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.
This is true; however, many illegal immigrants come here and still get benefits such as free healthcare. I have a problem with that! They come here and have a baby FOR FREE, yet I was born here, pay taxes AND even with healthcare it cost me thousands of dollars to have a baby. Something isn't right!
The key word here is "illegal" and I do agree, illegal immigration has really taken it toll on a number of states health care system. Oregon spends about a billion dollars a year dealing with illegal aliens, this money could be better spent on our education system in the state. The last I read, California spends about 10 billion a year dealing with illegal aliens.
None of this addresses why you don't think that it should be easier for immigrants to be legal, apart from your belief that they are dangerous people more commonly than citizens are, which you have not supported by evidence.
I'll answer.
1. Because you don't reward bad behavior. Any behavior that is rewarded increases. You start making it "easy" for illegals to be legal, then more illegals will stream in, because it's "easy". That would strain the resources of our country.
2. Because being legal is a privilege, not a right.
3. Because every illegal that gets a green card takes something away from a US citizen. A job, education, healthcare.
So, then, why should the spouse of someone in the country on a temp work visa be prohibited from starting a business? Are you claiming that that is also a drain on the taxpayers?
Do you understand what "temp" means? So they start a business, then have to leave. Yea, that might drain the taxpayer. At the least, other business owners.
Because starting a business IS working. Do you not see that?
I defy you to provide modern examples of businesses opened by new immigrants that provide jobs for American citizens over their own countrymen. You know full well that these companies specialize in bringing family members and clanmates of their own nationality over to fill these 'new jobs'.
It depends on if the immigrants already have family in the country or not. If they don't, I'd assume they'd at least try to hire whomever is qualified, though bias toward their own nationality could of course come into play, just as Americans are biased towards other Americans. Even so, if those immigrants were hired by immigrants, there is no net increase in unemployment because immigrants maketh the jobs and immigrants filleth the jobs. Or maybe immigrants maketh the jobs and immigrants filleth some of the jobs, and citizens filleth some others. In the latter case, there is net gain of jobs available to Americans.
Everybody here is or a descendant of an immigrant. But that doesn't mean the land is free for all to travel to and from. No country in the world offers free passage, the US is one of the easier countries to visit and less restrictions than other countries.
BTW, Japan has a complete Muslim ban. Go look it up, they have zero terrorism attacks from Muslims.
Why liberals not boycott Japanese stuff?
For the protection of our citizens which is priority #1 we need heavy vetting and background checking of all immigrants that are coming in.
We don't have a process to identify over staying illegals. The OP should open up his/her house to allow illegals some temporary place to stay. If that's what they believe in.
The issue is, has been, and continues to be illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants. Asian and Indian immigrants tend to be self-employed, and when they do hire, they hire other Asian or Indian immigrants, so they're not exactly job creators.
The process of vetting legal immigrants is crucial to avoid the criminal element from immigrating to the US.
Note that immigration is a privilege, not a right.
The Travel Ban is a temporary restriction on immigration from seven foreign States that do not maintain records the way 1st World States maintain records. Because the record-keeping in those States ranges from very sloppy to non-existent, it is wise to develop an alternative vetting process to ensure no criminals or ne'er do wells immigrate to the US. Again, note that immigration is a privilege, not a right.
Immigrants are not more susceptible to violent actions, due to the fact that the immigration process is extremely rigid with regard to vetting, using red tape, bureaucratic paperwork and a complex process, which you decried in Point #1, so you have contradicted yourself.
Contrary to your false beliefs, the implementation of Shari'a Law, which is the agenda for many Muslim immigrants, is damaging to the US.
It is a privilege to become a US Citizen, not an inherent innate right. The test is designed to ensure that only the most serious immigrants become US Citizens.
Yes, the US does. Immigrants can file special paperwork to receive asylum for any number of reasons. Once again, you fail to recognize that immigration to the US is a privilege, not a right.
Clearly, you're referring to illegal immigrants which are in a different class than legal immigrants who have gone through the bureaucratic red tape that is the vetting process to ensure criminals and ne'er do wells do not enter the US.
The reason it is illegal to hire illegal immigrants is to discourage illegal immigration, not legal immigration.
You appear to be severely misinformed about several things. First of all, we do not have Sharia Law in the US and we are not about to, immigration or no immigration. Even when city councils and legislative bodies get Muslims on them, there is no evidence of any overall movement of the US laws (federal, state, or local) towards Sharia Law even where the proportion of Muslims in some areas is significant. Thus your implicit claim about the risk of having our legal system incorporate Sharia Law is without any empirical justification. Second, record-keeping has nothing to do with the religious bias inherent in the ban that does not treat Muslims and Christians equally, which strongly suggests that it is motivated more by prejudice than by safety. Third, your repeated insistence that immigration is a privilege is insufficient to justify denying that privilege (Consider, by analogy, the claim that working at NASA is a privilege and not a right. While this may be true, this would not justify a policy by NASA that African-Americans and women are ineligible for employment at the organization. Such a policy would still be discriminatory, even though working at NASA is a privilege and not a right.) Fourth, your insistence on drawing a line between legal and illegal immigrants begs the question, because what we have to ask is whether or not the immigration laws are reasonable to begin with. If you simply start by pre-supposing that illegal immigrants are the problem, then you are reasoning in a circle. Remember the debate is about whether the laws are reasonable to begin with or not. Thus to draw the line based on whatever the current laws are, commits the fallacy of reasoning in a circle.
Everybody here is or a descendant of an immigrant. But that doesn't mean the land is free for all to travel to and from. No country in the world offers free passage, the US is one of the easier countries to visit and less restrictions than other countries.
BTW, Japan has a complete Muslim ban. Go look it up, they have zero terrorism attacks from Muslims.
Why liberals not boycott Japanese stuff?
For the protection of our citizens which is priority #1 we need heavy vetting and background checking of all immigrants that are coming in.
We don't have a process to identify over staying illegals. The OP should open up his/her house to allow illegals some temporary place to stay. If that's what they believe in.
I do not own a house. If I were a landlord, I would not check immigration paper/immigration status.
1. Because you don't reward bad behavior. Any behavior that is rewarded increases. You start making it "easy" for illegals to be legal, then more illegals will stream in, because it's "easy". That would strain the resources of our country.
2. Because being legal is a privilege, not a right.
3. Because every illegal that gets a green card takes something away from a US citizen. A job, education, healthcare.
You assume that immigrants cannot create jobs, create educational services, or contribute to healthcare. You could argue that the temporary businesses compete against other businesses, but remember that immigrants are also consumers, so they also create new business, they don't just compete against it.
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.
