Illegal Immigration Compromise? (born, illegal immigrants, laws, Mexicans) - City-Data Forum

bluebeard · 03-26-2009, 04:01 PM

I just wanted to ask, posters of "both sides" of the issue, are you even open to a compromise on the complex resolution of illegal immigration? Are you willing to balance the needs of returning to a country of law-enforcement on the issue vs. humanitarian concerns? Or does each side think there viewpoint is unreconcilable.
Democracy is about compromise. If we cannot come to an agreement on the issue, on the valid concerns of all the stakeholders, then you are essentially against how democracy works. And discussion becomes near pointless.

FormerCaliforniaGirl · 03-26-2009, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluebeard

I just wanted to ask, posters of "both sides" of the issue, are you even open to a compromise on the complex resolution of illegal immigration? Are you willing to balance the needs of returning to a country of law-enforcement on the issue vs. humanitarian concerns? Or does each side think there viewpoint is unreconcilable.
Democracy is about compromise. If we cannot come to an agreement on the issue, on the valid concerns of all the stakeholders, then you are essentially against how democracy works. And discussion becomes near pointless.

I have never felt that the issue of illegal immigration is "complex". What is complex about the illegality of any person or persons entering and living in the U.S. illegally, without permission, without documentation, without background checks, without health screening, and without the ability to speak English?

What is complex about the total unfairness of one 3rd-world county's poor flooding the U.S., when there are so many others from impoverished 3rd-world countries who would also like to come here, but do not have the foot access that Mexicans and Central Americans do?

What is complex about the rampant abuse by illegal aliens of the loophole in our Constitution that automatically grants U.S. citizenship to their children born on U.S. soil?

What is complex about the billions of dollars illegal aliens cost taxpayers every year in incarceration, education, healthcare, food, and housing costs?

What is complex about the diseases the illegal aliens bring into the U.S.?

What is complex about the identities illegal aliens steal from U.S. citizens?

I'm sorry, but the issue is black and white for me....no gray area whatsoever.

Any person who entered the U.S. illegally, needs to be prosecuted and deported, and they must lose the privelege of ever coming to the U.S. again.

macmeal · 03-26-2009, 04:31 PM

Though it goes against ALL my principles, and though we've had repeated amnesties before, only to be 'burned' each time, yes, I'm willing to compromise. I'd let anyone living here 6 years ago (and ONLY him) to be made legal; provided that any illegal here LESS than six years be deported...no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts'. THAT way, (though it's CERTAINLY not 'deserved'), BOTH sides get to 'save face'.

Do I think this would work? Certainly not...my 'amnestied' group would be happy for a few days, until they realized that NOW, they needed raises...and meanwhile, those on the 'deportation' list would raise a CRY HEARD on the MOON at the 'unfairness' of it all. If we could let in 'some' illegals, we should let in THEM.

Sorry, that's my compromise. Would the 'other side' agree? I don't believe it would ever happen. This argument isn't being conducted on an 'adult level', after all....

bluebeard · 03-26-2009, 04:34 PM

Everything program implementation is complex. Every action has many reactions, some anticipated, some not. Immigration, illegal and legal, has many factors involved which must be considered.
A loophole for one is not for another. I can call many parts of the Consitution I don't like a loophole and name the currently invalid reason it was historically included.
If it were simple, it would have been done already.
Thinking in terms of angels and devils is not helpful.

ArizonaBear · 03-26-2009, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluebeard

I just wanted to ask, posters of "both sides" of the issue, are you even open to a compromise on the complex resolution of illegal immigration? Are you willing to balance the needs of returning to a country of law-enforcement on the issue vs. humanitarian concerns? Or does each side think there viewpoint is unreconcilable.
Democracy is about compromise. If we cannot come to an agreement on the issue, on the valid concerns of all the stakeholders, then you are essentially against how democracy works. And discussion becomes near pointless.

No compromise------------especially during a severe recession.

If Mexico (the largest source of illegals) 'cannot' care for its mostly Indian/Mestizo citizens-------------that is not our problem. We owe that nation nothing.

bluebeard · 03-26-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macmeal

Though it goes against ALL my principles, and though we've had repeated amnesties before, only to be 'burned' each time, yes, I'm willing to compromise. I'd let anyone living here 6 years ago (and ONLY him) to be made legal; provided that any illegal here LESS than six years be deported...no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts'. THAT way, (though it's CERTAINLY not 'deserved'), BOTH sides get to 'save face'.

Do I think this would work? Certainly not...my 'amnestied' group would be happy for a few days, until they realized that NOW, they needed raises...and meanwhile, those on the 'deportation' list would raise a CRY HEARD on the MOON at the 'unfairness' of it all. If we could let in 'some' illegals, we should let in THEM.

Sorry, that's my compromise. Would the 'other side' agree? I don't believe it would ever happen. This argument isn't being conducted on an 'adult level', after all....

That is certainly a compromise. I commend it.

bluebeard · 03-26-2009, 04:37 PM

I would agree that part of a compromise include enforcement of hiring illegal aliens. This is simply part of closing the demand side of the equation. I would have to agree that part of bringing any illegal aliens out of the shadows would have to include a implementing current laws, and possibly new laws which result in a decrease in the demand for illegal aliens.

bluebeard · 03-26-2009, 04:42 PM

further, addition of resources on the border to
(a) allow legal immigration to flow more easily
(b) halt illegal immigrants
Doing so in a way that is sensitive to the desire of the border towns and environmental and resource concerns.
Walls sound great, but I'm not sure they are the best way. However, human resources, possibly increased use of technology, with probably some walls.

macmeal · 03-26-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluebeard

further, addition of resources on the border to
(a) allow legal immigration to flow more easily
(b) halt illegal immigrants
Doing so in a way that is sensitive to the desire of the border towns and environmental and resource concerns.
Walls sound great, but I'm not sure they are the best way. However, human resources, possibly increased use of technology, with probably some walls.

You're assuming this is a question of foreign nationals trespassing into American territory. Theoretically, you're correct. For all practical purposes, though, the 'illegal immigration' controversy is a thinly-veiled racial 'squabble'; that's how it's approached, and that's how it's treated by about 80% of those involved.

That being the case, simple solutions probably won't work; nor, if they're ever accepted, will they probably be honored. This is a 'ethnic war', and its participants are approaching it from that angle. Ethnic wars can't be settled by mere 'agreements', and even a 'gentlemens' agreement' requires that both sides agree to be 'gentlemen'. I have some SERIOUS doubts as to how this would EVER work.

FormerCaliforniaGirl · 03-26-2009, 04:50 PM

Bluebeard...the problem I have with your viewpoint is that you're suggesting it is anti-democratic to not come to a compromise with regard to illegal immigration.

Part of the democratic process is enacting laws. Laws are enacted to provide safety and create fairness for citizens. When laws are broken, chaos ensues.

Illegal aliens living in this country have, and are, breaking our laws. Therefore they jeopardize the safety and welfare of U.S. citizens.

So yes, we could change our laws to accomodate the illegal aliens (i.e., amnesty), but that would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Immigration laws serve a necessary purpose, and to soften these laws to such an extent as to grant yet ANOTHER mass amnesty (which didnt work the first time), would have serious detrimental effects on U.S. citizens.