Immigration Reform

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

In my mind, the best bill would combine tougher security at the borders with criminal penalties (how harsh can be debated) for those caught here illegally (definitely NOT just deportation back to the border to try crossing again the next day), large civil fines (probably equal to a multiple of wages for a given time period, like a year) for employers who hire illegals knowingly, with the burden of proof to establish they did NOT know they employees were illegal on the employer, with a more sane policy for legal immigration (like perhaps favoring skilled and educated immigrants to a certain degree) and some policy of assimilation for citizenship.

Oh yeah – they should also eliminate dual citizenship.

22

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Oh yeah – they should also eliminate dual citizenship.[/quote]

Why?

I’m always curious about people’s feelings about this.

I thought the US did not recognize dual citizenship, but apparently I’m wrong.

What’s the benefit for keeping or eliminating it?

23

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If the Democratic Party was true to its ideals it would be a problem.

They have morphed into a party that opposes most everything that comes along rather than trying to actually fix things.

Wow, brilliant assessment.

“a party that opposes most everything that comes along.”

Stick to the Sunday funny pages.

[/quote]

Please show me the Democrats proposal to fix Social Security.

Please show me the Democrats proposal to make health insurance more affordable.

Please show me the Democrats solution to illegal immigration.

etc…

24

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Oh yeah – they should also eliminate dual citizenship.

FightinIrish26 wrote:

Why?

I’m always curious about people’s feelings about this.

I thought the US did not recognize dual citizenship, but apparently I’m wrong.

What’s the benefit for keeping or eliminating it?[/quote]

We didn’t for a long time – I think the change occurred in the 90s.

Anyway, I am against it for two major reasons 1) Divided loyalties – especially with countries that possibly are adverse to the U.S. and 2) w/r/t immigrants, it makes it less likely they will assimilate or consider themselves Americans, which is extremely important.

25

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If the Democratic Party was true to its ideals it would be a problem.

They have morphed into a party that opposes most everything that comes along rather than trying to actually fix things.

Wow, brilliant assessment.

“a party that opposes most everything that comes along.”

Stick to the Sunday funny pages.

Please show me the Democrats proposal to fix Social Security.

Please show me the Democrats proposal to make health insurance more affordable.

Please show me the Democrats solution to illegal immigration.

etc…[/quote]

Social Security is not broken.

Democrats had a solution to health insurance: universal coverage. The “Contract with America” boys, aided by their Big Pharma bagmen, torpedoed it.

The Democrats have the same plan for illegal immigration the Republican do: bitch for a little while while do absolutely nothing.

26

[quote]harris447 wrote:
…
Please show me the Democrats proposal to fix Social Security.

Please show me the Democrats proposal to make health insurance more affordable.

Please show me the Democrats solution to illegal immigration.

etc…

Social Security is not broken.
[/quote]

It will be bankrupt in our life time. It is not broken yet but it is breaking down.

Hillary-care was a fiasco. It was not torpedoed, it sank of its own weight.

Among the many gems in her plan was a reduction of specialists. Because specialists are more expensive than general practitioners Hillary believed that fewer specialists would keep costs down.

Bush wanted to implement a guest worker program years ago and the Democrats (and Republicans) opposed him.

27

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
…
Please show me the Democrats proposal to fix Social Security.

Please show me the Democrats proposal to make health insurance more affordable.

Please show me the Democrats solution to illegal immigration.

etc…

Social Security is not broken.

It will be bankrupt in our life time. It is not broken yet but it is breaking down.

Democrats had a solution to health insurance: universal coverage. The “Contract with America” boys, aided by their Big Pharma bagmen, torpedoed it.

Hillary-care was a fiasco. It was not torpedoed, it sank of its own weight.

Among the many gems in her plan was a reduction of specialists. Because specialists are more expensive than general practitioners Hillary believed that fewer specialists would keep costs down.

The Democrats have the same plan for illegal immigration the Republican do: bitch for a little while while do absolutely nothing.

Bush wanted to implement a guest worker program years ago and the Democrats (and Republicans) opposed him.[/quote]

Republican studies say that Social Security will break in our lifetimes. Deomcrat studies do not. In neither case is the proper response to privatize the thing, enriching Wall Street at the danger of impoverishing old folks.

I disagree with you about health care. It sank because of those horrible, lie-filled commercials featuring “Ted and Alice” or whatevert their names were bitching about it and that “chart” showing how complicated it was. As if any government beurocracy doesn’t look complicated on a Kinko’s chart.

Your last point proved mine. Why put Republicans in parentheses?

Zap, you are one of the people on this board whose opinions I truly respect because they seem to be couched in common sense.

NEITHER party wants true immigration reform. What they both want is to APPEAR to want immigration reform. They want this for different reasons, both self-serving, but to say one party is going to do something while the other opposes it is, IMO, untrue.

28

[quote]harris447 wrote:
…
Republican studies say that Social Security will break in our lifetimes. Deomcrat studies do not. In neither case is the proper response to privatize the thing, enriching Wall Street at the danger of impoverishing old folks.
[/quote]

There is no doubt SS is in trouble. Just looking at the glut of baby boomer retirees coming up shows there will be a big problem.

I don’t think the the privatization was a magic solution nor do I think it would have hurt people. It was a band aid on a gunshot wound.

The only solutions are lowering benefits and raising taxes.

Hillary-care was a disaster. She put it together in 100 days and it was completely unworkable.

Clinton knew this. That is why he didn’t even think about ressurecting it in his second term.

We partially agree on immigration. I think Bush wanted to make some true reform.

The rank and file Dems ad Repubs didn’t want to buck the current mess because the necessary reform encompasses values that is a mix of the values of both parties.

29

How another country handles immigration.

From the Riehl World:

Oh Canada, … Why Not Us?

We are hearing all about Bush’s meetings with Vincente Fox. But let’s not forget another individual who was there - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. If Bush can praise his steely resolve on lumber, why not on immigration?

Bush praises Harper’s ‘steely resolve’ on softwood

Canada has begun deporting its illegal immigrants with only a few days notice - and the result:

Portugal’s ambassador to Canada, Jo?o Silveira Carvalho, has publicly told people to avoid trouble and to “stop feeding the myth” in Portugal that you can come to Canada without documents, several community members said

Some estimates hold that 15,000 people are working illegally in southern Ontario’s construction and hospitality industries, and the Canada-wide figure is 300,000.

Immigration Canada said there will not be an amnesty. The federal agency said they have a legal duty to remove people who have come to this country without following the proper procedures.

Many in the group deported Sunday say they will try to return to Canada and resume the lives they have built.

“Shame on the Canadian government for deporting people who are working hard. We need those people here,” Barata said.

“We have an obligation to the hundreds of thousands of people who play by the rules,” Immigration and Citizenship Minister Monte Solberg said Sunday on CTV’s Question Period.

In February, Immigration Canada notified the Portuguese embassy in Ottawa that it would continue with the current law and be strict in applying it, Maria Am?lia Paiva, the consul-general in Toronto, told the Star’s Isabel Teotonio.

And yesterday, Immigration Minister Monte Solberg called the issue a “low priority,” indicating that Volpe’s approach is dead.

A spokesperson for the Canadian Border Services Agency said she couldn’t give figures on the number being deported.

30

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
How quickly we forget that all of our ancestors were those tired and poor, yearning to breath free…

Of course, obviously Mexicans are worse than any other nationality, as they’re the ones that will bring this country to shitsville (even though no other mass immigration has).

Read a fucking book man.

The same has been said about the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Poles, the Germans, the Cathlics, the Jews, and every other type of people that have made this country great.

Your lack of education is blaring here.[/quote]

The invasion of the Irish during the potato famine was nothing compared to the Mexican and South American invasion. Europeans coming here did not hurt America. Mexicans will. Call it racism, I don’t care.

Also just because something like mass immigration happened in the past doesn’t mean it should or will in the future. The past does not mandate the future.

My Wife had to wait years to come to this country legally and because the USCIS is so fucked up, there is a possiblilty she will still not be able to stay. My Grandparents(step acutally, all real ones are dead) are both from Germany and Opa served in the U.S. Navy and fought against the Nazis in WWII. You don’t have to remind me most of us immigrated here.

31

social security wastes 7-10 billion a year in mispayments to dead people and illegal immigrants…that sounds broken to me.

as for immigration, nothing will get done this year. There is a strong group of house republicans that will vote against any amnesty/guest worker program. There is enough of them, hence the reason the rule for the original house bill didnt include amnesty language becuase republicans threatened to vote down the rule (something almost sacraligious for the majority to do in the house…you are NEVER supposed to vote against the rule) because it had Flake’s guest worker langauge in it…we are talking langauge in the report, not even saying any provisions about a guest worker provision, but saying report langauge that was going to say it needed to be looked at, and accomplished in the long run. And republicans got that stripped. Guest worker will not get through the House, and hence no real immigration reform will get accomplished this year unless its enforcment only (something the senate looks very unlikely to oblge with)

32

btw, the idea that somehow we have to deport these people (Ala George Will’s column) is preposterous. IF you enforce the laws on the books, and make it next to impossible for business to hire illegals, the problem will go away, take away the job magnet and the illegals will go back to mexico.

33

I will respond to the original question which was to state our views on the current legislation before Congress.

Let me first state that I am totally for immigration! That’s legal immigration.

I think all of the fuss about new laws is ridiculous.

Both the Democrats AND the Republicans are jointly to blame and the President is totally WRONG in not enforcing current law and looking the other way while millions of illegal immigrants break into the country and just stay here draining resources – educational and medical for example – from our economy.

Of course these people want a better life – who wouldn’t? I am a grandchild of immigrants – legal ones – and that is the main point to all of this. It is NOT about how these people are taking jobs that nobody would want. It is not about these people paying some taxes. It is not about them wanting a better life. It is not even about how we might benefit economically from their low-wage labor.

What the debate should be about is citizenship. Who should get it and more important, who should decide.

I would answer these questions simply:

(1) Who should get it – anyone who goes through the legal means to get it.

(2) Who should decide – WE, the people, get to decide. The people have spoken overwhealmingly – we want the laws enforced and the borders sured up.

What kind of citizen do we really expect these people to turn out to be if their first “lesson” in civics is “Breaking U.S. Immigration Law 101?”

Think about it…

34

The Senate may pass a compromise bill today, which has some watered-down amnesty, as well as watered-down enforcement that depends on the number of years an individual can demonstrate he has been in the U.S.

35

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The Senate may pass a compromise bill today, which has some watered-down amnesty, as well as watered-down enforcement that depends on the number of years an individual can demonstrate he has been in the U.S.[/quote]

Drudge says “Dead End”, so I don’t think we’ll see success today. Which is probably a good thing.

The thinking on these amendments is backwards. They want to allow someone that has been breaking the law for a longer period time, an easier way to become legal. While those that have only been breaking the law for two years or less have to go back. In my opinion, that is backwards in terms of ethics.

On unions, the illegal immigration has had a direct effect on the construction union members in Kansas City. My uncle-in-law and crew (Union), are in a constant bickering battle over getting screwed by the infiltration of illegal immigration taking up their jobs. Not only are they doing the jobs that Americans ARE willing to do, they are causing a serious rift amongst the American Union members and the illegals. It’s just, plain and simple, not right to allow this to happen to legal Americans.

36

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
I will respond to the original question which was to state our views on the current legislation before Congress.

Let me first state that I am totally for immigration! That’s legal immigration.

I think all of the fuss about new laws is ridiculous.

Both the Democrats AND the Republicans are jointly to blame and the President is totally WRONG in not enforcing current law and looking the other way while millions of illegal immigrants break into the country and just stay here draining resources – educational and medical for example – from our economy.

Of course these people want a better life – who wouldn’t? I am a grandchild of immigrants – legal ones – and that is the main point to all of this. It is NOT about how these people are taking jobs that nobody would want. It is not about these people paying some taxes. It is not about them wanting a better life. It is not even about how we might benefit economically from their low-wage labor.

What the debate should be about is citizenship. Who should get it and more important, who should decide.

I would answer these questions simply:

(1) Who should get it – anyone who goes through the legal means to get it.

(2) Who should decide – WE, the people, get to decide. The people have spoken overwhealmingly – we want the laws enforced and the borders sured up.

What kind of citizen do we really expect these people to turn out to be if their first “lesson” in civics is “Breaking U.S. Immigration Law 101?”

Think about it…

[/quote]

I have to agree with this. It is almost like they are given a free pass for breaking the law. “Well, you are already here, so we’ll just excuse how you got here and grandfather you in.”

Just one point though, this should apply to ALL illegal immigrants, european, asian, mexican etc. You can go in various cities in the USA and in the areas designated as Chinatown, Little Italy etc. and you will find plenty of illegal immigrants as well. Let’s not just focus on mexicans. Round ALL of them up, ship them back to their countries and tell them if they want in, do it the right way.

37

Well, as it seems the watered-down amnesty was blocked (for now). Good.

As I’ve stated multiple times on these forums, I personally resent any form of amnesty. My ancestors came into this country legally, and the proposed amnesty is unfair, immoral and obscene.

A lot of my colleagues here at Stanford had to study and work DECADES in order to get the credentials that would allow them to obtain a work permit and later a green card to live in this country, and seeing them get passed by illegals in their route to citizenship would just be… too much.

38

Seriously…no one else sees this as the “gay marriage” of 2006?

A non-problem that exists mainly to scare white men into voting Republican and forgetting about the war/plamegate/Katrina/Homeland Insecurity/price of oil/defecit/etc.?

The timing is just suspicious, that’s all.

39

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Seriously…no one else sees this as the “gay marriage” of 2006?

A non-problem that exists mainly to scare white men into voting Republican and forgetting about the war/plamegate/Katrina/Homeland Insecurity/price of oil/defecit/etc.?

The timing is just suspicious, that’s all.[/quote]

Harris
You are almost on the North /East Coast and wonder why you can not see the problems of the South West???

40

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Seriously…no one else sees this as the “gay marriage” of 2006?

A non-problem that exists mainly to scare white men into voting Republican and forgetting about the war/plamegate/Katrina/Homeland Insecurity/price of oil/defecit/etc.?

The timing is just suspicious, that’s all.[/quote]

This should have been handled long ago.

It is almost too late now.