Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On another perspective, now that it's becoming legal to smoke pot in more and more states, I foresee a great business opportunity for immigrants that could soon surpass owning a 7-11 store.
Capitalism is blind to religion so a "greed is good" mentality fits right in with "the streets are paved with gold" immigration mindset.
America, what a country !
The Constitutional Amendment comes if we don't want to supply welfare (a five-year wait is, I believe, unconstitutional) or ACA or other benefits. Or free legal assistance. Or any number of government benefits. The Supreme Court created an intermediate scrutiny standard for discrimination based on "alienage" during the 1970's.
Most welfare is simply not available to undocumented immigrants. You must be a citizen or a member of a specially approved class of resident aliens. In the case of PPACA meanwhile, the undocumented are exempt from the individual mandate and are not eligible to purchase private health insurance at full cost in state insurance exchanges. They are not eligible either for Medicare, nonemergency Medicaid, or S-CHIP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
And why should school systems be forced to educate boatloads of migrants on their own local property taxpayer's dime?
If they live in a school district, they ARE taxpayers themselves. Whether they rent or own, they are paying the same taxes that you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
What about the fact that the 1985 bill provided for enforcement but that never happened? Aren't people entitled to be skeptical without being guilty of "hyena-ism" to track your terminology?
People, yes. Hyenas, not so much. Express some of this "skepticism" you refer to and we'll see about its pedigree.
This is exactly what we already have with LEGAL immigration. The waiting time before they can get public assistance is five years. And they will have had a background check but can still lose their legal status and be sent back if they become a criminal.
So there doesn't need to be a solution or a Constitutional amendment at all. We just need to enforce our immigration laws.
Of course if we're talking about refugees from a country at war, there has to be some form of help to get them on their feet. It should mean temporary help with a time limit, I think But if they are LEGAL refugees, they will have had a background check--known criminals should not be allowed in. Give them a time limit and some financial and other help (like help getting settled and attaining language skills) and a work permit so they can support themselves.
Open borders--No. Legal immigrants only, both the type who come here because they want to and they don't need any help and those who come here because they NEED to due to war and do need some temporary help. No one should come strolling into this country and just stay when we don't even know who they are. And I'm liberal, btw, in case anyone wonders.
I think the issue is the background check thing doesn't seem to be working. We've had a few go off the handle and commit domestic terrorism.
I'm not even sure how one would perform a background check from a failed state in a war zone. I doubt Somalian police would be able to tell us who owes back child support among their refugees.
I think the issue is the background check thing doesn't seem to be working. We've had a few go off the handle and commit domestic terrorism.
I'm not even sure how one would perform a background check from a failed state in a war zone. I doubt Somalian police would be able to tell us who owes back child support among their refugees.
Refugees are held in off shore resettlement camps for 18-24 months during that time extensive background checks are conducted as well as in person interviews with people who know them, i.e. teachers, religious leaders etc. It is not until shortly before resettlement that refugees are told which Country they will be sent to, so it's unlikely that a terrorist would spend that much time in a camp only to find out they are going to be sent to Estonia, or Poland.
This is purely anecdotal, but I live in Sacramento County and there are a relatively large number of Middle-Eastern people here, many of whom were refugees. In the pre-school that my grandson attends probably 30% of the kids are Middle-Eastern. When I pick him up I talk to the parents of these kids, some struggle with English but they make a valiant effort and every one I've spoken to has obtained employment and are very proud and anxious to talk about their job. They have a far better track record of being employed than the parent of kids whose parents are native born US Citizens.
Terrorism seems to be more of a problem with the children of immigrants, maybe we should spend some resources on finding a way to keep them on becoming radicalized.
To respond to a point made earlier in this thread, ICE can and will impose an immigration hold on a refugee who is accused of committing a serious felony, that can happen from the day they arrive until 5 years later when they become citizens
OP, those are pretty sparse pickings to illustrate your point, especially re: the US, which has been accepting Middle-eastern and north African immigrants for generations, with no problems. I've lived in a neighborhood with a high percentage of those immigrants, and they're perfectly normal, perfectly nice people.
I think the question should be more about whether we want to allow the sheer numbers of immigrants from anywhere that we've been doing. In the 90's, for example, hordes of East Europeans were given visas, many for family reunification (a lot of elderly with not job skills), but many young ones as well, some of whom went on to commit murders and rapes. Are there even jobs available for all these people? Is housing even affordable for them in the gateway cities to which some are assigned (Seattle, San Francisco for Russians)? Can the economy handle this much immigration?
These are the questions that should be asked. Who sets immigration policy, anyway? Congress? Or does the State Dept. just wing it on their own? Does the electorate have any influence over this, and if not, why not?
The Constitution makes immigration a federal matter. The legislative branch writes the laws. The executive branch develops the rules and procedures by which to enforce them.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,462,489 times
Reputation: 12187
It seemed like diversity in the West was going well until the Far Left decided having any standards for immigrants was racist. German has had millions of Turkish Muslims for decades and I never heard about any widespread problems. In the USA the share of White population has been declining since the 1950s and there was no problem until Far Left media outlets decided to start demonizing all White people as if they attended KKK rallies every weekend. I think in the future historians will look at a blowback against overreach by Merkel and Obama as a turning point in Western history, from gradual peaceful diversity to the rise of racial tension and nationalism.
It seemed like diversity in the West was going well until the Far Left decided having any standards for immigrants was racist. German has had millions of Turkish Muslims for decades and I never heard about any widespread problems. In the USA the share of White population has been declining since the 1950s and there was no problem until Far Left media outlets decided to start demonizing all White people as if they attended KKK rallies every weekend. I think in the future historians will look at a blowback against overreach by Merkel and Obama as a turning point in Western history, from gradual peaceful diversity to the rise of racial tension and nationalism.
What Far Left media outlets? Name 2.
I don't see the point you're trying to make, here. I agree that the Turkish "guest workers" were never a problem. The recent migrant crisis and war in Syria (etc.) was an unprecedented situation. I don't see what choice Europe had, really; hundreds of thousands of people were storming the gates; it was a crisis situation.
As for the US and Obama, how is the current process any different from the past processes by which ME immigrants have entered an resettled? Mainly, they're only bringing in families, re: Syrian refugees, and those families are being vetted. Some single young people from the general region are coming in as well, after being vetted, though in that Florida shooter's case, authorities admitted the guy had been on their "watch" list, but they let him in anyway. (Oops. ) But I don't see that the numbers are significantly higher now than they've been in the past (re: US); it's just that because of the crisis in Europe and sensationalist incidents there, not to mention 9/11 still on people's minds, there's some hysteria in the US about it, where there was none before. People weren't even aware of NE/ME immigration to the US before. Now it's getting publicity, so some people are freaking out. (Don't forget which President we have to thank for stirring everything up in the ME in the first place...)
Sorry, you may have a good point in there, but it's not clear what it is. Thanks if you could clarify.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 01-05-2017 at 03:53 PM..
I don't see the point you're trying to make, here. I agree that the Turkish "guest workers" were never a problem. The recent migrant crisis and war in Syria (etc.) was an unprecedented situation. I don't see what choice Europe had, really; hundreds of thousands of people were storming the gates; it was a crisis situation.
Why do people "storming the gates" have to be admitted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
As for the US and Obama, how is the current process any different from the past processes by which ME immigrants have entered an resettled? Mainly, they're only bringing in families, re: Syrian refugees, and those families are being vetted. Some single young people from the general region are coming in as well, after being vetted, though in that Florida shooter's case, authorities admitted the guy had been on their "watch" list, but they let him in anyway. (Oops. ) But I don't see that the numbers are significantly higher now than they've been in the past (re: US); it's just that because of the crisis in Europe and sensationalist incidents there, not to mention 9/11 still on people's minds, there's some hysteria in the US about it, where there was none before. People weren't even aware of NE/ME immigration to the US before. Now it's getting publicity, so some people are freaking out. (Don't forget which President we have to thank for stirring everything up in the ME in the first place...)
Sorry, you may have a good point in there, but it's not clear what it is. Thanks if you could clarify.
Obviously past vetting hasn't worked. Orlando? San Bernardino?
It seemed like diversity in the West was going well until the Far Left decided having any standards for immigrants was racist. German has had millions of Turkish Muslims for decades and I never heard about any widespread problems. In the USA the share of White population has been declining since the 1950s and there was no problem until Far Left media outlets decided to start demonizing all White people as if they attended KKK rallies every weekend. I think in the future historians will look at a blowback against overreach by Merkel and Obama as a turning point in Western history, from gradual peaceful diversity to the rise of racial tension and nationalism.
That's fake news, for sure......
"there was no problem" is a complete joke!
I think the truth of the matter is more that some minorities were so put down that they "knew their place" and just put up with the BS. However, as society slowly changed these populations felt more free (as well they should) to express their outrages.
Based on your statements, there also must have not been gay people until about 15 years ago.
If you read your history you'll see that Nativism has always been a theme in the USA and Europe. Heck, don't even read - watch Gangs of New York (the Butcher was a nativist). Whether Jews, Italians, Irish, Blacks, Mexicans or whomever, they were rapists, devils, lazy, crooks, etc.
Funny - I've been a liberal "white person" since I was old enough to think (the 60's) and I never once felt put down...nor have I felt that any media portrayed me as attending KKK rallies. Maybe I'm not reading the "right" publications.
History is written by the victors. Future historians may tell us Trump started the 4,000 year 4th Reich. We don't know. More than likely...what will happen...is that in 150 years our population will be so mixed race that it won't be possible for most people to separate themselves from others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) But I don't see that the numbers are significantly higher now than they've been in the past (re: US); it's just that because of the crisis in Europe and sensationalist incidents there, not to mention 9/11 still on people's minds, there's some hysteria in the US about it, where there was none before. People weren't even aware of NE/ME immigration to the US before. Now it's getting publicity, so some people are freaking out. (Don't forget which President we have to thank for stirring everything up in the ME in the first place...)
