This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Immigration

edited May 2007 in Politics
This deserves a new topic. What do you think about the immigration shenanigans that have been going on?

Some summary

More
«13456

Comments

  • I think we are in for a real bad bill. The fact that they will be voting on it before we can see it leads me to believe it will be bad.
  • I've got so much work to do, yet I keep on hitting F5.

    I have never understood this entire controversy. If it were up to me, our borders would be thrown wide open to anyone who wanted to come to our country seeking opportunity. They are welcome, in my book, as long as they immigrate legally. Are there any really compelling reasons to keep so many stringent restrictions on immigration?
  • Yes Jason there are. As long as states allow people to register to vote with no proof of citizenship we need to keep those borders closed. If not we end up with a situation where a majority moves in just long enough to impact things via voting and then moves on.

    I'm all for legal immigration and it sounds like you are too.

    The basic thought behind the controversy is:

    Democrats want open borders/lax immigration enforcement because every illegal is a vote for a democrat.
    Republicans want open borders/lax immigration enforcement because every illegal is another source of cheap labor.
  • edited May 2007
    What do you think about the $5K dealie? I think that, no matter how poor you are, you can probably get your hands on $5K. It's a big enough amount to show you're serious, but it's small enough that most people can pony it up.

    I believe I've heard that the bill allows for the $5K to be paid in installments, but I'll bet there will still be businesses that specialize in quick loans of this amount.

    What do you think about the increase of H1-B visas in the bill?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • So what's the problem, then? Just require proof of citizenship to vote and enforce legal immigration. If there are no strings attached, there should be no reason for someone to remain an illegal alien (except maybe tax evasion, in which case I say prosecute them).

    Perhaps I am naive about this one.
  • That is the problem Jason. Illegal immigration is not enforced!

    This is one of those, "just enforce the existing laws rather than write new laws," issues.
  • So what's the problem, then? Just require proof of citizenship to vote and enforce legal immigration. If there are no strings attached, there should be no reason for someone to remain an illegal alien (except maybe tax evasion, in which case I say prosecute them).

    Perhaps I am naive about this one.
    What defines proof of Citizenship?
  • In the US, usually it's a Social Security number.

    The problem many people are having is distinguishing legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. Some people just plain don't care that we have laws. If you illegally crossed into Mexico, you'd be put in jail. Here, though, we prosecute border patrol agents who shoot drug runners.
  • edited May 2007
    I reluctantly endorse this bill. If we can actually manage to lock down the border and go after businesses that hire illegals, we may be able to prevent further illegal immigration.

    If and only if that can be accomplished, I do think it is reasonable to offer amnesty to those already living here. Simply for the reason that it would be economically devastating to throw them all out.

    I really can't understand those who advocate open borders, philosophically I may think it is correct to do so, but pragmatically I feel it is an idiotic proposition. We can't sustain tens of millions or more just waltzing into this country every year who speak different languages and have little education or little respect for our liberal democracy.

    Most of the people interested in migrating are from poor nations where social and religious conservatism is still the rule, I shouldn't have to spell out why this would be bad.

    If you simply take a moment to consider what would be likely to occur if the US declared that any who wish it can be granted citizenship simply by showing up, it will be obvious why it would be a bad idea.
    Post edited by ironzealot on
  • I am sorry but a social security number is not proof of citizenship, as a former illegal immigrant I can say that your most important prove or citizenship is a birth certificate. Once I got my work permit I was allowed to have a social security number but once I wanted to get a credit card my back did not let me because I was a citizen from another country therefore there would be some taxes involved (Thank you Navy Federal). I eventually got one from another company. Also if you want a driver license in VA you have to show about 5 different proof of residencies, and it was a pain, even for the real citizens.

    I can tell you all that from experience an from what I personally now that any immigrant that has the chance to get a green card and eventually the citizenship will take that small chance and stay away from his family a little bit longer, than wait for a "perfect bill". Many are desperate and I also now a bunch that have not seen any members of their families from more than 6 years. These people will get the 5000 dollars penalty that they have to pay from anywhere. I have been there and I know that it is to feel that any day would be your last day, feeling afraid that you would get deported and then not allowed back for another 10 years.

    At this point I think they will be happy with anything that is handed to them as long as they eventually get a green card.
  • So what's the problem, then? Just require proof of citizenship to vote and enforce legal immigration. If there are no strings attached, there should be no reason for someone to remain an illegal alien (except maybe tax evasion, in which case I say prosecute them).

    Perhaps I am naive about this one.
    What defines proof of Citizenship?
    I know. That's where it all breaks down. I can't bring myself to support a national ID, and SS cards and drivers licenses are trivially faked. So I'm stuck on this one. But you still can't have a situation where you have illegal aliens collecting government benefits without contributing to the system in the form of taxes; it's just not fair, especially on a system that's already strained.
  • I just hate the way that I seem to be labeled a racist anytime I even suggest the slightest anger towards illegal immigration.
    The problem many people are having is distinguishing legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. Some people just plain don't care that we have laws. If you illegally crossed into Mexico, you'd be put in jail. Here, though, we prosecute border patrol agents who shoot drug runners.
    Thats exactly the problem. I don't know of many countries that have an open door policy and no one seems to complain about them. Take Australia, I've heard that it is obnoxiously difficult to attain Australian citizenship or immigrate to Australia but I don't hear people saying that it should have open borders. So why is it that everyone gets all up in arms when the US says they don't just want every single person that wants in to come in.
  • I just hate the way that I seem to be labeled a racist anytime I even suggest the slightest anger towards illegal immigration. The problem many people are having is distinguishing legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. Some people just plain don't care that we have laws. If you illegally crossed into Mexico, you'd be put in jail. Here, though, we prosecute border patrol agents who shoot drug runners.Thats exactly the problem. I don't know of many countries that have an open door policy and no one seems to complain about them. Take Australia, I've heard that it is obnoxiously difficult to attain Australian citizenship or immigrate to Australia but I don't hear people saying that it should have open borders. So why is it that everyone gets all up in arms when the US says they don't just want every single person that wants in to come in.


    The thing about Australia is that is sorrounded by the sea so it is kind of hard to get there eve legally if you do not have enough money, and people from thrid world countries do not have a lot of money.
  • Ah, illegal immigration.

    The problem with it is that there are/will be far too many people straining our health care and education systems in addition to not paying their taxes.

    On one hand, making the current illegals citizens will make them pay their taxes. On the other hand, we just let them get away and it may encourage others.

    On the illegal immigration issue, I think a good deal of the problem is how we're dealing with the illegals that are caught. Just deporting them tells them that there's not too much risk associated with getting caught. I think what we need to do (cruel as it may sound), is take a much more aggressive stance. Obviously, it's impossible to do in our current society, but I think that putting into place severe consequences will do the trick. If getting caught means death, we aren't going to have as many people trying to get through. Call me a sick, depraved bitch, but announcing that people trying to illegally cross the border will be shot on sight and mines/other traps will be set will be a much bigger deterrent than deportation. The deaths of the few who are stupid enough to ignore this would be a small price to pay for curbing the tide.
  • edited June 2007
    Dramatic Pause Man says:
    Um.....................................




    ................................ Death? Isn't that a little, you know, crazy? Lacking in compassion? Not fitting the crime? A violation of civil rights? Crazy? Extreme? Messy? A bad international policy move? Totalitarian? Lacking in the whole right to a trial ideal? Crazy?
    Post edited by Jason on
  • The Mexican government ain't exactly keen on the US, you know.

    It's a means to an end. It's more of a deterent than anything. The chance of death will eliminate most would-be illegals. The rest are aware of the risk. We can't exactly throw em' in prison you know. We have more than enough people there, and deporting them hasn't done shit. Right to a trial? All we're doing now is catching and releasing, a move that hasn't helped at all.

    No shit, it's extreme, but better a few illegals now than the entire US 20 years from now. Do you realize just what would happen if this is allowed to continue for a prolonged period of time?
  • Should we impale the bodies on spikes and put them on the borders as warnings to the rest?
  • Should we impale the bodies on spikes and put them on the borders as warnings to the rest?
    I say we just put motion-activated machine gun towers with intersecting fields of fire all along the border.
  • I don't think risk of death would eliminate all illegals as death back home vs death wherever is still death. The idea is unrealistic.

    I also think that neither the English nor the Americans have the right to even complain about immigration. England is made entirely of immigrants and America has taken everything from its original inhabitants then both became rich destroying the countries people are now emigrating from.

    To stop immigration you have to stop emigration. There has to be a reason people are leaving their own country. If they had decent health systems and access to reasonably priced drugs, the various other basic amenities then emigration and therefore imigration would decrease.

    Also, immigration is good for a modern countries as there are vast numbers of jobs that cannot be filled because no-one native to the country wants to do them.

    One_Sin, not to call you a sick, depraved bitch but you took the route that removed the effects of the problem with greatest ease without thinking of how to remove the problem at the root.
  • Sorry to kill your argument but... Every place where humans now live was once ruled by some other humans, with the possible exception of Antarctica. Using the "You can't complain because you displaced the previous occupants" argument is inherently flawed. Also, you are confusing the issue of illegal immigration with legal immigration.

    Americans (as a whole) are not against legal immigration, they are against people coming to America illegally. If the first act you make upon entering a country is to break its laws and ignore it sovereignty than you can go home.

    I do agree that giving people a reason not to emigrate is a key pillar in dealing with an illegal immigration problem. When you have countries, such as Mexico, printing comic books that tell their people how to illegally enter the USA how do you fight that?

    "Hey Pedro, what say we sneak into America today?"
    "I don't know Jose, those 50 cal. machine nests look pretty dangerous."
    "Would you rather die alone and poor here in Mexico?"
    "No, but I also don't want to die riddled full of bullets trying to cross the border illegally!"
  • I agree that illegal immigration is bad and legal immigration is good. However, which immigrants are legal and illegal is defined entirely by our laws. I propose we change the laws to make absolutely all immigration legal. Open the borders. Let as many people come in as they want, let as many people go out as they want. It's only illegal because we say it is. Let's change that.
  • I agree that illegal immigration is bad and legal immigration is good. However, which immigrants are legal and illegal is defined entirely by our laws. I propose we change the laws to make absolutely all immigration legal. Open the borders. Let as many people come in as they want, let as many people go out as they want. It's only illegal because we say it is. Let's change that.
    A country without borders is not a country for long. It is even worse with a Democracy.

    Studies have shown that when you have more workers than jobs wages go down. The opposite also holds true.
  • You're assuming that jobs are a fixed quantity, but when you have more people you have more demand. The population of America has boomed in the past two decades, but the standard of living has skyrocketed disproportionately.

    I suggesting listening to the latest episode of EconTalk, which can be found in the iTunes store. Hank turned me on to it in another thread; it may be a bit dry, but it's very good for an economics podcast. The subject of the latest episode is how American abundance has reshaped the national economy, and why service industries here will keep in tandem with the supply and demand curves while we outsource white-collar jobs.
  • But, but... I don't want my job to be out-sourced!

    Why do I feel like a buggy whip maker from 100 years ago?
  • Death is one way, and automated machine gun turrets is a better step, but I think that if you REALLY need to send a message, public mutilation is the final answer. As for how to justify killing people for violating out borders, that is extremely simple: we are at war, and people from a foreign country are crossing into our country illegally. I don't know about the rest of you, but that sounds a lot like invasion to me. So, either Mexico could watch us slaughter some of their citizens, who happen to be violating out sovereignty, or Mexico could watch us slaughter ALL of their citizens because the number crossing the border constitutes invasion, which could then be called an act of war.

    Of course, my vote is for land mines and ninjas. Even if you are bad ass enough to see the ninjas coming, you can't fight them off AND avoid a claymore or thirty.

    And before anyone starts calling me a racist or anything, I have no problem, whatsoever, with legal immigration. Hell, my father and his parents came here from the Azores. How? My grandfather joined the U.S. Navy during WW2 so that his family could come here.

    However, when they got here, they learned English damned fast, and it's ridiculous that we are the only country in the world to not have an official language.
  • But, but... I don't want my job to be out-sourced!

    Why do I feel like a buggy whip maker from 100 years ago?
    Competition is competition. If some other guy is a better harder worker than you are, and he's willing to do your job for less money, then tough shit. You lose. If you want to be paid more, or if you want to have a secure job, then get some rare skills. I have no sympathy for the lazy ass, unskilled laborers who lose their jobs to illegal immigrants or outsourcing. Those people work hard and they send most of their money back to their families in their countries of origin. Meanwhile the guy who lost his job spent most of his time at work eating donuts and he spent all his money on beer, the cable bill, McDonald's and Wal-Mart. If someone out there is going to do your job better than you do it for less money, what possible argument can you make that the employer should not fire you and hire them?
  • What about that kick-ass IT guy who loses his position as a worker and instead becomes a "trainer" for the guy taking his job at a much lower salary point?

    What about the recent thing Circuit City did where they fired all their high earners and offered them jobs at the base starting pay?

    I agree that a company should be able to fire people for any (unprotected) reason but I also have a problem with out-sourcing jobs to a poor country for a fraction of the cost an American worker gets. It would not be so bad if the American worker could move to that poor country and get their job (with the much lower cost of living) but things don't work that way.
  • I'm extremely lucky in that my job CAN'T be out-sourced, and that I'm living in a low cost of living part of the country.
  • Entitlement, entitlement, entitlement. You aren't entitled to keep your job or be paid a certain wage. I love Scott's position on this, because it is the ultimate expression of free market theory.

    America's economy is entering the next evolution and is becoming a service and intellectual economy. There will be people displaced in the short-term by outsourcing, but there always is. The eco-NIMBYs complained when we converted from agriculture to industry, and again when we converted from blue collar to white collar. Each time, the naysayers have predicting economic devastation, and each time they've been wrong, because people know how to adapt.

    Each time people cry for employment protectionism, the smart people decide instead to ride ahead of the demand curve and find the next big thing. The result is a punctuated evolution in goods, services, and technology. You have teh Internets because we went through an economic shift. You're welcome.
  • What about that kick-ass IT guy who loses his position as a worker and instead becomes a "trainer" for the guy taking his job at a much lower salary point?
    Obviously his job does not require him to be kick-ass. The job only requires someone who has been recently trained. It's as if a 5 star chef is working in a roadside diner for $15 an hour getting fired for a crap chef who only gets $7. The fancy chef needs to work in a fancy restaurant. If there are too many fancy chefs, then his skills are not in demand, and he needs different skills. Either that or he needs to improve to be better than the current 5 star chefs. Actually, he should probably just open his own restaurant.

    What about the recent thing Circuit City did where they fired all their high earners and offered them jobs at the base starting pay?
    Well, Circuit City isn't doing very well. They can't afford to pay all those people anymore. It's just something they have to do to stay in business. They'll be closing stores soon enough, don't worry.
    It would not be so bad if the American worker could move to that poor country and get their job (with the much lower cost of living) but things don't work that way.
    What's stopping you from moving to the poor country? I don't see any reason why you can't go.
Sign In or Register to comment.