M
- Status
T
tafan
Guest
Referring to people as dirt does tends to back up my arguments of racism being behind this.
Are they? Well, thats interesting. Why then do you use the amnesty label, when every comprehensive immigration reform package had much stiffer penalties for violations than are currently on the books. Ilegal entry into this country is presently a felony not to be punishable by a fine greater than $250. Yet, Bush’s and McCain’s proposals called for penalties of a couple of thousand dollars if people wanted to stay. Yet this was called amnesty. The definition of amnesty is the forgiveness of the crime and the removal of penalties. But any proposed path to legal residency or temporary worker status was called amnesty, even when that path was couple with a significant increase in the penalty already on the books.
So that’t what underlying the need to keep mexicans out of this country. Well, I guess its not quite as bad as bigotry. Unfortunately, it does not stand up to historical scrutiny. Bush, a very pro-immigrant govenor, carried the hispanic vote in Texas both running for govenor and president in Texas (in 2000). He came into the presidency proposing an immigration reform policy that was quite fair and just. If the republicans would not have shot it down and followed their party leader at the time, as opposed to anti-mexican comments (such as calling them dirt), hispanics and the republicans were a very good political fit. They are a people who don’t expect much out of the government, they are socially conservative. IMO, the republican’s position on immigration setback the pro-life movement for years in this country. They drove the hispanics to the democrats. In many congressional districts, the shift in the hispanic vote between 2000 and 2006 was enough to account for the turnover from the seat from republicans to democrats.
D
d97c
Guest
Stop the bigotry argument. That’s so old. Address the facts. This poll shows why amnesty and another forgiveness show will result in MORE ILLEGALS.
Given these poll numbers, how can the open borderites go on pretending that legalizing 12 million illegal aliens will lead to the end of illegal immigration?
Poll: Mexicans say Mexican-Americans Owe Loyalty to Mexico Over U.S.
October 15, 2009 By Adam Brickley
(CNSNews.com)–Nearly 70 percent of Mexicans surveyed said that Mexican-Americans–including those born in the United States–**owe their primary loyalty to Mexico, not the U.S., **according to a Zogby poll commissioned by the Center for Immigration Studies.
The in-person poll, taken during August and September, sampled 1,004 Mexicans across the country on subjects related to illegal immigration and amnesty in the United States.
When asked “**Should the primary loyalty of Mexican-Americans be to Mexico or to the U.S.?” 68.8 percent of respondents in Mexico said that it should be to Mexico, **while only 19.7 percent said it should be to the United States. Another 11.5 percent of respondents said they were not sure.
Steven Camarota, director of research at the CIS, told CNSNews.com that the Spanish phrase translated as “Mexican-Americans” (“los estadounidenses de origen mexicano”) was carefully selected to ensure that respondents knew that it included those born in the U.S. He particularly stressed the Spanish word ‘estadounidenses.’
“It means ‘United States-ian’–(that’s) how it translates,” he said, “and it’s understood by everyone in Mexico to include, clearly, people born in the United States of Mexican ancestry.”
Camarota also told CNSNews.com that just over one-third of respondents (36 percent) said that they would come to the U.S., if they could. Of that group, 68 percent said they think that Mexican-Americans owe loyalty to Mexico over the United States. [LA notes: this seems to be contradicting the main assertion of the article, but read the next paragraph and you’ll see that it doesn’t.]]
The data shows that the percentage of potential illegal immigrants who hold that belief is nearly identical to the percentage among the general Mexican population, Camarota said.
Other poll results centered on how Mexico itself would react to an amnesty in the United States–which was the reason for the poll, according to Camarota.
“How an amnesty would be perceived or received in that country is important to think about if you’re arguing for legalization,” he noted. “That’s the number one reason we did it.”
The results clearly showed that illegal immigration tends to encourage more people to emigrate in the future. he said.
“In Mexico, Mexicans overwhelmingly–especially those who have family here (in the U.S. )– overwhelmingly say that it (amnesty) would encourage illegal immigration in the future.”
In fact, 56.2 percent of respondents did indeed answer “more likely” when asked, “If the U.S. gave permanent legal status to undocumented immigrants (migrantes indocumentados), do you think it would make your friends and family members more likely or less likely to go to the U.S. as indocumentados, or would it make no difference?”
Just over 16 percent said that it would make them less likely to come to the U.S., while 19.6 percent said that it would make no difference. Another 7.6 responded that they were not sure.
Camarota was careful to note the limitations of the poll.
“It doesn’t tell us what Mexican-Americans think, it tells us what the expectation of Mexican-Americans is among Mexicans,” he said.
Nevertheless, the poll does have its uses, he added.
“(It) tells us what kind of society Mexican immigrants came out of, what the expectation is for those who go here,” Camarota told CNSNews.com.
He also said that, when asking which nation Mexican-Americans should be loyal to, “If you’re asking the question in Mexico, you don’t have to worry that people will give a guarded answer.”
Calls to Mexican-American and immgration groups were not returned. "
Here is the Catholic teaching on illegals
“It is obviously the task of Governments to regulate the migratory flows with full respect for the dignity of the persons and for their families’ needs, mindful of the requirements of the host societies.” Mater et Magistra …Pope John 23rd .
IN THE UNITED STATES, “THE PEOPLE” are “THE GOVERNMENT.”…and the people have the right to regulate this invasion of illegal aliens…and we will do so.
Given these poll numbers, how can the open borderites go on pretending that legalizing 12 million illegal aliens will lead to the end of illegal immigration?
Poll: Mexicans say Mexican-Americans Owe Loyalty to Mexico Over U.S.
October 15, 2009 By Adam Brickley
(CNSNews.com)–Nearly 70 percent of Mexicans surveyed said that Mexican-Americans–including those born in the United States–**owe their primary loyalty to Mexico, not the U.S., **according to a Zogby poll commissioned by the Center for Immigration Studies.
The in-person poll, taken during August and September, sampled 1,004 Mexicans across the country on subjects related to illegal immigration and amnesty in the United States.
When asked “**Should the primary loyalty of Mexican-Americans be to Mexico or to the U.S.?” 68.8 percent of respondents in Mexico said that it should be to Mexico, **while only 19.7 percent said it should be to the United States. Another 11.5 percent of respondents said they were not sure.
Steven Camarota, director of research at the CIS, told CNSNews.com that the Spanish phrase translated as “Mexican-Americans” (“los estadounidenses de origen mexicano”) was carefully selected to ensure that respondents knew that it included those born in the U.S. He particularly stressed the Spanish word ‘estadounidenses.’
“It means ‘United States-ian’–(that’s) how it translates,” he said, “and it’s understood by everyone in Mexico to include, clearly, people born in the United States of Mexican ancestry.”
Camarota also told CNSNews.com that just over one-third of respondents (36 percent) said that they would come to the U.S., if they could. Of that group, 68 percent said they think that Mexican-Americans owe loyalty to Mexico over the United States. [LA notes: this seems to be contradicting the main assertion of the article, but read the next paragraph and you’ll see that it doesn’t.]]
The data shows that the percentage of potential illegal immigrants who hold that belief is nearly identical to the percentage among the general Mexican population, Camarota said.
Other poll results centered on how Mexico itself would react to an amnesty in the United States–which was the reason for the poll, according to Camarota.
“How an amnesty would be perceived or received in that country is important to think about if you’re arguing for legalization,” he noted. “That’s the number one reason we did it.”
The results clearly showed that illegal immigration tends to encourage more people to emigrate in the future. he said.
“In Mexico, Mexicans overwhelmingly–especially those who have family here (in the U.S. )– overwhelmingly say that it (amnesty) would encourage illegal immigration in the future.”
In fact, 56.2 percent of respondents did indeed answer “more likely” when asked, “If the U.S. gave permanent legal status to undocumented immigrants (migrantes indocumentados), do you think it would make your friends and family members more likely or less likely to go to the U.S. as indocumentados, or would it make no difference?”
Just over 16 percent said that it would make them less likely to come to the U.S., while 19.6 percent said that it would make no difference. Another 7.6 responded that they were not sure.
Camarota was careful to note the limitations of the poll.
“It doesn’t tell us what Mexican-Americans think, it tells us what the expectation of Mexican-Americans is among Mexicans,” he said.
Nevertheless, the poll does have its uses, he added.
“(It) tells us what kind of society Mexican immigrants came out of, what the expectation is for those who go here,” Camarota told CNSNews.com.
He also said that, when asking which nation Mexican-Americans should be loyal to, “If you’re asking the question in Mexico, you don’t have to worry that people will give a guarded answer.”
Calls to Mexican-American and immgration groups were not returned. "
Here is the Catholic teaching on illegals
“It is obviously the task of Governments to regulate the migratory flows with full respect for the dignity of the persons and for their families’ needs, mindful of the requirements of the host societies.” Mater et Magistra …Pope John 23rd .
IN THE UNITED STATES, “THE PEOPLE” are “THE GOVERNMENT.”…and the people have the right to regulate this invasion of illegal aliens…and we will do so.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Here’s the bottom line on the Justice and Morality issue:
I’m speaking of illegal, not legal immigration. Illegal immigration overwhelmingly comes from south of our border, and of that, the vast majority from Mexico.
The perpetuation of U.S. business and the U.S. government’s acceptance and even welcoming of illegal immigration (by low-salary hiring, by refusal to verify or report, by the schools permitting and even institutionalizing the replacing population) is nothing less than Formal Cooperation with Evil. It is an alliance with the Devil: the Devil being the corrupt, oppressive, greedy government-business alliance in Mexico which permits an obscenely wealthy upper class to thrive and destroys opportunity for anyone ambitious enough to seek economic liberation.
U.S. capitalism and U.S. pro-illegal-immigration groups, and their rhetoric and their activities, are the great Enablers of this evil Co-Dependent partnership which victimizes the poor. The answer is not to give the alcoholic one more drink, one more excuse to continue, one more refuge for his alcoholism. The answer is radical intolerance of such a sick partnership. (Mexico gets to continue its oppression; undocumented workers “get to” send millions of dollars annually to their relatives, which in turn keeps the natives there from rebelling against the corruption of their gov’t. It’s a sick addiction for perverse reasons.)
If the Bishops or any Catholic truly cared about justice for the rural poor of Mexico, they would have long ago urged the U.S. gov’t to initiate economic and other sanctions against the Mexican gov’t so that the oppressed population there would have realizeable alternatives that didn’t include the breaking of U.S. law, the risking of their own lives, and spending their lives living a lie in a different country.
Illegal immigration is not the promotion of Truth, not the promotion of Justice. And I haven’t even touched on the outright thievery of the education of economically captive (not mobile), impoverished U.S. schoolchildren, who have the misfortune of living in poor neighborhoods in CA, TX, NM, AZ, and increasingly elsewhere, where they find themselves suddenly the language minority and the victims of such evil: suddenly their classes are being taught in a language they do not understand, in the name of “justice”: English-speaking children & their families, without power, without a “lobby” in the Left or anywhere else, have nowhere to turn and are being deprived of this fundamental birthright of a public education when they have no economic alternative. Don’t tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about: Education is my profession, and I meet these families and see this every week.
Not just Formal Cooperation with Evil. Material cooperation with Evil.
Shame on anyone who promotes this status quo and dares to call it Justice, let alone – choke,choke – Christianity.
I’m speaking of illegal, not legal immigration. Illegal immigration overwhelmingly comes from south of our border, and of that, the vast majority from Mexico.
The perpetuation of U.S. business and the U.S. government’s acceptance and even welcoming of illegal immigration (by low-salary hiring, by refusal to verify or report, by the schools permitting and even institutionalizing the replacing population) is nothing less than Formal Cooperation with Evil. It is an alliance with the Devil: the Devil being the corrupt, oppressive, greedy government-business alliance in Mexico which permits an obscenely wealthy upper class to thrive and destroys opportunity for anyone ambitious enough to seek economic liberation.
U.S. capitalism and U.S. pro-illegal-immigration groups, and their rhetoric and their activities, are the great Enablers of this evil Co-Dependent partnership which victimizes the poor. The answer is not to give the alcoholic one more drink, one more excuse to continue, one more refuge for his alcoholism. The answer is radical intolerance of such a sick partnership. (Mexico gets to continue its oppression; undocumented workers “get to” send millions of dollars annually to their relatives, which in turn keeps the natives there from rebelling against the corruption of their gov’t. It’s a sick addiction for perverse reasons.)
If the Bishops or any Catholic truly cared about justice for the rural poor of Mexico, they would have long ago urged the U.S. gov’t to initiate economic and other sanctions against the Mexican gov’t so that the oppressed population there would have realizeable alternatives that didn’t include the breaking of U.S. law, the risking of their own lives, and spending their lives living a lie in a different country.
Illegal immigration is not the promotion of Truth, not the promotion of Justice. And I haven’t even touched on the outright thievery of the education of economically captive (not mobile), impoverished U.S. schoolchildren, who have the misfortune of living in poor neighborhoods in CA, TX, NM, AZ, and increasingly elsewhere, where they find themselves suddenly the language minority and the victims of such evil: suddenly their classes are being taught in a language they do not understand, in the name of “justice”: English-speaking children & their families, without power, without a “lobby” in the Left or anywhere else, have nowhere to turn and are being deprived of this fundamental birthright of a public education when they have no economic alternative. Don’t tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about: Education is my profession, and I meet these families and see this every week.
Not just Formal Cooperation with Evil. Material cooperation with Evil.
Shame on anyone who promotes this status quo and dares to call it Justice, let alone – choke,choke – Christianity.
T
tafan
Guest
=d97c:
markbrumbaugh:
Why, we have people referred to as dirt. We have one group singled out and highlighted for youth violence issues when other groups which have the same problem are praised.
Apparently you have not given them the time to even read their position, since due consideration is quick. You are judging based on your pre-conceived notion on the organization. Has your diocesan bishop made a statement on the issue? If so, can you articulate it? Finally, which of the examples that I quoted in the first paragraph of post #36 do you think are far left wing and you disagree with?
Sorry, I don’t. I used to have a minority interest in a human resources company that provided labor of some midwest slaughterhouses. One of our customers was actually raided by the IMS (horrbily wrong the way those are carried out, but thats a different story), everyone of those workers had payroll taxes and income taxes deducted from their pay. They all had SSNs when they were hired and we used the requirements at the time to verify those numbers (admittedly 10 years ago those requirements were loose). I have a very good friend from high school whose family owns a small dairy, everyone of their workers pay taxes. The employer’s attitude is, we verify their legality as required by law, after that its not our problem. Everyoen of their workers have taxes deducted. There is nothing fast and loose with this. You are simply uninformed on the issue.
T
tafan
Guest
I agree that illegal immigration should be stopped, but I do not see this as equating that immigration of Mexican laborers should be stopped. But that is the end result of all of you guy’s position.
d97c ad least admits this (rather inderectly),
Elizabeth502, find me one english speaking american school child who is stuck in school classes taught in spanish. Anywhere. These examples are downright absurd.
d97c ad least admits this (rather inderectly),
Elizabeth502, find me one english speaking american school child who is stuck in school classes taught in spanish. Anywhere. These examples are downright absurd.
E
Ender
Guest
Ender
T
tafan
Guest
For those of you who say our laws are fine, we just need to inforce them, lets review the following.
Lets say I am a Mexican carpenter and want to come to the US to improve to work in the construction industry. I want to do so legally, lets look at my options for visas into the United States.
L1 visa - temporary visa for intra-company internation transfers, Doesn’t apply
H1B - requires sponsoring company and qualified immigrant, Doesn’t apply
TN - Requires at least a bachelor’s degree in almost all fields, Doesn’t applu
E1/E2 - reserved for people employed in trade or investing with certain countries, Doesn’t apply
F1/M1 - non-immigrant students visitor visa (we will skip discussing other visitor visas), doesn’t apply
K1 - requires a fiance in the US, doesn’t apply
K3/K4/V visas - requires a spouse or parent (if you are a minor) in the US, doesn’t apply
Then we get to the much coveted green card and there categories
EB1 Priority workers = 40,000 a year,worldwide, doesn’t apply
EB2 Professionals with advanced degrees, doesn’t apply
EB3 Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers - 40,000 a year and only 7% from any single country, a 7-8 year waiting period. Maybe, but it is long, long shot.
EB4 - special workers, such as ministers, doesn’t work
EB5 - investment professionals, Doesn’t apply
So, as a mexican worker in Mexico, I am out of luck.
In other words, if comprehensive immigration reform is not on the table, your position is against illegal AND LEGAL immigration from mexico of laborers. So please quit denying that fact at least.
I have a lot of work to do today, so just to clarify where I am coming from on this. I am a life-long republican voter and a conservative on almost everyissue. I like limited government, I like free markets, I hate most forms of taxation, I like freedom of people, I am completely pro-life. When I vote, I am probably a single-issue voter, I completly vote on pro-life stance of the candidate. This has kept me from voting for some republican candidates, I have never voted for a democrat on this issue. But if a staunch pro-life, liberal democrat ran against a pro-choice republican (I not that is theoretical), I would vote for the democrat.
But on this issue, the majority of the republican party has it wrong. The anti-immigration sentiment of the republican party is not even a conservative stance in my opinioin. Believing that our economy cannot support a steady and increased growth in its work force is both a lack of faith in our free-enterprise economy and an acknowledgement that the population-control folks are correct, ie the only way to prosper as a society is to limit the number of people.
I live in Dallas,TX and I attend a parish that has been transformed in the last 20 years from a conservative, anglo parish to 90% Latino. I am very active at this parish and the more I am around the Latino’s (who are very much more active in their faith than the anglos), the more I appreciate them. I have seen first hand our how enforcement of our immigration laws (that supposedly work) have split up families for years. I have seen first hand how our lack of a legal means for immigration for these people has forced a large number of people to “live underground” in our society in a most unjust way. While I have seen the stress it can put on a tight community to have to adapt to an influx of immigrants, I have not seen any lasting negative effects. Quite the opposite, our parish is one of the most active and devout (and poor) parishes in our dioceses.
edited to add:
As a friend of mine who crews with my on my sailboat once said, “you just love the brown people, don’t you?” And I answered, yes I do. Our Lady does, so I must also. And, while I have been pillored on secular forums and in personal discussions for my views on immigration, I would have thought that on a Catholic forum, where people take their faith seriously, they would have at least read the Bishop’s documents on the issue before condemning the Bishop’s stance, I would have expected a certain degree of understanding for our brothers in faith, I would have expected much more critical thinking on the issue.
Good day all.
Lets say I am a Mexican carpenter and want to come to the US to improve to work in the construction industry. I want to do so legally, lets look at my options for visas into the United States.
L1 visa - temporary visa for intra-company internation transfers, Doesn’t apply
H1B - requires sponsoring company and qualified immigrant, Doesn’t apply
TN - Requires at least a bachelor’s degree in almost all fields, Doesn’t applu
E1/E2 - reserved for people employed in trade or investing with certain countries, Doesn’t apply
F1/M1 - non-immigrant students visitor visa (we will skip discussing other visitor visas), doesn’t apply
K1 - requires a fiance in the US, doesn’t apply
K3/K4/V visas - requires a spouse or parent (if you are a minor) in the US, doesn’t apply
Then we get to the much coveted green card and there categories
EB1 Priority workers = 40,000 a year,worldwide, doesn’t apply
EB2 Professionals with advanced degrees, doesn’t apply
EB3 Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers - 40,000 a year and only 7% from any single country, a 7-8 year waiting period. Maybe, but it is long, long shot.
EB4 - special workers, such as ministers, doesn’t work
EB5 - investment professionals, Doesn’t apply
So, as a mexican worker in Mexico, I am out of luck.
In other words, if comprehensive immigration reform is not on the table, your position is against illegal AND LEGAL immigration from mexico of laborers. So please quit denying that fact at least.
I have a lot of work to do today, so just to clarify where I am coming from on this. I am a life-long republican voter and a conservative on almost everyissue. I like limited government, I like free markets, I hate most forms of taxation, I like freedom of people, I am completely pro-life. When I vote, I am probably a single-issue voter, I completly vote on pro-life stance of the candidate. This has kept me from voting for some republican candidates, I have never voted for a democrat on this issue. But if a staunch pro-life, liberal democrat ran against a pro-choice republican (I not that is theoretical), I would vote for the democrat.
But on this issue, the majority of the republican party has it wrong. The anti-immigration sentiment of the republican party is not even a conservative stance in my opinioin. Believing that our economy cannot support a steady and increased growth in its work force is both a lack of faith in our free-enterprise economy and an acknowledgement that the population-control folks are correct, ie the only way to prosper as a society is to limit the number of people.
I live in Dallas,TX and I attend a parish that has been transformed in the last 20 years from a conservative, anglo parish to 90% Latino. I am very active at this parish and the more I am around the Latino’s (who are very much more active in their faith than the anglos), the more I appreciate them. I have seen first hand our how enforcement of our immigration laws (that supposedly work) have split up families for years. I have seen first hand how our lack of a legal means for immigration for these people has forced a large number of people to “live underground” in our society in a most unjust way. While I have seen the stress it can put on a tight community to have to adapt to an influx of immigrants, I have not seen any lasting negative effects. Quite the opposite, our parish is one of the most active and devout (and poor) parishes in our dioceses.
edited to add:
As a friend of mine who crews with my on my sailboat once said, “you just love the brown people, don’t you?” And I answered, yes I do. Our Lady does, so I must also. And, while I have been pillored on secular forums and in personal discussions for my views on immigration, I would have thought that on a Catholic forum, where people take their faith seriously, they would have at least read the Bishop’s documents on the issue before condemning the Bishop’s stance, I would have expected a certain degree of understanding for our brothers in faith, I would have expected much more critical thinking on the issue.
Good day all.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Not one. Hundreds. (Your ignorance is downright absurd, not to mention embarrassing.)They come to me to get homeschooled when they can afford to (when their parents’ lifestyle allows that, since homeschooling requires parental involvement, which in turn requires a certain level of economic viability. The upper end of the lower middle class can escape the situation of classes taught in Spanish, but this segment represents a tiny economic minority.)
Most English-speaking students are completely captive. Clearly you don’t live in a hugely lower-class-Hispanic immigration region, and/or have no intimate connection with the educational environment therein. It’s the critical mass of non-English-speaking immigrants which creates the situation enabling a new dominant culture & language to thrive at the expense of the equally unempowered.
The adults immigrating illegally from Mexico are maybe 3rd/4th grade educations in their own country. They do not have the literacy skills to capacitate their children to speak and write the English language, nor do they, for the most part, understand what’s going on in school with respect to their children. Just as importantly, the adults have little motivation to learn English, since they blend right in with the local dominant-Hispanic population and conduct their business with other immigrants. In the publics, including in the charters (some of which ironically were created to preserve the teaching of classes in English, to English-only speakers), Spanish-speaking students are allowed to speak to teachers exclusively in Spanish, etc.
Clearly you don’t know what you’re talking aobut, so please don’t try to pretend to have knowledge of the regions which are overrun.
D
d97c
Guest
Our economic woes create an opportunity - for they will encourage many illegals to return home, potentially removing a red flag that has made rational policymaking politically impossible.
The failure of the Bush '06 “comprehensive immigration reform” shows us that many Americans are unwilling to provide amnesty (under any name) to 12 million illegals, especially when the border remains porous and we would simply have to consider yet another amnesty a few years down the road. A real solution is one that resolves the issue for the long term - several decades, at the least.
How does the current econ downturn make it easier to address this issue? Simply put, illegal immigration is highly responsive to economic conditions - when times are bad, fewer come (and more return home). It’s happening now in 2010.
President Obama can take a very simple step to complement this “natural” reduction: speed up the widespread adoption of the E-Verify program. This program lets employers compare the records of their new hires with more than 500 million records held by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration.
A simple scan - no more complex than scanning your bank card at the grocery store - would quickly tell employers if their new hire is authorized to work.
Many employers will object - especially those who prefer to hide behind claims that they don’t know if any given worker is illegal. Nor does expanding E-Verify provide the “showy” symbol that some politicians prefer - like building a taller and stronger fence on the Mexican border. We need a fence, but remember, around 40 percent of illegal immigrants don’t enter through that border.
Instead, E-Verify detects illegal immigrants at the place where such detection is costliest to them - as they try to get a job. It also makes employers more accountable for their actions. It should greatly slow down the number of illegals entering the country.
With those tensions reduced, Americans would be much more willing to revisit the issue of what to do with the illegals already here. And a little patience and benign neglect can have a large payoff in this matter.
A widespread amnesty may not be needed in just a few years. The deep recession and stricter enforcement will encourage many illegal immigrants to return.
Meanwhile, millions of those who remain will sprout deep roots by marrying and having children (who will be US citizens by birth). These family ties will make many illegal immigrants eligible for legal status within existing law.
And in a world with greatly reduced illegal immigration, it would be easier to enact minor changes in current law to speed up the granting of permanent visas to relatives of citizens.
The economy also presents a unique opportunity for reforming legal immigration. Most of the legal immigrants enter the country without regard to how their skills match our labor-market needs. The lack of any skill filters - combined with the high volume of low-skill illegal immigration - aggravates the economic hardships faced by disadvantaged Americans.
We can both improve the status of our low-skill workforce and substantially increase the economic benefits to the nation from immigration by **adopting a system that encourages the entry of high-skill immigrants. Surely, in time of economic duress, it’s wise to fashion immigration policy in a way that is most beneficial to the country.
One little-noticed provision in the failed Bush proposal was the introduction of what is called a “point system” - which awards points to applicants with particular skills, and grants visas only to those who exceed a threshold level of points…Used wisely, immigration policy can be a tool that can help Americans even during difficult times. .**
The failure of the Bush '06 “comprehensive immigration reform” shows us that many Americans are unwilling to provide amnesty (under any name) to 12 million illegals, especially when the border remains porous and we would simply have to consider yet another amnesty a few years down the road. A real solution is one that resolves the issue for the long term - several decades, at the least.
How does the current econ downturn make it easier to address this issue? Simply put, illegal immigration is highly responsive to economic conditions - when times are bad, fewer come (and more return home). It’s happening now in 2010.
President Obama can take a very simple step to complement this “natural” reduction: speed up the widespread adoption of the E-Verify program. This program lets employers compare the records of their new hires with more than 500 million records held by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration.
A simple scan - no more complex than scanning your bank card at the grocery store - would quickly tell employers if their new hire is authorized to work.
Many employers will object - especially those who prefer to hide behind claims that they don’t know if any given worker is illegal. Nor does expanding E-Verify provide the “showy” symbol that some politicians prefer - like building a taller and stronger fence on the Mexican border. We need a fence, but remember, around 40 percent of illegal immigrants don’t enter through that border.
Instead, E-Verify detects illegal immigrants at the place where such detection is costliest to them - as they try to get a job. It also makes employers more accountable for their actions. It should greatly slow down the number of illegals entering the country.
With those tensions reduced, Americans would be much more willing to revisit the issue of what to do with the illegals already here. And a little patience and benign neglect can have a large payoff in this matter.
A widespread amnesty may not be needed in just a few years. The deep recession and stricter enforcement will encourage many illegal immigrants to return.
Meanwhile, millions of those who remain will sprout deep roots by marrying and having children (who will be US citizens by birth). These family ties will make many illegal immigrants eligible for legal status within existing law.
And in a world with greatly reduced illegal immigration, it would be easier to enact minor changes in current law to speed up the granting of permanent visas to relatives of citizens.
The economy also presents a unique opportunity for reforming legal immigration. Most of the legal immigrants enter the country without regard to how their skills match our labor-market needs. The lack of any skill filters - combined with the high volume of low-skill illegal immigration - aggravates the economic hardships faced by disadvantaged Americans.
We can both improve the status of our low-skill workforce and substantially increase the economic benefits to the nation from immigration by **adopting a system that encourages the entry of high-skill immigrants. Surely, in time of economic duress, it’s wise to fashion immigration policy in a way that is most beneficial to the country.
One little-noticed provision in the failed Bush proposal was the introduction of what is called a “point system” - which awards points to applicants with particular skills, and grants visas only to those who exceed a threshold level of points…Used wisely, immigration policy can be a tool that can help Americans even during difficult times. .**
T
tafan
Guest
elizabeth, where? What school system? I will be willing to do a little research to see if I am wrong. And if I am on this point, I will admit it.
D
d97c
Guest
People who care about this nation are tired of people like you raising race every time someone who is other race is involved as a subject of a conversation. Guess what…I would feel the same if these people were coming over the Canadian border…white folks.
The race card is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Deal with the facts. Your “bigot” name calling has NO effect on your subjects except pity.
You continue to site yourself as the expert. That doesnt impress me.
Even that lousy pro-Obama commentator New York Times commentator Paul Krugman disagrees with you. He wrote the following in an editorial in the NY Times: QUOTE
I’m instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.
First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.
Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren’t for Mexican immigration.
That’s why it’s intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do “jobs that Americans will not do.” The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.
Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.
Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they’re here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country’s experience with immigration, “We wanted a labor force, but human beings came.” Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don’t pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.
Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely. Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of where they were born.
We shouldn’t exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a “modest role” in growing U.S. inequality. And the political threat that low-skill immigration poses to the welfare state is more serious than the fiscal threat: the disastrous Medicare drug bill alone does far more to undermine the finances of our social insurance system than the whole burden of dealing with illegal immigrants.
But modest problems are still real problems, and immigration is becoming a major political issue. What are we going to do about it?
Realistically, we’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration. But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House, which has led to huge protests — legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care — is simply immoral.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush’s plan for a “guest worker” program is clearly designed by and for corporate interests, who’d love to have a low-wage work force that couldn’t vote. Not only is it deeply un-American; it does nothing to reduce the adverse effect of immigration on wages. And because guest workers would face the prospect of deportation after a few years, they would have no incentive to become integrated into our society.
What about a guest-worker program that includes a clearer route to citizenship? I’d still be careful. Whatever the bill’s intentions, it could all too easily end up having the same effect as the Bush plan in practice — that is, it could create a permanent underclass of disenfranchised workers.
We need to do something about immigration, and soon. But I’d rather see Congress fail to agree on anything this year than have it rush into ill-considered legislation that betrays our moral and democratic principles" END QUOTE
If you are going to discuss anything with us, I welcome some references showing Krugman is wrong.
The race card is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Deal with the facts. Your “bigot” name calling has NO effect on your subjects except pity.
You continue to site yourself as the expert. That doesnt impress me.
Even that lousy pro-Obama commentator New York Times commentator Paul Krugman disagrees with you. He wrote the following in an editorial in the NY Times: QUOTE
I’m instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.
First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.
Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren’t for Mexican immigration.
That’s why it’s intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do “jobs that Americans will not do.” The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.
Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.
Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they’re here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country’s experience with immigration, “We wanted a labor force, but human beings came.” Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don’t pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.
Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely. Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of where they were born.
We shouldn’t exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a “modest role” in growing U.S. inequality. And the political threat that low-skill immigration poses to the welfare state is more serious than the fiscal threat: the disastrous Medicare drug bill alone does far more to undermine the finances of our social insurance system than the whole burden of dealing with illegal immigrants.
But modest problems are still real problems, and immigration is becoming a major political issue. What are we going to do about it?
Realistically, we’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration. But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House, which has led to huge protests — legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care — is simply immoral.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush’s plan for a “guest worker” program is clearly designed by and for corporate interests, who’d love to have a low-wage work force that couldn’t vote. Not only is it deeply un-American; it does nothing to reduce the adverse effect of immigration on wages. And because guest workers would face the prospect of deportation after a few years, they would have no incentive to become integrated into our society.
What about a guest-worker program that includes a clearer route to citizenship? I’d still be careful. Whatever the bill’s intentions, it could all too easily end up having the same effect as the Bush plan in practice — that is, it could create a permanent underclass of disenfranchised workers.
We need to do something about immigration, and soon. But I’d rather see Congress fail to agree on anything this year than have it rush into ill-considered legislation that betrays our moral and democratic principles" END QUOTE
If you are going to discuss anything with us, I welcome some references showing Krugman is wrong.
T
tafan
Guest
From a quick review, I have made one comment that could be described as siting myself as an expert, the rest of the time I have presented arguments and external sources for my point of view. So it seems that what doesn’t impress you is someone who doesn’t agree with your point of view. Doesn’t surprise me, since you seem to not have even taken time to read the Bishops’ docuement on the issue.
As for calling people racists on this forum, ok, I quit that. I agree. But in return, your side should stop making derogatory comments about the Mexican people. And when they do, I reserve the right to identify those acts as racist.
T
tafan
Guest
Of course Krugman thinks the influx of lower-skilled workers from Mexico is a problem for the economy. He is a liberal that wholeheartely buys into Malthusian economics which states that resources are limited such that population growth is a disaster. A position I am always shocked to see agreement with by conservatives when it comes to immigration.
BTW, most of these workers are not that low-skilled. Many of them have quite good skills, carpentry, mechanics, husbandry, etc.
BTW, most of these workers are not that low-skilled. Many of them have quite good skills, carpentry, mechanics, husbandry, etc.
D
d97c
Guest
If Candians were doing this, Id talk about “Canadians !”…but it was an illegal Mexican alien…and here is the link
immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html
(Here’s one of the entries)
• Sister Helen Chaska was murdered in late summer 2002 by being strangled with her rosary beads — the beads were found imbedded in her neck. She was also raped, as was another nun who accompanied Sister Helen during walking prayers. Both women were in Klamath Falls, Oregon, doing missionary work when the crimes occurred. Her accused murderer is Maximiliano Esparza, who is in the United States illegally, and was convicted in 1988 of robbery and kidnapping in Los Angeles. He was sentenced to six years in prison, was released in 1992 and was on probation until 1995. By law, this man should have been deported to Mexico after his release in 1992. Instead, the INS allowed him to remain in the United States and commit even more heinous crimes. In this article, Michelle Malkin notes the Esparza crime and other examples of INS standard procedure of “catch and release” in violation of law.
Sentencing Update: On April 8, 2003, Esparza was sentenced to life in prison without parole. The sentence was a deal worked out with the prosecution to avoid a trial with the possibility of the death penalty. Klamath County District Attorney Ed Caleb said that he wanted to avoid forcing the other nun who had been attacked to testify. In addition, Caleb sent a bill to the Mexican consulate for the cost of investigating and prosecuting the case. Not much chance of getting any money, but it is a reasonable gesture.
Third world crime in this country from ILLEGAL ALIENS is off the chart. CANADIAN immigrant crime is not.
immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html
(Here’s one of the entries)
• Sister Helen Chaska was murdered in late summer 2002 by being strangled with her rosary beads — the beads were found imbedded in her neck. She was also raped, as was another nun who accompanied Sister Helen during walking prayers. Both women were in Klamath Falls, Oregon, doing missionary work when the crimes occurred. Her accused murderer is Maximiliano Esparza, who is in the United States illegally, and was convicted in 1988 of robbery and kidnapping in Los Angeles. He was sentenced to six years in prison, was released in 1992 and was on probation until 1995. By law, this man should have been deported to Mexico after his release in 1992. Instead, the INS allowed him to remain in the United States and commit even more heinous crimes. In this article, Michelle Malkin notes the Esparza crime and other examples of INS standard procedure of “catch and release” in violation of law.
Sentencing Update: On April 8, 2003, Esparza was sentenced to life in prison without parole. The sentence was a deal worked out with the prosecution to avoid a trial with the possibility of the death penalty. Klamath County District Attorney Ed Caleb said that he wanted to avoid forcing the other nun who had been attacked to testify. In addition, Caleb sent a bill to the Mexican consulate for the cost of investigating and prosecuting the case. Not much chance of getting any money, but it is a reasonable gesture.
Third world crime in this country from ILLEGAL ALIENS is off the chart. CANADIAN immigrant crime is not.
M
markbrumbaugh
Guest
Yes.
I was told in a homily that if I had health insurance I was stealing from the poor. I was told that we were to call illegal aliens undocumented citizens in the future. In the prayers of the Faithful I was supposed to pray for Health Care and Immigration Reform. When I challenged the deacon on this, he told me it came right from the USCCB, and that he was present when Cardinal DiNardo wrote the letter to Congress on Health Care. And the pastor, then told me that this was NOT my church and I’d better brace myself because there is more coming and I obviously was an uncharitable person.
BTW re “dirt”…I think if you include my entire comment, that I was illustrating that immigrant Mexicans are NO DIFFERENT than anybody else. Some are good, some are not. That doesn’t make me a racist. Good Grief.
M
markbrumbaugh
Guest
Tafan, did you even read that I am married to a woman of Mexican heritage and that my extended family of Mexican heritage is over 100 people? Did you read that I said about them being skilled workers, many of whom would give you the shirt off their back? If you data is correct, that there is no way to get a green card to come over here and be a carpenter, ranch hand, mason, etc. then I’ll sure concede that needs to be fixed.
But I am NOT a racist and amnesty for lawbreakers is not an answer, it will only make the problem continue to grow.
T
tafan
Guest
This is a half truth, here is your post in its entirety (post #38)
Yes you point out that “others” are good and “some” are skilled. But nohere in this post do you say make a comparison to other groups (ie “anyboady else”). On top of that, if we parse your statement correctly, you know “many” mexicans, “some” are skilled, “others” are generous, “some are dirt”. The only way to interpret this is that many implies a greater number than “some” and "some implies at best an equal num,ber to “others”. So in other words you said explicitly that just as many mexicans are dirt as are generous. Sorry, that is a racist statement. You may not have meant it that way, but and I would be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt if you didn’t now mistrepresent what you wrote about comparing them to other groups.
d7c:
In my continued attempts to research your external sources, I need a little help on this one.
Here is the Catholic teaching on illegals
I did a quick review of Mater et Magistra and cannot find this quote anywhere. I did find paragraph 45 which mentioned migration, but not yours. Please help me out with a paragraph number.
"45. In dealing with the family the Supreme Pontiff affirmed that the private ownership of material goods has a great part to play in promoting the welfare of family life. It “secures for the father of a family the healthy liberty he needs in order to fulfil the duties assigned him by the Creator regarding the physical, spiritual and religious welfare of the family.” (22) It is in this that the right of families to migrate is rooted. And so Our Predecessor, in speaking of migration, admonished both parties involved, namely the country of departure and the country receiving the newcomers, to seek always “to eliminate as far as possible all obstacles to the birth and growth of real confidence” (24) between the nations. In this way both will contribute to, and share in, the increased welfare of man and the progress of culture. "
Having said that, I admit that quote gives an portion of the church’s teaching and I have acknowledged that (as do the bishops in their document no less than 4 times). But I was very interested in learning John XIII’s complete view on it, so I was disappointed to not find the quote. Any help would be appreciated.
It does seem very convienient on your part to take one statement of churhc teaching and support your view and disregard what other pope’s have had to say on the subject.
I might also add, that the encyclical you gave has a grave weakness, since John XIII effectively acknowlegdes Malthusain population theory. Of course, Blessed John XIII is to be excused for this because in his day, this theory was widely accepted. It has only been discredited in the last 20 years of so. But any reading of certain parts of that encyclical eeds to take this flaw into account.
Later this evening, I will post a more complete view of what John Paull II had to say on the subject of immigration. Since it appears you may at least be interested in what Popes have to say on the subject, even though you are not interested in what Bishops have to say.
T
tafan
Guest
This doesn’t help much to answer my guestion. What your pastor may have said about heathcare in the pulpit and what Cardinal DiNardo may have said about healthcare is not what I asked. I asked about what statements, if any, your bishop had made about immigration.
Am I to assume you are from the Houston Diocese? If so, I guess I will go and see what Cardinal DiNardo has said about the subject.
E
Ender
Guest
If such comments were made to you they were contemptible. Worse, the statements in the homily were wrong and those particular prayers of the faithful were totally inappropriate.
All of this is evidence of the politicization of the clergy for which the bishops deserve the blame since they can’t seem to keep it straight either. You were right to challenge the deacon, who apparently doesn’t understand what he read, and you should consider writing to the bishop explaining how your comments were received and asking for clarification. You should not put up with that kind of treatment … or that degree of ignorance.
Ender
- Status