Torn on This Issue

[Ituyu]

There should be more security on the border, I think–illegal immigration is illegal.

It certainly makes sense that it should be. However, I don’t see that otherwise law abiding people who come here to work, have done anything wrong. Especially when ulitimately, only they will be held accountable and our poor planning, our needs and the role of our officials as well as that of our employers will for all practical purposes be dismissed. The system is broken for both sides. This hard-nosed demand for the enforcement of the “law” does not IMHO meet the principle that the punishment should fit the crime. Furthermore, punishing them by deportation would be disruptive and to our own detriment. What really is needed is a reasonable, efficient and viable solution that will allow for the assimilation of those already here. There is no reason to deny them that if they’ve been here for a number of years, been productive members of our community and have not been guilty of any serious crimes. However, that does not mean that they should have a free ride. They pay the required fees, pay taxes owed and should not have the benefit of any tax refunds for the years prior to the commencement of a legalizaton procedure.

 

[Ituyu]

It seems you may have a strange definition of the term “homeland”. It certainly is quite different than mine. But that is OK.

The difference is that by recongnizing that the First Americans continue to make this their homeland and that this is our homeland too are both true.

“They have no place to call home but here!” Balderdash. In my view, the indigenous peoples residing in Mexico do have a “homeland”, it is called Mexico.

 

[Fremont]

The difference is that by recongnizing that the First Americans continue to make this their homeland and that this is our homeland too are both true.

Most of the indigenous came from Siberia and were the first who inhabited all of the Americas. There were smaller migrations from other sources but all had established the Americas as their homelands. Most from Mexico have the DNA traits of the peoples from the north who settled the Americas originally thousands of years prior to the arrival of European immigrants.

The Americas are still their homeland though the US is not their country. But that is our doing not theirs.

I never said anything about animal rights, just behavior. We all have free will and hopefully a sense of right and wrong. We are expected to control our behavior accordingly. My political realities are that illegal immigrants break the law and are subject to punishment.

Did he have them deported? Did he refuse them, charity, love and mercy?.

You are the one who implied it was inappropriate and wrong to call people from another country foreigners, not me. Jesus did not have the power to deport anyone. He was human in all aspects except sin. As such, Roman law prevailed at that time.

The indigenous within our borders experienced “genocide” at our hands. We kept them apart on reservations often times to areas where they did not know how to survive. That was not absorption.

This is way off topic. We are talking about the indigenous of Mexico. Start another thread if you want to discuss that topic.

Oh, only that they too are God’s children and are therefore human with certain inalienable rights.

So is everybody else, so what. I have no insight into the blessings, graces or gifts God provides to anyone other than myself. In the secular world indigenous peoples of Mexico are not entitled to anything other than what the law provides for. And those inalienable rights? – they are subject to forfeit by behavior.

 

[estesbob]

Perhaps, as we are so law abiding, we should make everything totally legal, starting with returning to Mexico the part we unjustly annexed in the Mexican-American War: California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.
See:historyguy.com/Mexican-American_War.html

Nah, that would be inconvenient.

Right after we return Mexico to Spain-but wait then they would have to return it to the Aztecs but wait the Aztecs would have to return it to the original occupants of the Valley of Mexico-but wait they would have to return it to the Siberians but wait they would have to return it to…

I guess in the end we’ve have to give everything back to the Africans.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Right after we return Mexico to Spain-but wait then they would have to return it to the Aztecs but wait the Aztecs would have to return it to the original occupants of the Valley of Mexico-but wait they would have to return it to the Siberians but wait they would have to return it to…

I guess in the end we’ve have to give everything back to the Africans.

Lets give it back to Adam & Eve and go from there. Simple.

 

[Ituyu]

Ituyu;1513085:

It seems this preposterous argument is going beyond the ridiculous.

Yes, you’re correct. Anthropologists and historians have settled the issue of where people migrated to inititally. It has long ago been established that indigenous peoples came here and were the first to settle here and made this their homeland. The point is that they are still here, though not quite as many, and they continue to make this their homeland.

Apparently by your reckoning residents of Mexico with even a trace of indigenous background can claim Siberia as their homeland if they want to. So what?

So what? They can claim that we had the same origins and that that as the first people to settle this land are the first Americans. They didn’t take this land from another peoples and never left since the European arrival. Consequently, they are not foreigners or immigrants. They are the first Americans.

If we go back far enough we are all related and thus everyone in the world can claim everywhere in the world as their homeland if they want to. Again, so what?

“So what?” You just made the argument that they have every right to be here…

I am not familiar with anything in the Bible or in anthropology that empowers Ituyu or anyone else to decide the historical point at which we start considering genetic heritage to determine claims of “homeland” and then to forsake everything before that point. Be that the earliest migration from Siberia to the Americas or any other point in human history.

Get your hands on a history book. There is really no need to revise or deny the history of migratory patterns of early man.

Mankind has evolved with socio-political structures and thus no one born as a citizen in one country has any legitimate claim to rights, status, privileges, or considerations in any other country other than the laws provide for in that other country. He or she can unilaterally call anywhere their genetic homeland but that does not count for anything.

Well but our country does provide anyone within our borders, legal or not, certain rights. And, it counts for proving that they were the first Americans in this their homeland and that they took this land from nobody.

Everyone traveling from the country of his or her native citizenship will be considered a foreigner in every other country, for better or for worse. So what? They are subject to secular immigration laws and are not free to ignore international borders. If they travel to the other country illegally then they are subject to the penalties for such behavior.

That’s not true. First Nations along our northern border can have dual citizenship and can go back and forth from Canada and the US. First Nations in Canada have a participation role in the politcal process. First Nations are also recognized as the first founders of Canada. It’s ironic that the British learned from Americans the value of peaceful negotiations and instead of participating in a genocide of their indigenous they made treaties with them and gave them a voice.

I never said anything about animal rights, just behavior. We all have free will and hopefully a sense of right and wrong. We are expected to control our behavior accordingly. My political realities are that illegal immigrants break the law and are subject to punishment.

It’s the same thing. Animals have the right to cross our borders and people who come here to work don’t have that same right.

 

[Ituyu]

You are the one who implied it was inappropriate and wrong to call people from another country foreigners, not me. Jesus did not have the power to deport anyone. He was human in all aspects except sin. As such, Roman law prevailed at that time.

Actually, I said that it is wrong to call indigenous people “foreigners”, “immigrants” or “illegals” on their homeland. As indigenous they are natives, not foreigners. As first peoples, they are migrants not immigrants. As the indigenous, the use of “illegal” makes no sense because they have always been here. In Canada the indigenous are legal. In the US, Canadian indigenous are legal and many have US and Canadian dual citizenship whether they were born here or not. In the US the indigenous whitin our borders are legal and US citzens. It’s the indigenous, for the past 50 years, who cross the political southern border of our country who are called “illegal”. But why? Since the European arrival, we’ve depended on their labor. They haven’t harmed us. They typically work at our lowest paying jobs that we can’t fill wtihout them. The costs associated with them is essentially no different than if our own citizens had filled those jobs. The proposal that we build fences at geat expense and deport millions will not make us any safer and may even undermine our security. The indications are that it will weaken our infrastructure, our economny and hurt our poor citizens the most. And, for no good reason.

So is everybody else, so what. I have no insight into the blessings, graces or gifts God provides to anyone other than myself. In the secular world indigenous peoples of Mexico are not entitled to anything other than what the law provides for. And those inalienable rights? – they are subject to forfeit by behavior

You couldn’t be moe wrong. The act of crossing our border without permission is not now a “crime” and the moment that they cross, their inalienable rights are protected by our Constitution. BTW, I’m talking about “indigenous” people. How does being in Mexico change their status as “indigenous” people?

 

[Fremont]

Fremont;1514656:

Ituyu;1513085:

Yes, you’re correct. Anthropologists and historians have settled the issue of where people migrated to inititally. It has long ago been established that indigenous peoples came here and were the first to settle here and made this their homeland. The point is that they are still here, though not quite as many, and they continue to make this their homeland.

You can rattle on as much as you want.

I reject the concept that the current USA is in any way a homeland to any indigenous resident of Mexico no matter how many Siberian genes they have.

Further as far as I am concerned they are foreigners in this country and it is wrong for them to enter this country illegally no matter what their motivation.

 

[wabrams]

Ituyu,

I find it so silly it’s hilarious that your only leg to stand on is that illegal immigrants are now indeginous people. Keep the crack-pot theories comiong, I love a good laugh!

 

[Ituyu]

We do have to see God in everyone. That is true enough. That does not mean that illegal immigration must be tolerated. If we are truly Christian, we will “see God in” (i.e. respect the human dignity of) the most savage of felons. That does not mean their crimes are to be condoned.

Crossing the border without inspection is not yet a crime. Working for a living is not a crime. Using false documents has been dismissed millions of times by our government when they are used to get work. And, the vast majority of these people are law-abiding members of our communities. People that have contributed to our properity and growth. People who through our quota system have had the door of “legal” immigration closed to them. People who fill jobs that would go wanting without them. And, their presence here has been known and winked at by everybody for the past 50 years when it first became “illegal”. It’s no secret that our immigration policies have had questionable motives at different times throughout our history and this is one situaton where we’re the one’s most responsible. Yet, we seek to punish THEM.

 

[shockerfan]

Crossing the border without inspection is not yet a crime. Working for a living is not a crime. Using false documents has been dismissed millions of times by our government when they are used to get work. And, the vast majority of these people are law-abiding members of our communities. People that have contributed to our properity and growth. People who through our quota system have had the door of “legal” immigration closed to them. People who fill jobs that would go wanting without them. And, their presence here has been known and winked at by everybody for the past 50 years when it first became “illegal”. It’s no secret that our immigration policies have had questionable motives at different times throughout our history and this is one situaton where we’re the one’s most responsible. Yet, we seek to punish THEM.

Would you support this idea:
If a person is here illegally, they have a specific amount of time to register and go through a background check. After that (if no prior criminal history), they can receive a workers visa, and be required to pay taxes. They are, however, forever banned from citizenship and a future right to vote (this is the punishment from breaking the law). This will allow them to support their family, but also differentiate them from people who played by the rules and followed the law. If you do not register after a specific period of time, you either get deported or jail, depending on criminal history. Any re-entry after that time would result in jail.

If they are truly here with good intentions, I think this would be a fair offer.

 

[Saint_Michael]

A lot of people act like “well I got mine”, now let’s close the store. These people don’t understand America. My family came here from Ireland during the famine that killed millions of Irish. They were reviled and hated by the same types who are screaming about the Mexicans and Africans today. Same stuff different day

 

[shockerfan]

A lot of people act like “well I got mine”, now let’s close the store. These people don’t understand America. My family came here from Ireland during the famine that killed millions of Irish. They were reviled and hated by the same types who are screaming about the Mexicans and Africans today. Same stuff different day

I understand your perspective, however, there is a difference. Did your family sneak in, or did they follow the laws? Its a little unfair to paint those who oppose illegal immigration with such a broad brush. While I’m sure there are some who oppose illegal immigration for the reason you say, many (I believe the majority) oppose illegal immigration because its “illegal immigration”. I’m all for legal immigration. If they laws are not whats needed, then we change the laws, we don’t allow their intentional breaking.

 

[Saint_Michael]

I understand your perspective, however, there is a difference. Did your family sneak in, or did they follow the laws? Its a little unfair to paint those who oppose illegal immigration with such a broad brush. While I’m sure there are some who oppose illegal immigration for the reason you say, many (I believe the majority) oppose illegal immigration because its “illegal immigration”. I’m all for legal immigration. If they laws are not whats needed, then we change the laws, we don’t allow their intentional breaking.

Well according to my Mom’s research, the home in Jersey City that my great great grandfather put on his immigration paperwork was residence to +400 Irish immigrants, so I suspect it wasn’t that legit , since immigrants needed housing and a job to come to America (neither of which 99% of Irish had. It was either that or starve to death as the British burnt their farms and stole their land, I can’t blame them.

New York had the native gangs, the know nothings, who practiced random acts of violence on immigrating Irish Catholics, “no livestock or Irish allowed inside”, NINA (No Irish Need Apply) etc… They did so out of fear of losing what they felt was rightfully theirs. It’s the same thing today IMO.

 

[prv]

Would you support this idea:
If a person is here illegally, they have a specific amount of time to register and go through a background check. After that (if no prior criminal history), they can receive a workers visa, and be required to pay taxes. They are, however, forever banned from citizenship and a future right to vote (this is the punishment from breaking the law). This will allow them to support their family, but also differentiate them from people who played by the rules and followed the law. If you do not register after a specific period of time, you either get deported or jail, depending on criminal history. Any re-entry after that time would result in jail.

If they are truly here with good intentions, I think this would be a fair offer.

Forever banned from citizenship? This is a tough offer to bite. Perhaps giving them a fine, and then all of the above (especially the criminal history and back taxes, together with, and not in place of, the fine), then allow them to apply for alien residency, with the prospect of citizenship. OR we can require them to stay longer as non-citizen residents before allowing them to apply.

One more question: how do you determine who is here illegally and who is here visiting?

Better yet, why not scrap the entire immigration laws currently on the book, then allow open immigration with criminal background check to make sure no one is not dangerous, then allow all who pass the check into the country? Why do we need immigration number restrictions? These people would pay taxes to provide for common defense, including keeping truly dangerous people out, and would contribute to, possibly, the educated work force.

 

[shockerfan]

Forever banned from citizenship? This is a tough offer to bite. Perhaps giving them a fine, and then all of the above (especially the criminal history and back taxes, together with, and not in place of, the fine), then allow them to apply for alien residency, with the prospect of citizenship. OR we can require them to stay longer as non-citizen residents before allowing them to apply.

Yes, banned from citizenship. Citizenship should be considered an ideal that should be attainable for those who follow the rules. They could be permanant resident aliens.
We need to show that there are consequences to intentionally breaking the laws. I would assume that most who come here illegally don’t have the money to pay a fine, so I’m not sure that would work.

One more question: how do you determine who is here illegally and who is here visiting?

I’m not experienced to give a good answer here. Don’t visitors have to have passports and visas? I would assume illegals would not.

Better yet, why not scrap the entire immigration laws currently on the book, then allow open immigration with criminal background check to make sure no one is not dangerous, then allow all who pass the check into the country? Why do we need immigration number restrictions? These people would pay taxes to provide for common defense, including keeping truly dangerous people out, and would contribute to, possibly, the educated work force.

I’m not in favor of open immigration. How many other countries have this? Why should the US held to a higher standard than other countries? [Why don’t you read up on how Mexico treats illegal immigrants from Honduras]. We can only assimilate so many people at a time…there must be limits, otherwise the infrastructure would get overloaded.

 

[Fremont]

Well according to my Mom’s research, the home in Jersey City that my great great grandfather put on his immigration paperwork was residence to +400 Irish immigrants, so I suspect it wasn’t that legit , since immigrants needed housing and a job to come to America (neither of which 99% of Irish had. It was either that or starve to death as the British burnt their farms and stole their land, I can’t blame them.

New York had the native gangs, the know nothings, who practiced random acts of violence on immigrating Irish Catholics, “no livestock or Irish allowed inside”, NINA (No Irish Need Apply) etc… They did so out of fear of losing what they felt was rightfully theirs. It’s the same thing today IMO.

It is very likely your relatives entered the US legally.

Quotas and some other rules did not come along until the first part of the 1900’s. Before that it was pretty much of an open door.

The main screening that was done before that was for health purposes to weed out diseases. Those rules are still on the books and the illegal immigrants chose to ignore them as well. That is likely why we have seen outbreaks of tuberculosis near San Diego recently.

There has been various prejudices against immigrants throughout our history and the Irish were certainly no exception, nor were the Italians, nor the Chinese, etc. This was bad.

The main point is that your family and the others immigrated in a legal and honest manner. That makes illegal immigrants different.

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants have legally come to the US from Mexico in recent years and enjoy a good life here. They do not like the illegals any more than anyone else.

 

[Fremont]

Forever banned from citizenship? This is a tough offer to bite. Perhaps giving them a fine, and then all of the above (especially the criminal history and back taxes, together with, and not in place of, the fine), then allow them to apply for alien residency, with the prospect of citizenship. OR we can require them to stay longer as non-citizen residents before allowing them to apply.

One more question: how do you determine who is here illegally and who is here visiting?

Better yet, why not scrap the entire immigration laws currently on the book, then allow open immigration with criminal background check to make sure no one is not dangerous, then allow all who pass the check into the country? Why do we need immigration number restrictions? These people would pay taxes to provide for common defense, including keeping truly dangerous people out, and would contribute to, possibly, the educated work force.

After serious thought and extensive deliberation our government made significant changes to our immigration laws with quotas and some other rules in the first part of the 1900’s. Before that it was pretty much of an open door.

The main screening that was done before that was for health purposes to weed out diseases. Those rules are still on the books and the illegal immigrants choose to ignore them as well. That is likely why we have seen outbreaks of tuberculosis near San Diego recently.

I believe there were valid and prudent reasons for the changes to our immigration laws. Perhaps it would be wise to review the history books to learn more of how and why those decisions were made before we just say all immigration laws and rules should be abandon and we should reinstate immigration policies that were suitable in our colonial and western expansion periods.

Our current laws and rules may not be perfect and maybe some changes are in order. But I think any changes should be carefully considered and debated with the welfare of the entire country considered.

 

[Ituyu]

Would you support this idea:
If a person is here illegally, they have a specific amount of time to register and go through a background check. After that (if no prior criminal history), they can receive a workers visa, and be required to pay taxes. They are, however, forever banned from citizenship and a future right to vote (this is the punishment from breaking the law). This will allow them to support their family, but also differentiate them from people who played by the rules and followed the law. If you do not register after a specific period of time, you either get deported or jail, depending on criminal history. Any re-entry after that time would result in jail.

If they are truly here with good intentions, I think this would be a fair offer.

Are you serious? Of course I could not support such proposals. You haven’t been listening. Of what “crime” are these people guilty of? Crossing the border without inspection or without permission is not a “criminal” act it a violation of Civil Codes. That puts this at the same level of a traffic citation. On another level you are talking about people who are native to this land. People who are called “foreigners” on their own homeland. Furthermore, taxation without representation is unconstitutional. Apparently you’re willing to violate not only Human Rights but a persons Constitutional rights (That’s right! Even the “illegal” have Constitutional rights) in order to punish them for an act that is not criminal. The fair thing to do is to make them pay a fine and go through a screening process. I think you’re being honest in thinking your proposals are “fair” and that is what is most disturbing.

 

[shockerfan]

Are you serious? Of course I could not support such proposals. You haven’t been listening. Of what “crime” are these people guilty of? Crossing the border without inspection or without permission is not a “criminal” act it a violation of Civil Codes. That puts this at the same level of a traffic citation. On another level you are talking about people who are native to this land. People who are called “foreigners” on their own homeland. Furthermore, taxation without representation is unconstitutional. Apparently you’re willing to violate not only Human Rights but a persons Constitutional rights (That’s right! Even the “illegal” have Constitutional rights) in order to punish them for an act that is not criminal. The fair thing to do is to make them pay a fine and go through a screening process. I think you’re being honest in thinking your proposals are “fair” and that is what is most disturbing.

First, by definition, a criminal is someone who commits a crime. A Crime, by definition, is a violation of the law. Therefore, whether or not you like the laws does not matter. If you break the law, by definition, you are a criminal. They may not be “felons”, but illegal aliens, by definition are “criminals” (thats what the “illegal” part refers to)

Second, just because you don’t like the law, does not mean it should be ignored. I’d like to ignore our laws about paying taxes, or the speed limit laws, but it does not matter, we should not be allowed to pick and choose the laws we want to follow or not follow. If you don’t like the immigration laws, perhaps you should get like minded people to change them.

Third, the homeland of illegal immigrants from Mexico, is Mexico. The homeland of illegal immigrants from Norway, is Norway. This is NOT their homeland (unless they were born here, or are naturalized citizens.) Again, this is by definition (you seem to want to make up your own definitions)

Fourth, Regarding your assertion about “taxation without representation”. This applies only to law abiding CITIZENS. Did you know felons cannot vote in a number of states? I’m not lying about that one…go look it up. And if those felons work, they pay taxes…So I’m not sure about your “unconstitutional” assertion. Just because you cross our borders does not mean you can vote. There are many resident aliens that pay taxes and cannot vote right now. Does not seem to be unconstitutional.

You previous posts state that all these people want to do is work and support their family. OK, no argument here. But we have laws (hate them as you will), and if they CHOOSE to break them, then the should face consequences. I think jail is harsh, and would not support, but I think the fine you mention is a little bit on the light side…besides, do you actually think they will be able to pay the fine? Let the LEGAL immigrants get a chance for citizenship and the right to vote…the illegal immigrants should forfeit that opportunity since they CHOOSE to ignore our LAWS.