Pro legal immigration, anti illegal immigration

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lance
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lance

Guest
A few of the major posters on the Immigration thread seem to think that if you are anti illegal immigration you are anti immigration or anti Hispanic. I don’t believe many Americans are anti immigration but a majority of us are anti illegal immigration and oppose any attempt to give legal status to those who broke our law in coming here. IMO that is like telling someone who broke into your house and took your food, money and furniture, OK let me adopt you and make you a member of my family so you won’t have to break the law by taking what is mine.
 
You forgot the guest worker program, which allows people to live and work in another country for specific time windows, then requires them to leave. We will soon have to have either more immigrates, or many guest workers. Otherwise we will become dependent on illegal immigrates to support our economic strength. America is not producing a large balanced work force we are very heavy on “well educated office types” or “skilled labor” and vastly under on low wage labor. If you close our border the highly skilled will have too small a market resulting extremely high unemployment in their desired profession. Everyone wants to be boss but no employees. The highly skilled college grad will be forced to work mowing your yards, sacking your groceries OR WILL LEAVE THE US to join free markets in other countries. The economic power under such conditions would leave the US and go to the best free market.
 
A few of the major posters on the Immigration thread seem to think that if you are anti illegal immigration you are anti immigration or anti Hispanic. I don’t believe many Americans are anti immigration but a majority of us are anti illegal immigration and oppose any attempt to give legal status to those who broke our law in coming here. IMO that is like telling someone who broke into your house and took your food, money and furniture, OK let me adopt you and make you a member of my family so you won’t have to break the law by taking what is mine.
The problem is not quite so simple. There are some here who claim to be anti “Illegal” only but then are also in favor of laws that severely restrict “legal” immigration. They claim not to be anti “legal” immigrants but then favor laws that harms “Illegal” as well as “legal” immigrants. They don’t care about the “legal” immigrant in that instance and I believe this exposes their true nature. And, I hope a “majority” of the people don’t fit this mold because then we will create still more problems for ourselves like we have in denying most ot the “illegal” already here. We have to ask ourselves what was the motive for not allowing the over 10 million “illegal” population to come throught the “legal” door? It wasn’t the economy because it has grown, it wasn’t welfare because they don’t qualify, it wasn’t services because they under utilize services, it wasn’t “security” because none were involved with 9/11, it wasn’t an unwillingness to assimilate since they assimilate like every other group, it wasn’t religion because they’re christian, it wasn’t unemployment because we’re at the bottom level of unemployment, it wasn’t because we didn’t need them as we’ve incorporated them into our economy, it wasn’t because they “broke” the law because the vast majority are law-abiding, and it wasn’t because most wouldn’t qualify because most would have qualified, so what was the reason? I think it’s for the same reasons that we want a fence along our southern border and are willing to neglect an even “more porous” northern border and display little, if any, concern about their legal status or potential terrorists crossing that border.
 
Here’s a diierent kind of poll:

"In fact, the nation is far less divided on immigration, legal or illegal, than the current debate suggests. In the last six months, virtually every major media outlet has surveyed public attitudes on the issue, and the results have been remarkably consistent. Americans continue to take pride in the United States’ heritage as a nation of immigrants. Many are uneasy about the current influx of foreigners. But an overwhelming majority – between two-thirds and three-quarters in every major poll – would like to see Congress address the problem with a combination of tougher enforcement and earned citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already living and working here. A strange-bedfellow coalition – of business associations, labor unions, and the Catholic Church, among others – has endorsed this position. In Washington, the consensus behind it is even more striking, with supporters spanning the spectrum from conservative President George W. Bush to left-leaning Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), from mavericks like Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) to party regulars like Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and all but a handful of congressional Democrats. But even this broad agreement may not produce a solution this fall.

Congress’ failure to act is largely a product of political circumstances. The high-stakes midterm elections in November put an unusual premium on the opinions of the 20-25 percent of voters who depart from the emerging national consensus. Mostly male, white, and lacking college degrees, these naysayers believe immigrants are bad for the economy; they want to build a wall along the southern border and adamantly oppose allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens. Only about half are Republicans, and they account for no more than a quarter of the GOP. But many Republicans in Congress, particularly in the House, are convinced that this group is more intense – more concerned, more motivated, more likely to vote on the basis of this single issue – than anyone else likely to go to the polls. So the naysayers have become the tail wagging the dog of the immigration debate, and they may succeed in blocking a solution this year."

foreignaffairs.org/20061101faessay85606/tamar-jacoby/immigration-nation.html

I think this article does a fine job of describing for the lay person the issues and the challenges ahead. It explains why Enforcement Only policies won’t work and why this segment of the population finds itself on the extreme and unworkable end of a solution to the problem.
 
A few of the major posters on the Immigration thread seem to think that if you are anti illegal immigration you are anti immigration or anti Hispanic. I don’t believe many Americans are anti immigration but a majority of us are anti illegal immigration and oppose any attempt to give legal status to those who broke our law in coming here. IMO that is like telling someone who broke into your house and took your food, money and furniture, OK let me adopt you and make you a member of my family so you won’t have to break the law by taking what is mine.
breaking into your home? Rather exagerrated. They come to WORK. Not standing on the corner asking for free handouts, they do stand at the corner but to sell fruits or flowers, earning an honest living.
 
A few of the major posters on the Immigration thread seem to think that if you are anti illegal immigration you are anti immigration or anti Hispanic. I don’t believe many Americans are anti immigration but a majority of us are anti illegal immigration and oppose any attempt to give legal status to those who broke our law in coming here. IMO that is like telling someone who broke into your house and took your food, money and furniture, OK let me adopt you and make you a member of my family so you won’t have to break the law by taking what is mine.
I’m with you. America is great because of the many immigrants who make up our country. But breaking the law is breaking the law and I don’t think most of us can condone that. I’m all for immigration, but my father and his parents had to wait to come the right way and everyone else should do the same. Otherwise, why make any kind of laws?
 
I think temporarily ( make sure it is understood I said TEMPORARILY )… we should close the borders… until we can straighten the mess out… then once we deport all the illegals ( no matter what country they are originally from ) THEN open’em back up and do so with diligence… so we don’t run into this problem again. JMO.
A few of the major posters on the Immigration thread seem to think that if you are anti illegal immigration you are anti immigration or anti Hispanic. I don’t believe many Americans are anti immigration but a majority of us are anti illegal immigration and oppose any attempt to give legal status to those who broke our law in coming here. IMO that is like telling someone who broke into your house and took your food, money and furniture, OK let me adopt you and make you a member of my family so you won’t have to break the law by taking what is mine.
 
I believe that first we need to put pressure on the governments in Central and South America to take care of their own citizens, instead of starving them, having no safety net, and pushing them off on the US.The people who come here have no choice, many of them, but Vicente Fox does.
 
It’s interesting and telling that the most “Pro” legal immigration option is number 1. None of those whose mantra is “I’m pro legal immigration” and anti “illegal” immigration voted for it.

The least “pro” legal immigration option was option number 4 and it contains at least one name of those using the mantra “I’m pro legal immigration” and anti “illegal” immigration. Fortunately this option is not possible to acheive by any of the measures on the table and probably is unachievable.

The other option that is not a realistic one is option number 5. As neither Homeland Security or ICE have promoted that idea, only some crazy politicians.

Option number 2, only serves to keep things as they are and is arguably the reason we’re where we are on this issue.

Option number 3 is relatively reasonable but doesn’t consider that most experts agree that we will need “more” immigration at skilled and unskilled positions in the near future.

Thus, none of the “pro legal” immigrant people choose options that furthers that ideal.

Option number 6 comes closest, of the available options, to meet free market needs. However, it still falls short of returning felony offenders. Consequently, “none of the above” would be my choice but it isn’t offered as an option.
 
Hello Lance,

To simply give amnesty to all those illegal imigrants allready in the US would be a racist, non-equal opportunity move. Do the Philipeanos, Vietnameas, Packistanies, Sudanies think we should unfairly allow a thousand times more Mexicans into America than people from their countries? What if America packed 100,000 illegal imigrant poor white people into America and then made them all citizens regardless of all other races of people patiently waiting in line to legally imigrate to America? The Mexicans would be screaming bloody racist murder. Let us not bend to imigration racial descrimination which favors one race of people simply because they have easy access to exploit our southern border.

Let America sellect imigrants based on a legal system of equal opportunity to all races of people.
 
breaking into your home? Rather exagerrated. They come to WORK. Not standing on the corner asking for free handouts, they do stand at the corner but to sell fruits or flowers, earning an honest living.
I consider America my home. If someone broke into my house and did the laundry for cooking and charged me less than the going rate for those jobs I would still consider it breaking and entering. I have no background on them and am I to trust them when my grandkids are over? I don’t think so.
 
Not all come to work. Some come for other reasons, establishing citizenship, illegal activities, healthcare, joining family members and too many others things that are not even covered in the following article: jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf

I used to think it was as simple as that too. But as I have looked at it more it has continued to get so much more complicated.
 
Not all come to work. Some come for other reasons, establishing citizenship, illegal activities, healthcare, joining family members and too many others things that are not even covered in the following article: jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf

I used to think it was as simple as that too. But as I have looked at it more it has continued to get so much more complicated.
Frankly, it’s a mess we created. There are good reasons to have people screened for admission into the country. But, because of our myopia we chose to close our eyes to the reality. We knew they would come, they always have, even if our quotas were too low. To create a legalization process that would put them through the system is good for all of us. To have closed the door that would have put them through the screening was bad for all of us. If we create a sensible and workable procedure, we can address these issues. Nobody of right mind thinks that we can identify all these people and deport them. When they couldn’t get here legally and we needed them, we have always resorted to the “turn the other way” policy. At some point, we have to decide to address this issue because, let’s face it, these people are already here. Blaming them for their circumstances isn’t going to make the problem any better and it certainly isn’t going to make it go away.
 
Not all come to work. Some come for other reasons, establishing citizenship, illegal activities, healthcare, joining family members and too many others things that are not even covered in the following article: jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf

I used to think it was as simple as that too. But as I have looked at it more it has continued to get so much more complicated.
Well let try to be careful here considering the author has passed
  1. The article clearly has issues with the US Constitution - calling US Citizens “Anchor Babies” and calling for a general stripping of their citizenship.
  2. The article oppose the legal actions of legislators. - The article calls the " Emergancy Medical Treatment and Active labor act of 1985"(EMTALA) “coercive”. So is she (author) against the government or illegal immigrates or both? Well here is a hint, She was buying and sell medical practices.
  3. The article calls the EMTALA an unfunded mandate, which “imposes viciously stiff fines and penalties”- was this not covered in another recent post ? Why are these US Government Laws “vicious” fines instead of fines?
  4. The article is highly inflammatory for several reasons
    a)(my favorite is) the author claims do have great knowledge of gangs, crimes, and individuals who participate in these gangs, so why do they not simply turn in these criminals?
    b) The article says Illegal aliens perpetrate violent crime and then dump their victims and run? In fact if you only had this article you would think all gangs are Illegal immigrates. The article says 60-80 percent of the 18th Street Gang are Illegal, so again why not simply send the police to 18th street and arrest them? Is the answer as simple as this is inflammatory speech which lacks a factual base?
    c) The article claims Illegal Gangs are powerful. Unfortunely the backing for such a claim is not listed.
    d) “In 2003 this figure was several million (about 25 percent of recipients).” In regard to fraudulent social security numbers used for SSI the author made the earlier statement does that sound correct? With no documentation the author claims to know 25% of all SSI is illegal immigrates. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, so why is the government protecting 25% of all SSI by allowing and protecting the use of "fraudulent Social Security numbers?
    e) The author claims “Leprosy is now endemic to northeastern states” really? Did you know that ? I had not heard of this and I live in the US. And what a nice touch to throw in some comments of how Leprosy was considered a disease of the soul, and the scourge of the Bible. Now of course Bible scourges and illegal immigration are bound to be one and the same
  5. The article states the Hospital were collecting 50% or 50% were unpaid to be more precise. In the MBA studies on hospitals in areas not known for immigration were collecting 45%.
Outside of this article did you know the author was and expert in Culinary Practice in the Middle Ages. " Ms. Cosman took her work seriously. She could sing madrigals, play the lute and eat with her fingers off a trencher in the proper medieval style. Her house in suburban New Jersey was appointed with ornately carved period furniture. Arms and armor lay about, the walls were hung with Flemish tapestries, and the cellar was stocked with mead. Ms. Cosman could also play the piano, fly an airplane and shoot a gun." She also wrote “MEDICALIZING GUNS” an inflammitory article about gun ownership in that article she wrote " Medicalizing guns makes bad law, junk science, and horrid medicine." Please note the word “gun” see Medicalizing of guns is bad but the article you sight says Medicalizing of immigration is good!

Frankly to summarize the whole article the woman who bought medical practices is upset about the US legislation which created financial losses for medical providers. That legislation does not require anything specific for ILLEGAL’S it allows lawsuits if medical providers turn away any person in a state of serious medical need, but the article twist that into a immigration issue.
 
A few of the major posters on the Immigration thread seem to think that if you are anti illegal immigration you are anti immigration or anti Hispanic. I don’t believe many Americans are anti immigration but a majority of us are anti illegal immigration and oppose any attempt to give legal status to those who broke our law in coming here. IMO that is like telling someone who broke into your house and took your food, money and furniture, OK let me adopt you and make you a member of my family so you won’t have to break the law by taking what is mine.
Yes! I agree with your great advice, it really works for me.
Thanks for your information!

Mesothelioma Lawyer
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top