What is the solution for ILLEGAL immigrants?

[doppelganger]

Sure open our borders to anyone who wants to come in. Let's do the same thing with our networks, lets get rid of our firewalls and let anyone connect to whatever they want, I'm sure they won't cause any trouble right?

Why would they cause trouble?

 

[djackson]

Speaking as one newly outside mainstream society(and I won't elaborate how or why),a born citizen/ex-patriot having turned my back on corporate political america and the government system tracking every move we make, all this discussion is moot anyway. It will be the Old Guard, whether Democrat or Republican, who make the final decision anyway, and any decision they make will have little affect on the street and lower class citizenry. Status Quo, the more things change the more they stay the same. No amount of reform will change the fact that there will be a large group of people unwilling to submit themselves to the Big Brother scrutiny of our screwed up government and social system, but willing to go to the trouble to illegally live in this country to reap benefits they cannot get anywhere else. I legally live in the United States, but other than my income, cannot be tracked and prefer it to be so (have you tried to just rent these days without giving up your first-born?). If I could get my level of income without using a social number and paying taxes, or shop online without a credit card, I certainly would. How many of you would be willing to do physical labor, or be a janitor, or house-servant for a 4$ an hour wage? I say leave them alone and let's focus on more serious problems in this country besides who wants to live here. Our educational system, or just our d******* president, to name a few.

 

[Ciscokid]

Why would they cause trouble?

Why? I don't know why I just know many do. I don't think there's a country out there that wants people coming in unchecked. There's a reason why there's a process to go through. Plus, I believe it's ok for a country to decide who it wants to be a citizen and who it doesn't. I think the country's best interests should be considered not the applicants.

 

[doppelganger]

Why? I don't know why I just know many do.

How is that different than people who are born citizens?

I think the country's best interests should be considered not the applicants.

That's fine. They'll stay illegal and they'll stay here, or you make them legal and they'll stay here. Those are the options.

 

[Mister_T]

Still, saying that it's hypocritical for me to ask others to abide by the rule of law because some of my long-dead ancestors didn't is a fallacy.

However, saying that because we have criminal citizens we therefore shouldn't bother asking non-citizens to follow the law when entering our country is a logical contortion.

I'm just saying people should practice what they preach. Announcing illegal immigrant criminal statistics (and I use that term loosely) is mud-slinging and it is done in poor taste.

Personally, I hold our own citizens who knowingly hire illegal immigrants more responsible for any problems it causes than the hard workers being exploited. Those are the criminals we should be focusing on, IMO, not the ones who accepted their invitation.

I agree that some people do exploit illegal immigrants. However, these people need jobs to survive and there are honest people who give immigrants jobs and do not exploit them. I see nothing wrong with providing people with a means to live.

 

[doppelganger]

Here's a summary of the last 100 years of research on immigrant crime compiled by the Center for Immigration Studies. There are arguments both ways.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/crime/toc.html

 

[Mister_T]

It is a rather silly an unitellectual point in my opinion.

In my opinion it is a subject that people would just like to sweep under the rug and forget about.

What Native Americans and the current deabte about immigration have in common is very little

How so? Immgrants are supposedly "invading" and ruining our economy and are becoming a threat, etc. We did the same thing to the Native Americans. We invaded, we ruined their way of life, we became a threat and we prevailed in taking their land. We were the "illegal immigrants" at one point in time.

The whole "we stole their land" canard is meaningless right now.

It's meaningless to those who just want to avoid the issue. I've already stated why it is relevant to this issue. My apologies if you don't care for me pointing out hypocrisy when I see it.

Pardon my sarcasm, but this is another very astute point. People that oppose illegal immigration (while obviously spitting on the legacy of Native Americans) are also racists (oh, no, I fogot, they are "preudieced). Wow! Terrific argument, you sound just like George W, Bush with that argument.

It appears I have stuck a nerve....interesting

I never said that pro-immigration = racist. I did say a good portion of the population is prejudice. I didn't even specify any particular group. You did that yourself.

If people are acting in a prejudice manner, then other people will call them on it. As much as you don't want to hear it, prejudice is a real thing and not some conspiracy theory.

I have a crazy idea; maybe the people in this country should decide who comes into this country . So Mexicans want to come here? So what? Just because you want to come to our country doesn't mean that you have the right to come to this country

That is not one of the founding principals of our country. This land is supposed to be an open door to all immigrants wanting to make a better life for themselves. That opputunity is supposed to be equal to all.

Actually I don't think this is true.

Sorry. The concept of 'Land of Oppurtunity" and "Every Man is Equal" is very true. You'll have to find another way to validate your disaproval with them.

I'll refer you to Wandered Off's point about law breaking citizens.

And I'll refer you to my reply to Wandered Off.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mister T,

In my opinion it is a subject that people would just like to sweep under the rug and forget about.

Or used to make absurd analogies.

How so? Immgrants are supposedly "invading" and ruining our economy and are becoming a threat, etc. We did the same thing to the Native Americans. We invaded, we ruined their way of life, we became a threat and we prevailed in taking their land. We were the "illegal immigrants" at one point in time.

This is where the analogy loses its luster. The Native Americans didn't have an organized polity with 'borders' that when transgressed could make you an 'illegal alien.' And when Europeans came to North America, Native Americans were eager to trade with them. And 'ruined their way of life', sigh, yes, the nomadic existence of tribal warfare needs more romanticizing. I think history has rendered its verdict on which way of life is better (excuse me, I'm am such a racist).

It appears I have stuck a nerve....interesting

I never said that pro-immigration = racist. I did say a good portion of the population is prejudice. I didn't even specify any particular group. You did that yourself.

If people are acting in a prejudice manner, then other people will call them on it. As much as you don't want to hear it, prejudice is a real thing and not some conspiracy theory.

No nerve was hit, just a silly comment on your part in my opinion. You equated being anti-illegal immigration with being prejudiced in an attempt to smear your opponents (much like George W. Bush). This is the kind of argumentation that muddies the debate; when you define your opponents as racists. I think you wrong, but I don't pull the racist or prejudice card because that would be irresponsible and wrong (although from your comments one could attempt to make a compelling case that you are prejudiced against 16th, 17th, and 18th century Europeans in your caricature of them killing Native Americans and taking their land).

That is not one of the founding principals of our country. This land is supposed to be an open door to all immigrants wanting to make a better life for themselves. That opputunity is supposed to be equal to all.

This is not true at all. We always had limits on how many people could come into our country, you're wrong.

Sorry. The concept of 'Land of Oppurtunity" and "Every Man is Equal" is very true. You'll have to find another way to validate your disaproval with them.

Actually slogans won't prove your point either. We had limits on how many people we alowed in this country. Flashing a few slogans doesn't give your argument any merit.

 

[Mister_T]

Or used to make absurd analogies.

Seems like you're the only one who finds it absurd.

And when Europeans came to North America, Native Americans were eager to trade with them. And 'ruined their way of life', sigh, yes, the nomadic existence of tribal warfare needs more romanticizing. I think history has rendered its verdict on which way of life is better (excuse me, I'm am such a racist).

So I suppose European immigrants giving our Native American friends blankets laced with small pox was part of this eager trading and "better way of life." Talk about sugar coating.....

You equated being anti-illegal immigration with being prejudiced in an attempt to smear your opponents

And you keep equating my stance with a blanket statement about people who are anti-immigration......after I had already clairfied my position. You want to talk about smearing your opponent when you should practice what you preach.

This is the kind of argumentation that muddies the debate; when you define your opponents as racists. I think you wrong, but I don't pull the racist or prejudice card because that would be irresponsible and wrong

I'm not muddying anything. I presented an argument that you can't seem to rebuttal and instead choose to avoid it by crituqing my debate methods.

As I have stated before, I never said anti-immigration=racists. That is your own unique twist. But, I will call things as I see them, which is what most people would do. Nothing wrong or irresponsible about that.

This is not true at all. We always had limits on how many people could come into our country, you're wrong.

Maybe you should go take history class again Joe. Limitation on the number of people immigrating didn't show up until after the Civil War.

http://www.cis.org/topics/history.html

Unless your counting naturalization laws that limited citizenship to "free white persons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

But I suppose laws like that never existed and I just make them up as I go along. :ignore:

Actually slogans won't prove your point either. We had limits on how many people we alowed in this country. Flashing a few slogans doesn't give your argument any merit

No. We've always had limits on what kind of people we allowed to our country. The limit on the number of people didn't show up until after the civil war.

And those slogans do prove a point Joe. Hypocrisy being one of them.

They are some of the founding slogans of our country and apparently, they have no merit in present day. But that doesn't mean they never had.

But maybe if you keep yourself in the dark long enough, they'll just go away. :ignore:

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mister T,

So I suppose European immigrants giving our Native American friends blankets laced with small pox was part of this eager trading and "better way of life." Talk about sugar coating.....

Talk about a loss of perpsective, as if the unfortunate actions of some are deemed all encompassing for you. According to this logic the Native American way of life was cannabalism, tribal warfare, and scalping. I thank God that this type of behavior was sent into the ash bin of history. If we are going to make this kind of absurd argument I'll take small pox laced blankets any day of the week.

And you keep equating my stance with a blanket statement about people who are anti-immigration......after I had already clairfied my position. You want to talk about smearing your opponent when you should practice what you preach.

Than why did you make it a point to say that there are number of people in America that are 'prejediced?' It seems like an odd interjection into this discussion. We are talking about illegal immigration and then you blurt out "a lot of Americans are prejudiced," it seems really suspicious. Because then you are saying that you are not making the connection between people being prejudiced and being against illegal immigration. If this is so, why did you bring up all of those 'prejudiced' people in the first place? You have some explaining to do.

Maybe you should go take history class again Joe. Limitation on the number of people immigrating didn't show up until after the Civil War.

http://www.cis.org/topics/history.html

Unless your counting naturalization laws that limited citizenship to "free white persons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

But I suppose laws like that never existed and I just make them up as I go along. :ignore:

So, you are proving my point, aren't you? You said we let people into this country all the time (your stunning evidence was a couple of slogans). I said that we always had limits on who we let into our country. You attempted to refute this by posting evidence that showed that we had limits on who we allowed to be citizens of this country.

So, my point was correct, we always (or since 1790) had limits and qualifications on who could come into our country and be citizens of this country.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

 

[Mister_T]

Talk about a loss of perpsective, as if the unfortunate actions of some are deemed all encompassing for you. According to this logic the Native American way of life was cannabalism, tribal warfare, and scalping. I thank God that this type of behavior was sent into the ash bin of history. If we are going to make this kind of absurd argument I'll take small pox laced blankets any day of the week.

You seem to have a problem with U.S. history (or a lack of understanding).

It was more than "just a few individuals." That is how we got our country Joe. You wanted to harp on immigrants for "not having respect for the law" and I have shown how we have not, and continue to not show respect for the Native Americans and their laws that they had. No amount of sugar coating is going to change that fact. Sorry if that is something you have a hard time swallowing.

You also have yet to explain to me how the illegal immigrant "problem" is different than our ancestors immigration here. You instead choose to repeatedly keep avoiding answering the question with a decent rebuttal and choose to keep focusing your argument on me. If you can't answer it than say so.

Than why did you make it a point to say that there are number of people in America that are 'prejediced?' It seems like an odd interjection into this discussion. We are talking about illegal immigration and then you blurt out "a lot of Americans are prejudiced," it seems really suspicious. Because then you are saying that you are not making the connection between people being prejudiced and being against illegal immigration. If this is so, why did you bring up all of those 'prejudiced' people in the first place? You have some explaining to do.

Joe, you brought up the race thing, not me. I just stated I can see how they might think that.

I believe it was a poll of Mexicans living in Mexico (in which they believed we were racist and not generous).

:bonk:

So, you are proving my point, aren't you? You said we let people into this country all the time (your stunning evidence was a couple of slogans). I said that we always had limits on who we let into our country.

Joe, my stunning evidence is basic American history...something which you should have already known if you're an American with a high school diploma.

AND, you stated we've always had limits on how many people we let in, not who.

This is not true at all. We always had limits on how many people could come into our country, you're wrong.

:bonk:

You attempted to refute this by posting evidence that showed that we had limits on who we allowed to be citizens of this country.

So, my point was correct, we always (or since 1790) had limits and qualifications on who could come into our country and be citizens of this country.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

You're point was not correct.You stated something different than what you are now claiming, and I proved you wrong on it.

I posted evidence that the only time we had laws that did not involve racism, was after the Civil War. If you want to consider those laws that were racist to have had merit, knock yourself out.

Thanks for proving the illegal community's point.

 

[lilithu]

The only people who are here legally are the Native Americans.

There is something ironic about invading a land, then setting up laws about who gets to come in "legally."

 

[lilithu]

But at the same time we have legal citizens who can't get a job....

Legal citizens can't get a job that pays decent wages. If they were willing to work for below minimum wage "illegally" and without health care they could get the same jobs.

Undocumented workers are not competing with legal citizens for the same pool of jobs.

Legal citizens are losing the jobs they previously held because those jobs are being exported overseas to a cheaper work pool there.

All of which is to benefit the employers who want to pay a little in wages as they can.

While we fight over the "legality" of undocumented workers, those who own the companies and the wealth continue to get richer. Nice system. They continue to get cheap labor from undocumented workers here and outsourced jobs overseas, plus they take none of the blame since working class Americans to take their frustrations out on those with the least amount of power rather than addressing who's really at fault.

 

[lilithu]

In areas where peolpe really concentrated on stopping illegal immigration (like putting up fences and potrolling those areas) saw a decrease in illegals coming in.

Dopp, I'm sure you're already aware of this but what Mr. Stocks is referring to is vigilantes with guns who take it upon themselves to patrol the border at night and shoot anyone who "looks illegal."

 

[doppelganger]

Dopp, I'm sure you're already aware of this but what Mr. Stocks is referring to is vigilantes with guns who take it upon themselves to patrol the border at night and shoot anyone who "looks illegal."

Yes, I'm aware of it. It only works in desolate places where the vigilantes aren't surrounded by town after town of primarily Spanish-speaking, "illegal looking" people who would never tolerate it. Since my description pretty much fits most of the Texas-Mexico border, the vigilante group approach is not likely to go over very well in Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

Did you check out the history of "Operation Wetback" that Moon Woman was proposing we return to, Lil?

 

[Mathematician]

What is the solution for ILLEGAL immigrants?

Abolishing international borders in place of regional ones? Or am I dreaming?

 

[Inky]

Undocumented workers are not competing with legal citizens for the same pool of jobs. ...
While we fight over the "legality" of undocumented workers, those who own the companies and the wealth continue to get richer. Nice system. They continue to get cheap labor from undocumented workers here and outsourced jobs overseas, plus they take none of the blame since working class Americans to take their frustrations out on those with the least amount of power rather than addressing who's really at fault.

Exactly. They outsource to places where they can get away with unsafe factories, low wages, child labor, etc. The best way to support American workers is to support companies who choose to keep their manufacturing here, not to beat on immigrants.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mister T,

It was more than "just a few individuals." That is how we got our country Joe. You wanted to harp on immigrants for "not having respect for the law" and I have shown how we have not, and continue to not show respect for the Native Americans and their laws that they had. No amount of sugar coating is going to change that fact. Sorry if that is something you have a hard time swallowing.

You have yet to show me where the Native Americans had set boundaries and when someone would cross one of them, they would be "illegal aliens." You have to show me this to prove your point, so far you haven't. Since you are attempting to make an analogy here it would help if the two situations were similar.

And my reluctant endorsement of blankets laced with small pox was an attempt to play the absurd "atrocity face off" game that you thought should be interjected into this discussion.

You simplistically summed up 17th, 18th, 19th century European way of life to that of giving Native Americans blankets laced with small pox. Do you realize how wrong that is? Even if you abosutely detest 17th, 18th, and 19th century Europeans (which you clearly do, can somebody say prejudiced?) you ought not to sum up their entire way of life to an atrocity committed by a minority of them. The irony is that the fruits of those evil Europeans' way of life is being manifested itself in the possibility of the two us having this very conversation.

You also have yet to explain to me how the illegal immigrant "problem" is different than our ancestors immigration here. You instead choose to repeatedly keep avoiding answering the question with a decent rebuttal and choose to keep focusing your argument on me. If you can't answer it than say so.

You answered it in your own statement: illegal immigration. It is illegal immigration, that is a problem; it has to do with a respect for the rule of law which is vital for a society to even function.

You have to show me where our ancestors broke laws instead of claiming that the vast majority of them committed atrocities like lacing blankets with small pox, if you can't answer then say so.

Joe, you brought up the race thing, not me. I just stated I can see how they might think that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Stocks
I believe it was a poll of Mexicans living in Mexico (in which they believed we were racist and not generous).


:bonk:

Not so fast, if that poll is correct and Mexicans have a rather low opinion of Americans, then why are we letting over 10 million of them come into our country? And last time I chekced, millions of Americans weren't breaking laws to enter Mexico. Mexicans are and it would be helpful to know what some of their attitudes are (especially if they don't particularly care for us). So, the attitudes and percieved prejudices of Americans is irrelevent here (because they are not entering Mexico illegally), which brings me to my next point. If a country harbors certain attitudes that seem to show that they don't like you too much, maybe you should stop those people from coming into the country (again this has to do with ILLEGAL immigration).

You're point was not correct.You stated something different than what you are now claiming, and I proved you wrong on it.

I posted evidence that the only time we had laws that did not involve racism, was after the Civil War. If you want to consider those laws that were racist to have had merit, knock yourself out.

Thanks for proving the illegal community's point.

You are right, you did correct a mistake I made. We always decided who could come into our country, not necessarily how many, although controlling the who will have an effect on the how many.

But my fundamental point is true; in America we always decided who would be citizens of our country. Those laws may have been racist in the past, but that is beside the point. The point now, as a country should we have the ability to say who gets to be an American citizen or not? I say yes, and as a country we have always had this (even if it was for unfortunate reasons).

But you were also incorrect when you said:

That is not one of the founding principals of our country. This land is supposed to be an open door to all immigrants wanting to make a better life for themselves. That opputunity is supposed to be equal to all.

Now, I know that you may have been trying to be clever when you said this (pointing out the hypocrisy because our ancestors were race exterminating bigots bent on world domination). That silliness does not bother me. Clealry from the evidence you posted (those racist immigration policies) shows that our country was not founded on the notion that all immigrants could come here. It was founded on the idea that we can decide who can come and be a citizen of our country. That this may have been argued at that time in unfortunate ways is moot, but the principle still holds today.

And nice job at painting anti-illegal immigration community as racist, if being against illegal immigration is racist, that I am one proud racist.

 

[JayHawes]

There's no such things as an "illegal" immigrant. Immigrans are immigrants- they come for work. Land does not truely belong to anyone, Governments just see dollar signs, and want to charge taxes...

 

[lilithu]

There's no such things as an "illegal" immigrant. Immigrans are immigrants- they come for work. Land does not truely belong to anyone, Governments just see dollar signs, and want to charge taxes...

I agree. :yes: But it isn't just the governments. There are people who see immigrants as "the Other" and want to minimize them.

Wonder what would have happened if the Egyptians had deported Joseph, Mary, and the infant Jesus because they were "illegal." :sarcastic

Matthew 25:
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,...

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in,...?

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'