Democrats and Obama working quickly to pass an amnesty bill!

[blackangst1]

That doesn't explain why it's illegal to come here, it might explain how such a law can be valid, not why we have the law.

Youre like a 5 year old that keeps asking why. As you have said in a previous post, your questioning is circular. At this point, I dont think what answer is given, you will reply with why.

I would like to ask why you feel you have the right to live?
(because Im an American and was born here/assuming you are)
Why are you American?
(because my mother gave birth in the USA)
Why?
(because she happened to be here when I popped out)
Why was she here and not somewhere else?
(well because she and my father are American also.)
Yah, but why?


See where Im going here?

edit: here's a little quip about soveriegnty from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...ng-Fathers-Could-Tell-Us-About-Current-Events

Sovereignty is a way of constraining conflict. It presupposes the ongoing potential for conflict. That is not necessarily a tragic thought: Conflict need not result in actual war; actual wars may be relatively brief; longer and harder wars may still be won. Still, to insist on sovereignty is to insist on the continuing relevance of security concerns, since providing security is the core purpose of sovereignty. At home, a sovereign state tries to reduce conflict by offering protection to citizens of varied views. Abroad, a sovereign state may hope to secure peace by demonstrating its willingness and capacity to use force to redress injury or forestall threats. But both at home and abroad, it is the potential for conflict which makes sovereignty seem necessary.

 

[blackangst1]

you've set up a circular paradox, it's illegal because it's illegal..

I'm trying to get us looking at why we are doing things, maybe it doesn't make sense.

I'm not for open borders. It should be illegal to come here and commit crimes, or as a combatant.

I'm not as sure it makes sense to make it illegal to come here and work and be a good citizen. I think we are making it harder to identify bad elements and keep them out, if they can mix with good people who's only "illegal" act is trying to have a better life.

Seems like it's worth considering, since our current policy has basically never worked, and maybe can't work. And it's only been the policy for a few decades, it isn't how we used to do things.

Our policy would work if it was enforced. But its not. So you cant say it doesnt work.

Are you going to ask why now?

 

[WAZ]

Perhaps you can write a little something explaining why you have a problem with sovereignty?

LOL, I love the subtle "Why do you hate America?" implication. 😀 That's the same logic as asking someone who opposes the war in Iraq why they hate the troops. It's a loaded, facetious question, based in ideology and attempting to discredit or demonize someone with a different opinion. The Republicans were masters of this during the Bush regime ("liberals hate the troops"), and a lot of it continues today through gasbags like Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and even many GOP congressmen ("Democrats hate America and the constitution"). Tragic.

That said, sure, I'll write a little something. It may shock and awe you that we are a nation of immigrants. We were a prime destination for poor, sick Irish during the famine, and obviously millions of other European and Mexican emigrants before and since. We're the greatest country in the world, a land of opportunity, so of course people want to come here.

So instead of throwing around talking points and generic, loaded implications, how about people actually have a discussion about how to SOLVE the problem of illegal immigration. We're certainly not going to boot out 12 million-plus (as much as Arizona would like to 😉). For all the accusations of fascism and calling Obama a Nazi for implementing health insurance reform — and for all you budding activists out there, remember it IS government health insurance regulations, not government health care, but I digress — what screams Nazi Germany more than sweeping through the streets of Arizona (or wherever) demanding people's papers based on how they look? That is fascism.

Yet some people don't mind that hypocrisy if it supports THEIR view of a sovereign America. It's that ideology — that broad implication that "illegal immigrants are violent criminals" — that prevents a real discussion about a solution.

So you have no problems with people being here illegally?

Where did I say that? In fact, if you read my post, I said, "That doesn't make their illegal entry okay."

It IS a problem. I don't think anyone's arguing that it's fine as is. The debate is about the solution; what reforms are needed to solve the problem. I've said that mass deportation and racial profiling is not the solution. Saying "illegals are bad because there were a bunch who turned out to have criminal records" doesn't help. Of course there are illegal immigrants who are violent criminals... the point I was making was that their citizenship is the only thing separating them from any U.S.-born legal citizen who commits a crime.

A criminal is a criminal; it's just as likely the legal white guy next door is selling crack or plotting to kill government workers or robbing a bank or murdering someone or defrauding millions of poor Americans. Doesn't matter where they came from, if they came here illegally or were born in Virginia ("real America")... they're still assholes and I don't want them to be my neighbor. So as I said, clumping all illegal immigrants under the same umbrella is a cop-out.

While some are certainly criminals, many have come here to escape their dangerous, run-down communities. They came here with nothing to lose back home, for an opportunity to work and have a better life. Our country CAN offer that to them, and if you want to target the source of the problem, it's the COMPANIES and the EMPLOYERS who fire American workers so they can hire cheap labor in the form of illegal immigrants. Want to put a damper on illegal immigration? Go after the people who are giving them jobs instead of Americans and make it illegal to hire an illegal immigrant.

If they still want an opportunity — and again, we're not going to sweep through the streets like Nazis (don't want to be hypocrites about charging Obama with fascism! And of course it's the right thing to do, if that's important to anyone) — then they need a chance to become legal citizens. Amnesty, nationalization, a path to citizenship: these are acceptable and enforceable solutions. We require them to learn a passable amount of English, take a citizenship test like everyone else, and become naturalized citizens who pay their taxes and live law-abiding lives in this country. If they don't, then yeah, they either go to jail (in the case of a crime) or back to their own country.

There are ways to do things, and ways to carry ourselves as Americans. Accusing people with different political views of "hating America" isn't one of them. Neither is enacting a Nazi-inspired mass exodus of immigrants. Nor threatening to kill elected government officials with whom they disagree (i.e. when health insurance reform was passing), or issuing a call to arms to voters ("Don't retreat! Instead, reload!"), or praying for the death of the President.

These sound like the actions of terrorists... angry Jihadists with a grudge, fighting for their ideology, who turn to violence and vitriolic rhetoric to rile their followers and fight the enemy. Even though these things mirror Jihadists, here it's done by "Real Americans who are just concerned about our country," so it's okay. Except it's not.

Some of the biggest calls for great Americanism come from people saying and doing and hoping for these incredibly anti-American things. Maybe we can wade through the hypocrisy and rhetoric and actually act like Americans with a conscience.

(The end). 😉

 

[Tom]

I think most of you think when I ask why it's illegal, what I'm saying is there aren't any good reason..

That isn't what I mean. I've heard a lot of discussion the last 20 years about what we should do about "illegals", but not too much rational discussion about why we make them "illegals".

I want to hear the reasons, I'm not saying they're wrong.

Yet..😉

 

[blackangst1]

LOL, I love the subtle "Why do you hate America?" implication. 😀 That's the same logic as asking someone who opposes the war in Iraq why they hate the troops. It's a loaded, facetious question, based in ideology and attempting to discredit or demonize someone with a different opinion. The Republicans were masters of this during the Bush regime ("liberals hate the troops"), and a lot of it continues today through gasbags like Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and even many GOP congressmen ("Democrats hate America and the constitution"). Tragic.

Hey now, I wasnt intending to pull a Dave here 😉

That said, sure, I'll write a little something. It may shock and awe you that we are a nation of immigrants. We were a prime destination for poor, sick Irish during the famine, and obviously millions of other European and Mexican emigrants before and since. We're the greatest country in the world, a land of opportunity, so of course people want to come here.

Of course we are. But I cant find anything that suggests we be a country with open borders, and why that is a great idea. The idea of sovereignty isnt to keep people out. Its to protect the people within (although other countries dont see it this way...they see it as a way to control). We do this via our Constitution. I posted a quote from a quite lengthy article above about what our founding fathers would think of events today, and it covers sovereignty.

So instead of throwing around talking points and generic, loaded implications, how about people actually have a discussion about how to SOLVE the problem of illegal immigration. We're certainly not going to boot out 12 million-plus (as much as Arizona would like to 😉). For all the accusations of fascism and calling Obama a Nazi for implementing health insurance reform — and for all you budding activists out there, remember it IS government health insurance regulations, not government health care, but I digress — what screams Nazi Germany more than sweeping through the streets of Arizona (or wherever) demanding people's papers based on how they look? That is fascism.

So you also think our federal immigration laws smack of fascism? The fact is, our federal laws havent been enforced in over 50 years, THAT is why we are in the problem we are. Perhaps we need to make a call to WADC to enforce the law? I believe as many that penalties for employing illegals needs to be stiff. As it is, the laws already in place are also not being enforced. THAT is an issue as well.

Yet some people don't mind that hypocrisy if it supports THEIR view of a sovereign America. It's that ideology — that broad implication that "illegal immigrants are violent criminals" — that prevents a real discussion about a solution.

Who said that on this board? Certainly illegal aliens, at least here in AZ, commit violent crime at a percentage far higher than their legal counterparts. Those stats have been posted in one of the other threads (I posted them last week).

Where did I say that? In fact, if you read my post, I said, "That doesn't make their illegal entry okay."

Fair enough.

It IS a problem. I don't think anyone's arguing that it's fine as is. The debate is about the solution; what reforms are needed to solve the problem. I've said that mass deportation and racial profiling is not the solution. Saying "illegals are bad because there were a bunch who turned out to have criminal records" doesn't help. Of course there are illegal immigrants who are violent criminals... the point I was making was that their citizenship is the only thing separating them from any U.S.-born legal citizen who commits a crime.

We dont need reform. We need to enforce laws already in place. Which is what we in AZ are going to do. You see, it has already been law that ANY alien carry "their papers" while in the United States. Thats not a new law; however, many places make it illegal to ENFORCE that law. Why do you think that is? Does that make ANY sense whatsoever?

A criminal is a criminal; it's just as likely the legal white guy next door is selling crack or plotting to kill government workers or robbing a bank or murdering someone or defrauding millions of poor Americans. Doesn't matter where they came from, if they came here illegally or were born in Virginia ("real America")... they're still assholes and I don't want them to be my neighbor. So as I said, clumping all illegal immigrants under the same umbrella is a cop-out.

No it isnt. Even though illegal aliens make up <5&#37; of Maricopa County (where Phoenix is) violent crimes commited by illegal aliens make up about 40% of all violent crime here. Thats the way it is.

While some are certainly criminals, many have come here to escape their dangerous, run-down communities. They came here with nothing to lose back home, for an opportunity to work and have a better life. Our country CAN offer that to them, and if you want to target the source of the problem, it's the COMPANIES and the EMPLOYERS who fire American workers so they can hire cheap labor in the form of illegal immigrants. Want to put a damper on illegal immigration? Go after the people who are giving them jobs instead of Americans and make it illegal to hire an illegal immigrant.

I agree, but without including the enforcement of federal law, its an incomplete solution.

If they still want an opportunity &#8212; and again, we're not going to sweep through the streets like Nazis (don't want to be hypocrites about charging Obama with fascism! And of course it's the right thing to do, if that's important to anyone) &#8212; then they need a chance to become legal citizens. Amnesty, nationalization, a path to citizenship: these are acceptable and enforceable solutions. We require them to learn a passable amount of English, take a citizenship test like everyone else, and become naturalized citizens who pay their taxes and live law-abiding lives in this country. If they don't, then yeah, they either go to jail (in the case of a crime) or back to their own country.

So basically do what LEGAL immigrants have done? So you agree we already have a system in place. Im curious though...for those already here, which steps in our current immigration law would you choose to bypass?

There are ways to do things, and ways to carry ourselves as Americans. Accusing people with different political views of "hating America" isn't one of them. Neither is enacting a Nazi-inspired mass exodus of immigrants. Nor threatening to kill elected government officials with whom they disagree (i.e. when health insurance reform was passing), or issuing a call to arms to voters ("Don't retreat! Instead, reload!"), or praying for the death of the President.

These sound like the actions of terrorists... angry Jihadists with a grudge, fighting for their ideology, who turn to violence and vitriolic rhetoric to rile their followers and fight the enemy. Even though these things mirror Jihadists, here it's done by "Real Americans who are just concerned about our country," so it's okay. Except it's not.

OK Ive never said any of that lol

 

[blackangst1]

I think most of you think when I ask why it's illegal, what I'm saying is there aren't any good reason..

That isn't what I mean. I've heard a lot of discussion the last 20 years about what we should do about "illegals", but not too much rational discussion about why we make them "illegals".

I want to hear the reasons, I'm not saying they're wrong.

Yet..😉

Because in order for a country to establish laws and protections for its citizens, it has to create borders. The laws of our lands and protection of its citizens was never intended by our founders to extend to the entire planet. We make them illegal because we as a country (a country of laws) have decided we want people to come here, with stipulations.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

That isn't what I mean. I've heard a lot of discussion the last 20 years about what we should do about "illegals", but not too much rational discussion about why we make them "illegals".

I provided a partial answer in post #69 of this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29778581&postcount=69

Because if anyone who wanted to come to the U.S. and become an American citizen were allowed to do so, then billions of impoverished people from around the world would make their way to the United States. Then our population would explode and our nation would transform into an overpopulated, impoverished third world country; we would be flooded with poverty. Who knows how detrimental it would be to the nation's environment.

So, very quickly, here are the reasons why the U.S. government should control immigration and thus make people who come here illegally "illegals". Your question might be better interpreted as, "Why don't we allow anyone who wants to become an American citizen to become an American citizen," and/or "Why don't we allow as many people as who want to become Americans to move here and become Americans?"

Here are the reasons:

(1.) Allowing anyone who wanted to become an American to become an American would (as a practical matter) result in damage to the well-being of other Americans because of population explosion. (Ever heard of Thomas Malthus?)

(2.) Masses of poor immigrants inflict economic damage on lower class (and often the most vulnerable) Americans by displacing them from their jobs (such as construction work) and by causing wage depression.

(3.) Most of the immigrants are poor which means that whatever jobs they work could not possibly generate enough tax revenue to cover the costs of government-provided welfare, housing, health care, education for children, and any related criminal justice costs. In other words, they are going to cost taxpayers money. Also, when your nation already has tens of millions of poor people, it doesn't make sense to import ten of millions more poor people.

So, in a nutshell: (1.) Population Explosion and Environmental concerns, (2.) Employment concerns for lower class Americans, and (3.) Concerns about the costs they would impose on the U.S. government.

Tom, does that answer your question?

 

[Tom]

Because in order for a country to establish laws and protections for its citizens, it has to create borders. The laws of our lands and protection of its citizens was never intended by our founders to extend to the entire planet. We make them illegal because we as a country (a country of laws) have decided we want people to come here, with stipulations.

The problem with that argument is, it didn't used to be illegal to come here, and the country flourished.

 

[blackangst1]

The problem with that argument is, it didn't used to be illegal to come here, and the country flourished.

And back then, you couldnt get here in less than 24 hours. The detailed explaination I gave, actually WhipperSnapper's answer ties into it very well. The whole sovereignty thing. Give it some thought.

 

[Tom]

And back then, you couldnt get here in less than 24 hours. The detailed explaination I gave, actually WhipperSnapper's answer ties into it very well. The whole sovereignty thing. Give it some thought.

Talking about 1962, not that long ago.

 

[Tom]

Thomas Maltheus-

"It does not... by any means seem impossible that by an attention to breed, a certain degree of improvement, similar to that among animals, might take place among men. Whether intellect could be communicated may be a matter of doubt; but size, strength, beauty, complexion, and perhaps longevity are in a degree transmissible... As the human race, however, could not be improved in this way without condemning all the bad specimens to celibacy, it is not probable that an attention to breed should ever become general".

Glad I never heard of him.

 

[blackangst1]

Talking about 1962, not that long ago.

uh

The first naturalization law in the United States was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted naturalization to "free white persons" of "good moral character" who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year.

In 1795 this was increased to five years residence and three years after notice of intent to apply for citizenship, and again to 14 years residence and five years notice of intent in 1798.
(Oh look...even in the 1700's we didnt have open borders, and DID have restrictions on citizenship)

1868: anchor baby law passed. Therefore understanding people here illegally may have children here. We had to deal with it.

Immigration Act of 1924
The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson&#8211;Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, Asian Exclusion Act (43 Statutes-at-Large 153), was a United States federal law that limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2&#37; of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890
(So, we were already limiting immigration in the late 1800's)

In 1932 President Roosevelt and the State Department essentially shut down immigration during the Great Depression as immigration went from 236,000 in 1929 to 23,000 in 1933. This was accompanied by voluntary repatriation to Europe and Mexico, and coerced repatriation and deportation of between 500,000 and 2 million Mexican Americans, mostly citizens, in the Mexican Repatriation.

The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (the Hart-Cellar Act) abolished the system of national-origin quotas. There was, for the first time, a limitation on Western Hemisphere immigration (120,000 per year), with the Eastern Hemisphere limited to 170,000. Because of the family preferences put into immigration law, immigration is now mostly "chain immigration" where recent immigrants who are already here sponsor their relatives. Family related immigration is often outside the quota system.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
An annual limitation of 300,000 visas was established for immigrants, including 170,000 from Eastern Hemisphere countries, with no more than 20,000 per country. By 1968, the annual limitation from the Western Hemisphere was set at 120,000 immigrants, with visas available on a first-come, first-served basis. However, the number of family reunification visas was unlimited. While as of 2010[update] there are no quotas for immigrant spouses of US citizens, quotas for other types of relatives of US citizens have since been instituted.
(We updated it.)

What were you saying again?

 

[Tom]

"There was, for the first time, a limitation on Western Hemisphere immigration (120,000 per year), "

Thank you. Guess it was 1965, not 1962.

 

[blackangst1]

"There was, for the first time, a limitation on Western Hemisphere immigration (120,000 per year), "

Thank you. Guess it was 1965, not 1962.

Right. To avoid the situation WhipperSnapper described. But, those who didnt follow immigration law, back in the 1700's, were still here illegally. So we have never had open borders. The only point what you quoted makes is, we will LIMIT those who come here LEGALLY. Thats it.

 

[Tom]

Right. To avoid the situation WhipperSnapper described. But, those who didnt follow immigration law, back in the 1700's, were still here illegally. So we have never had open borders. The only point what you quoted makes is, we will LIMIT those who come here LEGALLY. Thats it.

I never advocated open borders, or illegal immigration. I do question if the changes made in 1965 that affects a country on our border, for the first time in history, makes sense.

I think honestly we have to decide that defending our border means we have to seperate those people who are looking for a better life from those that do us harm, and the easiest way to do that is to welcome the good guys so only the bad guys are sneaking in.

 

[Darwin333]

The problem with that argument is, it didn't used to be illegal to come here, and the country flourished.

So your argument is another 10 million poor people will make us flourish?

 

[palehorse]

We're certainly not going to boot out 12 million-plus (as much as Arizona and more than 50&#37; of the rest of the nation would like to 😉).

fixed.

what screams Nazi Germany more than sweeping through the streets of Arizona (or wherever) demanding people's papers based on how they look? That is fascism.

They modified the law last week. Now, it only effects people who are stopped, detained, or arrested for another crime or violation. Sure, it could be abused -- but so can every other law, of every type, in the entire world.

Therefore, that point -- and that of 99% of the protesters -- is now moot. Next...

Yet some people don't mind that hypocrisy if it supports THEIR view of a sovereign America. It's that ideology &#8212; that broad implication that "illegal immigrants are violent criminals" &#8212; that prevents a real discussion about a solution.

Can we at least agree on the following instead? "Illegal immigrants are criminals"

Once you get on board with that fact, we'll at least be able to base this discussion in reality, rather than some pretend-world where their first Federal crime -- entering the country illegally -- is ignored.

I've said that mass deportation and racial profiling is not the solution.

/agreed.

Saying "illegals are bad because there were a bunch who turned out to have criminal records" doesn't help. Of course there are illegal immigrants who are violent criminals... the point I was making was that their citizenship is the only thing separating them from any U.S.-born legal citizen who commits a crime.

A criminal is a criminal; it's just as likely the legal white guy next door is selling crack or plotting to kill government workers or robbing a bank or murdering someone or defrauding millions of poor Americans. Doesn't matter where they came from, if they came here illegally or were born in Virginia ("real America")... they're still assholes and I don't want them to be my neighbor. So as I said, clumping all illegal immigrants under the same umbrella is a cop-out.

Fair enough point, as it pertains to violent crime... but, once again, every American citizen is not a criminal, but every illegal immigrant, by definition, is a criminal. Have you admitted as much yet?

Perhaps we should offer amnesty to all first time offenders of non-violent Federal laws... no? Why not? Race? Ethnicity? Severity?... ... Says who? That's essentially a "Get Out of Jail Free Card" for 12 million criminals. Interesting dilemma, eh?

While some are certainly criminals, many have come here to escape their dangerous, run-down communities. They came here with nothing to lose back home, for an opportunity to work and have a better life. Our country CAN offer that to them, and if you want to target the source of the problem, it's the COMPANIES and the EMPLOYERS who fire American workers so they can hire cheap labor in the form of illegal immigrants. Want to put a damper on illegal immigration? Go after the people who are giving them jobs instead of Americans and make it illegal to hire an illegal immigrant.

/AGREED! However, it should be noted that it is already illegal to do so. Now, if only there was a way to ensure the existing Federal laws are enforced properly... hmm... I have an idea... since the Federal Government has completely failed to enforce their own laws, why don't we let each state handle it instead? Why don't we figure out a way to simply have each state enforce the existing Federal laws? Oh, wait... Arizona just tried that and everyone thinks they overstepped their bounds and went apeshit crazy?! DOH! WTF?! How does that make sense? What did they do wrong?!

Does not compute.

If they still want an opportunity &#8212; and again, we're not going to sweep through the streets like Nazis (don't want to be hypocrites about charging Obama with fascism! And of course it's the right thing to do, if that's important to anyone) &#8212; then they need a chance to become legal citizens. Amnesty, nationalization, a path to citizenship: these are acceptable and enforceable solutions. We require them to learn a passable amount of English, take a citizenship test like everyone else, and become naturalized citizens who pay their taxes and live law-abiding lives in this country. If they don't, then yeah, they either go to jail (in the case of a crime) or back to their own country.

All of that is pointless if the border -- our own "backdoor," if you will -- remains unlocked while we do so. Should we just take their word for it (on the forms) when we ask them the date of their illegal arrival into the U.S.? I can see it now..

AMNESTY FORM 8675309A
Name: Jose Cuervo
POB: Nogales, Mexico
DOB: 01/01/1980
Occupation: Farming
Local Address: 111 Main St, USA
Date You Entered United States of America**: 12/31/2010
etc...

**Please note that amnesty will not be granted to any person who entered the United states of America on after January 1st, 2011.

My guess is that every form filled out for the next ten years would have December 31st, 2010 listed as the date of entry. WOOPS!

As I said, unless the border is completely locked down the entire concept of amnesty is a fucking joke.

There are ways to do things, and ways to carry ourselves as Americans. Accusing people with different political views of "hating America" isn't one of them. Neither is enacting a Nazi-inspired mass exodus of immigrants. Nor threatening to kill elected government officials with whom they disagree (i.e. when health insurance reform was passing), or issuing a call to arms to voters ("Don't retreat! Instead, reload!"), or praying for the death of the President.

These sound like the actions of terrorists... angry Jihadists with a grudge, fighting for their ideology, who turn to violence and vitriolic rhetoric to rile their followers and fight the enemy. Even though these things mirror Jihadists, here it's done by "Real Americans who are just concerned about our country," so it's okay. Except it's not.

Some of the biggest calls for great Americanism come from people saying and doing and hoping for these incredibly anti-American things. Maybe we can wade through the hypocrisy and rhetoric and actually act like Americans with a conscience.

/agreed.

Palehorse' compromise:
Step 1: Lock the border down like fucking prison, except reversed -- guns facing outward. Utilize the National Guard when/where they're needed to make this happen (PLEASE make sure they are permitted to carry real ammunition this time!!!) Double or triple the size of the USCBP and arm them to the teeth.

Step 2: For a period not to exceed 24 months, we shall grant amnesty to any illegal immigrant who does NOT have a violent criminal record. Deport any illegal immigrant who DOES have a violent criminal record -- no exceptions. After the 24 month "amnesty period" is up, ALL illegals who failed to register for said amnesty will be deported upon discovery

Step 3: Fully enforce existing immigration laws for illegal immigrants. All persons entering the country illegally in the future will be asked to justify a case for asylum. If their request for asylum is denied, they will be deported the same day.

Step 4: Fully enforce existing immigration laws for anyone who hires, or attempts to hire, illegal immigrants. Fine them, jail them, and/or liquidate their companies/assets for repeat offenders.

Step 5: Spend some money to make the legal immigration process more efficient and effective throughout the world.

5 Steps... finished.. done.

/compromise.

 

[Xellos2099]

The problem with that argument is, it didn't used to be illegal to come here, and the country flourished.

Back then, there were no food bank, no food stamp, no free school for children, no EIC, no free medical care, need to continue?

 

[Obsoleet]

I still favor granting mass amnesty pathways for all people LIVING here in the US now. There's a reason the census didn't care if you were a citizen or not.. we're more libertarian in the US than that.

That way, when it's all over, the Democrats (being the ones whose members have pushed it the most) will have enough votes to pass:

-sweeping healthcare legislation (Medicare for All).
-Expand affirmative action's reach and power at least 2x (yes, I'm a white male so I have nothing to gain other than social justice).
-We'd also have the votes to legalize some more drugs because the drug war is senseless
-Cut the military to pay for more social services and fix our roads instead of Iraq and Afghanistan's.
-More government subsidies for green industry and high tech sectors

More votes for the party that favors these things, the better. So it makes total sense to grant mass amnesty ASAP.

A friendly hispanic immigrant is much preferable to an angry conservative American anyway.

That, and I've reached the point with dealing with "conservatives" that anything they oppose is generally a good idea.. or so I've found. Most opposition to recent immigration has nothing to do with The Law or right and wrong. It has to do with race and language. No need to jump around that fact and people need to quit kidding themselves, the people who oppose amnesty oppose it deep down for this. I'm tired of the "I'm a man of law and order" charade, it's not true.

You get around one of them alone, and you see their true colors. -.-

 

[Obsoleet]

Back then, there were no food bank, no food stamp, no free school for children, no EIC, no free medical care, need to continue?

I doubt you're the economic backbone this nation is resting on anyway.. so you probably don't have much to worry about losing out on.

 

[blackangst1]

I never advocated open borders, or illegal immigration. I do question if the changes made in 1965 that affects a country on our border, for the first time in history, makes sense.

I think honestly we have to decide that defending our border means we have to seperate those people who are looking for a better life from those that do us harm, and the easiest way to do that is to welcome the good guys so only the bad guys are sneaking in.

We can do those things...through existing LEGAL immigration law. Are you advocating removing quotas and imposing unlimited legal immigration?

 

[blackangst1]

Back then, there were no food bank, no food stamp, no free school for children, no EIC, no free medical care, need to continue?

Not to mention, as Ive pointed out, it WAS illegal. It hasnt ever been legal to just show up and BAM! Youre a citizen.

 

[blackangst1]

I still favor granting mass amnesty pathways for all people LIVING here in the US now. There's a reason the census didn't care if you were a citizen or not.. we're more libertarian in the US than that.

That way, when it's all over, the Democrats (being the ones whose members have pushed it the most) will have enough votes to pass:

-sweeping healthcare legislation (Medicare for All).
-Expand affirmative action's reach and power at least 2x (yes, I'm a white male so I have nothing to gain other than social justice).
-We'd also have the votes to legalize some more drugs because the drug war is senseless
-Cut the military to pay for more social services and fix our roads instead of Iraq and Afghanistan's.
-More government subsidies for green industry and high tech sectors

More votes for the party that favors these things, the better. So it makes total sense to grant mass amnesty ASAP.

A friendly hispanic immigrant is much preferable to an angry conservative American anyway.

That, and I've reached the point with dealing with "conservatives" that anything they oppose is generally a good idea.. or so I've found. Most opposition to recent immigration has nothing to do with The Law or right and wrong. It has to do with race and language. No need to jump around that fact and people need to quit kidding themselves, the people who oppose amnesty oppose it deep down for this. I'm tired of the "I'm a man of law and order" charade, it's not true.

You get around one of them alone, and you see their true colors. -.-

Do you support doing this without going through the health and criminal background checks LEGAL immigrants are forced to go through?

 

[werepossum]

you've set up a circular paradox, it's illegal because it's illegal..

I'm trying to get us looking at why we are doing things, maybe it doesn't make sense.

I'm not for open borders. It should be illegal to come here and commit crimes, or as a combatant.

I'm not as sure it makes sense to make it illegal to come here and work and be a good citizen. I think we are making it harder to identify bad elements and keep them out, if they can mix with good people who's only "illegal" act is trying to have a better life.

Seems like it's worth considering, since our current policy has basically never worked, and maybe can't work. And it's only been the policy for a few decades, it isn't how we used to do things.

Dude, everything that is illegal is illegal because it's illegal. That's what the word means, something prohibited by law. Society decides (rightly or wrongly) that some action should not be allowed and passes a law making it illegal.

I provided a partial answer in post #69 of this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29778581&postcount=69



So, very quickly, here are the reasons why the U.S. government should control immigration and thus make people who come here illegally "illegals". Your question might be better interpreted as, "Why don't we allow anyone who wants to become an American citizen to become an American citizen," and/or "Why don't we allow as many people as who want to become Americans to move here and become Americans?"

Here are the reasons:

(1.) Allowing anyone who wanted to become an American to become an American would (as a practical matter) result in damage to the well-being of other Americans because of population explosion. (Ever heard of Thomas Malthus?)

(2.) Masses of poor immigrants inflict economic damage on lower class (and often the most vulnerable) Americans by displacing them from their jobs (such as construction work) and by causing wage depression.

(3.) Most of the immigrants are poor which means that whatever jobs they work could not possibly generate enough tax revenue to cover the costs of government-provided welfare, housing, health care, education for children, and any related criminal justice costs. In other words, they are going to cost taxpayers money. Also, when your nation already has tens of millions of poor people, it doesn't make sense to import ten of millions more poor people.

So, in a nutshell: (1.) Population Explosion and Environmental concerns, (2.) Employment concerns for lower class Americans, and (3.) Concerns about the costs they would impose on the U.S. government.

Tom, does that answer your question?

You know, I don't necessarily agree with you that often, but you're a sharp cookie. In this case I agree totally, but even when I don't your posts make me think and re-examine my beliefs and facts from another angle. This is a particularly thoughtful, well reasoned, and well stated post (which makes me glad I agree because none of this is practically refutable.) I'm glad you are here even when I vehemently disagree with you.

 

[blackangst1]

Dude, everything that is illegal is illegal because it's illegal.

OT...THAT, sir, is sig worthy 😉