Welcome the Stranger (another perspective on illegal immigration)

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Illegals bankrupted CA? Somehow I doubt that though the public employee unions must be thrilled to see the blame cast at anyone but them.
Comfortably in northern New York, you hardly have a clear picture of what has been going on for a minimum of the last 25 years in CA. A convergence of many factors has bankrupt CA, a process which began 35-40 years ago, but magnified and intensified due additionally to the crush of illegal immigration in the last 25. What draws those factors together is, overall, a failure of the state legislature to say No to special interest groups and to say No to unending social services.

The public employee unions are clearly part of the special interest groups. However, the social services have been enormous. CA requires virtually nothing of those who want part of the CA budget (including claims on its nonexistent funds), and provides everything. That “everything” includes repeatedly violating State education law which requires public school instruction in English, but instead collaborating with those districts and publishers who want increasingly more money to support the transformation of a huge underclass of illiterate households into functionally literate members of society.

Most often, legal immigrants from most countries want to learn English if they don’t already have a basic fluency in it – which many of them do, some of them high fluency. The vast majority of those who need translations of everything (at significant cost to the gov’t) are immigrants who are not educated, which are primarily from Latin countries, and to a much lesser degree, from China. While there are immigrants in other Asian countires, particularly Vietnam and Cambodia, who also need translators, their numbers are small compared to those from Latin America. Most East Asian and South Asian immigrants are legal immigrants, and most of them do not need either translators or signfiicant amounts of social services; most often they have a skill or business – however modest – or they are being quickly advanced to CA’s higher education system.

Illegal immigrants in CA have produced a domino effect on economic resources – from education to health care.

You, I, anyone, has logic on their side to blame largely the legislature for the inability to say No, but the political reality is that legislators want to be reelected, and the demographics of constituencies impact their decisions. Had they not been asleep at the wheel while millions of illegals were crossing the southern border, and had the federal gov’t given a rat’s behind about enforcement, there wouldn’t be the critical mass of voters (yes, they vote) as a deciding factor in the equation.

It’s a combination of federal irresponsibility, state irresponsibility, and the amazingly flawed policies and practices of the legislature, which continues to support such irresponsibility on poliitcal grounds. Were CA largely a manufacturing state or of some industry which negatively impacted the state’s richest residents, there would be more political sentiment opposing irresponsible giveaways. But the fact is, the most powerful in the State are the ones least negativey affected (or affected at all) by illegal immigration. They are in government and the tech industry and other rather white-collar professions which illegals have little access to, and further, there are not enough of those with power & influence to swing votes. It’s really a matter of numbers.

So, in a lot of ways, CA is becoming a mini-Mexico in its economic patterns at least, and in its educaitonal patterns to a lesser degree.
 
I’ll speak in basic terms.

Illegal immigration is not a “civil right” – it’s TRESPASSING – the same as someone breaking into your home through the back door.

Imagine some uninvited crashers taking up residence in your living room. When you tell them to leave, they call you ‘racist’, and the police refuse to enforce the no-trespassing laws.

These crashers expect you to pay for their expenses, education, and medical care, and they plan to bring their extended families to join them in your home.

This is not about race or ethnicity; it’s about our right to choose whom to invite into our homes and into our country.

Some compare today’s illegal immigration to our grandparents’ legal immigration. Such sentiment is disingenuous. Besides the fact that our grandparents came in through the *front *door, they came when the country needed settlers and workers, not during times of 10-20% un/under-employment.

It is no longer physically or economically possible for America to admit every person who wants to live here. ** At current growth and reproduction rates of illegal immigrants, the U.S. population will double to 600 million within 40 years and quadruple to 1.2 billion in another 50 years. (No, I’m not advocating birth control, but immigration control: we decide whom to invite into our country).

So how do we help Lazarus’ large family at our door without overrunning our own home?

The US should help poor countries develop sustainable, equitable economies *within their own borders. *Mexico, for example, is the world’s sixth largest oil producer. Mexico should distribute its own wealth more equitably, and not expect the US to absorb millions of its people. We simply don’t have the resources to do it.

Selective legal immigration, yes. Massive illegal invasion, no.
 
These crashers expect you to pay for their expenses, education, and medical care, and they plan to bring their extended families to join them in your home.

These crashers also seem to be paying their share of taxes just like the rest of us. The idea of them coming into this country and being non-productive leeches is just wrong and does nothing to further the debate on immigration reform. It only fuels dangerous misperceptions.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400965.html
Some compare today’s illegal immigration to our grandparents’ legal immigration. Such sentiment is disingenuous. Besides the fact that our grandparents came in through the *front *
 
First, let me be clear that I’m addressing illegal immigrants (“trespassers”), not legal immigrants (invited guests).
These crashers also seem to be paying their share of taxes just like the rest of us. The idea of them coming into this country and being non-productive leeches is just wrong and does nothing to further the debate on immigration reform. It only fuels dangerous misperceptions.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn…060400965.html
The Washington Post link you provide includes legal immigrants and is limited to the DC area where legal immigrants might be expected to earn professional wages and pay more taxes. Nationally, however, fewer than one-third of illegal immigrants have high school diplomas, and most of these draw more from social services than they pay in taxes.

Indeed, the typical family if illegal immigrants costs U.S. taxpayers over $32,000 in federal, state and local benefits each year. That same family contributes an average of $9,000 a year in taxes, resulting in a net tax burden of $22,449 each year. If the lower figure of 12 million illegal aliens is used for estimation purposes, the total tax burden translates to $2.2 trillion over the lifetimes of these illegal immigrants (Heritage Foundation report cited by Congress):
heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/04/The-Fiscal-Cost-of-Low-Skill-Households-to-the-US-Taxpayer
The U.S. already gives Mexico millions in direct and indirect aid, not to mention that much of the money both illegal and legal immigrants in this country earn gets sent back to their families. I think that some experts estimate that source of money accounts for nearly a 1/3 of Mexico’s GDP. I do agree though that if many of these countrys had thriving and sustainable economies then much of the immigration problem could be alleviated.
Q: With so much massive US government aid pouring into Mexico, on top of Mexico’s huge oil revenues, why are so many Mexicans still so desperately poor?
A: Because of widespread corruption and mal-distribution of resources in Mexico.

My point: Third World countries themselves need to end corruption and ensure equitable distribution and sustainable development, and not export their poor to the US as a substitute for cleaning up corruption and mal-distribution in their own countries.

As for immigrants sending much of their earnings back to Mexico: they can still do so as guest workers without receiving the full rights and benefits of US citizens.
But, come the Great Depression all of those immigrants were blamed for the 25% unemployment rate. There were a few senators that said if all of those immigrants that came through the “front door” were kicked out then all the unemployment problems of the time would disappear. The immigrant, whether legal or illegal, has always been the scapegoat for America’s problems.
No one today is proposing to toss out legal immigrants, nor is anyone blaming legal immigrants for today’s high un/under-employment.

Your citing of past unjust scapegoating doesn’t overcome the fact that today it is not physically or economically possible for America to admit every person who wants to live here.
 
Please, anyone, answer some key questions:

Should there be any limits on how many immigrants we allow into our country? Or do you favor no-limits (open borders)?

If you agree that some limits are reasonable, how many should we allow? The US currently allows one million legal immigrants annually on top of the 1.5 million illegal immigrants per year. Is that enough? Why stop there? Why not allow 5 or 10 million annually? Shouldn’t all the world’s poor be equally entitled to the blessings of US residency and citizenship?

And if we limit legal immigration, say, to 2.5 million annually, that will lead to a total US population of 600 million by 2050 (many/ mostly uneducated and low-skilled). How will the US employ, feed, educate, and provide medical care for so many?

Christ laid out the basic principles of loving our neighbor, feeding the poor, and welcoming the stranger. But He left it for us to work out the details and answer the hard questions. General sentiments of “compassion” alone do not answer the hard questions or provide the details of workable, sustainable public policy.
 
Please, anyone, answer some key questions:

Should there be any limits on how many immigrants we allow into our country? Or do you favor no-limits (open borders)?

If you agree that some limits are reasonable, how many should we allow? The US currently allows one million legal immigrants annually on top of the 1.5 million illegal immigrants per year. Is that enough? Why stop there? Why not allow 5 or 10 million annually? Shouldn’t all the world’s poor be equally entitled to the blessings of US residency and citizenship?

And if we limit legal immigration, say, to 2.5 million annually, that will lead to a total US population of 600 million by 2050 (many/ mostly uneducated and low-skilled). How will the US employ, feed, educate, and provide medical care for so many?

Christ laid out the basic principles of loving our neighbor, feeding the poor, and welcoming the stranger. But He left it for us to work out the details and answer the hard questions. General sentiments of “compassion” alone do not answer the hard questions or provide the details of workable, sustainable public policy.
AMEN!
 
Peace be with you. With all the controversy over immigration, one important point has been overlooked. If anyone has the right to protest “illegal” immigration, it is the Native Americans, whose land was taken from them by Europeans who came uninvited. Granted, there were no immigration laws in those days. Immigration laws were invented mostly by people of Anglo-Saxon descent who (for those that know their history) wanted to refuse entry to the U.S. to: Irish (No Irish need apply); Chinese (the Yellow Peril) ; Germans (just because they are the enemy in general); Japanese (same reason).

Doesn’t anyone see the hypocrisy here? Pretty soon we will probably be passing laws that would expel anyone from this country whose ancestors did not come over on the Mayflower. This is not about immigration. It is about racism. There may be plenty of “illegal” immigrants from Canada or Europe who are coming to the U.S., but we never hear about it. White, English-speaking, Anglo-Saxons, who have considered this country their exclusive property for generations, are getting scared that people different from them are coming in and having an impact on their narrow vision of “American” culture.
 
Peace be with you. With all the controversy over immigration, one important point has been overlooked. If anyone has the right to protest “illegal” immigration, it is the Native Americans, whose land was taken from them by Europeans who came uninvited. Granted, there were no immigration laws in those days. Immigration laws were invented mostly by people of Anglo-Saxon descent who (for those that know their history) wanted to refuse entry to the U.S. to: Irish (No Irish need apply); Chinese (the Yellow Peril) ; Germans (just because they are the enemy in general); Japanese (same reason).

Doesn’t anyone see the hypocrisy here? Pretty soon we will probably be passing laws that would expel anyone from this country whose ancestors did not come over on the Mayflower. This is not about immigration. It is about racism. There may be plenty of “illegal” immigrants from Canada or Europe who are coming to the U.S., but we never hear about it. White, English-speaking, Anglo-Saxons, who have considered this country their exclusive property for generations, are getting scared that people different from them are coming in and having an impact on their narrow vision of “American” culture.
This appears to be a specious argument. Why don’t you answer the questions posed by Redtown, instead of trying to be politically correct?
 
John Zmirack writes the following commentary in “Inside Catholic”:
One thing we Catholics have known since almost the beginning: Most statements in the Bible can be misread, misapplied, and torn out of context to serve as the pretext for hysterical balderdash. Martin Luther famously used his private reading of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans to invent a whole new theology of salvation, personalized to soothe his aching scruples. Before that, poor Origen, the first great theologian of the Church, applied “If your hand causes you to sin, then cut it off” (Mk 9:43) to his problems with chastity . . . bless his heart! Today some of our bishops are telling us to do the very same thing to our country.

Oh I love this guy and his quick wit and blatant sarcasm. I first became familiar with him when someone e-mailed me his article on Soylent Green. I love his humor.

insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7860&Itemid=48

I’m so glad you reminded me of him because he was supposed to come out with an article which shreds the seamless garment thinking. I cannot wait!

Sorry - back to the topic…

The only thing I take issue with is that he has lumped AB Chaput in with Mahoney. Chaput has been one of the few who has somewhat defended our stance against the injustices we daily see around us.
One interesting thing about the bishop’s document is that it lumps legal and illegal immigration together as if they were exactly the same moral issue, except in one footnote. In fact, the word “illegal” is only used twice.
You noticed the very same thing I did and I mentioned this on another thread. And isn’t the correct term illegal alien? Technically those here illegally are not immigrants. But because we must be so politically correct, (I believe Obama told us so) every statement issued by the bishops is simply immigrant. (And that helps produce the guilty feelings, too, as we by-pass critical thinking and common sense in the immigration debate.)​
 
Peace be with you. With all the controversy over immigration, one important point has been overlooked. If anyone has the right to protest “illegal” immigration, it is the Native Americans, whose land was taken from them by Europeans who came uninvited. Granted, there were no immigration laws in those days. Immigration laws were invented mostly by people of Anglo-Saxon descent who (for those that know their history) wanted to refuse entry to the U.S. to: Irish (No Irish need apply); Chinese (the Yellow Peril) ; Germans (just because they are the enemy in general); Japanese (same reason).

Doesn’t anyone see the hypocrisy here? Pretty soon we will probably be passing laws that would expel anyone from this country whose ancestors did not come over on the Mayflower. This is not about immigration. It is about racism. There may be plenty of “illegal” immigrants from Canada or Europe who are coming to the U.S., but we never hear about it. White, English-speaking, Anglo-Saxons, who have considered this country their exclusive property for generations, are getting scared that people different from them are coming in and having an impact on their narrow vision of “American” culture.
Osiyo:)

Yes, I’m Native American - First Nation.
We are discussing ** illegal aliens **…It isn’t racist…It’s Illegal.

All these people up in arms over Arizona’s Law forget or didn’t know ] that it mirrors the 1940 Naturalization Laws. Since, 1940 anyone asked of their citizen status has had to show ID.

The 1940 Naturalization Laws can be found library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmi…tat%201137.pdf . These are the laws illegals have made a conscious effort daily ] to break.
 
Osiyo:)

Yes, I’m Native American - First Nation.
We are discussing ** illegal aliens **…It isn’t racist…It’s Illegal.
Wow! I sure hope you run for public office some day, Kimmie! I’ll volunteer to be your campaign manager! 😃 You got the “smarts” kiddo, and I, for one, appreciate your intelligent, well-informed opinions.
 
Wow! I sure hope you run for public office some day, Kimmie! I’ll volunteer to be your campaign manager! 😃 You got the “smarts” kiddo, and I, for one, appreciate your intelligent, well-informed opinions.
Hiyas:)

Thank you.

First, I have to get old enough to vote - then I have to wait till I’m an adult. So…you have time to ready my speeches 😃

I started really looking at what people were telling / teaching me…after I researched / discovered the Polar Bears weren’t dieing. 😦

CAF…has been a great learning tool for me in debating skills…and analyzing arguments logically. Reading with a critical eye / mind doesn’t always meet with positive feedback from some of my teachers. I’ve learned, not all teachers deserve to be my mentors and to choose my mentors - very carefully.

If I lose a point…I’ve learned to concede it with grace. But I don’t usually post anything I can’t backup 😃 ].

I enjoy your posts.
 
Please, anyone, answer some key questions:

Should there be any limits on how many immigrants we allow into our country? Or do you favor no-limits (open borders)?

If you agree that some limits are reasonable, how many should we allow? The US currently allows one million legal immigrants annually on top of the 1.5 million illegal immigrants per year. Is that enough? Why stop there? Why not allow 5 or 10 million annually? Shouldn’t all the world’s poor be equally entitled to the blessings of US residency and citizenship?

And if we limit legal immigration, say, to 2.5 million annually, that will lead to a total US population of 600 million by 2050 (many/ mostly uneducated and low-skilled). How will the US employ, feed, educate, and provide medical care for so many?

Christ laid out the basic principles of loving our neighbor, feeding the poor, and welcoming the stranger. But He left it for us to work out the details and answer the hard questions. General sentiments of “compassion” alone do not answer the hard questions or provide the details of workable, sustainable public policy.
There are no hard questions, and realizing that makes it a lot easier.

The government sets immigration policy against what this country can afford. The actual number of immigrants will vary as economic conditions vary in the host country. Economists do nothing but tally numbers, the value of the dollar versus other currencies is watched constantly, there are constant reports about consumer confidence, manufacturing output, the sale of durable goods and so on.

The major problem for all concerned is What Part of Illegal Don’t You Understand?

There is no such thing as Racial Profiling. Checking papers is standard procedure and if the majority of illegals are Mexicans, then they should cooperate with the authorities instead of creating protests and yelling discrimination. For those “what if they left their papers at home” fake horror stories – Create A Solution. I blame the Media 100% for coming up with ways to frighten people. If you are from Mexico and here legally, then a registration database should be set up. Just put your name and address in. Otherwise, yes, you could be detained until things are worked out. But come up with solutions and not imaginary scenarios to scare people.

God bless,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top