Create a Fair Immigration Policy

[Mirdath]

Conquerers sneak across borders illegally and take what is not legally theirs to take in order to live in another land.

Hows is this different from ‘illegal immigrants’?

Can those who were conquered be rightfully considered ‘illegal immigrants’?

What about El Shukri?

Conquerors don’t sneak; generally they come thundering across the border with weapons out.

Immigrants of any kind are not interested in conquest; they aren’t trying to make the land a new province of their home country. And with the birth rate in the US, immigration is the only thing keeping our population constant or growing. Additionally, immigrants are extremely important to the labor pool – remember, when we didn’t have enough, we enslaved people to fill it!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mirdath:

Conquerors don’t sneak; generally they come thundering across the border with weapons out.

This is a generalism. You would have to substantiate it such that it proves that there are no exceptions to the rule.

I’ll save you the trouble. The Goths snuck into Rome. The European settlers snuck onto American lands which did not belong to them.

90% of the indigenous population of America were ‘conquered’ by European diseases. There was no thundering across borders with weapons out. I have posted this information before. You have not addressed this information but merely tautologized your point of view.

Mirdath:

Immigrants of any kind are not interested in conquest;

This is a generalism. You would have to substantiate it such that it proves that there are no exceptions to the rule.

I’ll save you the trouble.

El-Shukri definitely sneaks into countries he wishes to conquer. Otherwise why would he steal passports, forge passports, use aliases?

Followers of Bin Laden definitely sneak into Iraq from Morrocco, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Europe with a view to conquering Iraq.

Followers of Bin Laden definitely sneak into Europe with a view to conquering European countries.

Mirdath:

And with the birth rate in the US, immigration is the only thing keeping our population constant or growing. Additionally, immigrants are extremely important to the labor pool – remember, when we didn’t have enough, we enslaved people to fill it!

And illegal immigration is the same as immigration? So for the sake of keeping your population numbers up and keeping a strong labour pool, you should encourage folks to do whatever they want with no respect for the rule of law?

I see that you have not addressed the question of the status of the First Nations in America, Mexico, and Canada vis a vis crossing the border. Are they illegals when they cross without going through customs?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…
And illegal immigration is the same as immigration?..

From an economic status yes! Another poster mentioned only allowing the educated enter the US, however from economics that is the group we need least. The US produces most of the world highly educated people, thus our needs are for domestic, and other manual labors. Here is another serious economic problem often missed, it cost a lot of money and people to secure a border both through direct cost (fences, patrols) and through inspection of every person or truck that crosses legally. Look at how much each US State spend to protect itself from other US states, zero is the amount. So when the fear is removed zero is the markets answer. Given our current US debt reducing economy by both spending money and losing money to prevent free people from accepting employment is economic suicide. This economic strain will reduce the quality of life for each American.

It is important to remember legal is a status, and can be changed with the stroke of a pen. If we allowed free people to enter through the freeway system simply saying “I am Mexican with a Mexican id and here to look for a job” Then that is legal, and frankly more realistic.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As for slow infiltration: we in Canada – some of us anyway – are aware that some folks who had paid for passage to the New World were barred from entering Canada when the ships finally docked here. Those hopeful but doomed human souls died on the boats in plain view of a wide wide country. (And we won’t mention what fair green isle those unfortunate folks were from, will we? But I will mention how slow an infiltration that was for some ordinary civilians.)

The Coffin Ships are an untold story – as is the death of the Irish in the swamps around New Orleans.

Make a long story short: I have yet to see a point of view which explains the status of First Nations in the Americas before , during, and after the War of Independence vis a vis border crossing. While everything else you have said on the subject of ‘illegal migration’ makes perfect sense to me, it leaves out

a) the status of First Nations vis a vis border crossing; and
b) the status of First Nations before there was even a border to cross and has that status changed and if so on what basis?

The First Nations were considered by the United States to be an anomaly. They were ultimately to be “civilized” and subject to the same rules as everyone else, but in the interm they were to be treated as semi-soverign nations. Those on our side of the border were under our government, those on your side, under yours.

The tripping point for some very reasonable and otherwise responsible arguments to tighten up on the border is: the status of the First Nations.

If they had managed to implement an immigration policy, they would be the Only Natioins.

Today I had to re-examine an unconscious Canadian reflex in my own thinking. Perhaps it is time for some Americans to look at a somewhat anachronistic isolationism which persists in your interpretation of contemporary American conservatism.

Is the WOT an isolationist policy?

Just the opposite – it is a failure to be fully engaged in nations where terrorism breeds.

What happens if you concede the WOT?

The same thing that would have happened if we had conceded WWII. We surrender Western Civilization.

We have been talking about perimeter control replacing border control now for years.

We have been talking about a free-trade zone (similar to the EU) in the Americas now for years.

Chavez (say hello to his leel frenz) has been losing no time while we are yakking as if there is no tomorrow.

Certainly one risk of the present ineffective border control policy is that folks like Adnan el-Shukrijumah and his American Hiroshima leel frenz have been crossing that border with impugnity while the First Nations little guys get nailed.

El-Shukri of course has Bin Laden’s billions behind him and the little guys have zip behind them.

Are we being suckered? Um… yes.

Are we at risk? Of course. What I am suggesting is that in some ways the risk of incurring harm is very much greater than anyone has so far suggested in these threads. Very much greater. Because we have not really discussed American Hiroshima, have we?

And in some ways the risk of causing harm is also very much greater. Because we have not yet discussed the status of the First Nations, have we?

Somewhere inbetween these two polarities lie the legitimate concerns yall have articulated about the cost – social and economic – of not closing the border more effectively. Legitimate concerns which must be balanced with the other two concerns I have brought forward.

The question is: how is that balance to be struck? Staying stuck on closing the border isn’t working. It doesn’t even correspond imho to current American foreign policy.

You yourself say that we have a responsibility to review our policies to see if they can actually be implemented. If we don’t then we are stuck with ‘good intentions’ as to a moral outcome alongside an actual outcome whose morality is on very shaky ground.

Correct.

 

[Mirdath]

This is a generalism. You would have to substantiate it such that it proves that there are no exceptions to the rule.

I’ll save you the trouble. The Goths snuck into Rome. The European settlers snuck onto American lands which did not belong to them.

With the intent of taking it over, thank you. Stealth as a part of war or takeover is an ancient development. The Goths, the Vandals, the conquistadors, and the Puritans were not immigrants. In each case the newcomers subjugated or drove out the original inhabitants.

And illegal immigration is the same as immigration? So for the sake of keeping your population numbers up and keeping a strong labour pool, you should encourage folks to do whatever they want with no respect for the rule of law?

Illegal immigration is by definition a type of immigration. As I explained earlier, I happen to favor open borders, under which there would be no such thing as ‘illegal’ immigration.

I see that you have not addressed the question of the status of the First Nations in America, Mexico, and Canada vis a vis crossing the border. Are they illegals when they cross without going through customs?

Obviously yes. What of it?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Conquerors don’t sneak; generally they come thundering across the border with weapons out.

Which goes to show that by and large, the immigrants who took over the Americas were not conquerors – by your definition.

Immigrants of any kind are not interested in conquest; they aren’t trying to make the land a new province of their home country.

The heck they’re not – there is a serious “reconquesta” movement among Mexicans in the US.

But whether they intend it or not, that’s what happens.

And with the birth rate in the US, immigration is the only thing keeping our population constant or growing. Additionally, immigrants are extremely important to the labor pool – remember, when we didn’t have enough, we enslaved people to fill it!

So you argue that if we stopped illegal immigration we’d hve to bo back to slavery?

 

[Mirdath]

So you argue that if we stopped illegal immigration we’d hve to bo back to slavery?

Do you even know what conditions are like for illegal immigrant workers now? It’s not that different. And were that line of dirt-cheap, expendable labor successfully closed off (not very likely, considering both the tenacity of illegal immigrants and the corporate interest in hiring them), I’ve no doubt there’d be an imaginative solution coming along quickly – after all, America needs its fruit and its crying-eagle-festooned tshirts.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

With the intent of taking it over, thank you. Stealth as a part of war or takeover is an ancient development.

But it is not thundering with weapons drawn.

Mirdath:

The Goths, the Vandals, the conquistadors, and the Puritans were not immigrants.

The Goths were. The conquistadors were visitors who outstayed their welcome.

Mirdath:

In each case the newcomers subjugated or drove out the original inhabitants.

90% of the First Nations peoples were ‘conquered’ by European diseases. The conquistators marched into villages emptied by disease.

Mirdath:

Illegal immigration is by definition a type of immigration.

As it is by definition a type of legal infraction.

Mirdath:

As I explained earlier, I happen to favor open borders, under which there would be no such thing as ‘illegal’ immigration.

To what end?

Mirdath:

Obviously yes. What of it?

Please substantiate your claim.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

there is a serious “reconquesta” movement among Mexicans in the US.

I had forgotten that. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Do you even know what conditions are like for illegal immigrant workers now?

Helllooo? I live in Arkansas! This is a rural, agricultural state. I see plenty of illegals. They work pretty much as I used to as a boy when I would pick cotton or do other farm work.

Now, how do you know so much about illegals? What’s your basis of experience.

It’s not that different. And were that line of dirt-cheap, expendable labor successfully closed off (not very likely, considering both the tenacity of illegal immigrants and the corporate interest in hiring them), I’ve no doubt there’d be an imaginative solution coming along quickly – after all, America needs its fruit and its crying-eagle-festooned tshirts.

Ah, the old “they didn’t actually do it, but*** I ***think they would, so string 'em up” ploy.

 

[Mirdath]

You hardly needed that cottonpickin’ money to survive and feed your family, vern. You didn’t need it for anything, except what your parents thought you should work for to learn ‘the Value of a Dollar’ or something. And the poor people in this world don’t need any lessons about that. Please.

Also the ‘they didn’t actually do it, but I think they would’ argument is exactly the same argument the anti-immigration people here have been using. So I can give an opinion too.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You hardly needed that cottonpickin’ money to survive and feed your family, vern. You didn’t need it for anything, except what your parents thought you should work for to learn ‘the Value of a Dollar’ or something. And the poor people in this world don’t need any lessons about that. Please.

No doubt when you picked cotton, you did need the money to survive and feed your family?

Also the ‘they didn’t actually do it, but I think they would’ argument is exactly the same argument the anti-immigration people here have been using. So I can give an opinion too.

As a wise man once said, “Uninformed opinions are like a certain part of the anamtomy. Everyone has one and they all stink.”

And Uncle Herbivore added, “If someone thinks yours is fascinating, you’d better hope he’s a proctoloigist.”

 

[lsusportsfan]

Ok how about we inject the Church into this- First some powerful words from Pius the XII

“The emigre Holy Family of Nazareth, fleeing into Egypt, is the archetype of every refugee family. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, living in exile in Egypt to escape the fury of an evil king, are, for all times and places, the models and protectors of every migrant, alien and refugee of whatever kind who, **whether compelled by fear or persecution or by want, **is forced to leave his native land, his beloved parents and relatives, his close friends and to seek a foreign soil.” (Exsul Familia)

The Catechism

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

I find that each side in this debate focuses on the above and just see what they want to see as instead taking it as whole.

One must also read this

2209 The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures. Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s prerogatives or interfere in its life.

2210 The importance of the family for the life and well-being of society13 entails a particular responsibility for society to support and strengthen marriage and the family. Civil authority should consider it a grave duty "to acknowledge the true nature of marriage and the family, to protect and foster them, to safeguard public morality, and promote domestic prosperity."14

Folks that comes into play here when we are talking about breaking up familes through deportation on a massive scale

On the other side

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."47

To be honest I hear neither message from either the “Delete the border Crowd” nor the Tancredo/Minuteman Crowd.

Yep it is not fun but the Church is telling us this isnt easy and to avoid the extremes in this and to always repsect the Dignity of the HUman person as well as the laws of the State

 

[vern_humphrey]

To be honest I hear neither message from either the “Delete the border Crowd” nor the Tancredo/Minuteman Crowd.

Yep it is not fun but the Church is telling us this isnt easy and to avoid the extremes in this and to always repsect the Dignity of the HUman person as well as the laws of the State

How refreshing to see some common sense injected into the debate.

We need to revamp our system for several reasons:

1. Illegal immigration is harmful: It offers cover for drug smugglers (and possibly terrorists, too), it endangers those coming in, and it fosters the predatory labor black market.
2. Approaches which reward illegals – such as amnesty – do nothing to solve the problem.
3. We have a right and a duty to manage immigration for the benefit of the whole – and despite what some say, the country benefits more from admitting a Nobel Laureate than it does from several unskilled laborers.
4. We should seek ways to improve conditions in the countries from which the vast majority of the illegals come – that is the only approach to solving the problem.
5. We should have a Christian and humane approach to dealing with those caught in the immigration limbo – such as those legally in the country who inadvertantly lose their legal status.

 

[mystified]

“José” is not the alone as undocumented aliens here. Our northern border leaks worse that the southern, and those coming south, according to government statistics, represent virtually every country on earth. These others represent about one-third of the estimated 12 million here illegally. Others are students and those who had the money to come as tourists but don’t go home.

Amnesty, yes under certain conditions. Automatic citizenship after five or any other number of years, no. Withholding already-paid Social Security, no. Not allowing those who never paid into Social Security to receive payments would be correct…In Southern California, I have encountered many immigrants, legal and otherwise, who receive Social Security checks based on their age or physical condition, but who never worked and paid into the system.

As long as politicians are in charge, the broken system is only going to be patched, not replaced.

 

[lsusportsfan]

It is complicated. INIthe end the sticking point is what to do with the people here.

On one side they committed a Crime. On the other side Justice is a two way street. As I stated before New Orleans and the Gulf Coast would be in heck of a mess without these folks. Sp what is ourpounshiment both indivdually and collectively?

I am for some form of relief and common sense plan for the people that are here that deserve it and will contribute. I am for border security also. In the end it has got to be a combination of all these things or else nothing will pass and the problems will just get worse.

Beyond that we better start thinking about these economies to the SOuth of us. I am beginning to wonder when I see the decling demographics of Europe, Australia, and the East who the heck we are going to be trading with in the future. At some point as a Nation we have got to start focusing on this North, Central, and South America bith for Economic and National Security survival.

 

[Mirdath]

Hey vern – I can actually partly get behind your last post, especially the fifth point. MANY people here illegally have been caught in status limbo, many of whom would be great assets to the US as citizens. One of our best friends suddenly found herself a ‘stranded student’ during the policy shakeups not so many years ago. She’s brilliant, well-educated, works hard (and invests the money back into the US economy), and is trying to sort out her status, but oh what a mess it is. Nobody seems to have the answers or be able to outline a plan of action, and she’s understandably confused and shy. And since I come from an academic family, I have met many college and graduate students from overseas in the same bind.

Your fourth point I agree with entirely, except the bit about ‘the only way to solve the problem.’ I’m not sure just what you mean by “solving” or just what problem you are referring to. There are LOTS of problems going on in this issue, and many ways to alleviate them.

The third…well, realistically, I agree with it up to where you added commentary. We do have a responsibility, as things stand now, to manage immigration, for the benefit of the whole, including US citizens and hopeful future-citizens. On the other hand, while it’s always nice to add Nobel Laureates from other countries to the rolls, unskilled labor is not only badly needed, it’s one source of seeds for our own homegrown geniuses too! (Here’s a really cool and inspiring link about some kids who are the perfect example – wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/robot.html )

The other two, yes I have issues with those as they’re stated, since the problems aren’t quite that simple, but that’s enough for now I think.

Ah, one last thing. You’re right, I was lucky enough to have parents who supported me through high school, and I worked to save money for the future. I never said otherwise, nor would I dare compare my experience with that of those in desperate need – hence the tone I took with you. I know people, US born and raised, who weren’t so fortunate as you or I, but they would still blush at calling their own cases (working from age twelve and even younger for adequate clothing, medical care, education, and so on) similar to that of, say, a migrant farmworker.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Also the ‘they didn’t actually do it, but I think they would’ argument is exactly the same argument the anti-immigration people here have been using. So I can give an opinion too.

I’m not an anti-immigration person. I’m Catholic. Please do not descend to labelling. It is not helpful.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I favor the original spirit of it all: give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free. Why should wanting to live, work, study somewhere and contribute to it be a crime?

Actually that was added to the Statue of Liberty long after Lady Liberty dawned the New York skyline.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

We should seek ways to improve conditions in the countries from which the vast majority of the illegals come – that is the only approach to solving the problem.

OK. Boldly now. Don’t flinch. What does this look like?
vern humphrey:

We should have a Christian and humane approach to dealing with those caught in the immigration limbo – such as those legally in the country who inadvertantly lose their legal status.

Hhhmmm… yes. Those whose whose spouses leave them and take the children and who lose their status and therefore are faced with either remaining in the US illegally or returning ‘home’ and never seeing their children again.

On the other hand, the person who literally steals his children from under the spouse’s nose, applies for refugee status, spends years and years (oh yes it does take that long in Canada) getting the refugee claim decided. Meanwhile the children have adapted to the new country; become estranged from their victimized parent; and probably have Stockholme syndrome.

Um… Uncle Diebenkorn once told me as he hitailed it off into the sunset on his pink ponytailed yacht: “If it’s easy, then look again.”