DescentBB

On Monday, May 1, 2006 thousands of latinos will rally in Los Angeles in support of illegal immigration. They will not work on this day, and they will encourage their children to be truant and join the rally.

Rumor has it they will try to shut down the city during rush hour. This is the typical calculation by protestors in downtown Los Angeles. You get a lot of press if you can stop traffic or shutdown the exit ramps to the city. That keeps working professionals (i.e., the Man) locked in and press choppers circling. I know this because I've been working there now for about six years.

Legal immigration is the lifeblood of this nation. I say this because I believe it to my core. It is the immigrant who has experienced life beyond our own borders, and who has a far greater appreciation for this country than we ever will. Legal immigrants teach us to appreciate America and hold close its promise of liberty and opportunity for all.

Illegal immigrants come with the same hopes, fears, and desires. But instead of moving through the processes by standing with other hopeful immigrants, they cut ahead of the others and take for themselves.

In so doing they ignore the requirements of naturalization, which requires an ability to read, write, and speak English; a knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government; good moral character; attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution; and a demonstrated favorable disposition toward the United States.

There is a difference between a naturalized citizen and an illegal alien. We need more of the former, and none of the latter. A recent opinion poll by FOXNEWS finds 91 percent think the illegal or undocumented immigration situation in the United States today is a \"very\" serious (63 percent) or \"somewhat\" serious (28 percent) problem. Only 5 percent think the problem is \"not very\" serious and 2 percent \"not at all\" serious. If you're a democrat (or think like one) and you're worried about the credibility of FOX, a Gallup poll in early April showed 81 percent of Americans think illegal immigration is \"out of control\".

I recognize the situation could be worse. Most Mexicans are Catholics, not Muslim, thank God. You need only look at the fun times they're having in Frnace to see where that leads.

Bu we need to seal the border, folks. Build a fence, increase border control, but seal it off. If we don't do this first, and prematurely start into a discussion about granting conditional amnesty or \"guest worker\" status leading to citizenship, then we are doomed. The already porous borders will be overwhelmed with illegals ready to get in line to escape their own impoverished districts in Mexico.

Once the border is sealed, and some semblance of security established, then and only then can we start talking about what to do with the illegal aliens. Those talks will have a good bit more teeth, because deportation over a secure border will mean something more to the deportee than the inconvenience of a long return trip back up through the desert and into the U.S.

In the meantime, illegal immigrants are doing more harm than good to their cause by agitating the general population with \"rallies\". That's why I'll be rooting for mass attendance of illegal immigrants in May 1st, and I hope they'll continue to offend the country with spanish-language bastardized versions of our national anthem. Maybe they'll bring more Mexican flags this time, instead of carrying American flags to scorn the very host country in which they live.

BD

Anyone who comes to this country in search of a better life, who is willing to work any job, who want their kids to go to school here, to grow up and live in peace here, should be made a United States citizen.

This country was founded on that very idea and who am I to deny that to anyone. I'm with them.

Bee

Im with them as well, for precisely the same reason Bett is.

Bet51987 wrote:Anyone who comes to this country in search of a better life, who is willing to work any job, who want their kids to go to school here, go grow up and live in peace here, should be made a United States citizen.

So you would do away with the law that requires they read, write, and speak English. You would not require a knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government. And you would not require they demonstrate an attachment to principles of the Constitution.

Correct?

Immortal Lobster wrote:Im with them as well, for precisely the same reason Bett is.

Sorry, but I need clarification, I guess from both of you. Is it your position(s) that we should not have a law that makes it illegal to cross the United States border without permission?

Thanks.

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote: So you would do away with the law that requires they read, write, and speak English. You would not require a knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government. And you would not require they demonstrate an attachment to principles of the Constitution.

Correct?

Of course not. I would still require them to learn basic English, history, how our government works, etc etc. That can be done in night schools across the country by government workers who don't do anything anyway.

Bottom line is what I already described in my previous post.

Bee

Immortal Lobster wrote:Im with them as well, for precisely the same reason Bett is.

(For Bet and those that ditto her sentiment)

Well that's just great! Let's turn the whole country into an international version of a modern day gold rush! Squatters rights all around!! Come and get it!!!
Are there any other laws you would like to abolish in your pursuit to create a warm fuzzy place for all the worlds poor and homeless to move in and take over?

The lack of foresight some people demonstrate is absolutely frightening.

Here's a thought for you, just because your motive is a warm friendly one doesn't mean it's a good idea!

Come to think of it, that rule can be applied to almost any interaction between humans that goes any deeper than a simple greeting. Even a simple game of marbles requires some understanding and respect for the rules!
In your desire to sound generous warm and fuzzy your shortsighted proposal really would lead us closer to anarchy than anything peaceful.

Or did you mean to limit your generosity to only the mexicans who are coming in? If so, how many can come in before even you see it as a problem?
You don't think we can really open up the border completely and accomodate everyone in Mexico that wishes to come in do you?

Damn those details, always getting in the way of a warm fuzzy dream don't they?

Why do so many people think the U.S. should take care of the rest of the world? Is it because their own governments are worthless? Perhaps. However, freedom isn't a right, it's a priviledge. A privilege that should be earned, not taken. Illegals take it because they think that's the only way they can get it, and in many cases that is the only way. Legals have it because they honor it, and take the correct path to find it.

Perhaps the real solution to all this is to replace the corupt governments that all these illegals are running from, and work to make living in their own countries something to cherish, not abandon.

have any of you watched \"Ghost in the Shell- 2nd GIG\"? The story line seems somewhat simular to this. ..well.. sorta.

Heh, I'm watching it right now on [as]. You're right; there are some interesting parallels to the current situation. The main difference is that the \"immigrants\" in the series are really refugees from foreign conflicts, whereas the people in question in the US have come to this country illegally.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for anyone who comes to this country legally and becomes a productive member of society; my own great-grandparents entered the country this way in the early 1900s. However, for those who choose to ignore our laws and come here despite not going through proper procedures, I don't feel as kindly, even if they are doing so out of necessity. Am I saying they should all be deported or charged as criminals? Of course not; that's completely counterproductive and doesn't really change anything. Do I think there are underlying problems with the whole legal immigration system? Undoubtedly; there's a lot that can be done to make it fairer and more effective. Even so, those official channels exist for a reason, and those who choose to ignore them are, in fact, breaking the law. This doesn't have anything to do with racism or a desire for \"purity\" of culture; it has everything to do with upholding our nation's right to make laws governing the process of coming to this country and becoming citizens. That's it, plain and simple.

Will Robinson wrote: Damn those details, always getting in the way of a warm fuzzy dream don't they?

Lothar said something I will never forget. He said "I always think it's funny when someone studies Christianity and somehow comes away with the idea that God is a fluffy care-bear who just wants you to be happy. Where does that come from? Does the rest of the church really teach that crap?)" (That one statement finally and permanantly pushed me into atheism.}

Your statement is along the same lines. We have become a nation of bullys who wield the stick at the ones who dream of things as they should be. Those "border people", as you call them, have dreams of a better life like my ancestors did. The ones who built this country.

I don't have all the answers Will, but for me to agree with you, I would first have to go to the statue of liberty, climb to the top, and extinguish that torch. I would never do that.

Bee

ummm, where is this law that requires people to read, write and speak english. I thought it was just the most used language and therefore a defacto standard.

You will no doubt take this as an insult which is not my intent, but take it anyway.

Your story about Lothar reveals that you are driven by emotion and you use melodrama as a means of expression. Otherwise his point wouldn't have cracked your faith and conviction.... if there was any there to crack.
That same emotional drive is what causes you to propose what I'd call a screwed up plan of allowing anyone into america who works hard and lives in peace.

It's quite common among young people to have such incomplete thoughts. I and most of my friends were that way and it's true of every youngster I've ever observed to one degree or another.
Emotion temporarily fills the holes that eventually are filled with knowledge and experience. The filling of those holes we all have when we're young is called gaining wisdom.

The point I'm making and this disagreement we are having reminds me of a quote.

\"If by the time a man is twenty and he's not a socialist then he has no heart.
If by the time he's thirty and he's still a socialist he has no brain.\" - Winston Churchil

It's not being a bully to want to have everyone who enters this country to live by the rules that were put in place by people who live here. Rules by the way, that were put in place to accomplish two things. To preserve the quality of life for all who live here and provide a way for others to join us without destroying the foundation, the fabric that holds this wonderful place together.

In fact I think that you, if you were to impliment your plan to simply let in everyone who wants to live in peace and work hard, are the one who would be the bully!
You may rationalize away your boorish behavior by saying you just want to be fair and generous but you don't seem to be willing to consider the negative aspects of such a plan!

Lets try to give it a more personal perspective that you may be able to relate to.

Suppose your parents died and left you their house and small farm. You lived their peacefully, worked hard and were quite succesful and comfortable, eating the food you grew and selling the excess for profit.

One day a foriegner crosses the border because he's heard of the prosperity in your village and he shows up on your doorstep looking for work. You hire him, he works real cheaply, so cheaply that the local kids no longer come around looking for work. You profit from his efforts and he lives in your barn with his wife and children. All is going quite well for you and he seems to be happy too.
Soon his cousin shows up with his family in tow and he goes to work for you as well. He doesn't speak english though so you need to learn to speak spanish because if you don't you're nieghbor will call you a racsist pig for not providing a comfortable place for the newcomer.
Then your neighbor says Bett, you have lots of room and plenty of crops, I think you should let all the foriegners who want to live and work peacefully on your farm do so. Oh, by the way from now on some of the rules you used in your house will have to be changed because the foriegners don't like some of them...

Would you let them turn your house and farm into the kind of place they think it should be?

Is there a limit to the number of them you'll let in or will you take in everyone that shows up...at least until the quality of life on your farm and the resources are no longer attractive enough to draw more hard working peacefull people?

Is there only a certain level in the loss in the quality of your lifestyle you are willing to tolerate or is that being a bully to think of putting a limit on the unfolding changes on your farm?


Just who is the bully in this scenario? You? Or your nieghbor?

Betina wrote:Of course not. I would still require them to learn basic English, history, how our government works, etc etc.

I think we have a misunderstanding here. Betina's statement here implies that what she means is we should make it easier to become legal citizens, in which case, I agree. If we want to spread democracy, let anyone who wants to participate in that system join us, by all means.

ILLEGAL immigration must stop. If for no other reason than to protect the illegal immigrants. It's not GOOD to live in a country where you get substandard wages, have no actual rights, and are afraid to get help from the police. Let's make everyone come in LEGALLY for their own sakes.

AND, I oppose the Amnesty for the same reason. If we allow the amnesty, then we have one group of immigrants who are suddenly protected by the constitution, but we have encouraged more to try the same thing. You just cant reward illegal immigration without encouraging more. Open up the citizenship process, but stop illegal immigration. Its best for EVERYONE.

Bold Deceiver wrote:we need to seal the border, folks. Build a fence, increase border control, but seal it off.

Sealing a 1952 mile border (thats 3141 km for scientist and the rest of the world) is certainly impractical and virtually impossible. Eliminate the INCENTIVE to come over illegaly by doing something that IS practical and possible: Punish companies who hire (read abuse) illegal labor. If you eliminate the source of jobs, people will have no reason to cross the border illegaly.

Cuda68 wrote:ummm, where is this law that requires people to read, write and speak english. I thought it was just the most used language and therefore a defacto standard.

Don't have the Code section in front of me, but I think this is authoritative ....

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/index.htm

Kilarin wrote:Eliminate the INCENTIVE to come over illegaly by doing something that IS practical and possible: Punish companies who hire (read abuse) illegal labor. If you eliminate the source of jobs, people will have no reason to cross the border illegaly.

I agree. Building a fence won't work. Fences can be climbed over, cut through, or dug under. As long as the incentive to come here is still in place, people are going to come here illegally. They don't come here because they can drink the water. They come here because of the economic incentives.

If you are serious about stopping illegal immigration, I propose a mandatory 10-year prison sentence to any business owner convicted of knowingly employing an illegal immigrant. If you take away the economic incentive to come here, and make it more attractive to stay home, people will stop coming here illegally.

Dedman wrote:I agree. Building a fence won't work. Fences can be climbed over, cut through, or dug under.

Kilarin wrote:Sealing a 1952 mile border (thats 3141 km for scientist and the rest of the world) is certainly impractical and virtually impossible.

Says who? I think that's unreasonably dismissive. First, I agree wholeheartedly that no fence can stop everyone. On the other hand, I can point to the fence between San Diego and Tijuana that was constructed in the mid-90's as an example of its effectiveness. "For many local residents, the barriers have effectively halted the sensational events of the early 1990s when illegal immigrants ran amok in back yards and on freeways. Crime is down. Illegal crossings have dropped." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 9064.story

That same story goes on to say that yes, it just shifted the problem elsewhere, but that's because there is an "elsewhere". What feasibility study can you point to that says a fence is or would be ineffective? I admit I don't have one in support, but I think it's most likely the single best method for shutting down traffic. I'm also not sure we need to fence the entire border -- the mileage required that I've seen is in the area of 775 miles or so. Might look something like this: https://secure.responseenterprises.com/ ... ea_big.jpg

As for having private employers enforce border security instead of the U.S. Government -- we already have a law on the books for that. I think you can see how well that's worked out. But I do agree we should have such a policy. I would just insist on a National I.D. Card for that. I worked for 12 years or so in the film/TV industry in Hollywood, building sets and special effects. As a consequence, I've filled out so many of those I-9 Immigration Forms I could probably quote the whole thing to you. I used to carry copies of the documents in my equipment box just to avoid having to give up my driver's license and social security card, or my passport, to some accounting person who might lose them. Employers aren't equipped to discern whether the documents I'm giving them are real or fake, and frankly it shouldn't be their burden to hire an expert to verify the authenticity of documents received from every employee. They paper the file and move on. Set up a computerized card system for reading magnetic strips and matching social security numbers with a government database, however, and you've got something we can work with.

Then you can drop the hammer on non-complying employers.

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote:As for having private employers enforce border security instead of the U.S. Government -- we already have a law on the books for that. I think you can see how well that's worked out.

We already have laws on the books that cover coming into this country illegally. How are they working out?

The bottom line is if you don't address the root cause of why they are comming, they will continue to come. Taking supplimental measures such as fences and more border security is all well and good, but if one is serious about the issue, the incentive to come here illegally MUST be removed.

I find it odd that the Mexican flag is being displayed by those who are protesting. If they love Mexico so much, why do they want to come to the U.S.? Should they not be waving an American flag, since this is the country that can (and does) supply them with what they need?

Will Robinson wrote:You will no doubt take this as an insult which is not my intent, but take it anyway.

Your story about Lothar reveals that you are driven by emotion and you use melodrama as a means of expression. Otherwise his point wouldn't have cracked your faith and conviction.... if there was any there to crack.
That same emotional drive is what causes you to propose what I'd call a screwed up plan of allowing anyone into america who works hard and lives in peace.

It's quite common among young people to have such incomplete thoughts. I and most of my friends were that way and it's true of every youngster I've ever observed to one degree or another.
Emotion temporarily fills the holes that eventually are filled with knowledge and experience. The filling of those holes we all have when we're young is called gaining wisdom.

The point I'm making and this disagreement we are having reminds me of a quote.

"If by the time a man is twenty and he's not a socialist then he has no heart.
If by the time he's thirty and he's still a socialist he has no brain." - Winston Churchil

It's not being a bully to want to have everyone who enters this country to live by the rules that were put in place by people who live here. Rules by the way, that were put in place to accomplish two things. To preserve the quality of life for all who live here and provide a way for others to join us without destroying the foundation, the fabric that holds this wonderful place together.

In fact I think that you, if you were to impliment your plan to simply let in everyone who wants to live in peace and work hard, are the one who would be the bully!
You may rationalize away your boorish behavior by saying you just want to be fair and generous but you don't seem to be willing to consider the negative aspects of such a plan!

Lets try to give it a more personal perspective that you may be able to relate to.

Suppose your parents died and left you their house and small farm. You lived their peacefully, worked hard and were quite succesful and comfortable, eating the food you grew and selling the excess for profit.

One day a foriegner crosses the border because he's heard of the prosperity in your village and he shows up on your doorstep looking for work. You hire him, he works real cheaply, so cheaply that the local kids no longer come around looking for work. You profit from his efforts and he lives in your barn with his wife and children. All is going quite well for you and he seems to be happy too.
Soon his cousin shows up with his family in tow and he goes to work for you as well. He doesn't speak english though so you need to learn to speak spanish because if you don't you're nieghbor will call you a racsist pig for not providing a comfortable place for the newcomer.
Then your neighbor says Bett, you have lots of room and plenty of crops, I think you should let all the foriegners who want to live and work peacefully on your farm do so. Oh, by the way from now on some of the rules you used in your house will have to be changed because the foriegners don't like some of them...

Would you let them turn your house and farm into the kind of place they think it should be?

Is there a limit to the number of them you'll let in or will you take in everyone that shows up...at least until the quality of life on your farm and the resources are no longer attractive enough to draw more hard working peacefull people?

Is there only a certain level in the loss in the quality of your lifestyle you are willing to tolerate or is that being a bully to think of putting a limit on the unfolding changes on your farm?


Just who is the bully in this scenario? You? Or your nieghbor?

First off, your wrong, I didn't take it as an insult in any way, shape, or form. Your ok and I hope you don't see mine as insulting either.

Secondly, yes, I am driven by emotion and I use melodrama in my posts because thats how I am and how I write. I try not to, but the words just pop in that way. Sorry, but those words are me.

My religion was a mixture of hope and faith and that care bear quote made me take a very long and hard look at what I was hoping for. It made me realize that Lothars god is not my god and never will be. That god of the bible is false to me and it was a major relief letting it go. Things make more sense to me now.

The part of your post that builds a story of the foreigner coming to my home is more fiction than example and rather than trade stories I'll take it for what it was.

Lastly, the rest of your post leads me to a very haunting conclusion. One of prejudice. That even if the illegals became legal, in want of a better life, you still would not accept them. If that is the case then the statue of liberty means nothing.

Bee

Dedman wrote:We already have laws on the books that cover coming into this country illegally. How are they working out? The bottom line is if you don't address the root cause of why they are comming, they will continue to come. Taking supplimental measures such as fences and more border security is all well and good . . . .

I think we both agree that employer enforcement is crucial. Right now it's in many ways impractical, that's the problem. Now you might say, hey, let's bump up the penalty and make it a felony to knowingly hire an illegal alien, then actually enforce the law. You might get somewhere with that. But why should an employer have to bear the risk of being imprisoned for accidentally hiring on one of the 12 million lawbreakers who sneaked into the country to get ahead of the line filled by their own law-abiding countrypersons -- when it's the job of the federal government to control the borders. That's WHY the employer pays taxes TO the federal government.

We just disagree on whose principal job it is to handle the problem. I fully concur that we should crackdown on employers who break the law. But God, you would think in an age where my American Express representative is immediately on the phone with me if I buy something unusual, we could develop a similar system to prove citizenship.

I fully disagree with your notion of border security as a "supplemental measure". We don't live in that kind of world anymore -- which is an equal if not more important part of my support for a border fence.

BD

Bet51987 wrote:Lastly, the rest of your post leads me to a very haunting conclusion. One of prejudice. That even if the illegals became legal, in want of a better life, you still would not accept them. If that is the case then the statue of liberty means nothing.

Bee --

We're a country of laws. The statue of liberty stands as a beacon of liberty, it is true. But liberty is not an absolute proposition. If it were, sovereignty would mean nothing.

What would you say to those thousands of men and women from Mexico and other countries, whose access to the Statue of Liberty is denied or delayed because a literal flood of alien humanity chooses to break the law simply to avoid our requirements for citizenship? "Thanks for standing in line and obeying our laws, but we really need to grant citizenship to the lawbreakers, first. See you in a couple of years." You'll only increase the flood.

Our country contributed to the problem by not enforcing the law, to begin with. So you're right, we need to deal with the lawbreakers who are here, once we've secured the border to keep other lawbreakers -- some of whom may wish to cause us harm -- from arriving. There may be some equitable solution, such as permitting them to apply for citizenship after they return for a specified period of time to Mexico, under conditions. Short of that, I think we're not only being unfair to the immigrants who demonstrate respect for our laws, by granting preferences to those who demonstrate from the first day they arrive they have no respect for us or our law.

Seems to me that's fair.

BD

Bet51987 wrote:The part of your post that builds a story of the foreigner coming to my home is more fiction than example and rather than trade stories I'll take it for what it was.

I think you are dodging the point.
It was all fiction (unless you happen to actually be the heir to a farm your parents left you...) but that really is beside the point isn't it?

It was obviously a hypothetical scenario that parallels the way things really are, only I put it on a small scale with you right at the epicenter of the problem. They say "All politics are local"...
I just took the big national problem that you would want other people to deal with and made it your problem, and asked you to deal with it hypothetically.
If you can't see that then I wonder if you're really paying attention. Maybe you didn't like where it took you?

So, if you're willing to have this discussion, take my hypothetical scenario and apply your previous proposal of requiring a foriegner to simply be 'willing to work hard' and 'live in peace' as the only condition they must meet to gain entry and then put yourself in charge of that farm under the conditions I laid out.

Now answer the questions on how you would handle it if they started to join your farm inspite of any tresspassing laws and your nieghbors started pressuring you to make changes to provide for their needs.

My eleven year old had no trouble recognizing the problems raised and coming up with an answer.
And I think you understand very well the scenario and the questions/problems it raises.
You just decided to deny the whole thing and say you'll just "take it for what it was".
Well, you may have 'taken it for what it was' but you sure didn't deal with the problem or respond sincerely!
Instead of responding to the challenge you accuse me of being predjudiced! Based on what?!?
It's a pretty lame trick to ignore the question, ignore the point, and then deflect your unwillingness to answer by calling the other person a name.

There is nothing prejudicial in my position you just felt a need to assign some malicious intent to my position so you could rationalize your obvious dodging of the issue and otherwise baseless dismissal of my point.

...even if the illegals became legal, in want of a better life, you still would not accept them....

Aside from my never saying anything that would give that impression, just for grins, tell me how would an illegal become legal? And what defines being illegal?
Your answer, if it is sincere and not another dodge, might actually drag you back into facing the reality of the situation where we could have some meaningful discussion.

Can you put the emotion aside and give logic a try?

Shoku wrote:I find it odd that the Mexican flag is being displayed by those who are protesting. If they love Mexico so much, why do they want to come to the U.S.? Should they not be waving an American flag, since this is the country that can (and does) supply them with what they need?

Yeah, no kidding. I saw footage from one rally where they were marching under big solid red flags with Che Guevara silkscreened on them - you know, the T-shirt image that is so trendy with the far left. Pretty ridiculous.

Dedman wrote:If you are serious about stopping illegal immigration, I propose a mandatory 10-year prison sentence to any business owner convicted of knowingly employing an illegal immigrant. If you take away the economic incentive to come here, and make it more attractive to stay home, people will stop coming here illegally.

This is not a trivial point. Of course, we have to consider the failure of the Mexican government, for example, to liberalize their economy so that it could grow and provide opportunities for many of their citizens.

Will Robinson wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:The part of your post that builds a story of the foreigner coming to my home is more fiction than example and rather than trade stories I'll take it for what it was.

I think you are dodging the point.
It was all fiction (unless you happen to actually be the heir to a farm your parents left you...) but that really is beside the point isn't it?

It was obviously a hypothetical scenario that parallels the way things really are, only I put it on a small scale with you right at the epicenter of the problem. They say "All politics are local"...
I just took the big national problem that you would want other people to deal with and made it your problem, and asked you to deal with it hypothetically.
If you can't see that then I wonder if you're really paying attention. Maybe you didn't like where it took you?

So, if you're willing to have this discussion, take my hypothetical scenario and apply your previous proposal of requiring a foriegner to simply be 'willing to work hard' and 'live in peace' as the only condition they must meet to gain entry and then put yourself in charge of that farm under the conditions I laid out.

Now answer the questions on how you would handle it if they started to join your farm inspite of any tresspassing laws and your nieghbors started pressuring you to make changes to provide for their needs.

My eleven year old had no trouble recognizing the problems raised and coming up with an answer.
And I think you understand very well the scenario and the questions/problems it raises.
You just decided to deny the whole thing and say you'll just "take it for what it was".
Well, you may have 'taken it for what it was' but you sure didn't deal with the problem or respond sincerely!
Instead of responding to the challenge you accuse me of being predjudiced! Based on what?!?
It's a pretty lame trick to ignore the question, ignore the point, and then deflect your unwillingness to answer by calling the other person a name.

There is nothing prejudicial in my position you just felt a need to assign some malicious intent to my position so you could rationalize your obvious dodging of the issue and otherwise baseless dismissal of my point.

...even if the illegals became legal, in want of a better life, you still would not accept them....

Aside from my never saying anything that would give that impression, just for grins, tell me how would an illegal become legal? And what defines being illegal?
Your answer, if it is sincere and not another dodge, might actually drag you back into facing the reality of the situation where we could have some meaningful discussion.

Can you put the emotion aside and give logic a try?

Understand I'm doing something illegal in your scenario and in my original post I would have made anyone who wanted to live here a U.S. citizen. With that said, I will still play your game.

He comes to my farm looking for work. He says he is a hard and honest worker and wants to live in this country. I hire him because he's honest and willing to work. I put his wife and two children in the small three room guest house that I already had for ranch hands. He works cheaply, never complains, shows respect for my animals and my farm and his wife works in my home. I find them working harder than the group of local kids that I've hired in the past. The locals, besides wasting time talking on their cell phones, text messaging, and throwing stuff at each other, didn't want to do certain jobs, like clean the washrooms, wash windows, shovel horse manure, clean the pig pen, or work if its damp out.

I found that these immigrints do all that without complaining. Hmmm, I thought. They do things americans won't do. The husband and wife ask if I would teach them english in the evenings since they don't go to malls and I said sure. And I do. Soon his cousin shows up with his family in tow and he goes to work for me as well. They all work hard, and my profits rise six fold. I pay them more. I noticed one of them was bleeding from a wound in his arm. He never told me about it or wanted four weeks off with pay so it could heal or hire a lawyer to sue me. I drove him to the local doctor who works out of his home and patched him up. I paid for that willingly.

The one I taught to speak english is teaching me spanish or mexican or whatever language they have. She teaches me how to cook some different meals too. The neighbor complains about my hires and says "Why don't you hire all of them and turn this country into a hellhole" I tell him to mind his own business because the workers I have are top notch and work hard. Later, one of the foreigners I hired gave me a list of demands. He wants to make a change to some of my rules. I told him that my rules are fair and apply to everyone. (I don't understand this rule part of your scenario Will)

Later on, another family and another shows up. I tell them I haven't any more work or boarding and they should go out and find other jobs that americans refuse or don't want to do. I can't hire anymore workers and have reached my farm limit. I didn't notice anyone being a bully.

I don't know what your implying Will if this isn't enough. I just don't see things like you do.

And as far as the others finding fault with some of them, let me remind you that there are bad people in all groups. I'm not proud of some of the people who are already citizens and don't like it here.

Bee

Kilarin wrote:

Betina wrote:Of course not. I would still require them to learn basic English, history, how our government works, etc etc.

I think we have a misunderstanding here. Betina's statement here implies that what she means is we should make it easier to become legal citizens, in which case, I agree. If we want to spread democracy, let anyone who wants to participate in that system join us, by all means.

ILLEGAL immigration must stop. If for no other reason than to protect the illegal immigrants. It's not GOOD to live in a country where you get substandard wages, have no actual rights, and are afraid to get help from the police. Let's make everyone come in LEGALLY for their own sakes.

AND, I oppose the Amnesty for the same reason. If we allow the amnesty, then we have one group of immigrants who are suddenly protected by the constitution, but we have encouraged more to try the same thing. You just cant reward illegal immigration without encouraging more. Open up the citizenship process, but stop illegal immigration. Its best for EVERYONE.

Bold Deceiver wrote:we need to seal the border, folks. Build a fence, increase border control, but seal it off.

Sealing a 1952 mile border (thats 3141 km for scientist and the rest of the world) is certainly impractical and virtually impossible. Eliminate the INCENTIVE to come over illegaly by doing something that IS practical and possible: Punish companies who hire (read abuse) illegal labor. If you eliminate the source of jobs, people will have no reason to cross the border illegaly.

EXACTLY what I think. Illegal immigration is bad, mmkay. It is called remove the il, to make it legal. IF they come here legally...
No problemo para Estados Unidos

EDIT: I dont mean making illegal immigration legal, just plain legal immigration.

Bet51987 wrote:....Later on, another family and another shows up. I tell them I haven't any more work or boarding and they should go out and find other jobs that americans refuse or don't want to do. I can't hire anymore workers and have reached my farm limit....

Bee

So you will put more limits on people coming into your farm than you would have us put on the country as a whole. Why?
Tell me, can we as a country tell the illegal immigrants they should go out and find another place like you did in your solution?

What will you do when your brothers and sisters keep letting the illegals move on to your farm even though you told them you had enough? After all they are hard working and peaceful so by your brothers and sisters standards that's all that matters.
Too bad they didn't respect the rules,next thing you know they will be telling you you are prejudiced for trying to enforce your rules....

There are tons of problems with illegal immigration. Granting citizenship won't help much, either. The large majority of the illegal immigrants do show contempt for the law of the land. First, by immigrating, then by things like driving without insurance, not paying for medical services, encouraging prostitution, trafficing drugs, not paying taxes, and mooching off of wellfare. True, americans do these things, too, but at least the law has a better way of catching and prosecuting those who are here legally. It really is a big issue, and the only solution I can see is convincing everyone to refuse to illegally hire people. I really think that the only way to deal with the issue is to target those illegally hiring people. Make a federal law that makes hiring someone illegally worth a couple million dollars, and start hitting the big companies up with fines. The problem with that is that it would drive all the illegals toward more illegal sources of income, so suddenly your crime rate would spike. It's just not a simple solution. No matter what you do, the standard of living in the US will be brought down in the process.

Will Robinson wrote: So you will put more limits on people coming into your farm than you would have us put on the country as a whole. Why?
Tell me, can we as a country tell the illegal immigrants they should go out and find another place like you did in your solution?

Because my farm won't hold anymore and there are no more jobs available. The country, however, is not full and there are plenty of jobs available that americans don't want to do.

Will Robinson wrote: What will you do when your brothers and sisters keep letting the illegals move on to your farm even though you told them you had enough? After all they are hard working and peaceful so by your brothers and sisters standards that's all that matters.
Too bad they didn't respect the rules,next thing you know they will be telling you you are prejudiced for trying to enforce your rules....

I already answered those questions.

I have another problem. My dad is in agreement with most of what you and others have said. Not all, but most. Most of my classmates think that way too so its not a youth/wisdom thing. I was really surprised.

But... I'm not going to change how I feel about what is right or wrong and I stand by what I said. I also noticed today that many are waving the american flag... not the mexican flag. Some have worked here for a long time and don't want to be classified as felons.
I still believe that the statue of liberty has meaning.

Now, I would like and answer from you on my own hypothetical question:

If our government told all the illegals to go back across their borders, then re-enter legally and become citizens, would you accept them? I just want to know if its the legality issue that bothers you or you just don't want them at all.

Bee

If our government told all the illegals to go back across their borders, then re-enter legally and become citizens, would you accept them? I just want to know if its the legality issue that bothers you or you just don't want them at all.

Bet,
I think most of us opponents of the current immigration situation have already established that we support them if they went through the legal channels.It's not about Mexican workers, it's about ILLEGAL Mexican workers and our inability to continue letting them chew on our system.

Do you digest the posts you respond to, or skim and insert what you think we're saying instead of what we're actually saying ? I'm sure this has been stated many, many times..in many, many threads.

Fusion pimp wrote:

If our government told all the illegals to go back across their borders, then re-enter legally and become citizens, would you accept them? I just want to know if its the legality issue that bothers you or you just don't want them at all.

Bet,
I think most of us opponents of the current immigration situation have already established that we support them if they went through the legal channels.It's not about Mexican workers, it's about ILLEGAL Mexican workers and our inability to continue letting them chew on our system.

Do you digest the posts you respond to, or skim and insert what you think we're saying instead of what we're actually saying ? I'm sure this has been stated many, many times..in many, many threads.

I was asking Will.

Bee

What bothers me more then the issue itself is why the issue became a \"problem\" in the first place.

Illegal imigration has always been a problem in this country. Suddenly, it's capturing attention and instigating some very extreme actions. Mind you at a time when unemployment is down and the economy (by word of the gov.) is up.

So my question is (amoung others), What sparked all this attention on the issue?

Bet51987 wrote:I was asking Will.

Bee

ask and ye shall recieve

You implied that I'm prejudiced and questioned whether or not I'd accept them if they were legal but you dodged the question on just what distinguishes an illegal from a legal immigrant, too bad because it would lead you back to the real debate, the very root of what we are talking about. You couldn't be more wrong, and as Barry alluded to, if you had been reading you would understand my position.

Here's a few quotes from posts of mine a few days ago in other threads:

"I'm not suggesting we should lock the gate and throw away the key, but making immigrants use the gate and only with our permission instead of pretending not to notice them climbing the fence is well within our rights and serves our best interest." - Will robinson, April 26th

"It's not the mexicans I dislike. I still love them best of all and welcome everyone who made it here. I wouldn't dream of sending one of them back unless he's a felon. but enough is enough!
I want the damn door shut and proper entrance procedures followed.
I want a controlled influx of immigrants." - Will Robinson, April 26th

So please do away with the smoke screen that I'm merely motivated by bigotry. It's not true and you're just hiding from the real debate by going there.

Also you keep invoking the Statue of Liberty as if it were some devine alter of the goddess of free tresspass. The sentiment behind the words on the pedastal were never meant to imply that merely having the desire to enter, or the volume of opportunities and room to live that lie within our borders meant the immigrant could bypass the laws of the land and enter at will!!
The damn statue sits right beside Ellis Island which was a screening point for legal immigrants where they did comply with the laws or were refused entry!! Was it placed there by accident? I think not.


On to your revised conditions for entrance - 'there are jobs available and there is enough room for them' - is not enough of a limit on who gets in and why!! That's really a piss poor standard that doesn't take into consideration the impact such liberal entrance policy would have. But since it's not far off at all from the way we've handled mexican immigrants so far we have real world statistics to back up my argument.

As an example, recent estimates have it as 11 million illegal aliens in the country and half of them are working. I think that's a low estimate on the total number here but regardless they were able to establish the ratio of unemployed to be 50%.
with half of the not working you can see why the average illegal immigrant family consumes 40% more tax payer funded benefits than they contribute.
Another example that I posted before:
From 2002 to 2005 the federal government payed, using our tax dollars, 5.8 billion dollars to help defray the total cost of 23.2 billion dollars that the states had to spend to incarcerate illegal aliens convicted of crimes and that is but one tiny entry on the illegal immigration balance sheet!
That same scenario with the prisons plays out with numerous other social programs.
The budgets of school districts and hospitals and many other tax payer funded services are impacted and the influx of illegals is actually breaking the bank of many city and county governments in all the areas where illegals have a high concentration both on the borders and in the big cities.
So there already is a big impact on our economy and it's only getting worse, in the last twenty years the number of illegal aliens in this country has quadrupled!

Also, I don't buy the argument that without illegal immigrants some jobs won't get done. Bullsheet! The market will adjust and quite frankly if I have to pay four or five times as much for a head of lettuce, or 40% more for the hotel room or resturaunt meal, orthat much more for a contractor to landscape my yard because it took that much adjustment to fill the job with a legal resident then so be it! It probably works to my advantage both in the short and long term because it puts more income in the hands of the lower classes and it creates more legal wages that put more revenue in the tax coffers which works to balance the deficit that a high ratio of illegal immigrants creates! and no one is saying there wont be immigrants to fill the jobs. They will still be willing to do the work and have a better chance of recieving fair wages and treatment when they aren't afraid of the government.

Now back to the previous scenario I proposed. You say you answered my questions but you really didn't, you kind of danced around them.
In the hypothetical you said you would tell the illegal immigrants to stop coming in, apparantly enforcing some kind of authority on who and how many get into your farm. Well that sounds exactly like our current immigration laws as they are written!
But you didn't address the part where your brothers and sisters refuse to stop bringing in more than your rules allow! That is an important part of the scenario.

You see, america already takes in more legal immigrants than all the other countries combined!
That's right. But we said by way of our legal immigration procedures and the laws those procedures are built upon that there is a limit to how many we will take in. Just like the way you proposed letting just enough on your farm to meet your needs....

We have certain rules on how they get in, how many from which places etc.
Those rules were not just slapped up by some xenophobic redneck one afternoon because a lowrider went down mainstreet with the radio too loud and startled his dog.
They were calculated to provide america with an influx of immigrants, screened and diverse in point of origin. They were required to basically adopt america as their own new country and they never dreamed of coming in here demading we start speaking their language and providing their children with education in their language etc. etc.

But somewhere along the way our brothers and sisters ignored the rules and kept letting them in.
The reason why is simple, Mexico is right next door and so poor they will come over and work real cheap.
Trust me if there was a land bridge from the Sudan or Ethiopia, or any other dirt poor place they would be coming in here as well.
It has nothing to do with being nice or generous or any kind of compassion!
It's all about greed. We found someone to do the crap work cheaper than the last guy who had the job and they don't complain!

Now, for a variety of reasons, we, just like you did in the hypothetical farm scenario, have decided that we've reached a limit and we want to cut off the open border policy.

And about this open border policy you propose we follow, are you only that compassionate about mexicans? Does the spirit of the statue of liberty you invoke hold her torch for other immigrants besides mexicans?
will you offer your generosity to other immigrants who want to take advantage of your open border policy? You know, as long as they want to work and live in peace and as long as there is a job in the want ads and room within our borders....
If so I just know a new industry will pop up quickly. It will be foriegn companies shipping in refugees by the boatload!
Will you house and feed the first boatload who get shipped over to america, the new frontier, while they figure out what part of the plenty of room they want to occupy and which of the plenty of jobs they want to fill?
Someone call the public schools and all the government services tell them to start printing out everything in every third world language that any immigrant might speak because after all, we've got the room and we've got some jobs open....no sense in waiting for them to demand it, we know the drill.

Will Robinson wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I was asking Will.

Bee

ask and ye shall recieve

You imlied that I'm prejudiced and questioned whether or not I'd accept them if they were legal but you dodged the question on just what distinguishes an illegal from a legal immigrant, too bad because it would lead you back to the real debate, the very root of what we are talking about. You couldn't be more wrong, and as Barry alluded to, if you had been reading you would understand my position.

Here's a few quotes from posts of mine a few days ago in other threads:

"I'm not suggesting we should lock the gate and throw away the key, but making immigrants use the gate and only with our permission instead of pretending not to notice them climbing the fence is well within our rights and serves our best interest." - Will robinson, April 26th

"It's not the mexicans I dislike. I still love them best of all and welcome everyone who made it here. I wouldn't dream of sending one of them back unless he's a felon. but enough is enough!
I want the damn door shut and proper entrance procedures followed.
I want a controlled influx of immigrants." - Will Robinson, April 26th

So please do away with the smoke screen that I'm merely motivated by bigotry. It's not true and you're just hiding from the real debate by going there.

Also you keep invoking the Statue of Liberty as if it were some devine alter of the goddess of free tresspass. The sentiment behind the words on the pedastal were never meant to imply that merely having the desire to enter, or the volume of opportunities and room to live that lie within our borders meant the immigrant could bypass the laws of the land and enter at will!!
The damn statue sits right beside Ellis Island which was a screening point for legal immigrants where they did comply with the laws or were refused entry!! Was it placed there by accident? I think not.


On to your revised conditions for entrance - 'there are jobs available and there is enough room for them' - is not enough of a limit on who gets in and why!! That's really a piss poor standard that doesn't take into consideration the impact such liberal entrance policy would have. But since it's not far off at all from the way we've handled mexican immigrants so far we have real world statistics to back up my argument.

As an example, recent estimates have it as 11 million illegal aliens in the country and half of them are working. I think that's a low estimate on the total number here but regardless they were able to establish the ratio of unemployed to be 50%.
with half of the not working you can see why the average illegal immigrant family consumes 40% more tax payer funded benefits than they contribute.
Another example that I posted before:
From 2002 to 2005 the federal government payed, using our tax dollars, 5.8 billion dollars to help defray the total cost of 23.2 billion dollars that the states had to spend to incarcerate illegal aliens convicted of crimes and that is but one tiny entry on the illegal immigration balance sheet!
That same scenario with the prisons plays out with numerous other social programs.
The budgets of school districts and hospitals and many other tax payer funded services are impacted and the influx of illegals is actually breaking the bank of many city and county governments in all the areas where illegals have a high concentration both on the borders and in the big cities.
So there already is a big impact on our economy and it's only getting worse, in the last twenty years the number of illegal aliens in this country has quadrupled!

Also, I don't buy the argument that without illegal immigrants some jobs won't get done. *******! The market will adjust and quite frankly if I have to pay four or five times as much for a head of lettuce, or 40% more for the hotel room or resturaunt meal, orthat much more for a contractor to landscape my yard because it took that much adjustment to fill the job with a legal resident then so be it! It probably works to my advantage both in the short and long term because it puts more income in the hands of the lower classes and it creates more legal wages that put more revenue in the tax coffers which works to balance the deficit that a high ratio of illegal immigrants creates! and no one is saying there wont be immigrants to fill the jobs. They will still be willing to do the work and have a better chance of recieving fair wages and treatment when they aren't afraid of the government.

Now back to the previous scenario I proposed. You say you answered my questions but you really didn't, you kind of danced around them.
In the hypothetical you said you would tell the illegal immigrants to stop coming in, apparantly enforcing some kind of authority on who and how many get into your farm. Well that sounds exactly like our current immigration laws as they are written!
But you didn't address the part where your brothers and sisters refuse to stop bringing in more than your rules allow! That is an important part of the scenario.

You see, america already takes in more legal immigrants than all the other countries combined!
That's right. But we said by way of our legal immigration procedures and the laws those procedures are built upon that there is a limit to how many we will take in. Just like the way you proposed letting just enough on your farm to meet your needs....

We have certain rules on how they get in, how many from which places etc.
Those rules were not just slapped up by some xenophobic redneck one afternoon because a lowrider went down mainstreet with the radio too loud and startled his dog.
They were calculated to provide america with an influx of immigrants, screened and diverse in point of origin. They were required to basically adopt america as their own new country and they never dreamed of coming in here demading we start speaking their language and providing their children with education in their language etc. etc.

But somewhere along the way our brothers and sisters ignored the rules and kept letting them in.
The reason why is simple, Mexico is right next door and so poor they will come over and work real cheap.
Trust me if there was a land bridge from the Sudan or Ethiopia, or any other dirt poor place they would be coming in here as well.
It has nothing to do with being nice or generous or any kind of compassion!
It's all about greed. We found someone to do the crap work cheaper than the last guy who had the job and they don't complain!

Now, for a variety of reasons, we, just like you did in the hypothetical farm scenario, have decided that we've reached a limit and we want to cut off the open border policy.

And about this open border policy you propose we follow, are you only that compassionate about mexicans? Does the spirit of the statue of liberty you invoke hold her torch for other immigrants besides mexicans?
will you offer your generosity to other immigrants who want to take advantage of your open border policy? You know, as long as they want to work and live in peace and as long as there is a job in the want ads and room within our borders....
If so I just know a new industry will pop up quickly. It will be foriegn companies shipping in refugees by the boatload!
Will you house and feed the first boatload who get shipped over to america, the new frontier, while they figure out what part of the plenty of room they want to occupy and which of the plenty of jobs they want to fill?
Someone call the public schools and all the government services tell them to start printing out everything in every third world language that any immigrant might speak because after all, we've got the room and we've got some jobs open....no sense in waiting for them to demand it, we know the drill.

IMHTO... I really don't know how to reply to you in a way that I won't get hit with the big stick your carrying, but I got enough out of your reply to honestly say that you've answered my question to the fullest.

Thanks for the debate.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:I really don't know how to reply to you in a way that I won't get hit with the big stick your carrying . . .

Will chose not to pull any punches, which I too found surprising. Then I re-read the posts.

You came to the "haunting" conlusion that Will was "prejudice[d]" -- I think because he disagreed with you. You had no support whatsoever for that otherwise vicious assertion but you chose to put it out there, even though it was completely unfair and utterly unsubstantiated. You may feel comfortable with terms like this because it's been popular for a number of years to toss out that kind of accusation, particularly when the going gets rough, argumentatively. But this isn't about xenophobia. Will reacted appropriately.

You're a clearly a person of good heart; a strong thinker and an excellent writer and I wish I'd had half your talent at communication when I was younger. Since my advice is unsolicited, take it for what it's worth. Keep an open mind. I'll try to do the same.

BD

Survived the day without incident. I did leave downtown Los Angeles at 4:00 p.m., which is early for me -- but I was glad I did so.

Not much going on near my freeway exit, and I made it onto the Pasadena freeway without much trouble.

The most notable item of the day: no traffic. It was astonishing. Seems if you take a few million people of the freeway, the road up to Santa Clarita clears up pretty nicely.

We need to secure the borders, people. Don't let anyone tell you it can't be done. (You'll find people telling you that all your life, by the way.) You build a big fence but then, a la Bettina, you build into to it a great big swing-gate. The good hardworking people from Mexico will always be welcome in this country, so long as they follow our laws, and especially the ones that legislate the means of becoming a naturalized citizen. But they need to get in line, just like everyone else.

BD

I saw a few protestors on the news tonight showing more patriotism toward this country than I've seen in just about any born-and-raised American. If those same people are the ones who are here illegally, I just have to ask why. How could they show such love for America while violating the very laws that would allow them to become Americans? Is the immigration system the real problem here? Questions like that are the things that need to be answered if we're serious about resolving this whole issue.

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I really don't know how to reply to you in a way that I won't get hit with the big stick your carrying . . .

Will chose not to pull any punches, which I too found surprising. Then I re-read the posts.

You came to the "haunting" conlusion that Will was "prejudice[d]" -- I think because he disagreed with you. You had no support whatsoever for that otherwise vicious assertion but you chose to put it out there, even though it was completely unfair and utterly unsubstantiated. You may feel comfortable with terms like this because it's been popular for a number of years to toss out that kind of accusation, particularly when the going gets rough, argumentatively. But this isn't about xenophobia. Will reacted appropriately.

You're a clearly a person of good heart; a strong thinker and an excellent writer and I wish I'd had half your talent at communication when I was younger. Since my advice is unsolicited, take it for what it's worth. Keep an open mind. I'll try to do the same.

BD

Thanks BD for the nice comments. When I first replied to Will I used the word predjudice because its what came to mind after reading his initial comments to me. Posting is more than just typing and reading because you have to add the missing facial expressions and tone of what the words say and it was very easy to pick out the tone Will was using.

The tone I used was not one of pointing a finger and yelling it into his face but more about what I was feeling as I went over his words. I never meant nor planned the use of the word to be vicious, name calling, or malicious. I never would have done that and just used it as part of the difference of opinion. His angry remarks seemed predjudiced and I called it like I felt it.

I'm not going to apoligize and I don't need to be hit with a big stick anymore when driving a point home. I have no personal issues with Will and I hope he doesn't carry one with me. It was just a debate.

Bee

I still think Bettina and Will Robinson are mainly just misunderstanding each other.

JMEaT (from another thread) wrote:But seriously, send the trash (Mexicans) back to the trash dump (Mexico).

See, THIS is blatant racisim, as opposed to those who appreciate Mexican immigrants but are opposed to illegal immigration. Will Robinson doesn't hate Mexicans, he just wants them to come in legally.

And, again, unless I am misunderstanding, Bettina is NOT saying we should allow people to come in to this country illegally, she is taking the stance that this country would be better off if we allowed people who wanted to be citizens to do so legally. Lets spread democracy the easy way, the more the merrier!

Kilarin wrote:I still think Bettina and Will Robinson are mainly just misunderstanding each other.

JMEaT (from another thread) wrote:But seriously, send the trash (Mexicans) back to the trash dump (Mexico).

See, THIS is blatant racisim, as opposed to those who appreciate Mexican immigrants but are opposed to illegal immigration. Will Robinson doesn't hate Mexicans, he just wants them to come in legally.

And, again, unless I am misunderstanding, Bettina is NOT saying we should allow people to come in to this country illegally, she is taking the stance that this country would be better off if we allowed people who wanted to be citizens to do so legally. Lets spread democracy the easy way, the more the merrier!

Yes, the more the merrier. But I want to make it legally easy for anyone who wants a better life for himself, his wife, and children, to live here in peace. I still don't get that kind of message from Wills posts.

Bee