The value of an immigrant's life?

[Haezed]

I'm going to edit my plan to make it more sophisticated.

 

Step 1: Figure out how many and what kind of new citizens we need.

 

Step 2: Make them Citizens.

 

Step 3: If we need a base of workers that can help us on a temporary basis, give them temporary visas.

 

Step 4: Create a private right of action against employers who hire illegals.

 

Step 5: Make it a felony to hire an illegal alien.

 

We'll have the labor we need. We provide full employment for our growing class of lawyers and might even solve rising health care costs as lawyers turn to sue employers violating the law.

[Haezed]

Social homogeneity? The country getting a little less pale bother you some?

 

This kind of argument is seriously out of bounds.

 

I don't see any problems here, since individuality is promoted. The only problem is traditionalists who want to keep things relatively the same...

 

Damned traditionalists who think we have a right to control our own borders....

 

Yes they should be rewarded citizenship for making it here.

 

Why, because it was a terribly difficult thing for 12-20 million of them to accomplish?

 

I don't really give a crap if they consider it reward or not. It's pragmatic.

 

Now we are getting somewhere...

 

Our ancestors showed up and killed, raped and enslaved the natives here and we were rewarded with our own little country huh?

 

Actually, you've given a pretty good example of the necessity of a country maintaining the integrity of its own borders if it wants to remain a country

 

FWIW, most Indians were killed by plague, not murder, rape or enslavement. Many cooperated with the white man. Many would have committed brutal acts of genocide if they had had the tools of Western civilization.

 

It's not so simple and, even if it were, you are talking about another time. You might as well be talking about the Peloponnesian War.

 

Today's illegals are guilty of not fitting in, and not learning the pledge of allegiance - though rather than pillaging the natives, they're working for them...for crap wages...

 

Now we get a string of straw men. No one argues agaist illegal immigration because they "don't fit in" or didn't learn the pledge. How can your laundry list exclude that they are guilty of breaking the law, hence the term ILLEGAL immigration.

 

Sure they do. They deserve equal treatment. Even criminals have rights. It's easier to see their due, when you consider yours. What makes you such a citizen? Because you were born here? Gee..bet that was tough. What else? Because you pay taxes? Yeah, I can see how envious working for two dollars an hour under the table can be...

 

What made the Indians the rightful owners of the land before we got here? Because they were here first?

 

There's not enough to being a legal citizen to justify the level of animosity towards illegal immigrants.

 

Big ugly strawman. Who here has expressed animosity towards illegals themselves (my tongue in cheek poem notwithstanding)? What I don't get is why people can't understand that a nation without control of its border is not a nation at all. I'll get to your proposal for border control in a minute.

 

I don't get it. I'm such a deserving citizen because I have a social security number and I can say my ABC's? But those illegal immigrants should be deported because they don't??

 

I don't say deport them. I would say (i) let in the ones we need (from whatever country we think is to our advantage), (ii) make them citizens if it is to our advantage and (iii) dry up the jobs for the illegals. The real criminals should be the employers.

 

As far as what makes a citizenship, yep, it's pretty much a matter of birth. Life just ain't fair sometimes. I guess we could require our youth to don hoplite armor and meet in the plains of Nebraska to fight bloody battles to earn citizenship but that went out of style about 2400 years ago.

 

That's why I don't have a problem with amnesty. Citizenry is overrated fluff. All they should have to do is pay taxes, in my opinion. Which will actually be better for them, since their wages will go up more than the difference taken by taxes.

 

So, what is your plan? Let anyone want in who wants to come in? When does practicality start to play a role in your proposal?

 

Already covered above, but just wanted to be clear that yes, 15 million pimps put in jail on my watch would make me proud. 15 million non-criminals that we make believe are criminals would make me sick. This is based on the idea that a starving man who steals bread is not a criminal - maybe technically, but not realistically. Anyone who just starved to death instead, would be an idiot.

 

I agree. Punish the employers.

 

My contention is that we should not have laws that contradict our traditional offer of global welcome to all that can get here. My contention is also that if you're going to deport them for breaking the immigration law(s), then deport anyone else for breaking any laws also. After all, I break our laws all the time - floating stop signs, not using a turn signal, speeding, smoking herb, public intoxication...etc. And that's entirely trivial - the quality of my life is not in any jeopardy if I don't do those things.

 

There is not even a shred of a logical connection between those laws and deportation. Plainly put, you either believe a nation has the right to control who makes up its citizenry or you do not. I think you do not?

 

But you want to stick it to people who broke one law - or one set of laws?

 

Another huge straw man: No one wants to stick it to people. We want control of our border and for it to be done legally. If we need 20 million workers, let's make it legal. If we don't, don't.

 

Deportation for a crime that's far more harmless than the laws I and many others are breaking everyday? AND, that is arguably out of necessity and desparation? That's way too inconsistent and hypocritical for my taste. I say punish them for breaking the law, with reason, not hyped up Rush Limbaugh punishment.

 

How would you punish them?

 

Except the problem last time is Reagan had no issues with the amnesty part, he dropped the ball on enforcement from that point forward.

 

Why was it dropping the ball? I thought you want to let in everyone yearning to come here?

 

I think that second part is more important than the first part. And that's the part the country is so concerned about. But here we are, arguing about people that are already here, keeping us from doing anything about those trying to get in everyday.

 

You seem to completely flip flop here. What right do we have to keep future people from coming here? Aren't they "huddled masses" who "yearn" and isn't citizenry over rated anyway? Your arguments are for a completely open border now except for keeping out an ill defined class of "criminals."

 

Understand, I'm for a secure border. Probably moreso than you. I don't think there should be an inch of border that is not surveilled and secure. We should be patrolling that border like a maximum security prison - so we can check and filter criminals and such from the rest of the immigrants.

 

So after spending billions of dollars making an impregnable The Great Wall of Mexico, you would throw open the gates and let everyone come in except those you "filter" out as criminals?

 

How, exactly, do we "filter" criminals coming in from Mexico? We are going to have to have a database on Mexican criminals? Does such a database even exist? Surely you would not keep people out of the US if they committed only minor crimes in Mexico?

 

Until we have a world government, nation states have the right to define their citizenry. The fact that it has always been this way doesn't mean I'm a miserly traditionalist. It has been this way for the reason that the nation state will cease to exist as a separate unit if it does not possess this basic right of defining its membership.

[Sisyphus]

Some fairly obvious facts, as I see them.

 

On deportation or imprisonment: There are, by most estimates, about 15 million illegal immigrants from Mexico living in the United States. It would be completely impossible to round up 15 million people (for comparison, remember that the U.S. already has by far the most bloated and expensive prison system in the world with three million inmates). Hence, all discussions of deportation or imprisonment are a waste of time, and anyone advocating such or similar measures either a) has not given it much thought, or b) is not interested in actual solutions. Yes, they are "criminals," and on principle, criminals should be punished. But that is impossible here. How hard is that to understand? I might appeal to Prohibition as precedent - enforcement proved impossible and efforts were not worth the cost. As in that case, we can make a lot of problems disappear by making the illegal legal, or in this case, make legal immigration easier, so there is no incentive to run the border and immigrants can be processed and tracked.

 

On "preserving our culture:" The United States is and always has been a melting pot where each new wave of immigrants adds to the new culture but is not absorbed by it. History shows us that the new need not destroy the old - in fact, in strengthens it. And this almost never happens right away - the great majority of us are descended from immigrants who did not speak English when they arrived, who still had deep connections to their respective motherlands, and who were hated by the self-proclaimed "real" Americans. I myself am descended from such immigrants from half a dozen different countries. The real tradition is for change and growth, not the xenophobia of so-called "traditionalists." As far as I'm concerned, people who talk in those terms either a) have no sense of history, or b) are just engaging in a still-politically-correct form of racism.

 

On "they took yer jooobs!" Well, yes, some of them did. But as some others have said, if you actually enforce minimum wage, the problems mostly disappear. If there are still illegals working then, then that means either nobody else wanted the job, or they're doing a much better job than other workers. In the former there's no harm done, and in both it's actually just stimulating the economy with more work getting done. Sending wages back to Mexico is a problem, I agree (except in the cases where that money is going to be used to immigrate to the U.S.), but that should be a relatively easy problem to deal with. At worst you would lose profits for unscrupulous banks and inconvenience a bunch of vacationing Americans.

 

On border security. Yes, it is important. But how important? Mexico is an ally, remember? And the Mexican border is certainly not the easiest way to illegally enter the United States - the Canadian border is much less well defended. If the argument is really just about some abstract sanctity of borders, then what about those undefended 7000 miles? I call hypocrite.

[Haezed]

On deportation or imprisonment: There are, by most estimates, about 15 million illegal immigrants from Mexico living in the United States.

 

That is why you have to dry up the jobs for illegals. Punish the employers and sic lawyers on them by creating a private right of action.

 

This is very doable. The problem is that no one wants to offend the growing hispanic power base AND big business wants its labor. There is a perfect storm of political power.

 

I repeat: Figure out how many legal immigrants we want and where we want them from (yes, that should be our decision, speaking of obvious facts) and make them legal. Dry up the reason for coming for the rest.

 

Yes, they are "criminals," and on principle, criminals should be punished. But that is impossible here. How hard is that to understand?

 

It wont' be impossible once you reduce the flow to a trickle after the jobs dry up. How hard is that to understand?

 

On "preserving our culture:" The United States is and always has been a melting pot where each new wave of immigrants adds to the new culture but is not absorbed by it.

 

I'm not sure who said "preserve our culture" but I do say that we have the right to determine when and if and from where we let immigrants come to this country. If our elected representatives want an open door, then so be it but that was never decided. We have the confluence of big business and liberals both wanting cheap labor and new voters.

 

History shows us that the new need not destroy the old - in fact, in strengthens it.

 

Differences abound with this wave: First, it is continuous. We have 12-20 million here now but nothing says that won't increase because, speaking of obvious, Mexico unlike any of the other countries we've accepted immigration from is on a contiguous porous border. This isn't prompted by a specific event, e.g. a potato famine, but by a question of supply and demand which will be ongoing and has very little limit.

 

Second, the ability to keep a real connection to the homeland is much greater because again, this is a contiguous country without an ocean separating them from what was. They aren't like Cortez burning his ships when he reached S. America. They have a foot, and perhaps a very real allegiance, to both countries. If someone comes here legally, applies for citizenship, goes down to federal court and pledges allegiance to THIS country, I'll take them at their word. Otherwise, I make no assumptions.

 

Third, they are able to hook up with an already existing political power base and thereby feel far more empowered than previous immigrants. They aren't stupid. They know they are the fastest growing minority in the country and may (I'm not sure, just showing why your assumption is merely an assumption) not feel as compelled to integrate into the larger culture.

 

And this almost never happens right away - the great majority of us are descended from immigrants who did not speak English when they arrived, who still had deep connections to their respective motherlands, ....

 

It is a mistake not to know history. It is also a mistake to assume that history will continually repeat itself. That is a comforting but fundamentally false notion. I'm not so sure this wave of illegal immigrants will mix into the culture as did others. That's an assumption on your part which may not apply to immigration from a contiguous country. Personally, I don't know but would feel better IF we need to import labor, taking it from varied sources.

 

On "they took yer jooobs!"

 

I agree this is not a great argument. We should figure out how many LEGAL immigrants we need and then let them in LEGALLY. Get them registered. Hell, even be picky. Let them in on our terms and get the labor we need. Don't however, let employers hire illegals.

 

On border security. Yes, it is important. But how important? Mexico is an ally, remember? And the Mexican border is certainly not the easiest way to illegally enter the United States - the Canadian border is much less well defended. If the argument is really just about some abstract sanctity of borders, then what about those undefended 7000 miles? I call hypocrite.

 

Then you are engaging in an ad hominem attack. We don't have waves of Canadians illegally entering the country. It's not just that we are protecting line on the map. Letting millions into a country when you don't know who they are is a recipe for disaster.

 

If you simply legalize 12-20 million, then millions more will come and the problem repeats itself as it has before.

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure who said "preserve our culture" but I do say that we have the right to determine when and if and from where we let immigrants come to this country. If our elected representatives want an open door, then so be it but that was never decided.

 

I disagree. Immigration was a clear intention of the founding fathers. It's not clear that they intended for it to be controlled, either. But it was a different world then and it's a reasonable extrapolation.

 

But what "original" cultrure do you think they would have opted to preserve? Are you ready to don your hat of obeissance and daily prayer as prescribed by the relgious fruitcakes who first came here? Know much about tilling a field? Shepherding? Sewing quilts?

 

I think you're forgetting something really important. What makes this country great is the willingness of immigrants to become true Americans. They embrace our culture so wholeheartedly that their immediate children become native speakers and think of themselves as Americans first and their parent's country second (and most of their parents will do the same).

 

"Elected officials" didn't open that door. We all did. It really was decided.

[Haezed]

I disagree. Immigration was a clear intention of the founding fathers. It's not clear that they intended for it to be controlled, either. But it was a different world then and it's a reasonable extrapolation.

 

They were smart enough not to include that intention in any provision of the Constitution. In fact, there is some distinction between the newly immigrated and natural born citizens which is why Henry Kissinger could never have been president.

 

In any event, the founding fathers were dealing with a wide open frontier (in their mind anyway, which excluded the natives) just waiting for colonization. That has nothing to do with the current situation which is, no doubt, why the founding fathers did not enshrine any right to come into the country in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

 

When we were desparate for bodies to fill the continent from sea to shining sea, of course we bragged about how willing we were to accept new blood but none of this was enshrined in any principle which was intended to be enduring.

 

But what "original" cultrure do you think they would have opted to preserve? Are you ready to don your hat of obeissance and daily prayer as prescribed by the relgious fruitcakes who first came here? Know much about tilling a field? Shepherding? Sewing quilts?

 

I don't think I ever grounded my arguments on the intent of the founding fathers.

 

I think you're forgetting something really important. What makes this country great is the willingness of immigrants to become true Americans.

 

That is one of the things that makes the country great but, again, I say what is the unique advantage of illegal immigrants. Why not make conscious decisions about who we want and where they come from? There is no argument made on this board for letting others make that decision.

 

They embrace our culture so wholeheartedly that their immediate children become native speakers and think of themselves as Americans first and their parent's country second (and most of their parents will do the same).

 

You do not respond to my argument about this assumption. This has been the case in the past but this is a different kettle of fish for many reasons, only three of which I listed.

 

"Elected officials" didn't open that door. We all did. It really was decided.

 

If the "door" is forever opened as a matter of constitutional law, then it isn't a door at all because it can never be shut.

[Pangloss]

You make interesting points, Haezed, but I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. But I think we agree on immigration more than disagree. Certainly the border needs to be more secure and I'm pretty tired of the mainstream right being dismissedly accused of being completely opposed to immigration. I see no hint of that in their policy at all.

 

I think the "cultural" argument might be more successful if it were more specific. Most of the time that line of debate comes across as cultural phobia -- white people not understanding why their strange new neighbors with their great numbers of children spend so much time outside in the yard and street rather than couped up in the house studiously avoiding each other just like normal people. (grin)

[Haezed]

You make interesting points, Haezed, but I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. But I think we agree on immigration more than disagree. Certainly the border needs to be more secure and I'm pretty tired of the mainstream right being dismissedly accused of being completely opposed to immigration. I see no hint of that in their policy at all.

 

Absolutely we agree on this. It really chaps my backside when the word "immigration" is used interchangably with "illegal immigration."

 

However, I wonder if it's possible to control the border until we reduce the flow to a trickle and that requires illegals not getting jobs. Once we stop the assault by MILLIONS on our border, we have a ghost in a chance of protecting our borders. Until then, no chance.

 

 

 

I think the "cultural" argument might be more successful if it were more specific. Most of the time that line of debate comes across as cultural phobia -- white people not understanding why their strange new neighbors with their great numbers of children spend so much time outside in the yard and street rather than couped up in the house studiously avoiding each other just like normal people. (grin)

 

How's this then: The culture we have now works while the one in Mexico does not. Let's let in 1 or 2 MILLION Mexicans into our country if we need the labor but there is no reason to let entire areas of our country be defined by their culture which has not succeeded on many levels.

 

Alternatively, if we really believe we need 12-20 million from this one area of the world (for whatever reason), why not phase them in to see what impacts it has on our society before we just say "amnesty, now may we have another 20 million, please?"

[Sisyphus]

Running short on time now, but one question for Haezed. You said: "It wont' be impossible once you reduce the flow to a trickle after the jobs dry up. How hard is that to understand?"

 

Apparently pretty hard. Cracking down on employers I'm all for, since I agree it will help remove the incentive for illegal immigration, which is definitely where our efforts should be focused. But what does that have to do with getting rid of the millions who are already here?

[Pangloss]

One thing I don't understand is this notion that the border "cannot be secured". Why is a stretch of land less securable just because it's longer? Does the US border with Mexico constitute 9/10ths of the world's secured landspace? Of course not. So why this assumption that just because it's long it cannot be closed? Surely this is really more a matter of money (i.e. manpower) than physical constraints.

 

I would really like to know what other countries spend per mile on their border security, and see that figure compared with our own spending per mile.

[Haezed]

Running short on time now, but one question for Haezed. You said: "It wont' be impossible once you reduce the flow to a trickle after the jobs dry up. How hard is that to understand?"

 

Apparently pretty hard. Cracking down on employers I'm all for, since I agree it will help remove the incentive for illegal immigration, which is definitely where our efforts should be focused. But what does that have to do with getting rid of the millions who are already here?

 

If we created a private right of action for lawyers to pursue against employers hiring illegals, those jobs would dry up over night. This would probably work even without making the employment of an illegal alien a felony.

 

Since these people are coming for jobs, I'm thinking without jobs to come to they will not come.

 

As for those already here, I suspect many would go back to their families if they did not have employment here.

[Haezed]

One thing I don't understand is this notion that the border "cannot be secured". Why is a stretch of land less securable just because it's longer? Does the US border with Mexico constitute 9/10ths of the world's secured landspace? Of course not. So why this assumption that just because it's long it cannot be closed? Surely this is really more a matter of money (i.e. manpower) than physical constraints.

 

I would really like to know what other countries spend per mile on their border security, and see that figure compared with our own spending per mile.

 

As the worlds last superpower (for now), we are a target and need a secure border. Moreover, we have resources so we can talk about this whereas, say Brazil, could not.

 

It does stand to reason that the longer a border, the more difficult, i.e. expensive, it will be to secure. I agree that it would be interesting to see what other countries spend on border security per mile.

[ParanoiA]

Damned traditionalists who think we have a right to control our own borders....

 

Busted - for not reading my post before commenting on it. I've stated in three different posts I'm for a secure border - every inch actually - and I don't know anyone who has proposed security like that yet.

 

Why, because it was a terribly difficult thing for 12-20 million of them to accomplish?

 

Yes, it was. How much effort did you put into it? Risk your life in a sardine can to get here? Paid much attention to human trafficing and how people get into that position? You have to be pretty damn desparate to take on the odds and put your life and money - and your kid's lives - in the hands of a smuggler to get you here.

 

Now we are getting somewhere...

 

No we're not. There's a gaping hole in the ideology - including mine - that needs to be worked out. Pragmatism is just realizing the hole is there and patching it up.

 

It's not so simple and, even if it were, you are talking about another time. You might as well be talking about the Peloponnesian War.

 

You and wormwood, both, missed this one because you both took it out of context. I wasn't crying about how we enslaved or slaughtered the natives here - that's a whole 'nother topic. I don't apologize for what happened to the indians, just like I don't shrug my shoulders in confusion as to why slavery still exists today.

 

The point I was making is that our ancestors came here and abused the land and it's people on a level that trumps, ten fold, the abuse we get from current immigrants. And the only reason that point was made was to put things in perspective.

 

Now we get a string of straw men. No one argues agaist illegal immigration because they "don't fit in" or didn't learn the pledge.

 

But that's all a citizen is though. You were either born here - my how impressive that citizenship status was earned. Or you migrated here, in which case we require a brief symbolic ritual that magically transforms you into the "citizen". Like learning the pledge of allegiance and some history...etc.

 

Not that I don't think it's necessary for them to do this ritual, but put it in perspective. You're basically advocating that people who have not performed this ritual are so far removed from being a "citizen"...I just don't believe in the clout you seem to be giving the "citizen".

 

In my mind, someone who ran from their government to get here, and all the horror that goes along with that, has done more to earn a life here than you or I.

 

What made the Indians the rightful owners of the land before we got here? Because they were here first?

 

Force. Every border on the globe is maintained by force - or implied force. Again, I'm not crying about the indians' plight. I'm also not worried about our level of force and losing our country to anyone.

 

Big ugly strawman. Who here has expressed animosity towards illegals themselves (my tongue in cheek poem notwithstanding)?

 

Maybe animosity was the wrong word, but the point I'm trying to make is that "citizenship" seems to be the grand partition. "If they would just go the legal route...blah blah blah". I think people point to this "category" without really thinking about it. I challenge the credit given "citizenship". I don't think the difference between a citizen and an non-citizen is such that one should be deported, irregardless of their contribution to our economy, while the other is totally immune.

 

Don't 12 to 20 million people "absorb" and therefore create job opportunities and growth in other areas - perhaps indirectly? Stands to reason that many people eat, live in houses, buy stuff...etc. Granted, some get all of this from our tax dollars, but these are augments to our economy.

 

I don't say deport them. I would say (i) let in the ones we need (from whatever country we think is to our advantage), (ii) make them citizens if it is to our advantage and (iii) dry up the jobs for the illegals. The real criminals should be the employers.

 

We don't need any of them do we? Isn't this a myth as well? And I agree, the employers should be punished. Just like we bust prostitutes AND johns, we should bust illegals AND their employers.

 

So, what is your plan? Let anyone want in who wants to come in? When does practicality start to play a role in your proposal?

 

Well, so far, I'm coming across as a bleeding heart for immigrants. In some respects, that's true, because it falls in line with the ideology that america is a nation of immigrants. But we're not a nation of ignorants, either. I don't think we should let people in with infectious diseases, criminal records, welfare bound - my plan would be a two part thing. I would collapse the welfare system as we know it today - another long discussion but would essentially be a distant memory. And would deny all government services.

 

I wouldn't let them in to run around the country in the first place until they are citizens. My approach would be more of a forced citizenship. With an actual secure border, we welcome all who can get here, however you can get here, but then you are held and put through the citizenship process. You will learn the fundamentals about our country, and you will learn english enough to assimilate - you will be a citizen before you are allowed "in the country".

 

With a secure border, I wouldn't give them the chance to be an illegal member of society. You may disagree, but I don't think this is being soft on immigration. It would weed out those who are looking for a free ride. Those who want to work will have no problem.

 

There is not even a shred of a logical connection between those laws and deportation. Plainly put, you either believe a nation has the right to control who makes up its citizenry or you do not. I think you do not?

 

Kind of rehash at this point, but no I'm putting it in perspective. There's not enough to being a citizen in the first place to conclude that deportation of people who have established lives here is the proper punishment for breaking that law.

 

In this country, we punish people with jail and prison, fines for all kinds of crime. We don't rape guys that raped women - we put them in jail. We don't make someone stop at every corner because they ran a stop sign - we fine them. So why suddenly do we deport because they broke the immigration law? I say force their citizenship and punish them with jail or a fine.

 

Why was it dropping the ball? I thought you want to let in everyone yearning to come here?

 

My only issues with deportation have more to do with those who have established lives here - the 10 to 20 million we keep referring to that no one has any real idea about. But someone coming to this country initially, has no roots or life here. To me, there is nothing wrong with kicking that person out if they don't follow the path to citizenship. I don't put enough clout to citizenship to remove those who are already here and established, but I DO see enough credit in citizenship to throw someone out who just got here and isn't following the rules right out of the gate.

 

But again, I don't wish to give them the opportunity to evade in the first place. With no government aid and no employers willing to hire them, how could they really want to be here, unless they're a citizen and can work and pay taxes like the rest of us?

 

You seem to completely flip flop here. What right do we have to keep future people from coming here? Aren't they "huddled masses" who "yearn" and isn't citizenry over rated anyway? Your arguments are for a completely open border now except for keeping out an ill defined class of "criminals."

 

No flip flopping at all - what you're seeing here is a pendulum that rests in the center instead of pushed all the way one way or the other.

 

Yes, the citizenship credit is over rated to be deporting people who have already established family and their own life here. But it's not overrated to be deporting people who have NOT, and will not follow the rules. In other words, if those 10 to 20 million had been deported before they got settled in, I would be all for it. Really stop and consider how totalitarian it would look when you go rounding up established family members and kicking them out. That's disgusting. If 100% of them were criminals and leeches - no problem, but they're not. They broke a law and should be punished like the rest of us are punished when we break laws - and we're not deported so....

 

Until we have a world government, nation states have the right to define their citizenry. The fact that it has always been this way doesn't mean I'm a miserly traditionalist. It has been this way for the reason that the nation state will cease to exist as a separate unit if it does not possess this basic right of defining its membership.

 

You are exactly right. And we have defined our membership as tired, poor immigrants yearning to be free. Worked out for our ancestors and ultimately you and I, so why shouldn't it continue to work out?

 

The problem is, immigration in the past has meant economic growth and labor diversity. We were also far more self sufficient and needed the people. Today, with the decline of our industrial labor and outsourcing, and all of the handouts and the culture of poverty - immigration is so negative - doesn't seem to be good for us at all.

 

But you want to blame the immigrants and their overloaded desire to get here and get a better life - self serving just like all of us americans. I want to put the blame on government that's ignored the constitution and set up a system for the poor to leech off of and ultimately attract every loser on the planet - that WE get to pay for. Then add in the anti-american businesses selling out our country to hire someone for pennies on the dollar in some other country...

[Haezed]

Busted - for not reading my post before commenting on it. I've stated in three different posts I'm for a secure border - every inch actually - and I don't know anyone who has proposed security like that yet.

 

You SAY you are for a secure border but you ignore the part of my post that questions how you will make that happen. Remember, I argued:

 

So after spending billions of dollars making an impregnable The Great Wall of Mexico, you would throw open the gates and let everyone come in except those you "filter" out as criminals?

 

How, exactly, do we "filter" criminals coming in from Mexico? We are going to have to have a database on Mexican criminals? Does such a database even exist? Surely you would not keep people out of the US if they committed only minor crimes in Mexico?

 

I think that is the only portion of my post that you ignored. If we genuinely had a secure border, with complete control, I don't think most would have quite they gripe they do with 12-20 million illegals. However, without border control, 12-20 million could be the tip of the floating glacier heading our way (which to make the analogy work I guess is on its side, but whatever).

 

Yes, it was. How much effort did you put into it? Risk your life in a sardine can to get here? Paid much attention to human trafficing and how people get into that position? You have to be pretty damn desparate to take on the odds and put your life and money - and your kid's lives - in the hands of a smuggler to get you here.

 

If 20 million can do it, it's not that hard. Our border is a joke and the only real risk is getting sent back. Big whoop.

 

What did I do? Well, I was born here, was raised and had certain American values inculcated into me from birth. I've pledged my allegiance to this country probably ten thousand times. I do not have any foot in another country. This is my country.

 

I'm an American for the same reasons Romans were Romans and Mexicans are Mexicans. Every nation state has to have some label for those who are part of their body politic. The name here is US Citizen. Without that label meaning something, the nation will not exist.

 

No we're not. There's a gaping hole in the ideology - including mine - that needs to be worked out. Pragmatism is just realizing the hole is there and patching it up.

 

Heh, okay, you appealed to pragmatism but I'll now agree that we're not getting anywhere and wait to see if you disagree with even this.

 

You and wormwood, both, missed this one because you both took it out of context. I wasn't crying about how we enslaved or slaughtered the natives here - that's a whole 'nother topic. I don't apologize for what happened to the indians, just like I don't shrug my shoulders in confusion as to why slavery still exists today.

 

The point I was making is that our ancestors came here and abused the land and it's people on a level that trumps, ten fold, the abuse we get from current immigrants. And the only reason that point was made was to put things in perspective.

 

Then, so what? If treatment of the Indians is ancient history who cares what our ancestors did? In any event, it is only because we "abused" the land that we could build a country illegals want to enter.

 

But that's all a citizen is though. You were either born here - my how impressive that citizenship status was earned. Or you migrated here, in which case we require a brief symbolic ritual that magically transforms you into the "citizen". Like learning the pledge of allegiance and some history...etc.

 

Wrong. By way of example, a corporation is an artificial distinct entity but in practice it is made up of people. Same goes for any organization of humans into collective endeavors. Citizenship is what defines the membership in this countries body politic and it is not trivial.

 

Have you ever attended a naturalization ceremody? They are powerful events and I beg to differ that the "ritual" is meaningless.

 

Not that I don't think it's necessary for them to do this ritual, but put it in perspective. You're basically advocating that people who have not performed this ritual are so far removed from being a "citizen"...I just don't believe in the clout you seem to be giving the "citizen".

 

I'm clueless as to what your proposal is. Eliminate the law pertaining to citizenship? Have various classes of people here? That's pretty much what we have now with current law except some of them are not classed because they snuck across the borders.

 

In my mind, someone who ran from their government to get here, and all the horror that goes along with that, has done more to earn a life here than you or I.

 

Life's not fair. Sorry, hate to break it to you, but it's not. It's a given that those who are born here are going to be citizens. It is also a given that we cannot let everyone who wants to "earn" citizenship by breaking our laws and enter the country. That is just not practical in the long term.

 

Force. Every border on the globe is maintained by force - or implied force. Again, I'm not crying about the indians' plight. I'm also not worried about our level of force and losing our country to anyone.

 

What limits would you impose on Mexican immigration? Any?

 

Maybe animosity was the wrong word, but the point I'm trying to make is that "citizenship" seems to be the grand partition.

 

Then what partitions would you create, if any?

 

Don't 12 to 20 million people "absorb" and therefore create job opportunities and growth in other areas - perhaps indirectly? Stands to reason that many people eat, live in houses, buy stuff...etc. Granted, some get all of this from our tax dollars, but these are augments to our economy.

 

This doesn't rebut my argument. I said we should make a collective decision as to the number of new citizens we need and the number of temporary workers. If we need them, let them in legally perhaps from a variety of sources.

We don't need any of them do we? Isn't this a myth as well? And I agree, the employers should be punished. Just like we bust prostitutes AND johns, we should bust illegals AND their employers.

 

If we need them, let's make them legal. If we don't, don't. I want to do more than punish employers. I want to sic thousands of hungry lawyers on them if they break the law.

 

I wouldn't let them in to run around the country in the first place until they are citizens. My approach would be more of a forced citizenship. With an actual secure border, we welcome all who can get here, however you can get here, but then you are held and put through the citizenship process. You will learn the fundamentals about our country, and you will learn english enough to assimilate - you will be a citizen before you are allowed "in the country".

 

Would you allow them to remain citizens of Mexico?

 

With a secure border, I wouldn't give them the chance to be an illegal member of society. You may disagree, but I don't think this is being soft on immigration. It would weed out those who are looking for a free ride. Those who want to work will have no problem.

 

For someone who wants to eliminate welfare, you have a surprising confidence in the ability of government to categorize millions of people.

 

Kind of rehash at this point, but no I'm putting it in perspective. There's not enough to being a citizen in the first place to conclude that deportation of people who have established lives here is the proper punishment for breaking that law.

 

So you'd agree we can deport them if they are caught crossing the border?

 

My only issues with deportation have more to do with those who have established lives here - the 10 to 20 million we keep referring to that no one has any real idea about. But someone coming to this country initially, has no roots or life here. To me, there is nothing wrong with kicking that person out if they don't follow the path to citizenship. I don't put enough clout to citizenship to remove those who are already here and established, but I DO see enough credit in citizenship to throw someone out who just got here and isn't following the rules right out of the gate.

 

 

Do you realize how complicated it would be to write what you are saying into a workable law? Would we use a point system to prove "establishment" in this country? Ten points if you coached youth soccer! Minus ten if the team wore Mexican uniforms!

 

In other words, if those 10 to 20 million had been deported before they got settled in, I would be all for it.

 

Again, you would require an incredible amount of beurocracy to decide this issue.

 

Really stop and consider how totalitarian it would look when you go rounding up established family members and kicking them out. That's disgusting.

 

Busted - for not reading any of my post. I never argued for a round up.

 

You are exactly right. And we have defined our membership as tired, poor immigrants yearning to be free. Worked out for our ancestors and ultimately you and I, so why shouldn't it continue to work out?

 

No we haven't. That's just a poem writtten on a plaque during a time when we needed more laborers.

 

The problem is, immigration in the past has meant economic growth and labor diversity. We were also far more self sufficient and needed the people. Today, with the decline of our industrial labor and outsourcing, and all of the handouts and the culture of poverty - immigration is so negative - doesn't seem to be good for us at all.

 

Busted - for ignoring my three arguments for why this assumption might not hold true in this case.

 

But you want to blame the immigrants and their overloaded desire to get here and get a better life - self serving just like all of us americans. I want to put the blame on government that's ignored the constitution and set up a system for the poor to leech off of and ultimately attract every loser on the planet - that WE get to pay for. Then add in the anti-american businesses selling out our country to hire someone for pennies on the dollar in some other country...

 

Busted - strawman. I don't blame them for wanting a better life. I just want to put a stop to the inflow by drying up the supply of jobs for illegals.

 

How did the government ignore the Constitution? What provision are you talking about?

 

I actually give illegals more credit than you do in one respect. I think they stay off of the grid and do not really use that many social services. On balance, they may contribute to the economy but that is not an argument for ILLEGAL immigration. We could get those benefits with legal immigration once we gain control of the situation.

 

True, they will not have "earned" their citizenship by crossing the border but, as I suggested before, we could always make them don hoplite armor and fight it out on the plains of Nebraska.

[ParanoiA]

If 20 million can do it, it's not that hard. Our border is a joke and the only real risk is getting sent back. Big whoop.

 

Tell that to the vietnameze boat people. I'm thinking it's quite the big whoop, actually...

 

It's not our border that's difficult to breach anyway, obviously, it's getting out of their countries. That's the hard part I was referring to. And most of those 20 million gave up more than I did to become a citizen...wait, I didn't give up jack.

 

What did I do? Well, I was born here, was raised and had certain American values inculcated into me from birth. I've pledged my allegiance to this country probably ten thousand times. I do not have any foot in another country. This is my country.

 

Yeah, some pretty tough stuff you've had to endure there...

 

It's easy to be born a citizen. I didn't say it shouldn't have any meaning. Again, bring the pendulum to the center Haezed. The clout of citizenship is overrated, not meaningless.

 

Then, so what? If treatment of the Indians is ancient history who cares what our ancestors did? In any event, it is only because we "abused" the land that we could build a country illegals want to enter.

 

It's perspective. These aren't imperialists set on taking land and running off the natives. They are the desparate poor people that we brag about wanting to come here. Wormwood was painting a picture of self interest driven thieves and leeches. I was trying to adjust that picture. We're all self interest driven, and our ancestors were even worse about it.

 

If you're going to argue these points, try to keep the context in mind. After a couple of quotes and posts, the context is lost and the quote is misleading.

 

Have you ever attended a naturalization ceremody? They are powerful events and I beg to differ that the "ritual" is meaningless.

 

There you go with "meaningless" again. If it was meaningless, I wouldn't propose to force immigrants to do it now would I? I'm just trying to say that your entry into this club was a given, smooth sailing - all done for you nice and tidy. All you did was wake up here. In terms of who really deserves to be here, I can't just ignore the trouble an immigrant goes through to get here and pretend like my "citizenship" - free membership - trumps that.

 

They've certainly demonstrated a desire to be here more than the majority of the spoiled brats in this country that get a free pass because they were born here. Not directed at you, and you know who they are...

 

Life's not fair. Sorry, hate to break it to you, but it's not. It's a given that those who are born here are going to be citizens. It is also a given that we cannot let everyone who wants to "earn" citizenship by breaking our laws and enter the country. That is just not practical in the long term.

 

That's why I propose to control the border and quit pretending like poor people should know better and respect the laws of countries they would risk death to enter. Take away the handouts that are basically a beakon to the world's poor - come on in and abuse our taxpayers! Neither one of these are practical in the long run either...

 

What limits would you impose on Mexican immigration? Any?

 

Anything that jeopardizes national security and weeds out leeches. That should be the goal, in my mind.

 

Then what partitions would you create, if any?

 

Citizenship should remain the partition. NOT the partition for deporting 20 million illegals though. Criminal activity and welfare should be the partition for those 20 million. And I mean real criminals, not poor people who went for the bread dangling in their face...ie. illegal entry into the country.

 

If we need them, let's make them legal. If we don't, don't. I want to do more than punish employers. I want to sic thousands of hungry lawyers on them if they break the law.

 

I'm all for punishing employers however makes you happy. Hungry lawyers are as good a punishment as I can think of. Although, I'm still not sure we need any immigrants at all.

 

For someone who wants to eliminate welfare, you have a surprising confidence in the ability of government to categorize millions of people.

 

You have a non-government solution to border control? If not, I'm not the only person with a surprising confidence level in government doing anything.

 

So you'd agree we can deport them if they are caught crossing the border?

 

Absolutely. And I'm all for chasing them down and shooting them in the butt too. Bush should be ashamed for not stepping in on that one, by the way.

 

Do you realize how complicated it would be to write what you are saying into a workable law?

 

Not complicated at all. Amnesty for those who are here. Then, unlike Reagan, START ENFORCING THE FREAKING LAW! Not directed at you, but it drives me nuts. We wouldn't be in this position if we were truly doing our job.

 

Busted - for not reading any of my post. I never argued for a round up.

 

But, again, you're arguing with my quotes that were in reference to someone else that WAS arguing for a round up.

 

Busted - strawman. I don't blame them for wanting a better life. I just want to put a stop to the inflow by drying up the supply of jobs for illegals.

 

Are you kidding? So you want nothing but leeches?

 

How did the government ignore the Constitution? What provision are you talking about?

 

The government safety net - and income tax. It's not that they ignored the constitution, but they certainly ignored the intent of it. I actually would like to argue they went against the constitution, but I don't have time to go digging it all up right now. I might tomorrow, but I've been extremely busy lately. Maybe I could hire some illegals to do some of this...

 

I actually give illegals more credit than you do in one respect. I think they stay off of the grid and do not really use that many social services.

 

Depends on what you mean by social services. They eat up our money in hospitals, prisons and schools and is a large part of why I prefer to force citizenship rather than let people run around the country on the "path to citizenship". I don't think any immigrant should be allowed in until they are a citizen. It should all take place at the border - the secure border that exists only in my mind right now.

[Wormwood]

Yes, it was. How much effort did you put into it? Risk your life in a sardine can to get here? Paid much attention to human trafficing and how people get into that position? You have to be pretty damn desparate to take on the odds and put your life and money - and your kid's lives - in the hands of a smuggler to get you here.

You have to be pretty desperate to sell crack or rob people too. The level of desperation has nothing to do with the situation. That is an appeal to emotion.Besides, we need LESS desperate people willing to do anything for money, not more.

 

No we're not. There's a gaping hole in the ideology - including mine - that needs to be worked out. Pragmatism is just realizing the hole is there and patching it up.

 

Basically the only problem is what to do with all of the people. The biggest myth is that it would be impossible to get rid of 15 million people. As another poster mentioned, if you simply cut off their ability to work and recieve aid here, they will self deport and end the problem.

 

You and wormwood, both, missed this one because you both took it out of context. I wasn't crying about how we enslaved or slaughtered the natives here - that's a whole 'nother topic. I don't apologize for what happened to the indians, just like I don't shrug my shoulders in confusion as to why slavery still exists today.

 

The point I was making is that our ancestors came here and abused the land and it's people on a level that trumps, ten fold, the abuse we get from current immigrants. And the only reason that point was made was to put things in perspective.

What perspective is that? That we should fight foreign settlers at all costs? That a peaceful live and let live attitude toward mass migration will cause the destruction of a society? It seems like a bad example to me.

 

 

But that's all a citizen is though. You were either born here - my how impressive that citizenship status was earned. Or you migrated here, in which case we require a brief symbolic ritual that magically transforms you into the "citizen". Like learning the pledge of allegiance and some history...etc.

 

I don't want people living here and voting that don't know basic history and have no allegence for this country.

 

Not that I don't think it's necessary for them to do this ritual, but put it in perspective. You're basically advocating that people who have not performed this ritual are so far removed from being a "citizen"...I just don't believe in the clout you seem to be giving the "citizen".

 

In my mind, someone who ran from their government to get here, and all the horror that goes along with that, has done more to earn a life here than you or I.

Appeal to emotion. What they "had" to go through was a choice, and has no bearing on the quality of life or laws in America. If they spent half of the time and energy fixing their own system instead of figuring our ways to abuse ours, they might not have it so bad.

 

Force. Every border on the globe is maintained by force - or implied force. Again, I'm not crying about the indians' plight. I'm also not worried about our level of force and losing our country to anyone.

Do you know that Mexico has marched it's armies onto American soil numerous times to aid drug dealers? That alone could be a declaration of war and certainly reason to use force securing the boarder.

 

Maybe animosity was the wrong word, but the point I'm trying to make is that "citizenship" seems to be the grand partition. "If they would just go the legal route...blah blah blah". I think people point to this "category" without really thinking about it. I challenge the credit given "citizenship". I don't think the difference between a citizen and an non-citizen is such that one should be deported, irregardless of their contribution to our economy, while the other is totally immune.

 

I admire your empathy, but until we have a one world government your ideas are preposterously impractical. If it weren't for the citizens and boarders of this country, we wouldn't have a better standard of living than most countries. In other words, if what you were saying were true, then we wouldn't be having this problem because all cultures and countries would be on equal footing. That is clearly not the case.

 

Don't 12 to 20 million people "absorb" and therefore create job opportunities and growth in other areas - perhaps indirectly? Stands to reason that many people eat, live in houses, buy stuff...etc. Granted, some get all of this from our tax dollars, but these are augments to our economy.

 

Doesn't add up to the costs. They do add to the economy through things like food, but they cause a spike in insurance, public aid, and prison costs, which we all absorb. Also, they make it tough for Americans to make a decent wage because they flood the labor market and drive down wages while making rent more expensive. If they do get a house it is usually with several families which drives down property values of everyone around them. They do much more harm than good. I don't know if you lived in a city that had the "day without an immigrant" thing, where all of the illegals stayed home for a day to show the impact on the economy, but it was great. I wish they would do it every year. For one day, everyone spoke english everywhere I went. The freeway was not congested. No gangs of Latchkey kids walking around vandalizing my neighborhood. I saw a difference and thought it was much better. Many people felt the way I did, which is why I'm guessing they didn't do that again this May.

 

 

We don't need any of them do we? Isn't this a myth as well? And I agree, the employers should be punished. Just like we bust prostitutes AND johns, we should bust illegals AND their employers.

 

And do what with them?

 

 

Well, so far, I'm coming across as a bleeding heart for immigrants. In some respects, that's true, because it falls in line with the ideology that america is a nation of immigrants. But we're not a nation of ignorants, either. I don't think we should let people in with infectious diseases, criminal records, welfare bound - my plan would be a two part thing. I would collapse the welfare system as we know it today - another long discussion but would essentially be a distant memory. And would deny all government services.

 

What sets us apart from Mexico is our culture and our history. We had a great depression in this country and instead of exporting our problems North to Canada, we developed a safety-net system to stop poor Americans from falling through the cracks. Just because people in other countries wish to take advantage of our saftey net is no reason to put actual Americans at risk.

 

I wouldn't let them in to run around the country in the first place until they are citizens. My approach would be more of a forced citizenship. With an actual secure border, we welcome all who can get here, however you can get here, but then you are held and put through the citizenship process. You will learn the fundamentals about our country, and you will learn english enough to assimilate - you will be a citizen before you are allowed "in the country".

But how many are we talking about? You want to keep the 15 million we already have don't you? That is costing us billions and it's unfair to spend such large amounts to better people from another country especially at the expense of Americans who the government is supposed to be looking out for. Letting everyone stay is just pandering.

 

Kind of rehash at this point, but no I'm putting it in perspective. There's not enough to being a citizen in the first place to conclude that deportation of people who have established lives here is the proper punishment for breaking that law.

No deportation needed. Simply clear up the work and aid for illegals, and let self deportation take care of the rest. Strict penalties for business owners and actually enforcing laws that we already have on the books could clear this whole issue up within 6 months to a year. Imagine how much better society would be if we had those billions to put into social programs like education.

 

 

In this country, we punish people with jail and prison, fines for all kinds of crime. We don't rape guys that raped women - we put them in jail. We don't make someone stop at every corner because they ran a stop sign - we fine them. So why suddenly do we deport because they broke the immigration law? I say force their citizenship and punish them with jail or a fine.

Why? That is just taking the burden of paying for these people on ourselves in a different capacity. Our prisons are already over crowded. Let them build up their own society so they don't have to come here like this.That is the only answer that will solve the root problems. If they did do that, they wouldn't be stupid enough to let people take advantage of them...check it out...they have their own illegal immigration problem already (and why not see how they treat their illegals?). They would be better off trying to build something for themselves instead of just squeezing by here and causing problems for those of us who don't have another country to return home to when this one is ruined.

 

No flip flopping at all - what you're seeing here is a pendulum that rests in the center instead of pushed all the way one way or the other.

 

Yes, the citizenship credit is over rated to be deporting people who have already established family and their own life here. But it's not overrated to be deporting people who have NOT, and will not follow the rules.

Simply placing their value by determining their familial relations is shortsighted, and appeals to sentiment more than logic.If Pot was legalized tomorrow, they wouldn't just release evryone that was busted when it was still illegal, because they still broke the law and must be punished. Even though I disagree with that particular law, it is a law and penalties are to be expected.

 

In other words, if those 10 to 20 million had been deported before they got settled in, I would be all for it. Really stop and consider how totalitarian it would look when you go rounding up established family members and kicking them out. That's disgusting. If 100% of them were criminals and leeches - no problem, but they're not. They broke a law and should be punished like the rest of us are punished when we break laws - and we're not deported so....

Well that's because we are citizens. Like I said, why not see how Mexican's treat their illegals then get back to me on this one.

 

 

But you want to blame the immigrants and their overloaded desire to get here and get a better life - self serving just like all of us americans. I want to put the blame on government that's ignored the constitution and set up a system for the poor to leech off of and ultimately attract every loser on the planet - that WE get to pay for. Then add in the anti-american businesses selling out our country to hire someone for pennies on the dollar in some other country...

These are all related problems but you seem to choose conflicting sides from issue to issue. I want to blame everyone that is doing something wrong, which is ultimately resulting in a deteriorating quality of American life. That means the illegal immigrants, the businesses, and the government should pay for their mistakes and should take steps to reverse this downhill slide or soon there won't be a middle class.

[ParanoiA]

You have to be pretty desperate to sell crack or rob people too. The level of desperation has nothing to do with the situation. That is an appeal to emotion.Besides, we need LESS desperate people willing to do anything for money, not more.

 

That's silly to compare selling crack and robbing people to risking life and limb to enter america. It's not an appeal to emotion, it's pointing out an absurdity: That those who "woke up" a citizen somehow are more deserving of citizenship than those who had to actually risk something and almost certainly always loses something - like family. Something most of us will never understand, luckily.

 

I'm almost of the mind that citizenship should be a competition. I'm really fed up with the lazy notion that being born here is good enough, but sacrifice to be here is worth nothing.

 

Basically the only problem is what to do with all of the people. The biggest myth is that it would be impossible to get rid of 15 million people. As another poster mentioned, if you simply cut off their ability to work and recieve aid here, they will self deport and end the problem.

 

Or, become citizens. I like the idea.

 

What perspective is that? That we should fight foreign settlers at all costs? That a peaceful live and let live attitude toward mass migration will cause the destruction of a society? It seems like a bad example to me.

 

That they aren't the theives and murderers that our ancestors were. That their intent is productive, for the most part, and will contribute positively to the land.

 

I don't want people living here and voting that don't know basic history and have no allegence for this country.

 

Who doesn't? I would include a working knowledge of english as well.

 

Appeal to emotion. What they "had" to go through was a choice, and has no bearing on the quality of life or laws in America. If they spent half of the time and energy fixing their own system instead of figuring our ways to abuse ours, they might not have it so bad.

 

Exactly! They had a choice, and yet they gave up more to be here than those of us who got a free pass by being born here. Again, no emotional appeal, but rather the contrast of who's a deserving citizen. Maybe that doesn't matter, but when we start talking about rounding up people and kicking them out of the country, I think it's an ugly reference. That's what started that line of thought.

 

But you also have an excellent point. If millions of mexicans are willing to sacrifice - albeit not quite the sacrifice I've been talking about - then why aren't they willing to put that effort towards their own country? After all, they always seem to speak fondly of their country, their love for their homeland and so forth - yet not enough love to change it?

 

Do you know that Mexico has marched it's armies onto American soil numerous times to aid drug dealers? That alone could be a declaration of war and certainly reason to use force securing the boarder.

 

I'm all for it. I have no issues with chasing down and shooting drug dealers and armies who try to aid them. Maybe we should just take Mexico and then we could fix it all nice and maybe they'll just stay there?

 

I admire your empathy, but until we have a one world government your ideas are preposterously impractical. If it weren't for the citizens and boarders of this country, we wouldn't have a better standard of living than most countries. In other words, if what you were saying were true, then we wouldn't be having this problem because all cultures and countries would be on equal footing. That is clearly not the case.

 

Not sure I agree with that. The problem is the "illegality" of these immigrants, and the concentrated mass of inflow in one general area, as you've pointed out previously. The quality of citizens we're getting are mainly workers. People who want to work and make a living. Take away the safety net and illegal jobs and will get even better citizens. Isn't that the kind of people that contribute to a better way of life for the whole country?

 

Doesn't add up to the costs. They do add to the economy through things like food, but they cause a spike in insurance, public aid, and prison costs, which we all absorb. Also, they make it tough for Americans to make a decent wage because they flood the labor market and drive down wages while making rent more expensive.

 

We need numbers and source here. You're right about flooding the labor market, but I'm not convinced the economy doesn't rebound in other areas. I suspect a shift rather than a loss. But I'd like to see the data. I might look for this myself, too, a little later.

 

If they do get a house it is usually with several families which drives down property values of everyone around them.

 

So what? That's traditionalist thinking. So, you're not willing to share your house with your extended family and they are. Seems to be working out for them too huh? Maybe more poor people should follow that example instead of insisting they all have their own house...that they can't pay for...that my tax dollars cover for them.

 

Maybe we should follow their example, or quit bitching because we're not willing to sacrifice (again) our privacy and comfort of a more isolated living arrangement.

 

I don't know if you lived in a city that had the "day without an immigrant" thing, where all of the illegals stayed home for a day to show the impact on the economy, but it was great. I wish they would do it every year. For one day, everyone spoke english everywhere I went. The freeway was not congested. No gangs of Latchkey kids walking around vandalizing my neighborhood. I saw a difference and thought it was much better. Many people felt the way I did, which is why I'm guessing they didn't do that again this May.

 

I get the same benefit when the federal government has the day off too. I'm not kidding. The freeway is open and running clear - I get home in half the time. Don't know about the latchkey kids as it sounds like law enforcement sucks around there. I, personally haven't noticed poor immigrants being any more criminal-like than poor citizens. The ghetto is the ghetto and there's all kinds and colors. Keep any group of them at home and I'm sure we'll notice the difference.

 

Just because people in other countries wish to take advantage of our saftey net is no reason to put actual Americans at risk.

 

No, I'd get rid of the safety net irregardless of immigration. It just so happens to be a big plus in my immigration argument, but the safety net is illogical to me in the first place, at least in it's current form. No one should receive a dime from the government without doing work for it - period. That's not fool proof, but that at least sheds the laziness and lack of motivation that feeds the poverty culture. You don't get something for nothing.

 

No deportation needed. Simply clear up the work and aid for illegals, and let self deportation take care of the rest. Strict penalties for business owners and actually enforcing laws that we already have on the books could clear this whole issue up within 6 months to a year. Imagine how much better society would be if we had those billions to put into social programs like education.

 

Again, I love the idea. No arguments at all. The bigger issue to me, is getting our government motivated to enforce those laws. It's baffling to me how indifferent they seem to be. It's almost like there's a dirty secret that they don't want to admit...something like we don't have the money, manpower, facilities, equipment and etc to do what the american people want done. So, they play around with silly legislation to get us off of their back.

 

They would be better off trying to build something for themselves instead of just squeezing by here and causing problems for those of us who don't have another country to return home to when this one is ruined.

 

You're talking to the wrong person. You should direct this to Mexican TV. Our country isn't going to ruined by allowing droves of productive workers to enter. I will be ruined by allowed droves of sponges to enter.

 

Simply placing their value by determining their familial relations is shortsighted, and appeals to sentiment more than logic.

 

Maybe, but it's sensibile too. It would cost more to round them up and deport them all than it would to grant citizenship and punish differently.

 

Like I said, why not see how Mexican's treat their illegals then get back to me on this one.

 

Why do I care how Mexico handles their illegals? I don't care if they shoot them on sight or give them mansions to live in - has no bearing on how I believe WE should treat illegals.

 

I want to blame everyone that is doing something wrong, which is ultimately resulting in a deteriorating quality of American life. That means the illegal immigrants, the businesses, and the government should pay for their mistakes and should take steps to reverse this downhill slide or soon there won't be a middle class.

 

I will agree with that. I have agreed with that, and my proposal for forced citizenship agrees with that. And I won't agree with deporting 15 million people who've established lives here. We let this go and go, for years, and now we're going to act like they are soooo terrible and should be removed and blah blah blah - reminds me of a parent who lets their child get away with everything and then one day has decided they've had enough and beat the kid senseless. That's ridiculous. Should have been punishing the kid all along...

 

For the record, I don't believe illegals are saints or aren't guilty of anything. Going back home over the weekend, I noticed my home town seems to have doubled their population of mexican immigrants. I don't know these people are illegal, but everywhere I went I'm hearing spanish, I'm getting cold stares, rude behavior - they practically own Wal-Mart - I was a minority in that store.

 

You're right, they really don't give a crap if they bring down the country or not. And they seem to act entitled to things.

 

Sounds like real americans to me...

[Wormwood]

That's silly to compare selling crack and robbing people to risking life and limb to enter america. It's not an appeal to emotion' date=' it's pointing out an absurdity: That those who "woke up" a citizen somehow are more deserving of citizenship than those who had to actually risk something and almost certainly always loses something - like family. Something most of us will never understand, luckily.

 

I'm almost of the mind that citizenship should be a competition. I'm really fed up with the lazy notion that being born here is good enough, but sacrifice to be here is worth nothing. [/quote']

 

That is the way of the world. Even in this free market society, some are born poor and some are born rich. Do people "deserve" to be rich, simply because they were born into a rich family? Yes, because the people in their family had the foresight and ability to amass wealth and build a suitable life around themselves. They may live in a community with poor people, but this doesn't mean that the poor are free to pillage the rich just because of unfair starting points.

 

 

Or, become citizens. I like the idea.

Well not all of them can become citizens; that wouldn't help the problems they have already caused. Close off all avenues of work and aid, and let the people who are willing to go through the process apply the correct way and come back in a few years.

 

 

That they aren't the theives and murderers that our ancestors were. That their intent is productive, for the most part, and will contribute positively to the land

.

Oh really?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51644

Also this is pretty good:

http://ar.gopwing.com/illegalimmigrationposition.html

 

 

Who doesn't? I would include a working knowledge of english as well.

It doesn't matter what you would include though. If you allow all of the people already here to stay, then there is no incentive for them to learn the language. Within a few years spanish speakers will be the majority in California, then there will be absolutely no need to assimilate or pretend they have interest in our culture beyond the money we have.

 

 

Exactly! They had a choice, and yet they gave up more to be here than those of us who got a free pass by being born here. Again, no emotional appeal, but rather the contrast of who's a deserving citizen. Maybe that doesn't matter, but when we start talking about rounding up people and kicking them out of the country, I think it's an ugly reference. That's what started that line of thought.

Well, like I said, there is no need to round them up, just make it impossible for them to live here and they will just leave on their own. Also, I understand your sentiment about not earning citizenship, I do, but I think you are over simplifying to make it sound like your opinion is the only obvious choice; it's like when people are debating religion and one person says something to the effect of "well I can't prove there isn't an invisible unicorn standing next to me either". Talking about what they gave up etc, IS an appeal to emotion. There is no rational reason to take that into consideration, only emotional or empathetic ones. I'm sure their life sucks. Is that my fault? Did I tell them to have one of the worst governments on the planet? Did I tell them to run their country into the ground and be 50 years behind most industrialized nations? So why should I have to pay for their misfortune? Why should the laws of my country not apply to them? Why do the people that actually made the self sacrifice to come here legally get screwed SPECIFICALLY because they did things the right way?

 

But you also have an excellent point. If millions of mexicans are willing to sacrifice - albeit not quite the sacrifice I've been talking about - then why aren't they willing to put that effort towards their own country? After all, they always seem to speak fondly of their country, their love for their homeland and so forth - yet not enough love to change it?

 

Most illegals I have encountered do love Mexico much more than the U.S. It blows my mind that no one is willing to step up and just try to fix their obviously broken society. In all fairness, the new President of MExico has asked that the illegals come home so they could build infrastructure, but it could have just been a speech for show.

 

 

I'm all for it. I have no issues with chasing down and shooting drug dealers and armies who try to aid them. Maybe we should just take Mexico and then we could fix it all nice and maybe they'll just stay there?

That is what I say too. If we are going to have to take care of most of the country anyway, we might as well take over, force assimilation, and utilize the land so that it is actually profitable. That way all of the working aged men can still come to California if they want to, and I will teach English in Cabo to all of the cuties that were left behind.

 

 

Not sure I agree with that. The problem is the "illegality" of these immigrants, and the concentrated mass of inflow in one general area, as you've pointed out previously. The quality of citizens we're getting are mainly workers. People who want to work and make a living. Take away the safety net and illegal jobs and will get even better citizens. Isn't that the kind of people that contribute to a better way of life for the whole country?

Certainly, if it's a controlled intake that encourages assimilation. And if they did things the right way, those poor Mexican immigrants along with poor Americans would be making $28 an hour to drywall instead of $11.

 

 

We need numbers and source here. You're right about flooding the labor market, but I'm not convinced the economy doesn't rebound in other areas. I suspect a shift rather than a loss. But I'd like to see the data. I might look for this myself, too, a little later.

I'm at work right now and it's hard to find anything one way or the other, but I will try to find this one for you later.

Also, crack dealers and theives put money back into the economy. Even if it did somehow balance out, these are still people breaking the law. We don't say, "don't bust that meth lab, they buy food and gas and put money back into the community". You say they aren't the same but they are. They are both people that have no regard for law and order, and who will do what it takes to make more money the easiest way possible, and no matter who they have to hurt to get it. Like I said, maybe you want to live around millions of people like that, but I do not.

 

 

 

So what? That's traditionalist thinking. So, you're not willing to share your house with your extended family and they are. Seems to be working out for them too huh? Maybe more poor people should follow that example instead of insisting they all have their own house...that they can't pay for...that my tax dollars cover for them.

 

Maybe we should follow their example, or quit bitching because we're not willing to sacrifice (again) our privacy and comfort of a more isolated living arrangement.

That's one perspective. Now what about the people that bought houses in that neighborhood before they knew the government wasn't going to enforce it's laws? Should they lose money on their investment, or possibly their ability to retire simply because people in Mexico want to make a quick buck and are willing to live like animals? Can you honestly sit there and pretend that is even remotely fair to the citizens of this country? Our ancestors did what the people in Mexico will not; they stood up and demanded a better standard of living. That's why American's aren't packed into houses like clowns in a little car. Our culture and society is great because of our standard of living. To say that we should be willing to live like people from a 3rd world country, just to appease some poor people who don't want to bother with the formality of respecting this country, is absurd.

 

 

I get the same benefit when the federal government has the day off too. I'm not kidding. The freeway is open and running clear - I get home in half the time. Don't know about the latchkey kids as it sounds like law enforcement sucks around there. I, personally haven't noticed poor immigrants being any more criminal-like than poor citizens. The ghetto is the ghetto and there's all kinds and colors. Keep any group of them at home and I'm sure we'll notice the difference.

Is that a reason to invite more? Poor people produce the most crime, regardless of race. Inviting 15+ million poor people is asking for huge doses of crime. Look at any area with a large illegal immigrant population, then I bet you will also see spanish speaking gangs that are over crowding the prisons and on the streets trying to start trouble with non-hispanics. It's a culture clash born from poverty and a non-assimilating population.

 

As for the kids in my neighborhood; it isn't that the police aren't doing their job, it's just that there are too many little groups of thugish kids walking around with no parental supervision.

 

 

No, I'd get rid of the safety net irregardless of immigration. It just so happens to be a big plus in my immigration argument, but the safety net is illogical to me in the first place, at least in it's current form. No one should receive a dime from the government without doing work for it - period. That's not fool proof, but that at least sheds the laziness and lack of motivation that feeds the poverty culture. You don't get something for nothing.

You are confusing. One moment you are in full support of people coming here to take adavntage of our system because they are poor, or had to struggle to get here (even though many simply walk across the boarder with little to no struggle), yet in the next thought you don't support Americans who are poor. I can't stand the thought of someone who has lived here and worked here their whole life starving to death because their job was sent over seas, or because social security isn't enough after their spouse died or whatever. I think it's a good system that needs to be refined so that people that are able to work, do not recieve any benefits, but I don't think we should just let people fall through the cracks in society just because they ended up in a bad situation through no fault of their own. In a sense you are right that much importance is placed on citizenship. I suppose I had never really given it much thought. I believe every American should have a decent standard of living, just because they are Americans. basically, I root for my team, and screw everyone else.

 

 

Again, I love the idea. No arguments at all. The bigger issue to me, is getting our government motivated to enforce those laws. It's baffling to me how indifferent they seem to be. It's almost like there's a dirty secret that they don't want to admit...something like we don't have the money, manpower, facilities, equipment and etc to do what the american people want done. So, they play around with silly legislation to get us off of their back.

Well, most politicians are tied to big business. They are either from families that own big businesses, they have worked for big business and have lots of friends, or the lobbyists from big business pay for campaign spending. Politicians have no need to worry because none of them are in the middle class, and they could care less if it disappeared. Big business makes more profits when they have illegal employees because they can drive the wages down and pay less taxes. The only people that have an interest in protecting America are the citizens like the minute men, but the government shuts them down or limits what they can do, because the government has no legitimate interest in seeing these people leave.

 

 

You're talking to the wrong person. You should direct this to Mexican TV. Our country isn't going to ruined by allowing droves of productive workers to enter. I will be ruined by allowed droves of sponges to enter.

The two are inseperable. How do you think these guys are getting by on such diminished wages?

 

 

Maybe, but it's sensibile too. It would cost more to round them up and deport them all than it would to grant citizenship and punish differently.

We don't have to do either. If we make it impossible to work or recieve aid and tell them any illegal alien will be punished and not granted citizenship at ANY future time, they will leave on their own. Then they can apply legally, granted they were not caught before.

 

 

Why do I care how Mexico handles their illegals? I don't care if they shoot them on sight or give them mansions to live in - has no bearing on how I believe WE should treat illegals.

It should. Their attitude at home is that illegals are an unwanted an illegal drain (that are sometimes sold into slavery). When they come here they riot in the streets and call all Americans racists for not wanting them here. It's a joke. They know they can milk our weak will and sympathy, but would not dream of letting anyone do the EXACT same thing to them.

 

 

I will agree with that. I have agreed with that, and my proposal for forced citizenship agrees with that. And I won't agree with deporting 15 million people who've established lives here. We let this go and go, for years, and now we're going to act like they are soooo terrible and should be removed and blah blah blah - reminds me of a parent who lets their child get away with everything and then one day has decided they've had enough and beat the kid senseless. That's ridiculous. Should have been punishing the kid all along...

So does that mean that the child is just immune to punishment then?

 

For the record, I don't believe illegals are saints or aren't guilty of anything. Going back home over the weekend, I noticed my home town seems to have doubled their population of mexican immigrants. I don't know these people are illegal, but everywhere I went I'm hearing spanish, I'm getting cold stares, rude behavior - they practically own Wal-Mart - I was a minority in that store.

Sounds like EVERY city in Cali.

 

You're right, they really don't give a crap if they bring down the country or not. And they seem to act entitled to things.

 

Sounds like real americans to me...

While that is funny on some level, I hope you see the problems with this statement.

 

Great discussion BTW; you have given me some things to think about.

[ParanoiA]

I can't keep going with these long posts, it's killing me, between you and Haezed. Although, both of you should know you have given me a lot to think about and some interesting perspectives I hadn't considered before. I've definitely gotten something out of this discussion. Funny part is, I'm usually the guy at work arguing your side. You don't want to know what the people I work with think...

 

But I have to at least clear this up:

 

You are confusing. One moment you are in full support of people coming here to take adavntage of our system because they are poor, or had to struggle to get here (even though many simply walk across the boarder with little to no struggle), yet in the next thought you don't support Americans who are poor.

 

It's simple, I believe in freedom. The freedom to come here and do your best and keep what you earn. I believe in the dream of the immigrant nation, but I also believe in government taking as little from the people as possible. I don't believe the safety net is good for the country as it helps creates a culture of poverty.

 

Also, keep in mind, I said "in its present form" and I also said "no one should receive a dime from the government without working for it".

 

There are practical reasons to maintain something of a welfare program, but it shouldn't resemble what we have today. When people organize and demonstrate in front of the capital (ie..when the government shut down years ago) and slam their fists on the podium chanting "I want my welfare check!!" or "I have a right to my welfare!!" - it comes as no surprise to me.

 

The entitlement attitude in this country is disgusting and extremely wasteful. We have generations of people on welfare. I can't come up with the words to convey the sickness we have created with this idea.

 

Instead, every penny should be earned. Even the handicapped have something to contribute and many want to. Single moms get a lot of sympathy from me, and they can work as well. If you can't make it here in America...you can't make it anywhere.