Obama Preparing Immigration "Reform" - Citizenship for 12 Million Illegals

[Robor]

The solution is to drive them out and then have legal immigrants and american citizens stationed at those positions. Then, we can happily collect taxes from the jobs.

Thinking of solutions to the problem, we should "declare" amnesty, have them all gather up at one place, then march them all back to the border. There, you got amnesty. You don't go to jail for being in here illegally.

Aren't these low paying jobs part of the 47% that don't pay income tax?

 

[Robor]

Like I said, sorry. There's no alternative to dealing with some 12(ish)million Illegals than Amnesty.

So too big to fix? I say fuck that. (I tried thumbsdown but it wouldn't work)

 

[sandorski]

So too big to fix? I say fuck that. (I tried thumbsdown but it wouldn't work)

Amnesty is the fix.

 

[Patranus]

Amnesty is the fix.

Reward people for breaking the law.
Only a Liberal....

 

[sandorski]

Reward people for breaking the law.
Only a Liberal....

Thinking there's any other fix. Only an idiot.

 

[UberNeuman]

Reward people for breaking the law.
Only a Liberal....

Well, there you go again...

 

[Fear No Evil]

Add another trillion to the healthcare bill to insure them as well.

 

[Moonbeam]

So too big to fix? I say fuck that. (I tried thumbsdown but it wouldn't work)

Oh no, more pigs have come to our table and they didn't wait in line. They are going to ruin everything.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I'm not sure what you're looking for. You need to be more specific. Are you talking about amnesty? The US has had amnesty before, such as in 1983.

There is an important fundamental difference between the immigration issues in the US and Europe: Europe has a much larger refugee problem. The United States which has a more pure immigration problem. Europeans tend not to understand the difference between refugee and immigrant and thus violate international laws.

The REASON we have such a great refugee problem is because the US won't let them within their borders at all.

Of course, such small things as bombing the sheit out of their village and thinking that maybe the surviving children might need somewhere to go is not on the US agenda.

So they come to Europe where they are usually welcomed unless there is a problem.

The biggest problem is that out of 114 million people that the US have estranged from their homes the EU has to deal with and quite frankly, we don't have the resources to deal with US mistakes all on our own. That is why you see those detestable parties around europe, they never get very far, i think one of them made parliment for the first time but since they are outvoted by 90+ percent it really dosn't matter, the KKK in the US is a bigger organisation than any of those parties are in any one nation in Europe.

I don't know why i'm taking the time to explain this to you, you already know it, you just troll about your hatred for the EU and that is all you do so this post is wasted anyway.

Next up, COW tells me how racist i am for being a Brit.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Reward people for breaking the law.
Only a Liberal....

If bad laws had not been broken there would never have been a USA.

But i assume history as well as common sense is completely lost on you.

 

[Greenman]

Does anyone know what will be different this time around, if anything? Or are we just going to make the exact same mistake and then wonder why we get the exact same outcome? Amnesty is simply a reward for breaking the law, it will encourage others to come to the US and reap the rewards of being a criminal.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't think the opposition falls along partisan lines. I think the opposition is based on the first portion of that proposal not happening, thus making the second part of the solution completely pointless... and costly.

I agree with any opposition to half-assed proposals -- not because of party affiliation (I have none), or some sort of objection to a bill that hasn't even been written yet, but because it seems rather obvious that the border must be totally and completely locked down before any amnesty can be effectively dolled out.

To this day, I have yet to see a proposal, by any party, that would finally and effectively secure our southern border -- not one. The "right" is too addicted to their cheap labor pool, and the "left" is too addicted to their Latin constituents.

So, now what? More of the same stalemate "legislation"? Swell...

Why does the border need to be completely locked down before legalization occurs? Legalization is a one-off process that does not apply to anyone who comes in after a cutoff date. I would support deporting all of them, if it were even remotely practical or feasible, but it isn't. Since legalization is better than them remaining here as illegals, inevitably, we have to legalize them. Doing it before the process of border closing occurs is not problematic. At worst, if it takes longer than expected to totally close the border, we might have to do another round of it later.

The process of closing the border is absolutely essential, and failure is not an option IMO, because we absolutely cannot have an open border policy. Walls actually do work, and we've been building them since 2005. It was 50 miles of walls and now it is about 600 miles. The problem is that adding walls and personnel has a low value added until we reach a certain critical mass, and we just aren't there yet. Yet we will get there. The proposed legislation, which will increase appropriations for wall building and adding personnel, will just get us there faster.

Severing the two aspects of this is a non-starter. Republicans want to pass an immigration bill that plays entirely to their ideological position - border interdiction, a legitimate public interest IMO - and nothing to the opposing position - legalization, also a legitimate public interest IMO. And they want to do this in a dem controlled Congress? Not going to happen. Dems should not vote for a bill to accelerate border security without legalization, because there is no reason to trust that the repubs will later vote for legalization, after the border is closed, and when the dems may not have the majority. Repubs don't want 12 million more hispanic voters just as much as the dems want them. Giving the repubs the bill that they want and getting nothing the dems want in vague hope the the repubs will go all bipartisan in several years time is a sucker bet.

- wolf

 

[UberNeuman]

Does anyone know what will be different this time around, if anything? Or are we just going to make the exact same mistake and then wonder why we get the exact same outcome? Amnesty is simply a reward for breaking the law, it will encourage others to come to the US and reap the rewards of being a criminal.

As long as "americans" exploit cheap labour, then we'll get more of the same...

 

[palehorse]

Why does the border need to be completely locked down before legalization occurs? Legalization is a one-off process that does not apply to anyone who comes in after a cutoff date. I would support deporting all of them, if it were even remotely practical or feasible, but it isn't. Since legalization is better than them remaining here as illegals, inevitably, we have to legalize them. Doing it before the process of border closing occurs is not problematic. At worst, if it takes longer than expected to totally close the border, we might have to do another round of it later.

ad infinitum? What if 12 million more come in before the border is finally closed because we didn't allocate the proper effort and assets to close it immediately?

Screw that.

The process of closing the border is absolutely essential, and failure is not an option IMO, because we absolutely cannot have an open border policy. Walls actually do work, and we've been building them since 2005. It was 50 miles of walls and now it is about 600 miles. The problem is that adding walls and personnel has a low value added until we reach a certain critical mass, and we just aren't there yet. Yet we will get there. The proposed legislation, which will increase appropriations for wall building and adding personnel, will just get us there faster.

Severing the two aspects of this is a non-starter. Republicans want to pass an immigration bill that plays entirely to their ideological position - border interdiction, a legitimate public interest IMO - and nothing to the opposing position - legalization, also a legitimate public interest IMO. And they want to do this in a dem controlled Congress? Not going to happen. Dems should not vote for a bill to accelerate border security without legalization, because there is no reason to trust that the repubs will later vote for legalization, after the border is closed, and when the dems may not have the majority. Repubs don't want 12 million more hispanic voters just as much as the dems want them. Giving the repubs the bill that they want and getting nothing the dems want in vague hope the the repubs will go all bipartisan in several years time is a sucker bet.

- wolf

I agree with the two-pronged approach, but I fear the emphasis will be mistakenly placed on the legalization aspects, rather than the border itself.

I don't see it as a 50/50 game. IMO, the lockdown of the border must take precedence (80/20 perhaps?). Because, as you pointed out above, the lack of a locked down border will only lead to another round of amnesty... and another... and another.

Security is the first priority, amnesty the second... simultaneous, but not equal in terms of priority. that's all I ask.

 

[Sclamoz]

Reward people for breaking the law.
Only a Liberal....

Stupid laws can hurt more than they help. What would be your non-liberal way of fixing the problem?

 

[Patranus]

Stupid laws can hurt more than they help. What would be your non-liberal way of fixing the problem?

1) Secure the border
2) Deport illegals
3) Reform immigration
4) Put deported illegals at the back of whatever legal line forms.

Again, why exactly should we reward a group of people for breaking the law simply because it is politically inconvenient to do so?

What is next, welfare for those in jail?

 

[rpanic]

1) Secure the border
2) Deport illegals
3) Reform immigration
4) Put deported illegals at the back of whatever legal line forms.

Again, why exactly should we reward a group of people for breaking the law simply because it is politically inconvenient to do so?

What is next, welfare for those in jail?

Prosecute those who hire and aid Illegals, problem solved.

 

[palehorse]

Prosecute those who hire and aid Illegals, problem solved.

We need to see more of that as well.

 

[Sclamoz]

1) Secure the border
2) Deport illegals
3) Reform immigration
4) Put deported illegals at the back of whatever legal line forms.

Again, why exactly should we reward a group of people for breaking the law simply because it is politically inconvenient to do so?

What is next, welfare for those in jail?

You're assuming that the main reason is political (maybe correctly - I certainly wouldn't put it past any of our politicians). Securing the border tight enough to keep people from crossing is impossible as long as people think the US offers a better opportunity.

Deporting 12-20 million people would cost an insane amount of money. We'd need an army of feds (is that something you want?) to get them in the first place. Then we pay for them to be kept in a jail and processed for however long it takes and flown home and the majority would just turn around and come back. All of it comes out of the taxpayers pocket and would not accomplish anything.

 

[Vic]

1) Secure the border
2) Deport illegals
3) Reform immigration
4) Put deported illegals at the back of whatever legal line forms.

Again, why exactly should we reward a group of people for breaking the law simply because it is politically inconvenient to do so?

What is next, welfare for those in jail?

Jail is welfare. Every inmate gets 3 meals and a bed.

Have you considered the cost and scope of govt that it would require to achieve your 4 points there? It'd be much bigger than welfare.
'Political inconvenience' must be today's talking point for the usual spoonfed hacks to ignore that their own party did nothing to curtail illegal immigration during its own tenure in power (and arguably encouraged it).
And the reason the Republican leadership acted that way is because they're not as stupid as their base. Beyond the political implications, they know (like most sane people do) that stopping immigration in the way you would have it is entirely against everything America stands for and was founded on. Worse yet, it's big govt protectionist policy -- 'welfare' for cultural natives who don't want to compete with the outside world.

 

[Vic]

Reward people for breaking the law.
Only a Liberal....

So what you're saying then is that - in your opinion - the law is never wrong?

 

[rpanic]

That’s why we should take away their ability to work, they will self deport. We have already been down this road and it turned out to be a complete failure why should we just repeat what we did 30 years ago under Raygun?

 

[UberNeuman]

That’s why we should take away their ability to work, they will self deport. We have already been down this road and it turned out to be a complete failure why should we just repeat what we did 30 years ago under Raygun?

Who is going to cut my lawns, babysit my kids, pull my crops, work my factories?

"Americans" are far too overpaid for that...

 

[Vic]

Yes there is. Drive them out. No sob stories, if you're an illegal, you get shipped south of the border. You look at North Korea, they have armed guards protecting both sides of their border. Anyone they catch coming in goes to a concentration camp where they work 15 hard hours of manual labor a day.

How do you tell the difference between an illegal and a natural born citizen? Figure that out and you'll know why NK is an armed camp without the slightest hint of freedom. Pardon me if I don't want the US to follow their example.

 

[Vic]

Prosecute those who hire and aid Illegals, problem solved.

"Irish need not apply."