I
- Status
M
mary_bobo
Guest
ONE county. There are many more in this country and illegals are not only in California. I believe in helping people who help themselves and to give a hand up when needed, not a hand out. People appreciate more that which they have to work to attain. But all this is just endless talk. Apparently you approve of breaking the law to get what you want. I don’t. And when people begin to accept that as the norm, the country is in real trouble.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
"Ituyu:
As we know from the sizable illegal traffic across our land borders, a terrorist could attempt to bypass legal procedures and enter the United States surreptitiously. None of the 9/11 attackers entered or tried to enter our country this way.–9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_1.pdf
Let me help you by separating the key sentence
As we know from the sizable illegal traffic across our land borders, a terrorist could attempt to bypass legal procedures and enter the United States surreptitiously. None of the 9/11 attackers entered or tried to enter our country this way.–9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_1.pdf
As was mentioned in your original postings these accusations are typically either misrepresentation or false, however when emotions bias that maybe too much for some.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Mary
Slaves in AMERICAN did not pay their bills, and if they attempted to go north to freedom they too broke the law. Surely you do not think of them as free loaders? Why must some have an oppressed group below them? What a terrible price to pay for insecurity!
M
mary_bobo
Guest
You are assuming a lot, aren’t you? Slavery was a dark spot in our history and has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation today. JMO.
I
Ituyu
Guest
Even when some choose to hide behind a law the truth still prevails:
Beyond federal taxes, all illegals automatically pay state sales taxes that contribute toward the upkeep of public facilities such as roads that they use, and property taxes through their rent that contribute toward the schooling of their children. The non-partisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families — most of whom are illegal — are factored in, they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume.
Yes, many illegal migrants impose a strain on border communities on whose doorstep they first arrive, broke and unemployed. To solve this problem equitably, these communities ought to receive the surplus taxes that federal government collects from immigrants. But the real reason border communities are strained is the lack of a guest worker program. Such a program would match willing workers with willing employers in advance so that they wouldn’t be stuck for long periods where they disembark while searching for jobs.
The cost of undocumented aliens is an issue that immigrant bashers have created to whip up indignation against people they don’t want here in the first place. With the Senate having just returned from yet another vacation and promising to revisit the stalled immigration bill, politicians ought to set the record straight: Illegals are not milking the government. If anything, it is the other way around.
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml
M
mary_bobo
Guest
You really assume a lot, don’t you? You don’t mind people breaking the law, but some of us do. And to attribute this to not wanting the immigrants to be here is just outrageous. Companies are milking the illegals, not the government. I have absolutely no confidence in Congress whatsoever that this will be fixed. Yes, we do need a guest worker program AFTER the border is secured. If you can’t understand that and can’t see that those here are not paying their way, then there is no reason for us to continue this conversation. If you don’t mind the schools being crowded, hospitals closing because they cannot keep funding those that hit their doors (emergencies excepted) and cannot pay, then, IMO you are either too young to know what you are talking about or too sure you are right and everyone else is wrong.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Maybe I misunderstood you? I thought the issue was breaking the law and not (directly) paying for all services was your proof immigration was bad. The slaves broke the law and did not directly pay for services and thus the parallel. I believe slaves were complying with Natural Law (God’s Law) and those who chose to honor man’s law were acting against God’s law. Similarly I believe the immigrants are complying with Natural Law and those honoring man’s law were acting against God’s law. Of course I will be the first to state this is an opinion of mine.
I
Ituyu
Guest
A
AnimaChristi
Guest
If the tired, poor, huddled masses were good Christians, they would come in through legal documentation like many of our parents, grandparents, etc. did.
I
Ituyu
Guest
They didn’t because “good christians” chose to close the legal door. The legal option would have been the safest and least expensive choice for them and us had we made it available.
M
meeshy
Guest
Today I received this email from the USCCB Justic for Immigrants Campaign:
ACTION ALERT PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SENATORS!
Background: On Thursday, May 17, 2007, Democratic and Republican senators announced a compromise immigration proposal, the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which will be considered on the Senate floor beginning the week of May 21.
In a statement released May 17, Bishop Gerald Barnes, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration, expressed “significant” reservations with the legislation, citing problems with the legalization program of Title VI, the temporary worker program in Title IV, and family reunification in Title V. He stated that the U.S. bishops would work to make changes in these areas.
Title IV – Temporary Worker Program
Legislation: S. 1348 fails to provide a path to citizenship for temporary workers and their families. It also limits to two years the time temporary workers can bring their family members with them to the United States . A worker is eligible for up to 6 years. It also requires that a worker return home for a year after working for two years (two working, one at home, etc.), which could lead to visa overstays and an increase in the undocumented population.
Title V — Family Reunification
Legislation: Title V of S. 1348 eliminates several categories of family immigration (1,2b, 3, and 4) and reduces the number of green cards available to parents of U.S. citizens to 40,000 a year. It clears up backlogs in the family preference system for anyone who applied prior to May 2005, but penalizes those who filed after that date. It replaces the family preference system with a “point” system skewed to highly educated and highly skilled workers
Title VI — Legalization Program
Legislation: Title VI of S. 1348 would provide a “Z” visa for undocumented persons and allow them to apply for permanent residency within 8 years. Unfortunately, it would not allow immediate family members to join the eligible worker until a green card application is approved, a minimum of eight years. It also requires the visa holder to return to his/her country of origin to apply for a green card.
Please email, fax or call your Senators today (202) 224-3121 or go to justiceforimmigrants.org/action.html
Thank you,
The Justice for Immigrants Campaign
Peace,
Meeshy
ACTION ALERT PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SENATORS!
Background: On Thursday, May 17, 2007, Democratic and Republican senators announced a compromise immigration proposal, the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which will be considered on the Senate floor beginning the week of May 21.
In a statement released May 17, Bishop Gerald Barnes, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration, expressed “significant” reservations with the legislation, citing problems with the legalization program of Title VI, the temporary worker program in Title IV, and family reunification in Title V. He stated that the U.S. bishops would work to make changes in these areas.
Title IV – Temporary Worker Program
Legislation: S. 1348 fails to provide a path to citizenship for temporary workers and their families. It also limits to two years the time temporary workers can bring their family members with them to the United States . A worker is eligible for up to 6 years. It also requires that a worker return home for a year after working for two years (two working, one at home, etc.), which could lead to visa overstays and an increase in the undocumented population.
Title V — Family Reunification
Legislation: Title V of S. 1348 eliminates several categories of family immigration (1,2b, 3, and 4) and reduces the number of green cards available to parents of U.S. citizens to 40,000 a year. It clears up backlogs in the family preference system for anyone who applied prior to May 2005, but penalizes those who filed after that date. It replaces the family preference system with a “point” system skewed to highly educated and highly skilled workers
Title VI — Legalization Program
Legislation: Title VI of S. 1348 would provide a “Z” visa for undocumented persons and allow them to apply for permanent residency within 8 years. Unfortunately, it would not allow immediate family members to join the eligible worker until a green card application is approved, a minimum of eight years. It also requires the visa holder to return to his/her country of origin to apply for a green card.
Please email, fax or call your Senators today (202) 224-3121 or go to justiceforimmigrants.org/action.html
Thank you,
The Justice for Immigrants Campaign
Peace,
Meeshy
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Has everyone here read the full 320 pages of the proposed law?
Does everyone know what the impact will be of all the small print?
Click here and start reading:
heritage.org/Research/Immigration/2007legislation.cfm
Does everyone know what the impact will be of all the small print?
Click here and start reading:
heritage.org/Research/Immigration/2007legislation.cfm
I
Ituyu
Guest
You may want to go to a neutral source that isn’t filled with the bias that the Heritage Foundation is likely to spin. I’m very leery of much of what they say.
govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1348
Warning! It will take an attorney to make sense of this Bill. Proceed with caution.
govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1348
Warning! It will take an attorney to make sense of this Bill. Proceed with caution.
M
meeshy
Guest
I agree that it will take an attorney to make sense of the bill. It’s incredibly difficult; filled with ammendments to sub-paragraphs and references to Y immigrants, Z immigrants, etc., etc., etc.
The one thing I did manage to decipher, in title VI, is that the person being issued the Z visa does not have to pay $5000, but rather $2500 at the most, then an extra $4000 to apply for citizenship.
Also, the Z visa is issued for a period of four years and can be renewed indefinitely.
Did anyone else interpret these sections the same as me, or am I reading it wrong?
Peace,
Meeshy
The one thing I did manage to decipher, in title VI, is that the person being issued the Z visa does not have to pay $5000, but rather $2500 at the most, then an extra $4000 to apply for citizenship.
Also, the Z visa is issued for a period of four years and can be renewed indefinitely.
Did anyone else interpret these sections the same as me, or am I reading it wrong?
Peace,
Meeshy
T
tm30
Guest
Excellent post, and one that touches on the dilemma I’ve encountered on this issue. I have one side that screams “JUSTICE!!! They broke the law, they go back!” And the other side says, “MERCY!!! What we do to the least of our brothers…”
Although no one can believe my sudden vascillating, there is a higher authority that we will need to answer to when we are faced with the fruits (or lack thereof) of our actions. Will these illegal immigrants be called to account for breaking the law? Of course. It’s a sin, and they are adding to the burden of those who are trying to come here through legal processes. However, the sin of denying medical assistance, destroying families, and/or robbing “anchor babies” of their dignity by revoking their rights are abominable possibilities that cannot be reconciled with our faith.
Yes, we absolutely MUST secure the border. It’s our sovereign right to enforce immigration law. But due to our own government dereliction, we’ve not done so. Thus the situation shifts from a matter of illegal immigration to a humanitarian crisis. In the heirarchy of law, the natural law here must take precedence.
That said. With 12 million people at stake, there’s no possible panacea that can address all of the issues. But we made our own bed by not securing the border as is the responsibility of our government. I guess the '86 amnesty wasn’t enough of a wakeup call. Maybe this will be and the government will actually start fulfilling its duty.
I
Ituyu
Guest
I can certainly agree that a secular law was broken but I do not agree that it was a “sinful” transgression because there is nothing morally wrong or intrinsically evil about working an honest job that is offered and the law itself was arbitrary and unjust.
As far as those coming “legally” the decision to approve their admittance is ours and the “illegal” have no control over it.Those coming legally also have a requirement that must be met while here and that is up to them not the “illegal”.
Those that came here “illegally” were complying with their God given instinct of self-preservation and responsibility to provide for their dependents.The offense was not a criminal one but a civil “violation” that is punishable by fine or deportation. We already have agreed that we can’t deport 12+ people and we wouldn’t even if we could.
When crossing it’s as if they went against a “red” light but one that never turned green. Has anyone here not come across a signal that does not change? I have. I’ve never been in such a situation where the driver does not go when it appears to be safe. We put that “red” signal out knowing that we needed to change it to “green” if we were to fill our labor needs. We saw that they filled those jobs anyway and were only too happy to accept the ability to exploit their situation. Everybody here has benefited in one-way or another. In a sense we’ve been stealing from the poor, no?
What harm have they caused? While they have added to the ranks of the uninsured, that is simply a function of a larger population in the lower income bracket but one that has paid more than it has received… They were needed in order for our economy to grow at a healthy rate, keep our infrastructure in place, and yet they are singled out as the “problem” when in actuality they are a “symptom” of an underlying problem. The underlying problem is a result of our decisions as a society. With Abortion, Birth Control, Family Planning and Medical Advances came a low birth rate too low to replace those that were dying, too low to meet the needs of the economy, and too low to serve an aging population that is living longer than ever. What we are seeing now is only the tip of the iceberg because in the coming generation we will need MORE immigrants at all levels of employment. At that point, we will have to consider opening jobs a great number of jobs at the middle not just jobs at the bottom. For now our immigrants are the only reason our economy has been able to sustain its growth and the only reason our society is not experiencing the decline of other parts of the world. There is no empirical evidence that we have more immigrants than we need. As has always been the case the natural market forces of Supply and Demand have done their magic. True there are some people that simply don’t want them here and are willing for all of us to pay the price to keep them out. They point to “costs” without considering the benefits or the “costs” of depriving the economy of their labor, growth, and consumption much less the benefits obtained from them. Ultimately, there is no “immigration” crisis. Their presence here is better than the alternative. The crisis is within each one of us. I don’t think that we can solve it by punishing those that are filling the gaps. Should we have “open” borders? No. Should we do a better job of determining our labor needs? Yes. Do we need to create an immigration mix that allows us to grow without burdening society with too many people at the bottom? Of course, but right now we are still in a growing economy. Our unemployment rate is still at a level that is lower than what many economists feel acceptable. There is no need to refuse to integrate and assimilate these people so that they have a stake and a say in our society. Frankly, I’m disheartened when I view s.1348 as it looks more and more like HR 4437. In this legislation I see an inclination to punish and blame, it’s horrendously expensive and scapegoats a population that is less a security risk than some from within our own ranks.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
All bills in Congress are worthy of study and debate.
Here is a link to some possible critques as jumping off points for study of the current immigration bill before Congress:
heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1468.cfm
Everyone is free to agree or disagree, but the bill is worthy of careful review.
There is no need to rush into voting on the bill.
AND, the bill has 320 pages. No telling what’s in it without detailed reading.
Check it out.
Here is a link to some possible critques as jumping off points for study of the current immigration bill before Congress:
heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1468.cfm
Everyone is free to agree or disagree, but the bill is worthy of careful review.
There is no need to rush into voting on the bill.
AND, the bill has 320 pages. No telling what’s in it without detailed reading.
Check it out.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Read the Todd Bensman series in the San Antonio News Express:
hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/66418989-d98c-4761-ab2b-d32ed60fdbd6
Get an alternative point of view.
hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/66418989-d98c-4761-ab2b-d32ed60fdbd6
Get an alternative point of view.
I
Ituyu
Guest
quote]
Except that (Ricard Mellon Scaife-Founder) Heritage Foundation is working in conjunction with (John Tanton’s) FAIR and CIS well known anti-immigrant organization more inclined to propaganda in form of deception and distortion than debate:
The CIS has estimated the net fiscal impact at about $7,700 per immigrant household per year. In round numbers, that works out to about $35 billion or so every year.
In fact, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) did not produce a cost estimate for Senate Bill 1348.******* Unlike the Colorado Legislative Council, which produces a “fiscal note” for every bill and concurrent resolution introduced in the Colorado General Assembly, the CBO is required to publish a cost estimate only for legislation reported by a congressional committee; S. 1348 was not considered in committee and will only be considered by the full Senate.**
One of Knight’s sources for cost estimates was the Heritage Foundation; Knight did not note that the organization’s mission “is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”
***On May 23 the CBO sent a letter to Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) that contained preliminary cost estimates for Senate Amendment 1150, which is a substitute for S. 1348 that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) introduced on May 21. The letter was published within the entry for S. 1348 on the official congressional website subsequent to the publication of this item. According to the estimate, as a result of changes in federal direct spending and revenues, the bill would result in a net reduction in the federal deficit of $2 billion for the period 2008-2012 and a reduction of $37 billion for the period 2008-2017.
colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200705230004
The tax returns reveal another hidden aspect of many anti-immigration groups — their heavy reliance on funding by right-wing foundations.
Tanton’s most important funding source for the last two decades may well have been the Scaife family, heirs to the Mellon Bank fortune.
Richard Mellon Scaife, a reclusive figure, has been instrumental in establishing right-wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation …
Scaife family foundations, including those controlled by Scaife’s sister, Cordelia May Scaife, provided some $1.4 million to FAIR from 1986-2000.
These foundations, along with private trusts controlled by Scaife family members, have also provided millions of dollars to other anti-immigration groups.
splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=182
- Status