Is there really an illegal immigration crisis in the US? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 06-11-2007, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

We may have to agree to disagree. I think that exercising strict control over our borders serves a very valid purpose. (By "strict control" I don't necessarily mean that nobody should ever be let in the country, but rather that nobody should be let in without permission from the government.)

I see a difference between monitoring borders and kicking out or mistreating undocumented workers. I don't think people understand just how mush of the US economy is dependent on their high work to low cost worth. If we were suddenly to lose all of the workers in the US that are undocumented, I strongly suspect that we could be looking at an economic crisis the likes of which we've not seen in over a half a century. Not only that, but it seems ungrateful, in my view, that we should want to kick people out who are doing more work for less wages and who are so far from home to send money home to their families (which is often the case). I respect many of them a great deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

Absolutely. I can understand why many people from other countries may want to move here, but I don't think that gives them a right to ignore any law that hinders their attempt to relocate. It's sort of like the breaking and entering example I brought up before. I can understand why a homeless person would want to get out of the cold and rain on a winter day, but that doesn't give him or her the right to break into someone's home in search of shelter.

The aren't just breaking and entering, though. In order to make the comparison apt, they would pay rent and work. It's more like having someone live in your rented home without the owner's permission....though even that comparison isn't perfect. They aren't sitting and mooching. They're working, and contributing to the GNP. They are an active part of our workforce, and a gift from god to industries like agriculture, landscaping, cleaning, and babysitting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

I'd even consider some sort of temporary worker program if it was determined that it was truly necessary. But no person who is here illegally now or who had been caught here illegally in the past should be eligible, in my opinion.

What, in your mind, would be a reasonable determination as to the necessity that would merit a temporary worker program?

Also, keep in mind that the people who are here now are more likely to have a trade skill and speak English.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

I'm not too big a fan of corporations being involved in the affairs of the state. I don't like the idea of the state meddling in the affairs of corporations, either.

It's a tough area because neither is really all that trustworthy....the idea would be to isolate their interests so as to avoid conglomeration and mutual greed. But that's for another thread.

mixedmedia · 06-11-2007, 06:51 PM

I think part of the problem is a total inability to relate to the situation and environment that would lead a person to "break the law" and "work illegally" in the US. We expect that those two phrases have a universal meaning. When in truth that is an illusion.

archetypal fool · 06-11-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I think part of the problem is a total inability to relate to the situation and environment that would lead a person to "break the law" and "work illegally" in the US. We expect that those two phrases have a universal meaning. When in truth that is an illusion.

I agree with mixedmedia on this one. On an earlier thread about immigration, which I can't seem to find, we tried to illustrate how the situation can't be seen as "all illegals are bad". This isn't the case at all. I don't know what good it's going to do to the thread, but put yourself in the shoes of an illegal immigrant. Why did you come here? Did you have another option? What about your family? Now that you're here, what's your priority? I shared in the previous thread the story of my family and friends. If you find it hard the imagine and rationalize what these illegal immigrants feel and experience as they are making the decision to break into the US, simply ask, and I'll write the story again.

It's easy to sit here in our comfortable environments, moderate economy, and great standard of living and feel contempt for these foreign peoples who are seemingly leaching off of America (which, I might add, isn't the case), if you don't know what it's like to be in their shoe, and you've never experienced what they have.

The blame lies in so many places, it's impossible to just say "to hell with illegal immigrants" (not putting words in anyone's mouth). The blame can be shared with foreign governments which don't care for their people enough to actually give them opportunities to work for a living to sustain their families. how can you blame the citizens for wanting to live? The blame lies partially with the US for previously (and contemporaneously) hurting the economic and political foundations of some foreign countries, to the point where they're so destabilized that citizens don't usually have a choice - It's either immigrate (illegally) into another country, or die, and let your family die too. There's neither the time nor the money to go about the process legally. If you have the time and the money, then you can't say you've been through what illegal immigrants have been through. Again...Live or die...It's a simple choice, especially when you have a wife and kids, and don't tell me for a second that you wouldn't make the exact same choice in a comparable situation.

abaya · 06-11-2007, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

The blame lies in so many places, it's impossible to just say "to hell with illegal immigrants" (not putting words in anyone's mouth). The blame can be shared with foreign governments which don't care for their people enough to actually give them opportunities to work for a living to sustain their families. how can you blame the citizens for wanting to live? The blame lies partially with the US for previously (and contemporaneously) hurting the economic and political foundations of some foreign countries, to the point where they're so destabilized that citizens don't usually have a choice - It's either immigrate (illegally) into another country, or die, and let your family die too. There's neither the time nor the money to go about the process legally. If you have the time and the money, then you can't say you've been through what illegal immigrants have been through. Again...Live or die...It's a simple choice, especially when you have a wife and kids, and don't tell me for a second that you wouldn't make the exact same choice in a comparable situation.

Yes, yes, and yes again... you've hit the nail on the head with each point here. Every single last one of us would be illegal, if we weren't already so damn privileged. I know I would do it, if I had to.

Btw, did you post previously in the thread I cited in my long post earlier in this thread? (There's a link there, if you want to check.) That was the last immigration thread I remember, but I could be wrong.

ASU2003 · 06-11-2007, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Sovereignty has changed over the past 100 years, or even in the last 15. Being isolationist isn't an option, as our economy is intertwined with many other economies around the world, including Mexico (can you imagine if Mexico kicked out all the Ford manufacturing plants, in the name of sovereignty? I doubt many people would but a baseline Excursion for $45,000 and $100,000 for a Mustang).

But how much would house prices go down if we kicked out 10-20 million people in the southwest?

Then again, you would just have a flood of snowbirds moving down there and 'investors' buying up real estate after they left.

archetypal fool · 06-12-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Yes, yes, and yes again... you've hit the nail on the head with each point here. Every single last one of us would be illegal, if we weren't already so damn privileged. I know I would do it, if I had to.

Btw, did you post previously in the thread I cited in my long post earlier in this thread? (There's a link there, if you want to check.) That was the last immigration thread I remember, but I could be wrong.

No, it was in a different one. I couldn't find it before since it didn't show up on the Tilted Politics page, but I found it by searching my post history. Here it is. This thread wasn't specifically about immigration; it was about Newt Gingrich's idea that the US should only accommodate one language. It did, however, inevitably lead to a heated discussion about immigration.

Willravel · 06-12-2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

But how much would house prices go down if we kicked out 10-20 million people in the southwest?

I'm afraid I don't follow. By 'people' do you mean citizens, legal immigrants, or undocumented workers?

dksuddeth · 06-12-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm afraid I don't follow. By 'people' do you mean citizens, legal immigrants, or undocumented workers?

I think he means Illegal aliens. you know, people here in violation of the immigration laws of this country.

Willravel · 06-12-2007, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I think he means Illegal aliens. you know, people here in violation of the immigration laws of this country.

I named citizens, legal immigrants, or undocumented workers. I can't think of any other group here in the US, certainly not these 'illegal aliens' you speak of.

Are you taking about one these?

I'm pretty sure he has permission to be here.

dksuddeth · 06-12-2007, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I named citizens, legal immigrants, or undocumented workers. I can't think of any other group here in the US, certainly not these 'illegal aliens' you speak of.

illegal immigrants then, or do you prefer the orwellian speak of 'undocumented workers'? maybe I can start using that speak for illegal carrying of a weapon, just call it an undocumented concealed handgun carrier.

Willravel · 06-12-2007, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

illegal immigrants then, or do you prefer the orwellian speak of 'undocumented workers'? maybe I can start using that speak for illegal carrying of a weapon, just call it an undocumented concealed handgun carrier.

It fascinates me that me being against more government power makes me 'Orwellian'. I've read 1984 dozens of times. I think you missed something. Also, as I stated before, you're more likely to have a citizen commit a crime than an undocumented worker. They are less dangerous than we are. Guns, however, are slightly more dangerous than Mexicans or Guatemalans. That's the last I'll speak of guns in this thread.

dksuddeth · 06-12-2007, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It fascinates me that me being against more government power makes me 'Orwellian'. I've read 1984 dozens of times. I think you missed something.

It isn't me that missed something.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Also, as I stated before, you're more likely to have a citizen commit a crime than an undocumented worker. They are less dangerous than we are.

because us americans are so violent and full of hatred. right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Guns, however, are slightly more dangerous than Mexicans or Guatemalans. That's the last I'll speak of guns in this thread.

how about undocumented social security receivers, or undocumented drivers? why don't we start replacing the word illegal with undocumented for everything? after all, the less government power, the better, right?

Willravel · 06-12-2007, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

It isn't me that missed something.....

What's the first sentence of the third chapter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

because us americans are so violent and full of hatred. right?

I'm not sure why, but it may have something to do with being spoiled considering people who are more poor and are in danger of deportation are more law abiding. It could be a lot of things.

dksuddeth · 06-12-2007, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What's the first sentence of the third chapter.

my point exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm not sure why, but it may have something to do with being spoiled considering people who are more poor and are in danger of deportation are more law abiding. It could be a lot of things.

if they didn't follow the laws to get in here, they aren't very law abiding, are they?

Willravel · 06-12-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

my point exactly.

You don't have the book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

if they didn't follow the laws to get in here, they aren't very law abiding, are they?

If guns were outlawed tomorrow, you'd keep your guns. Explain how that's any different.

dksuddeth · 06-12-2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You don't have the book.

not on me at work, but you're still missing the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If guns were outlawed tomorrow, you'd keep your guns. Explain how that's any different.

"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
Marbury v. Madison 1803

Telluride · 06-12-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I see a difference between monitoring borders and kicking out or mistreating undocumented workers.

I agree, but I happen to think immigration laws should be strictly enforced. I don't think illegal immigrants should be beheaded, flogged or forced to watch music videos from rap and emo artists. That would be cruel and counter-productive. But I wouldn't consider it mistreatment to send an illegal back to wherever he or she came from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If we were suddenly to lose all of the workers in the US that are undocumented, I strongly suspect that we could be looking at an economic crisis the likes of which we've not seen in over a half a century.

I'm willing to risk it. And I'm not convinced that Americans being forced to mow their own lawns and clean their own homes will result in a crisis. It wasn't that long ago that people actually did stuff like this for themselves. And even if there are some issues, I kinda see it as a form of "tough love". I think the only real potential for problems may be with agriculture. Perhaps prison labor would alleviate that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The aren't just breaking and entering, though. In order to make the comparison apt, they would pay rent and work. It's more like having someone live in your rented home without the owner's permission....though even that comparison isn't perfect. They aren't sitting and mooching. They're working, and contributing to the GNP. They are an active part of our workforce, and a gift from god to industries like agriculture, landscaping, cleaning, and babysitting.

They are "breaking and entering", though. Breaking into someone's house is illegal, regardless of what happens once the person gets inside. Immigration laws should be enforced the same way and for the same reason: property rights (which would be known as "sovereignty" on the national level).

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What, in your mind, would be a reasonable determination as to the necessity that would merit a temporary worker program?

A complete collapse of our economy from which we could never, ever recover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Also, keep in mind that the people who are here now are more likely to have a trade skill and speak English.

Plenty of lawbreakers have trade skills and speak English. I see your point, but it doesn't change my mind. I don't believe that one's appeal to employers should be used to excuse violations of important laws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's a tough area because neither is really all that trustworthy....the idea would be to isolate their interests so as to avoid conglomeration and mutual greed. But that's for another thread.

Agreed.

I've really enjoyed this discussion but we may have to just agree to disagree on the whole issue. I definitely understand your concerns and I think you understand mine, but I honestly don't see either of us budging much.

Willravel · 06-12-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

I agree, but I happen to think immigration laws should be strictly enforced. I don't think illegal immigrants should be beheaded, flogged or forced to watch music videos from rap and emo artists. That would be cruel and counter-productive. But I wouldn't consider it mistreatment to send an illegal back to wherever he or she came from.

I understand what you're saying. My first thought would go to how. I doubt we can send them all packing, considering pure numbers. It wouldn't be reasonable to spend the money and manpower that would be necessary to send even half of them home. My second thought would be why, BESIDES THE LAW. Aren't most of them doing hard work? Aren't they functioning members of our society? When you eat a raisin, you're probably eating something that was picked by an undocumented worker in the area of agricultural land around Fresno. If grapes were picked by people who made minimum wage, you'd have to seriously consider removing raisins from your budget. I love tomatoes. I would have to grow them myself or stop eating them. I don't have a back yard big enough to fit the all the fruit and veggies me and my family need. I happen to grow veggies in my back yard, and I know that even using my whole back yard, we'd need to supplement the amount of food with a large secondary source. I'm estimating that I could only supply 1/3 of our veggies. And I'd never eat a banana again, as they don't grow as well in a Mediterranean climate like I have here.

These are logistical concerns outside of the philosophical argument, which may not be resolved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

I'm willing to risk it. And I'm not convinced that Americans being forced to mow their own lawns and clean their own homes will result in a crisis. It wasn't that long ago that people actually did stuff like this for themselves. And even if there are some issues, I kinda see it as a form of "tough love". I think the only real potential for problems may be with agriculture. Perhaps prison labor would alleviate that?

When the US was much more agrarian and had a much smaller population, it was reasonable. We'd have to see a lot of deaths in order to be able to pay fair wages for lower work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

They are "breaking and entering", though. Breaking into someone's house is illegal, regardless of what happens once the person gets inside. Immigration laws should be enforced the same way and for the same reason: property rights (which would be known as "sovereignty" on the national level).

I'm still not sure as to why you think it should be illegal. You started talking about sovereignty, and I was starting to follow, but saying something is wrong because it's illegal doesn't make sense. That's like saying it's wrong because it's wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

A complete collapse of our economy from which we could never, ever recover.

I won't say that'll definitely happen, but if we were to somehow expel all undocumented workers, we'd be looking at a MASSIVE crisis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

Plenty of lawbreakers have trade skills and speak English. I see your point, but it doesn't change my mind. I don't believe that one's appeal to employers should be used to excuse violations of important laws.

I understand what you're saying. Sovereignty is important to you. I can respect that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

Agreed.

I've really enjoyed this discussion but we may have to just agree to disagree on the whole issue. I definitely understand your concerns and I think you understand mine, but I honestly don't see either of us budging much.

I'm willing to respectfully disagree. I've done it a few times on TFP.

ShaniFaye · 06-27-2007, 02:48 PM

Kudo's to my county.....finally

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/met...immigrant.html

Quote:

The Gwinnett Commission on Tuesday voted to require companies seeking county contracts to verify that all of their employees are legal U.S. residents.

In a 4-0 vote with one member absent, the board also empowered county auditors to periodically inspect the records of companies hired to do county work and question their employees.

Gwinnett Commission Chairman Charles Bannister and Commissioners Lorraine Green, Mike Beaudreau and Kevin Kenerly voted for the proposal. Commissioner Bert Nasuti, who is on vacation, did not attend the meeting.

"The reason we did this is because so many of you are frustrated... we're frustrated," said Green, who drafted the proposal.

"We want Washington to act but they seem to be dragging their feet a bit. So we can not longer avoid action."

Prior to the vote, critics warned the commissioners that, if approved, the new contracting policy would be unconstitutional and usurp the federal government's power to regulate immigration.

They also argued that requiring companies to turn over personnel document and question employees could violate federal privacy laws.

Jamie Hernan, a lawyer who represents Latino clients said the ordinance creates "an immigration department within Gwinnett County in the purchasing department being authorized to perform inspections and essentially interrogations of employees who have not given [their] authorization."

Hernan and Elise Shore, who is the regional director for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, were the only two attendees to speak against the proposal.

The other 14 who signed up to speak all supported the proposal.

They included a German refugee from Poland who arrived in the U.S. in 1960 and a longtime U.S. legal resident from London.

Others in attendance waved small placards that read "No Illegal Workers."

"We came to this country. We obeyed all the laws, we went to school to learn the English language -- and we paid our taxes," said Charlotte Gutsman, an ethnic German who lives in Lawrenceville.

"They [the illegal immigrants] are being welcomed like royalty," Gutsman said.

The commissioners enacted the new policy by revising an existing ordinance that governs the process through which companies can bid for county projects.

The local government contracts with private companies to provide a wide range of county services. They include building roads and ballparks, as well as providing food and medical care for jail inmates.

Under the revised ordinance, any vendor bidding on county work will be required to verify the legal status of all workers who would be involved in the project, including those hired by subcontractors.

That verification process would be subject to a county review. The board Tuesday approved spending $256,500 to enable county auditors and purchasing division staffers to carry out the new responsibility.

If auditors find illegal immigrants on the payroll of any company hired for county work, they can order the company to fire those workers and report them to the Department of Homeland Security.

Companies that fail to comply with those orders could lose their county contracts.

The commissioners made two other changes to the county's purchasing ordinance that aren't related to immigration.

They adopted a new ethics rule banning companies bidding for county work to contact county commissioners prior to a commission vote on the matter.

And they raised the amount of money that top appointed county officials can spend, without a commission vote, on unanticipated project costs. That amount went from $25,000 to up to $100,000.

While the public hearing was mostly a civil affair, the immigration debate sparked a few moments of outrage.

When Commission Chairman Charles Bannister suggested tabling the vote to give everyone who wanted to address the commissioners to do so, one audience member yelled "Vote Now!"

When Shore said "when the law is a weapon in hatred's arsenal as opposed to a protective shield, when the law fans the flames of hatred, society itself suffers a death," Green and Beaudreau took the remark personally.

Beaudreau called it "insulting."

Green said: "I do take offense when quotations are made that a government, by enacting its own laws, fans the flames of hatred. I don't think anything fans the flames of hatred more than violating the sanctity of the United States."

aceventura3 · 06-28-2007, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walking Shadow

Or is it a creation of the neo-conservative wing of the Republican party?

If you listen to Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Lielly/Sean Hannity/John Gibson or other conservative talking heads and radio show hosts, you'd think that the legal US population is tearing their hair out because of all of the illegal immigrants pouring across the Southern border. And thus, the politicans were stirred to act and have a pointless debate and put forth an utterly meaningless immigration bill that will do nothing, except give them an excuse to point and say, "See, we tried to do something, but our hands were tied."

In my part of the country, New Englandish, there is virtually no talk about immigration, illegal or otherwise and my brother out in California doesn't hear anything about it from his friends either.

So is it a bullshit illusion or what?

I have mixed feelings on this issue, but one thing is clear - the rhetoric coming from "conservative media" is way over the top. As they turn up the volume it is becoming more and more shrill. At some point poeple truly interested in addressing the issue will have to tune these folks out.

flstf · 06-28-2007, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have mixed feelings on this issue, but one thing is clear - the rhetoric coming from "conservative media" is way over the top. As they turn up the volume it is becoming more and more shrill. At some point poeple truly interested in addressing the issue will have to tune these folks out.

It seems obvious that we must secure the border first. What is the point of deporting illegals if they can just come back in right away?

Bill O'Rights · 06-28-2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

What is the point of deporting illegals if they can just come back in right away?

Deport 'em to Iraq. At the end of a two year deployment, sign their green card.

abaya · 06-28-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

It seems obvious that we must secure the border first.

How do you propose to "secure" a 2,000 mile border (and that's just the southern one)? Especially when most big business and agriculture really would like you to NOT secure it completely?

aceventura3 · 06-28-2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

It seems obvious that we must secure the border first. What is the point of deporting illegals if they can just come back in right away?

I think another approach can be to offer hard working people an opportunity to offer their skills in a manner that affords them and their employers dignity. If a person can obtain a temporary worker's permit, they won't sneek across the border. If an employer can employ people from other countries "in the light of day", better controls can be put in place to monitor employment activites, etc. Building bigger and bigger fences will lead to more and more creative ways to get around, over or under the fence, given the potential for work on the other side.

flstf · 06-28-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think another approach can be to offer hard working people an opportunity to offer their skills in a manner that affords them and their employers dignity.

I agree and those who follow the rules and enter our country legally should be given that opportunity. Those who break the law and enter illegally should not be allowed to stay and should get in line behind the law abiding immigrants.

Baraka_Guru · 06-28-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Deport 'em to Iraq. At the end of a two year deployment, sign their green card.

Didn't America do something like that to the Irish already?

flstf · 06-28-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

How do you propose to "secure" a 2,000 mile border (and that's just the southern one)? Especially when most big business and agriculture really would like you to NOT secure it completely?

I don't know but it is something that must be done. Some businesses and agriculture would probably be for using slave labor if they could get away with it.

aceventura3 · 06-28-2007, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I agree and those who follow the rules and enter our country legally should be given that opportunity. Those who break the law and enter illegally should not be allowed to stay and should get in line behind the law abiding immigrants.

There have been many time in our history when laws have been wrong and people have violated those laws. Legality doesn't define what is right and what is wrong only what is legal and what is illegal. The "they broke our laws" argument is pretty weak in my opinion.

flstf · 06-28-2007, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

There have been many time in our history when laws have been wrong and people have violated those laws. Legality doesn't define what is right and what is wrong only what is legal and what is illegal. The "they broke our laws" argument is pretty weak in my opinion.

I agree with you in general. But I see nothing wrong with our country having laws trying to control the number of people who want to immigrate here and I especially don't think those who cut in line should benefit from it.

mirevolver · 06-28-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think another approach can be to offer hard working people an opportunity to offer their skills in a manner that affords them and their employers dignity. If a person can obtain a temporary worker's permit, they won't sneek across the border. If an employer can employ people from other countries "in the light of day", better controls can be put in place to monitor employment activites, etc. Building bigger and bigger fences will lead to more and more creative ways to get around, over or under the fence, given the potential for work on the other side.

Current immigration law does allow for employers to hire people from other countries as temporary workers. USCIS Form I-129: Petition for a non immigrant worker. (Link)

Quote:

Originally Posted by USCIS

Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker

Purpose of Form :
Employers may use this form to petition for an alien to come to the U.S. temporarily to perform services or labor, or to receive training, as an H-1B, H-1C, H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1, O-1, O-2, P-1, P-1S, P-2, P-2S, P-3, P-3S, or Q-1 nonimmigrant worker. Employers may also use this form to request an extension of stay or change of status for an alien as an E-1, E-2, R-1 or TN nonimmigrant.

In my view, for every illegal alien that a US employer manages to hire and get away with it, that make one less spot for a potential legal alien to receive a job in the US.

debaser · 06-28-2007, 05:12 PM

The only issue I have with the whole "illeagal problem" is that they broke the law when they entered the country. The employers break the law when they hire them. Nobody in the government does anything about it.

I don't have a problem with people coming here to work and better themselves, but I do have a problem with the government ignoring the rule of law.

Change the law if you must, but while it stands it must be enforced.

Willravel · 06-28-2007, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by debaser

I don't have a problem with people coming here to work and better themselves

This is a progressive mindset and you've earned my admiration.

jorgelito · 06-28-2007, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

This is a progressive mindset and you've earned my admiration.

This is pretty basic.

Willravel · 06-28-2007, 06:39 PM

Well, honestly, I expected a different view of immigration from Debaser. I was surprised.

debaser · 06-28-2007, 06:55 PM

Why did you expect a different point of view from me?

Willravel · 06-28-2007, 07:01 PM

I dunno, actually. I suppose it had to do with your stance on gun control and the fact you are military (278th ACR of the National Guard, if I remember). Usually, those go hand in hand with the 'go home' attitude.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Ah but will, you of all people should know not to judge or stereotype others eh?

Which is why I said "I dunno" just above.

I don't want this to get too off track.

jorgelito · 06-28-2007, 07:06 PM

Ah but will, you of all people should know not to judge or stereotype others eh?

debaser · 06-28-2007, 07:19 PM

I am a rugged individualist. That means I am truly conservative and classicaly liberal. Advocating gun ownership is classical liberalism at its most basic.

Suffice to say that you would be suprised about the variety and preponderance of views about many things within the military community.

hiredgun · 06-29-2007, 12:49 AM

From an economic perspective, the arrival of migrant workers is only the natural correction of a market inefficiency.

If people are able to enter the country and find work, their doing so enriches us as a country - although it's true that those workers competing directly with the newcomers will be worse off.

The problems attendant to 'illegal immigration' can be much better addressed by adapting the legal mechanisms we use to deal with these moving labor flows. Providing an easier route to citizenship would be one way to handle it; another way might be to offer working and residence permits while preserving citizenship as a more difficult status to achieve. This would make both Americans and incoming workers better off, while minimizing potential concerns about the eventual impact of changing demographics on our electoral politics.

I truly have a hard time comprehending the 'keep them out' attitude that one sometimes encounters in this debate. The appeal to law and order is another way of framing it that, frankly, does more to obfuscate than illuminate. In the context of debating our own laws, it is meaningless to simply refer back to the very same law that is under scrutiny.

aceventura3 · 06-29-2007, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I agree and those who follow the rules and enter our country legally should be given that opportunity. Those who break the law and enter illegally should not be allowed to stay and should get in line behind the law abiding immigrants.

I would agree if we had not let this get so out of control with 12 million people here illegally. at this point we need a workable solution that takes into consideration the reality that we can not round up 12 million people and send them home. we have had a blind eye to this situation because of the economic benefit, we are at fault as much as the federal governement and the illegals. Is there anyone who can honestly say they have not received some economic benefit from illegal labor?

06-11-2007, 06:51 PM	#82 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I think part of the problem is a total inability to relate to the situation and environment that would lead a person to "break the law" and "work illegally" in the US. We expect that those two phrases have a universal meaning. When in truth that is an illusion. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

06-28-2007, 05:12 PM	#111 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	The only issue I have with the whole "illeagal problem" is that they broke the law when they entered the country. The employers break the law when they hire them. Nobody in the government does anything about it. I don't have a problem with people coming here to work and better themselves, but I do have a problem with the government ignoring the rule of law. Change the law if you must, but while it stands it must be enforced. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

06-28-2007, 06:55 PM	#115 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Why did you expect a different point of view from me? __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

06-28-2007, 07:19 PM	#118 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	I am a rugged individualist. That means I am truly conservative and classicaly liberal. Advocating gun ownership is classical liberalism at its most basic. Suffice to say that you would be suprised about the variety and preponderance of views about many things within the military community. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

06-28-2007, 06:39 PM	#114 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Well, honestly, I expected a different view of immigration from Debaser. I was surprised.

06-28-2007, 07:06 PM	#117 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Ah but will, you of all people should know not to judge or stereotype others eh?

06-29-2007, 12:49 AM	#119 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	From an economic perspective, the arrival of migrant workers is only the natural correction of a market inefficiency. If people are able to enter the country and find work, their doing so enriches us as a country - although it's true that those workers competing directly with the newcomers will be worse off. The problems attendant to 'illegal immigration' can be much better addressed by adapting the legal mechanisms we use to deal with these moving labor flows. Providing an easier route to citizenship would be one way to handle it; another way might be to offer working and residence permits while preserving citizenship as a more difficult status to achieve. This would make both Americans and incoming workers better off, while minimizing potential concerns about the eventual impact of changing demographics on our electoral politics. I truly have a hard time comprehending the 'keep them out' attitude that one sometimes encounters in this debate. The appeal to law and order is another way of framing it that, frankly, does more to obfuscate than illuminate. In the context of debating our own laws, it is meaningless to simply refer back to the very same law that is under scrutiny.