Torn on This Issue

[rlg94086]

The problem is both sides don’t pretty much want the things on your list…otherwise they would have happened.

I think the problem is that both sides are right. On the one hand, illegal immigration is a bad thing for just about everyone – it is bad for the illegals (who get treated like slave labor), bad for employers trying to comply with the law (who cannot compete), bad for native born workers. And we need to get better control of our borders, lest someone slips in with a dirty bomb.

But we cannot pretend that these folks are not here now. To deport however many are here illegally is impossible.

The solution I think is to do pretty much what both sides want:

1. Build a real border fence
2. Provide amnesty (with appropriate penalties so that we do not give a benefit to those broke the law, over those who came legally)
3. Establish an immigrant worker program that allows the federal government to track immigrants, keep out trouble makers, and ensure taxes etc are being paid by employers and workers.
4. Crack down on employers who violate the programs.
5. Provide incentives for immigrant workers to stay and become citizens.

 

[amcalabrese]

The problem is both sides don’t pretty much want the things on your list…otherwise they would have happened.

The problem is both sides want one thing without the other, and refuse to budge.

One side clear wants amnesty but no enforcement.

The other wants enforcement, but no amnesty.

My theory is short term, this hurts the GOP more, long term the Democrats.

 

[Ituyu]

This whole issue of the 14th Amendment granting automatic citizenship is worthy of discussion.

For starters, folks should read the actual text of the 14th Amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…

I provided the emphasis.

So, what are the implications of " … AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF…"

AND, “wherein they reside”.

Sometimes, folks may not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction even if they are born here. AND some folks may not be legal residents even if they live someplace.

Worth discussion.

When the INS trained QDE Representatives in processing applicants under the provisions of IRCA 1986, INS officials told us that babies born of the “illegal” on U.S. soil were indeed American citizens. Are you saying that our government officials were wrong?

 

[Ituyu]

The problem is both sides want one thing without the other, and refuse to budge.

One side clear wants amnesty but no enforcement.

The other wants enforcement, but no amnesty.

My theory is short term, this hurts the GOP more, long term the Democrats.

I’ve neve said that I am against enforcement. But, to arbitrarily decide that the “illegal”, some who have been here in excess of 20 years, should be deported does not seem fair to me. The vast majority of them have done no harm, they’ve worked honest job and have not been guilty of serious crimes. They are under similar circumstances as those who legalized in 1986. The use of false documents was forgiven unless there was a greater fraud involved and to qualify they had to be here “illegally”. And, as it turns out they filled jobs that needed filling. Not just the poorest paying and least desirable jobs but jobs that would have gone wanting.

It is no mystery that ALL of the 9/11 terrorists came here “Legally”. They were well funded and do not need to risk coming over the desert or over a fence. A viable self supporting Legalization process would be more humane and achieve the same results without the necessity of allocating billions of dollars on a wasteful endeavor that would also endanger the environment. Remember we’ve been busy spending billions of dollars, for years, on fences already and they didn’t work. Plus I believe that the fence would be used by our enemies as “proof positive” of our evil nature and would help them recruit still more terrorists. Also, please consider that our Canadian border is much more susceptible to terrorist activities as it is patrolled with far fewer agents and is 4 times as long. A terrorist would simply need to come through Canada, but wait, the terrorists all chose to come “Legally”. We have more to fear from “home grown” terrorists than the poor and hungry coming through our southern border as NONE of them were involved with 9/11.

 

[Ituyu]

Certainly the fence is in the common good.

For example programs and efforts by the government to protect the public health are in the common good.

In formation about how illegal immigration threatens public health ca be found at the reference below.

Programs and efforts to discourage illegal immigration, even eliminate illegal immigration, including the fence, aid in the protection of public health and are in the common good.

Reference – Immigration forum; thread “Illegal immigrants are a threat to public health”

Sorry Kiddo, but it serves no one to waste billions on a fence and then billions upon billions to patrol it. That will not make us any safer. Under a viable Legalization procedure, applicants would provide and pay for their own health screenings.

 

[Ituyu]

The amnesty program of 1986 may have helped a few illegal immigrants but it was a disaster for the country at large.

It stimulated a huge flow of illegal immigrants into the US by those who assume they will get legal status if they just wait. This produced all kinds of problems including public health problems.

To do anything like that again would be a horrible step for us.

Would you stop pulling things out of your hat? IRCA did not encourage anyone to do anything. It was our jobs and their need for one that made them come. But, I will agree that the “Employer Sanctions” became a farce. One, employers were not equipped for the undertaking. Two, they had jobs that needed filling with no one to fill them. Three, The government knew the situation. Four, the government had only a token force to investigate employers. And five, the government looked the other way. Why? Because it was the best solution.

 

[Al_Masetti]

When the INS trained QDE Representatives in processing applicants under the provisions of IRCA 1986, INS officials told us that babies born of the “illegal” on U.S. soil were indeed American citizens. Are you saying that our government officials were wrong?

I am suggesting that we look at the ACTUAL wording of the U.S. Constitution.

Are you suggesting that our government officials are incapable of making errors in the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution?

On September 11, 2001, and in the events leading up to it, very high level U.S. Government officials REFUSED to pursue strong leads … such as looking at the hard drive of a suspected terrorist in the midwest. Such as imposing limitations on the profiling of terrorists. Such as refusing to check out people on airplanes, later demonstrated to be terrorists making dry runs, when their suspicious behaviors were pointed out by other passengers, Such as refusing to deny admission to the United States of later confirmed terrorists who had egregious errors and omissions on their visa applications. Such as harrassing the ONE U.S. official who DID deny admission to a person who was later confirmed as a terrorist.

Yeah, our U.S. Government officials are, from time to time, wrong.

Yeah, our U.S. Government officials do, from time to time, bend to the winds of Political Correctness.

[Question: does the U.S. Government still have that rule of “two”? Meaning that if two passengers on a plane of one “ethnic background” are questioned, then a third passenger of that background may not be questioned… Or as one observer has suggested, that if two Jordanian cab drivers are questioned, then after that if Osama Bin Laden walks on, they can’t talk to him.] [That used to be an actual U.S. Government rule … airlines that broke the rule were heavily fined… in fact.]

 

[Ituyu]

I am suggesting that we look at the ACTUAL wording of the U.S. Constitution.

Are you suggesting that our government officials are incapable of making errors in the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution

No, that’s not their job! Those Immigration officials were echoing the decision of the United States Supreme Court not interpreting it.

The Fourtheenth Amendment has been considered on granting citizenship to African Americans, American Indians, the Chinese (Parent’s could not become citizens but their children were considered citizens) and the children of “illegal” aliens. Do you see a trend?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “illegal” immigrants residing in a state “ARE” within the jurisdiction” of that state. Therefore their children are also “Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and qualify for birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

See: law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0202_ZS.html

 

[Fremont]

Would you stop pulling things out of your hat? IRCA did not encourage anyone to do anything. It was our jobs and their need for one that made them come. But, I will agree that the “Employer Sanctions” became a farce. One, employers were not equipped for the undertaking. Two, they had jobs that needed filling with no one to fill them. Three, The government knew the situation. Four, the government had only a token force to investigate employers. And five, the government looked the other way. Why? Because it was the best solution.

Turn your emotions down to simmer for a few minutes and replace your battle helmet with your thinking cap and maybe a bit of reality will get through.

The 1986 amnesty was a disaster resulting in horrible unintended consequences. Not the least of which was to encourage a huge flood of illegal immigrants to enter the US with expectations that they too will be given a free lunch if they just wait. That amnesty is just another example that no good deed goes unpunished.

Get real. If the 1986 amnesty was the panacea you proclaim with the wonderful initial and ongoing benefits to all parties concerned you assert, some sort of legalization would have been passed long ago and we would not be having this dialog.

The truth is that the 1986 amnesty turned into a debacle and the threat that even worse consequences will result from similar actions now is likely the biggest obstacle to any sort of legalization now.

Face it; denying reality will not help further your cause.

If you have ideas on how legalization can proceed with a guarantee that horrific unintended consequences will not occur pass them along to congress, the President and any other influential people you can think of.

If your concepts are valid and practical there is an excellent chance you will get the legalization you say you desire.

 

[Ituyu]

Turn your emotions down to simmer for a few minutes and replace your battle helmet with your thinking cap and maybe a bit of reality will get through.

The 1986 amnesty was a disaster resulting in horrible unintended consequences. Not the least of which was to encourage a huge flood of illegal immigrants to enter the US with expectations that they too will be given a free lunch if they just wait. That amnesty is just another example that no good deed goes unpunished.

Get real. If the 1986 amnesty was the panacea you proclaim with the wonderful initial and ongoing benefits to all parties concerned you assert, some sort of legalization would have been passed long ago and we would not be having this dialog.

The truth is that the 1986 amnesty turned into a debacle and the threat that even worse consequences will result from similar actions now is likely the biggest obstacle to any sort of legalization now.

Face it; denying reality will not help further your cause.

quote]

 

[Fremont]

 

[amcalabrese]

But, to arbitrarily decide that the “illegal”, some who have been here in excess of 20 years, should be deported does not seem fair to me.

It is not arbitrary. It is simple:

1. Did the persons enter the US legally?
2. Is that person eligible to work in the US?

If the answer is no, there is nothing arbitrary about saying they are illegal.

I agree that it would be impossible and wrong to deport all those here who have not broken any other laws. But they should not be allowed to jump ahead of those who are trying to comply with US immigraton laws (my wife’s family are all legal immigrants, and the hoops they have to jump through are difficult).

Those here illegally need to be made to pay a fine.

They also need to clear up any unpaid payroll taxes.

Any amnesty needs also to provide for an employer amnesty. Having a few big corporate execs do a perp walk will encourage the others to come clean.

 

[Ituyu]

Ituyu;1558194:

No matter how you try to explain it the 1986 amnesty enticed and encouraged millions of people to illegally enter the US.

Congress is very unlikely to pass any sort of legalization that will repeat that mistake.

Any legalization must avoid any sort of encouragement for more illegal immigration and also not have any appearance of rewards or special privileges for illegal immigrants.

Here is what an economics expert and professor Easterlin (An economics historian) says in his Study of U.S. Cyclical Unemployment about the relationship of immigration to unemployment:

 "In earlier decades of this century, when immigration to theUnited States was quite free, the waves of immigration coincidedwith the waves of business activity in the United States.Immigration increased when the demand for labor was great, anddecreased (or even became net out-migration, as in the l930s)when demand for labor fell and unemployment rose. Aboutimmigration in the free-entry period before World War I"

He conducted this study in the mid-90’s and there have been no reputable formal studies that contradict his findings.

I would hope that Congress would be more realistic in their approach and allow immigration to increase to the levels necessary to meet our labor needs. Redirecting the flow of “illegal” immigration through our Legal process would do more to serve the public than a fence that experts agree will not work. .

 

[Ituyu]

It is not arbitrary. It is simple:

1. Did the persons enter the US legally?
2. Is that person eligible to work in the US?

If the answer is no, there is nothing arbitrary about saying they are illegal.

I agree that it would be impossible and wrong to deport all those here who have not broken any other laws. But they should not be allowed to jump ahead of those who are trying to comply with US immigraton laws (my wife’s family are all legal immigrants, and the hoops they have to jump through are difficult).

Those here illegally need to be made to pay a fine.

They also need to clear up any unpaid payroll taxes.

Any amnesty needs also to provide for an employer amnesty. Having a few big corporate execs do a perp walk will encourage the others to come clean.

I meant arbitrary in terms of Human needs and instincts. We all need to work in order to provide for our families. It part of that survival instinct. Work in or itself is not “illegal” it’s necessary. Also there is that point on which we seem to agree, that it would unfair to deport 11 million people.

I have no conflict with the rests of your points as all of those pertaining to the “illegal” immigrant along with many other requisites are incorporated into proposed legalization procedures supported by the USCCB, a balanced, reasonable and fair approach.

 

[Fremont]

Fremont;1562656:

Here is what an economics expert and professor Easterlin (An economics historian) says in his Study of U.S. Cyclical Unemployment

about the relationship of immigration to unemployment:

 "In earlier decades of this century, when immigration to theUnited States was quite free, the waves of immigration coincidedwith the waves of business activity in the United States.Immigration increased when the demand for labor was great, anddecreased (or even became net out-migration, as in the l930s)when demand for labor fell and unemployment rose. Aboutimmigration in the free-entry period before World War I"

He conducted this study in the mid-90’s and there have been no reputable formal studies that contradict his findings.

I would hope that Congress would be more realistic in their approach and allow immigration to increase to the levels necessary to meet our labor needs. Redirecting the flow of “illegal” immigration through our Legal process would do more to serve the public than a fence that experts agree will not work. .

I am sure Professor Easterlin made valid observations about fluctuation of immigration and differing demands for labor. I certainly have no inclination to dispute his statements.

It is likely other economic historians have made studies of the fluctuation of immigration to the US based on other factors too, like the potato famine in Ireland in the mid-19th century.

So what? All of that immigration was legal. The US had a pretty much open immigration policy for about 150 years. Just about everybody came in legally.

Then the government concluded that such an open policy was no longer in the best interests of the US community as a whole and passed various laws to control immigration.

Now is not then. Immigration laws exist now, there were few if any laws controlling immigration then. There are various labor laws now, including the I-9 form, there were few labor laws then.

The important difference is that then laws were not violated. Now illegal immigrants violate immigration laws and they violate employment laws. Looking back then does not change that.

 

[Ituyu]

Ituyu;1564435:

I am sure Professor Easterlin made valid observations about fluctuation of immigration and differing demands for labor. I certainly have no inclination to dispute his statements.

It is likely other economic historians have made studies of the fluctuation of immigration to the US based on other factors too, like the potato famine in Ireland in the mid-19th century.

So what? All of that immigration was legal. The US had a pretty much open immigration policy for about 150 years. Just about everybody came in legally.

Then the government concluded that such an open policy was no longer in the best interests of the US community as a whole and passed various laws to control immigration.

Now is not then. Immigration laws exist now, there were few if any laws controlling immigration then. There are various labor laws now, including the I-9 form, there were few labor laws then.

The important difference is that then laws were not violated. Now illegal immigrants violate immigration laws and they violate employment laws. Looking back then does not change that.

I’ll say it is a convenient argument since everybody did the same thing. Only the indigenous, the one’s who were here first, are being targeted. I’ll say it again there is no good legal or moral reason to have created this “illegal” population. They came as they always have. No different from anybody that preceded them. No good moral reason because doing jobs that we wanted them to do is not immoral. To throw them out is immoral as it serves no good for them or for us. Legally, because we chose to enforce at our whim. We looked the other way when they came. They intended no harm and collectively there is no legitimate proof of any harm because the vast majority of economists agree that they were a NET benefit. That means when you subtract any legitimate costs incurred by them from the gains we still end up winning. That’s just from an economic standpoint. We end up winning when it comes to providing the growth we need. They’re the fastest growing population in the country. Growth that we desperately need. Other countries as you’ve mention like Italy are experiencing a decline in population even with their immigration. You say that you’re worried that Italy will not even be Christian some where in the future. You can’t say that about these immigrants. Japan will lose half of it’s population in the next 50 years if they don’t loosen their immigration quotas. There is no short term fix for that except through immigration. Machines don’t have babies. Really Fremont the “illegal” immigration issue is just the tip of the iceberg. We will need immigration in the middle management and middle income brackets. You will begin to see even more change then. We don’t have an alternative. Either we bring in MORE people or suffer the consequences. Fortunately, I think people at the top understand that.

 

[shirleytowers]

To use a metaphor, immigration is like having people over to your house.

Say you have a nice big home. You can fit alot of people in a big old house, but you do want them to be invited guests or people who knock on the door and ask to come in. You can accomodate only so many at a time and that is how many you ask in.

Meanwhile, others are sneaking in through the bathroom window, tunneling into your basement, breaking into your garage and coming in, and making themselves at home, pretending to be invited in. Sure, they mow your lawn and help around the house, but pretty soon your house in inexplicably full, a large family moves into your bedroom, your grocery bill is curiously high, your bathrooms are overtaxed, and complete strangers are lounging in your Lazyboy. They take money out of your wallet and mail it to their friends. They expect you to pay their medical bills. You have to send their kids to school, too, on your dime. They say they will go home, and eventually some do, but plenty stay. Your security system no longer works because there are holes all over where people come and go.

This is no way to maintain a household.

Chaos.

 

[Ituyu]

To use a metaphor, immigration is like having people over to your house.

Say you have a nice big home. You can fit alot of people in a big old house, but you do want them to be invited guests or people who knock on the door and ask to come in. You can accomodate only so many at a time and that is how many you ask in.

Meanwhile, others are sneaking in through the bathroom window, tunneling into your basement, breaking into your garage and coming in, and making themselves at home, pretending to be invited in. Sure, they mow your lawn and help around the house, but pretty soon your house in inexplicably full, a large family moves into your bedroom, your grocery bill is curiously high, your bathrooms are overtaxed, and complete strangers are lounging in your Lazyboy. They take money out of your wallet and mail it to their friends. They expect you to pay their medical bills. You have to send their kids to school, too, on your dime. They say they will go home, and eventually some do, but plenty stay. Your security system no longer works because there are holes all over where people come and go.

This is no way to maintain a household.

Chaos.

The problem is we needed them then, now and in the future. Where do you get the idea that we don’t need or want more? Not from economic or population growth perspectives. Again, schools are paid for through property taxes. Anyone that owns a home or pays rent pays property taxes and therfore pay for schools. So that’s just an excuse and not a very good one to attack a group of people.

 

[Fremont]

Fremont;1568793:

I’ll say it is a convenient argument since everybody did the same thing. Only the indigenous, the one’s who were here first, are being targeted. I’ll say it again there is no good legal or moral reason to have created this “illegal” population. They came as they always have. No different from anybody that preceded them. No good moral reason because doing jobs that we wanted them to do is not immoral. To throw them out is immoral as it serves no good for them or for us. Legally, because we chose to enforce at our whim. We looked the other way when they came. They intended no harm and collectively there is no legitimate proof of any harm because the vast majority of economists agree that they were a NET benefit. That means when you subtract any legitimate costs incurred by them from the gains we still end up winning. That’s just from an economic standpoint. We end up winning when it comes to providing the growth we need. They’re the fastest growing population in the country. Growth that we desperately need. Other countries as you’ve mention like Italy are experiencing a decline in population even with their immigration. You say that you’re worried that Italy will not even be Christian some where in the future. You can’t say that about these immigrants. Japan will lose half of it’s population in the next 50 years if they don’t loosen their immigration quotas. There is no short term fix for that except through immigration. Machines don’t have babies. Really Fremont the “illegal” immigration issue is just the tip of the iceberg. We will need immigration in the middle management and middle income brackets. You will begin to see even more change then. We don’t have an alternative. Either we bring in MORE people or suffer the consequences. Fortunately, I think people at the top understand that.

I do not know what you are whinning about. You posted the source stating fluctuations in immigration are based on various factors and focused on events almost a hundred years ago when the immigration laws were quite different. I just responed to point out the flaws in that information I see when applied to modern times.

Also I never mentioned anything about Italy. I am not sure what illegal immigration to the US has to do with Italy, just another example of your mind flailing around. Another attempt to go off topic in a abtuse direction.

You canlook at the world through your straw all you want, that does not make your view true or correct.

US immigration laws and labor laws apply to anyone in this country illegally. That includes Mexicans, Chinese, Germans, etc. They are not targeted to only one class as you claim.

You seem to like Wikipedia. Wikipedia states an alien is a person who is not a native or naturalized citizen of the land where they are found. US law reflects this definition.

Wikipedia also states the term illegal alien describes a foreign national who resides in another country unlawfully, either by entering that country at a place other than a designated port-of-entry or as result of the expiration of a non-immigrant visa. Again, US law reflects this definition.

You can talk about Siberian genes all you want but that is your personal view. That does not make it true or correct. I certainly reject your view and apparently so does Wikipedia.

In the latter half of the 19th century the US passed laws requiring health inspections of all immigrants to the US as a just, valid and prudent means to deny entry to those with enfectious diseases or certain other malities and protect the common good… These laws are still in affect.

Illegal immigrants violate these laws and not only place the common good in jeprody but cause real harm. This is wrong in my opinion. The Church seems to support that view as best I can determine by teaching that valid laws aimed at presernivg the common good are to be reapected.

That is a very good reason to crack down on and discourage illegal immigration. The fence may not be a perfect solution but it is a step in the right direction. A mine field might be a more effective barrier as well as a better deterent but I think that would be excessive and wrong.

 

[Ituyu]

I do not know what you are whinning about. You posted the source stating fluctuations in immigration are based on various factors and focused on events almost a hundred years ago when the immigration laws were quite different. I just responed to point out the flaws in that information I see when applied to modern times.

It’s simple Fremont, you just refuse to accept the facts. The econmics historian did his study mid-90’s. He says that that trend has not changed. The principle guiding fluctuating in immigration, legal and “illegal” was in responce to our demand for labor. He says in no uncertain terms that when our demand for their labor is high, they come. And, when the demand stops like during the Depression, they leave. The Supply and Demand relationship is constant.

Also I never mentioned anything about Italy. I am not sure what illegal immigration to the US has to do with Italy, just another example of your mind flailing around. Another attempt to go off topic in a abtuse direction

You canlook at the world through your straw all you want, that does not make your view true or correct.

US immigration laws and labor laws apply to anyone in this country illegally. That includes Mexicans, Chinese, Germans, etc. They are not targeted to only one class as you claim.

Not just Italy but all of Western Civilization is in decline with one exception …US. Why? Immigration, legal and “illegal”. Of course they are being targeted because you mention not one concern about anyone else. All your attention is directed only at them. After literally hundreds of posts, you have not once complained of anyone else except for Spanish speaking foreigners. You have not mentioned ONE thing that would address anyone else. You can dance around the issue all you want but you have not come up with one legitimate benefit that a fence would provide that could be accomplished better by a legalization process.

In the latter half of the 19th century the US passed laws requiring health inspections of all immigrants to the US as a just, valid and prudent means to deny entry to those with enfectious diseases or certain other malities and protect the common good… These laws are still in affect.

Do you realize that the “illegal” immigrants are usually in their prime years and healthier than our own citizens of the same age? Do you also realize that a fence would not do anything to detect one person with a communicable diesease? Homeland Security does not support the fence nor does the Border Patrol. There is a much more porous border on the north that you so conveniently ignore. But all this to justify your desire to cast negative aspersions on an entire group of people. Immigration is a net benefit to this country.

Illegal immigrants violate these laws and not only place the common good in jeprody but cause real harm. This is wrong in my opinion. The Church seems to support that view as best I can determine by teaching that valid laws aimed at presernivg the common good are to be reapected.

The Church has said that laws that arbitrarily deny a person the right to migrate and to work are unjust. The Church is not bound by laws that go against inalienable rights. In fact, it teaches that we have a responsibility to stand up to injustice. Your reasoning is “Arbitary” and self-serving. You cannot demonstrate how we would be better off by taking you position. In fact you have been on the record that legalizing people already here is contraindicated. You would be against it even if it became a law. You were against IRCA 1986 yet it too was law. So you have a double standard with regards to the law. It appears that you just want them out, law or no law. There are far more superior and humane alternatives that would help us screen people out and still give us the people we need that would be paid for by the applicants themselves. But, a fair and effective process is not on your agenda.

That is a very good reason to crack down on and discourage illegal immigration. The fence may not be a perfect solution but it is a step in the right direction. A mine field might be a more effective barrier as well as a better deterent but I think that would be excessive and wrong.

The fence is a wasteful and ineffective proposal because as the Border Patrol has said it took years to fence a 14 mile area and it may not be possible to fence 10% of the proposed area. And, there are many citizens along the route of the proposed fence that agree that it is a dumb idea.

Mine fields and the fence have one thing in common, they would result in human deaths and it won’t stop “illegal” immigration. How is that a step in the right direction?