take at least a decade).
If you're in a boat, and it's sinking, you first must plug the leak...THEN you worry about bailing out the hull.
Anchor babies? Sorry, gang, but I part company with many here on this one.
If you were born here, you're a citizen...'nuff said and end of story.
And yes, your immediate family,(M-F, Sis(s) & Bro(s) ONLY) get to stay also.
However, the better we secure our borders, the less the "anchor babies" should be an issue.
@Rob: "I don't use idiot very often but you've earned it. Try to lecture us on actuarials eh? Well when these people start at mid 20s their infant and childhood mortality is already self selected away and yes 20s to 80s is a statistically conservative actuarial event."
From the report:
"Assuming an average 60-year adult life span for heads of household . . . "
Average 60-year adult life span for which head of household--an American head of household, or a Mexican head of household, or a Hispanic-American head of household? A little research would reveal that an American in their mid-twenties has a life expectancy of 55 years--say, that's a bit short of 60--and it's lower for males (52 years)--say, I wonder if immigrants are an even mix of men and women. But now to the really interesting question: life expectancy for Hispanics, the ethnic group of an overwhelming majority of immigrants. An older study found that mortality rates for Hispanics were LOWER than for Americans--until a more recent report came out, challenging that view, saying that mortality rates were HIGHER, as they were being under-reported. One has to wonder if the statistics on the reporting might be affected by the fact that many of the individuals in question are not on the census lists.
In short, 60 years is not a "conservative actuarial" assumption; 55 years would be, although I would even wonder about that. When the difference in question is five or more years of not working and receiving benefits, that can have a considerable impact on the final numbers.
And it didn't state how many hours worked between the spouses (40? 60? 80? more?); and it didn't specify whether it was adjusting lifespan, or medical costs, or working years, for expected income status, all of which are different for low-income workers than for the average. And, of course, it didn't include any calculations, at all, of whether or not the children of said immigrants would provide a net benefit. If the parents are a net expense, but the children provide a discounted cashflow net benefit, than it's entirely possible that the overall net is a plus. Oh, they've counted the COST of immigrants' children, but as for the tired old anti-public schools arguments, they've deliberately failed to include the benefit.
As soon as an independent European or Asian firm wants to do the statistics on this I would be interested in looking at the results, but every American study I've read has been so heavily biased and so full of distortions one way or the other that they can't be trusted.
@Rob: "Someplace in Central Africa about 400,000 years ago then by way of France, Canada and to New England when that was legal. Others mostly from Ireland and Germany via legal methods. "
I will say, only for myself, that my ancestors came largely through the same route, but I will not pretend that all of them came to this country with the consent of the existing residents.
Almost all those anchor babies are recognized as citizens of their parents home country(ies).
Yeah, born here = citizen is pretty solid although it might be an administrative interpretation and not a constitutional issue. That's why I said "revisit."
Your suggestion sounds compasionate but is a terrible burden and will still split families.
@sharky: "Look, whatever else we decide to do, can we all agree that sealing the borders is the first priority?
We thereby "contain"the problem at 12 million.(and frankly, securing our borders and making it 'stick' is going to be a job that will take at least a decade)."
You are a voice of reason in a sea of emotion. :)
Closing the borders has to be first, of course. Next would be removing from the debate the people with fantasies of buying millions of lifetime Democrat voters by handing out citizenship and benefits, as well as the people with racist fantasies of sending all the Hispanics "home" (people from places like New Mexico and California wishing that all the Mexicans would go back to where they came from do not appear to recognize the irony of their position.)
Once that happens, we've got a chance at fixing this mess.
Birthright citizenship is a right in the constitution. Which is why all of this will be moot - all of those illegal (and legal) mexican immigrants will be having children (at a fairly high birthrate) who will be Americans with the same set of rights as eveyone - including the right to vote. So any legislation aimed at stemming Mexican immigration will be short lived.
Close the borders, as in cut off a source of labor that segments of the American economy rely exclusively on? That won't have any economic consequences . . .
@Rob: "Yeah, born here = citizen is pretty solid although it might be an administrative interpretation and not a constitutional issue. That's why I said "revisit.""
From Wikipedia:
"The U.S. citizenship status of children born in the United States to non-citizen parents has been generally accepted as settled law since 1898, when the Supreme Court held in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that almost all such children were entitled to citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Although efforts have been made in Congress, from time to time, to overturn the Wong Kim Ark ruling or limit its effect, via either a new amendment to the Constitution or ordinary legislation, no such attempt has ever succeeded."
It seems fairly well established. I'm not familiar with the specific case, but I recall that there were active efforts to disenfrancise various recently immigrated groups in the late 19th Century, which the courts apparently put down . . . hmm, sounds familiar.
"@Rob: "Someplace in Central Africa about 400,000 years ago then by way of France, Canada and to New England when that was legal. Others mostly from Ireland and Germany via legal methods. "
This is because, of course, there likely existed no analogous way to do so via "illegal" methods at the time of Rob's family's immigration.
@snide anonymous
"What would America look like without alcohol? Far fewer drunk driving accidents?"
Good guess sherlock
"What would America look like without black people? fewer murders, drunk drivers . . ."
"What would America look like without white southerners? Fewer murders, teenage pregnancies, etc . . .
Might want to revisit your stereotypes, they aren't particularly accurate.
My response was to a statement made by weak.
Your contention is just ignorant.
Anon;
"Close the borders, as in cut off a source of labor that segments of the American economy rely exclusively on? That won't have any economic consequences . . ."
So...are you FOR or AGAINST placing Border Security as top priority?
There will still be those 12 million illegals here for the foreseeable future, since our priority will be keeping new ones out.
That should ensure a negligible immediat economic impact on the Criminal Economy.
Sharky,
You are going to have a hard time showing actual data that increased immigration means increased crime.
Remember one of the biggest reasons why "native" Americans clamoured against Irish and Italian immigration? They were criminals and thugs who would bring a crime wave with them.
In 2007, with more Americans claiming to be of Irish ancestry than any other ethnic group, how absurd does it sound.
You're underestimating the assimilation machine of America - which has yet to fail.
I take back that if you mean 'Criminal Economy' in the sense of American businesses using illegal mexican immigrants as labor.
That, too, has problems Sharky - now those businesses that employ the 12 million illegals are at a distinct advantage over a new business that can't recruit workers from the same pool.
Instead - why not let businesses import all of the Mexican labor they want?
Boy that Travington works really hard to be unfunny. It's a shame because I've seen much funnier trolls who actually may have brains.
All Trav proves is he can't debate anybody.
Anon:
"I take back that if you mean 'Criminal Economy' in the sense of American businesses using illegal mexican immigrants as labor."
That's indeed what I meant.
"...those businesses that employ the 12 million illegals are at a distinct advantage over a new business that can't recruit workers from the same pool."
As opposed to now?
Those Criminal Employers will simply have a finite pool of illegal work-bots to keep exploiting.
A "new" business can always compete for that pool...perhaps by paying more and/or treating them better.
And, hey...at onepoint it mighteven make economic sense to hire native-borns and legals again...where would THAT leave us?
(Prosperity...I think).
"And, hey...at onepoint it mighteven make economic sense to hire native-borns and legals again...where would THAT leave us?"
Or, we could (which we already do, with a wink and a nod) allow Mexican workers to do the jobs that Americans aren't willing to do? Where would THAT leave us?
(Prosperity...I think.)
Do you mean American economic proseperity - the kind that was built on lax immigration policies?
Immigration is EASY if you want to fix it...
We have already passed the bill to build 700 miles of fence last year. They funded the fence with millions and built 12 miles... Build the F^@ing fence.
Next enforcement at worksites. Anyone who knowingly hires illegals get a BIG fine for first offence. After first offence JAIL time if it happens again.
Anyone know knowingly rents living quarters to illegals will be fined on the first offense and jailed if it happens again. The only exception is if the person is allowing a "room mate" (ie a shared front door and living space) and not a land lord doing this to make a profit or finance real estate purchases (investor).
In concert with the above we need a national ID and database so employers can know who they are hiring and confirm status...
As for Citizen at birth... modify it so it's anyone who is LEGALLY in the US and gives birth, that baby HAS THE OPTION to become a US citizen at 18 (with proof of birth and mothers legal status at the time). This means anyone who is child of a citizen, permenant resident (legal) alien, visitor or student visa (current at the time of birth) or whatever... Anyone born to a person who is here ILLEGALLY at the time of the birth will not have the automatic right at 18 to become a citizen automatically but may apply through normal immigration processes as any person from that country.
Public schools, hospitals, and service agencies should be mandated to confirm identity and legal status via the same database used for confirming work status.
If we did the above CONSISTANTLY for 6 months, a huge majority of illegals currently in the US would migrate to their home countries since they are only here for jobs and other benefits that wouldn't be avaialbe to them.
Anon:
"Or, we could (which we already do, with a wink and a nod) allow Mexican workers to do the jobs that Americans aren't willing to do?"
Cute.
Say...what line of work are YOU in?
"As for Citizen at birth... modify it so it's anyone who is LEGALLY in the US and gives birth, that baby HAS THE OPTION to become a US citizen at 18 (with proof of birth and mothers legal status at the time)."
This would require amending the constitution. Even prior to the 14 amendment, the US recognized birthright citizenship. You haven't wondered why?
"Next enforcement at worksites. Anyone who knowingly hires illegals get a BIG fine for first offence. After first offence JAIL time if it happens again."
What kind of economic ripples might this have on the American economy when entire industries suddenly lose most of their workforce?
"If we did the above CONSISTANTLY for 6 months, a huge majority of illegals currently in the US would migrate to their home"
Why do we want that, considering the net benefit that mexican immigrants contribute to the economy (not the mention the contributions that successive generations will have), particulaly when our identity as a nation of immigrants is what has allowed us to evolve, adapt, and become the great nation we are (unlike stagnated Europe) ?
Sharky,
"Say...what line of work are YOU in?"
I'm not an illegal immigrant, and I work in an industry that isn't known for employing any illegal aliens.
I just feel strongly that open immigration is why this country has survived and adapted for so long - it's suicide to try and close our borders too tight.
And Mr (Mrs?) Anonymous...
This would require amending the constitution. Even prior to the 14 amendment, the US recognized birthright citizenship. You haven't wondered why?
And amending the constitution is sometimes a very good thing to do. We've done it many times and this would be a good one to add.
"Next enforcement at worksites. Anyone who knowingly hires illegals get a BIG fine for first offence. After first offence JAIL time if it happens again."
What kind of economic ripples might this have on the American economy when entire industries suddenly lose most of their workforce?
And Americans who can work legally but can't find jobs will be able to find them. Some industries that consistantly under pay will be forced to change their business models and spend more for labor but it wouldn't be a huge issue... If you DOUBLED the current pay of the person who picked a head of lettuce, it would mean we'd have to pay $.07 cents more for that lettuce in the store. All the other costs are middlemen, deliveries, etc...
Why do we want that, considering the net benefit that mexican immigrants contribute to the economy (not the mention the contributions that successive generations will have), particulaly when our identity as a nation of immigrants is what has allowed us to evolve, adapt, and become the great nation we are (unlike stagnated Europe) ?
We want that because LEGAL immigration is a great thing and what our country loves and respects. Legal immigrants are working, paying taxes and contributing to our society in all kinds of ways. Our identity as a nation is that almost all of us are decendants who came from someplace else. What a great mix of cultures!
What we don't need is ILLEGAL immigrants. Let them go home and let legal immigrants come here in their places.
Next time use some sort of name, instead of "Anonymous" so I can refer to you clearly. Thanks.
"We want that because LEGAL immigration is a great thing and what our country loves and respects. Legal immigrants are working, paying taxes and contributing to our society in all kinds of ways. Our identity as a nation is that almost all of us are decendants who came from someplace else. What a great mix of cultures!"
I don't have time to respond to the whole thing, but scroll up and you'll see that the idea of an "illegal immigrant" is relatively new - during the waves of irish, italian, and german immigrants we pretty much let everyone in, unchecked. We didn't require a passport until 1918. So, for historical purposes, illegal v. legal is useless. Those same immigrants faced identical arguments as to why mexican immigration is supposedly bad - your economic analysis is also wrong, but I'll go into it later.
Employers - enable them to check the status of their employees more easily and fine them heavily if they don't do it or hire illegals anyway.
Illegals already in this country - there is no way to remove the majority without a police state endangering the liberty of everybody. I prefer amnesty with demands the future legal residents (past taxes paid, fees paid, good behavior) to doing nothing.
'Almost all those anchor babies are recognized as citizens of their parents home country(ies).
Yeah, born here = citizen is pretty solid although it might be an administrative interpretation and not a constitutional issue. That's why I said "revisit."'
There is no revisiting - from a link posted previously -
LEGISLATION DENYING CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH TO CERTAIN CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES
A bill that would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to certain classes of alien parents is unconstitutional on its face.
A constitutional amendment to restrict birthright citizenship, although not technically unlawful, would flatly contradict the Nation's constitutional history and constitutional traditions.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm
Of course, we have banned people from immigrating to the U.S., even though at the time (1880s) there was no such concept of 'illegal alien.'
Your belief that simply 'allowing' American citizens to stay with their parents comes dangerously close (in my eyes, it is over) the edge that there are various classes of American citizens, and it is pretty easy to tell who they are.
You seem remarkably ignorant about the Irish who lived illegally in the U.S., until the Irish economy picked up (for which the Irish are very thankful to the EU) and post 9/11 security laws made their presence difficult. Yet strangely, no one in place like New York or San Francisco ever complained about thousands of 'illegals' or the burden of educating their children.
As a matter of fact, a certain senator ensured that 50% of all green card lottery winners came from one country with 4 million people.
Quite honestly, you seem very unaware of what a slippery slope you are happily sliding down when making declarations like that above. You seem to be saying that their are 'real' American citizens - and then those 'other' ones.
A few hundred million dollars in contracts for planning camps to hold large numbers of human beings is probably what you consider useful government spending.
It would likely come as a surprise to you that in country like Germany, forcing a citizen to move and lose their citizenship is considered utterly injust, a sign of a barbaric tyranny - and now, this isn't about two generations ago, this is about East Germany - the DDR used to deport citizens after stripping them of citizenship - of course, due to the laws in place, those East German citizens being exiled, with no chance to bring their families, were 'recognized as citizens of their parents home country.'
Yes, an exponent of exurbia thinks Eastern German social policy in handling problem cases is just fine with him.
Previously: Yeah, born here = citizen is pretty solid although it might be an administrative interpretation and not a constitutional issue. That's why I said "revisit."'
There is no revisiting - from a link posted previously -
Good thing we never revisit the Constitution. I'd sure hate to change that perfect piece of paper due to evolving social mores. Know any fractional people DDR? That's why I said "revisit."
Of course, we have banned people from immigrating to the U.S., even though at the time (1880s) there was no such concept of 'illegal alien.'
Your belief that simply 'allowing' American citizens to stay with their parents comes dangerously close (in my eyes, it is over) the edge that there are various classes of American citizens, and it is pretty easy to tell who they are.
Well the distinct classes of residents in the US are identifiable. You'd have to be racist before claiming "easy to tell." You can idenitify them by proof of citizenship, residency, etc.
You seem remarkably ignorant about the Irish who lived illegally in the U.S., until the Irish economy picked up (for which the Irish are very thankful to the EU) and post 9/11 security laws made their presence difficult. Yet strangely, no one in place like New York or San Francisco ever complained about thousands of 'illegals' or the burden of educating their children.
You seem remarkable quick to insult people who respectfully disagee and of whom you know little. Of course I was aware of the thousands if not tens of thousands of Euroethnics who were/are in violation of immigration laws. Doesn't change anything.
Quite honestly, you seem very unaware of what a slippery slope you are happily sliding down when making declarations like that above. You seem to be saying that their are 'real' American citizens - and then those 'other' ones.
Hardly. I have two concerns. Rule of law and Quebec.
A few hundred million dollars in contracts for planning camps to hold large numbers of human beings is probably what you consider useful government spending.
We can make it up by charging rent.
It would likely come as a surprise to you that in country like Germany, forcing a citizen to move and lose their citizenship is considered utterly injust, a sign of a barbaric tyranny - and now, this isn't about two generations ago, this is about East Germany - the DDR used to deport citizens after stripping them of citizenship - of course, due to the laws in place, those East German citizens being exiled, with no chance to bring their families, were 'recognized as citizens of their parents home country.'
Former Soviet East Germany is the correct term. Hardly a useful example of anything.
Yes, an exponent of exurbia thinks Eastern German social policy in handling problem cases is just fine with him.
I favor no such stripping of rights. Strawman and poorly constructeed at that.
'Know any fractional people DDR?'
Sure - they were called 'fraternal comrades' - check out how the Vietnamese were imported as workers - of course, this being the DDR, it was all very legal. The exploitation and the easy identification of 'them' would be hard to tell apart from American practices - strange how some things seem to transcend socialism or capitalism.
Your 'revisiting' certainly didn't sound like modifying the 14th Amendment, or otherwise changing the Constitution, but if you insist that you want to change the Constitution to make another category of human being not part of America, be my guest - and to think I thought that the historical trend, including women and 'chattel' like Indians and slaves was the correct one.
The 'easy to tell' comes from how the INS used to work in the DC/Northern Virginia area in the mid-1980s when raiding various businesses - those agents seemed to have an almost unfailing skill about being able to pick out who they checked based on things you call 'racist' - but if you want to call agents of the federal government racist, be my guest - I won't really bother to dispute it.
And yet, somehow, only at this point, do you talk about the 'Euroethnics' - however, that number is much higher than 1000s or 10,000s - especially if you include the Canadians. And yes, the number of people I know who have been 'illegal,' for example by not doing their annual green card 'renewal' is surprisingly high. But then, we never seem to hear any need for massive political action about such married 'illegals,' for example. In fact, your seeming unawareness of how the INS (now Homeland Security, and boy, does that bring a tinge of that old Ostalgia to America) has worked for decades in terms of immigration and legal chicanery is fascinating.
'Rule of law' - man, I bet the citizens of your state that were forced into concentration camps and had their property taken will be pleased to know that your support for the rule of law is so strong that you only want to round up the 'illegals,' and not anyone else. I am sure they will be pleased - until they remember that their parents, for example, were also rounded up, along with themselves, American citizens, though apparently not really. Of course, it was pretty easy to know who to round up in those scary days of sneak attacks killing thousands of people. And many of the arguments opposing any compensation for such American citizens illegally deprived of their liberty and property have a striking resemblance to the arguments concerning immigration today.
'Former Soviet East Germany is the correct term' - no, the correct term is 'Deutsche Demokratische Republik,' though many West Germans called it the 'Ostzone.' Of course, by your logic, there wasn't any BRD either - it was just the French, British, and American Germany. Technically, Germany was no longer occupied September 12, 1990 - gives a certain timeline for thinking about Iraq, doesn't it?
'I favor no such stripping of rights.' My mistake - I thought a certain flogdar was you - fair enough.
Post a Comment