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.
Remember also that most illegals only have a 2nd grade education and can't even read and write Spanish. So we'd be importing poverty--people that we would have to take care of into their old age.
So, does your intense dislike for illegal immigrants stem from an economic background, a sense of right or wrong, or just plain "because they aren't native born"?
If we 'amnesty' illegal immigrants; we as a nation are rewarding criminal behavior------------and, amnesty is a slap in the face of those immigrants who came here by the rules.
To be blunt: flying that Mexican flag at those rallies in 2006 was a fatal PR blunder-------to be polite.
That is all the more reason to not only enforce the immigration laws but to reconsider bringing back the pre 1965 rules.
NOTE: if 80-90% of the illegals with their Anchor Babies self deported; I suspect much of our the hostility would diminish in all fairness.
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 19,432,243 times
Reputation: 4611
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenken627
Amnesty would also be bring tax dollars from illegal immigrants to help with the strain they are causing.
Many of the problems with illegal immigration is because American citizens are the ones paying for illegal immigrants.
Legalizing them would at least have them share the burden.
What other posters have stated is untrue. Amnesty won't cause legal citizens to pay more for services for these immigrants. We are already paying for them now.
Amnesty would actually relieve some of our burden because more of it will be shared.
You just don't get it.
You must be new at this because you don't seem to understand what's going on.
Let's say that they were given amnesty, do you beleive that all 20,000.000 would come forward to be documented? No. Maybe half, but then the ones who were documented to become citizens would be replaced by twice as many new Illegals within a year.
You just don't get it.
You must be new at this because you don't seem to understand what's going on.
Let's say that they were given amnesty, do you beleive that all 20,000.000 would come forward to be documented? No. Maybe half, but then the ones who were documented to become citizens would be replaced by twice as many new Illegals within a year.
What do I not get?
No, I do not expect all 20 million would come forward to be documented within the first year, but a great many will, and it's a start. If even half become documented, that's a lot more tax dollars that can share civic burdens than having none of them documented. Granting amnesty to those already in the nation doesn't necessarily mean granting amnesty to everyone in the coming years.
I'm not saying that amnesty is what I would choose, but I do admit that it has some benefit to it compared to deportation or doing nothing at all which we are doing currently.
If we 'amnesty' illegal immigrants; we as a nation are rewarding criminal behavior------------and, amnesty is a slap in the face of those immigrants who came here by the rules.
To be blunt: flying that Mexican flag at those rallies in 2006 was a fatal PR blunder-------to be polite.
That is all the more reason to not only enforce the immigration laws but to reconsider bringing back the pre 1965 rules.
NOTE: if 80-90% of the illegals with their Anchor Babies self deported; I suspect much of our the hostility would diminish in all fairness.
That's fine with me if you feel it's immoral and/or unfair to give illegal immigrants amnesty.
I was asking that question directed to TKramer because of his choice of words.
"you don't need to come to America. Leave that to the native born."
"The Poles, the Irish, they're white, and I don't want to see them coming here either."
That just reminds me of the Nativist movement of the early 1900's against the Polish, Irish, and other groups, who were discriminated against greatly.
They sure did destroy America in the past 100 years.
No, I do not expect all 20 million would come forward to be documented within the first year, but a great many will, and it's a start. If even half become documented, that's a lot more tax dollars that can share civic burdens than having none of them documented. Granting amnesty to those already in the nation doesn't necessarily mean granting amnesty to everyone in the coming years.
I'm not saying that amnesty is what I would choose, but I do admit that it has some benefit to it compared to deportation or doing nothing at all which we are doing currently.
OK: two years ago I would have given credence to your thoughts concerning amnesty-------not now.
If nothing else; the deepening recession is tacitly 'encouraging' employers to lay off those workers first who cannot prove their legal status.
An American/green card holder has rights whereas an illegal has as many 'rights' as any other lawbreaker.
Remember also that most illegals only have a 2nd grade education and can't even read and write Spanish. So we'd be importing poverty--people that we would have to take care of into their old age.
I believe that almost every single wave of immigration to the United States, including most likely your own ancestors, came here without much of an education or without personal wealth (there are several notable exceptions such as the first wave of Cuban immigrants, the Jewish migrants pre-World War II, etc.). What's new?
Tenken737,
When my ancestors came to the US a couple of hundred years ago, it was legal and they came on a passport and were checked into this country. NONE of them sneaked across the border. There is a big difference.
We have 13 million people who basically have "illegal" status. These people probably work, shop and do everything as anybody else. Why would not amnesty be a good idea? I have heard the argument "We can't reward people for illegal behavior". I mean, we have rewarded people with 7 amnesties since 1986, why not another one?
I personally would rather have a country where everyone is legal and accounted for than having an underclass of people that basically "dont exist". I also feel like having illegal status might be a big incentive for criminal behavior, since many of these people have "nothing to lose". Deporting 13 million people is costly and logistically impossible, so why not legalize the people who are here and then reconsider the current immigration policy?
Because the prior amnesties have not done a cotton-picking thing to staunch the flow of illegal aliens across our borders. If anything, it's convinced Latinos that, if they manage to get across the border and lay low for a period of years, then they're home free. It's basically the rules of Kick The Can applied to government policy.
I will be one of the first to argue that today's current immigration statutes need to be amended to reflect the reality of today's marketplace. However, I believe the following principles need to be enforced without hesitation.
1) The American Border is Sacrosanct. The United States, just like any other country on the planet, has a sovereign right to control how many people cross its borders.
2) The Creation of a Guest Worker Program. You're from Honduras, Nigeria, Romania, or Jamaica, and want to find employment in the United States? Then welcome, for there are more jobs here than available workers. However, you have to be a guest worker which means you must have basic medical insurance and may not apply for welfare, medicare, or medicaid. Your car must be insured and be able to pass a safety inspection. You must obey the laws of the United States or you may not be allowed back in. You must have your Guest Worker Card on you at all times or face immediate deportation. You must provide information on your whereabouts in a national registry, detailing place of residence and employment. This will be subject to spot check. If you have vacated your residence and have not notified the INS within two weeks, you are subject to immediate deportation without the chance of re-entry.
3) If you wish to become a citizen of this country, you may apply using normal channels.
Tenken737,
When my ancestors came to the US a couple of hundred years ago, it was legal and they came on a passport and were checked into this country. NONE of them sneaked across the border. There is a big difference.
Prior to World War I, few people had passports and travel between ports didn't require passports.
Passports, though old, were not in use as one may think a couple hundred years ago. In fact, at the turn of the century, most European countries abolished them for a time.
.
..
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.
