can someone support legal immigration but oppose illegal immigration? (medical, health care, visa)
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.
Pretty simple and uncomplicated: Legal Immigration is"Legal", Illegal Immigration is "Illegal".
I have no problem with anyone who immigrates legally like my Grandmother and the rest of her family in the 1920's. They followed the law, met all the requirements and were allowed to immigrate not a problem.
Which country did they immigrate from and in which year exactly?
Every nation on the planet has immigration laws and rightly so. These laws are intended to or should be designed to protect the interests of the nation. The needs of the applicant are irrelevant. Does the USA need 100,000 people who can not speak the common language of our nation? NO
Do we need 100,000 people who can't read or write and have few marketable skills? NO
Does the USA need 100,000 people who would be unable to support themselves? NO
What we do need are educated immigrants who are willing to adapt and apply themselves. We need people with skills this country lacks.
I support legal immigration, I am married to a legal immigrant now a citizen. I am absolutely against illegal immigration. Never reward a cheat, never reward the criminal.
Just because "everyone is doing it", doesn't make it right. You could have made the same argument for slavery 200 years ago... "every nation on earth has slavery for a reason". And? Doesn't mean they are right.
Why should a country's "needs" come above the rights of individuals? How does that make any sense?
Also, since when are rights and laws based on "needs"?
Do you NEED to drink soda? Do you NEED to have cable TV? Do you NEED to have cats or dogs for pets? NO. So should those things be illegal then, since they aren't "needed"? Obviously not. So you can drop the 'needs' argument right there.
Laws should always be based on rights, not needs.
But, backing up, why does the country "not need 100,00 new people"? Oh right, because the unsustainable welfare system will implode on itself. Again, that is not immigration's problem, it is the welfare system's problem.
Also, I never said that everyone should have to learn every new language, etc. but when a critical mass is reached then it only it makes sense to incorporate those people into the society as a whole. Many of you are under the false impression that culture is static. It's not. If millions of Spanish speakers are living here, then guess what, we are a Spanish speaking country. Therefore, we should have signs in Spanish to accommodate all of the AMERICANS who speak Spanish. ¿Comprende?
Last edited by JoulesMSU; 08-21-2013 at 08:53 AM..
Also lol at using relatives who came over in the late 1800s/early 1900s as example of supporting "lawful" immigration restrictions. You do realize that there were virtually no restrictions during that time period, which is why so many people were able to come here.
Under today's draconian rules, many of your family members would have not been able to secure citizenship - which is why your argument is so ridiculous. Your families (and therefore, YOU) wouldn't be living here today if your ancestors had to follow the same rules as you are trying to enforce.
I'm an immigrant and I'm now a lawful permanent resident ('green card' holder). I came legally as the minor child of an engineer in an executive capacity for a foreign company that acquired a smaller company in the rural south, so you can imagine how much fun that was at first (we had a police escort in front of our house for the first two weeks we were in the U.S.).
I also happen to work in U.S. immigration, a field I've specialized in for the past 15 years.
Yet, the subject of immigration for me is very difficult. I don't see it as purely as black or white. I support legal immigration and I do my job on a daily basis to make sure I cross all the Ts and dot all the Is, to make sure I am in compliance and follow the current laws and regulations.
I believe that a sovereign nation has the right to determine the criteria of admittance to its borders. At the same time, having lived many years in the rural south, I have seen how people who entered illegally were systematically exploited by U.S. employers, kept essentially as indentured labor and paid substandard wages simply because they were in the U.S. illegally.
I also know that the U.S. immigration system is not set up to admit unskilled workers - obviously, it is better for a country to admit highly educated or skilled people than to admit the opposite.
In other words, I believe in the laws that exist and I support their enforcement. I do think, however, that deporting over 11 million people is unrealistic and not feasible.
While it is certainly important to deport criminal foreign nationals, I think that enforcement should be concentrated on U.S. employers that willingly and knowingly hire undocumented or illegal workers. I see it as a supply and demand issue. People cross the border illegally because they know there will be some unscrupulous employer in the U.S. who will be willing to hire them.
Therefore, by enforcing current immigration laws and regulations and perhaps by mandating E-Verify for all employers, in addition to raising the penalties and violations for knowingly hiring unauthorized workers, there would be fewer U.S. employers willing to hire unauthorized workers.
The demand would cease; as a result, fewer would cross the border illegally.
I am also in favor of some sort of permanent residence process for those who were brought in as children by their parents. Many have grown up essentially as Americans, go to school or enlist in the military and would be productive members of society.
Yes, it bothers me when people can simply cross the border illegally and then hope for legislative changes, while I had to go through the very expensive and lengthy process following each regulation strictly, but I also know I had some advantages many illegal immigrants do not have (such as educated parents, a good family income, good education, etc.).
Just because "everyone is doing it", doesn't make it right. You could have made the same argument for slavery 200 years ago... "every nation on earth has slavery for a reason". And? Doesn't mean they are right.
Why should a country's "needs" come above the rights of individuals? How does that make any sense?
Also, since when are rights and laws based on "needs"?
Do you NEED to drink soda? Do you NEED to have cable TV? Do you NEED to have cats or dogs for pets? NO. So should those things be illegal then, since they aren't "needed"? Obviously not. So you can drop the 'needs' argument right there.
Laws should always be based on rights, not needs.
But, backing up, why does the country "not need 100,00 new people"? Oh right, because the unsustainable welfare system will implode on itself. Again, that is not immigration's problem, it is the welfare system's problem.
Also, I never said that everyone should have to learn every new language, etc. but when a critical mass is reached then it only it makes sense to incorporate those people into the society as a whole. Many of you are under the false impression that culture is static. It's not. If millions of Spanish speakers are living here, then guess what, we are a Spanish speaking country. Therefore, we should have signs in Spanish to accommodate all of the AMERICANS who speak Spanish. ¿Comprende?
Slavery = bad. Immigration laws = good. You are comparing apples to oranges here. So a foreigner's needs should be above the needs of a country's citizen's needs? Where is there a right for a foreigner to violate any country's immigration laws? I haven't seen that document.
If critical mass by a certain ethnic group is reached via illegal immigration we should learn the language of these invaders who don't even have a lawful right to be in our country? Foreigners shouldn't learn the language of the country THEY chose to migrate to it should be up to the host country to learn theirs? If millions of foreigners are residing here illegally we should have our culture and language diluted or changed? Most "Americans" who are Spanish speakers are bi-lingual and know English so why should we accommodate them in Spanish? English is our national language not Spanish. We have 265 million non-Hispanics in this country and only 50 million Hispanics counting those who are here illegally. Who is the majority now?
Slavery = bad. Immigration laws = good. You are comparing apples to oranges here. So a foreigner's needs should be above the needs of a country's citizen's needs? Where is there a right for a foreigner to violate any country's immigration laws? I haven't seen that document.
If critical mass by a certain ethnic group is reached via illegal immigration we should learn the language of these invaders who don't even have a lawful right to be in our country? Foreigners shouldn't learn the language of the country THEY chose to migrate to it should be up to the host country to learn theirs? If millions of foreigners are residing here illegally we should have our culture and language diluted or changed? Most "Americans" who are Spanish speakers are bi-lingual and know English so why should we accommodate them in Spanish? English is our national language not Spanish. We have 265 million non-Hispanics in this country and only 50 million Hispanics counting those who are here illegally. Who is the majority now?
Prove that "immigration laws = good". I'm pretty sure I showed the opposite, immigration laws are bad.
"Foreigner" is a convenient term to use, but it's not accurate. If someone has moved somewhere (or wants to move somewhere) then guess what, they are no longer a "foreigner". So you are wrong again. You say "if millions of foreigners are residing here..." do you know what "residing" means? It means that is where they now live. In this sense, they aren't foreigners, they are Americans. So how are you going to compare needs when you make this realization? "One American's needs vs another American's needs" isn't quite as simple, is it?
Also, how exactly are the needs conflicting? Most people have the same needs (food, shelter, etc.) - how is allowing someone new to live next to you conflicting with any of your needs? Clearly it is not a concern for resources because you would happily allow someone from New York or Oregon to live next to you, so why not someone from Mexico or Liberia? The only conclusion I can draw is that you are a racist, in which case, it doesn't matter what you think because making policies based on racism is never a good idea.
Finally, you are wrong again - the United States does not have a "national language". Most signs are in English because it is generally accepted that MOST people speak English, but if there are sections of the country where most (or at least more) Americans speak Spanish, then it only makes sense to have signs in that language too.
Prove that "immigration laws = good". I'm pretty sure I showed the opposite, immigration laws are bad.
"Foreigner" is a convenient term to use, but it's not accurate. If someone has moved somewhere (or wants to move somewhere) then guess what, they are no longer a "foreigner". So you are wrong again. You say "if millions of foreigners are residing here..." do you know what "residing" means? It means that is where they now live. In this sense, they aren't foreigners, they are Americans. So how are you going to compare needs when you make this realization? "One American's needs vs another American's needs" isn't quite as simple, is it?
Also, how exactly are the needs conflicting? Most people have the same needs (food, shelter, etc.) - how is allowing someone new to live next to you conflicting with any of your needs? Clearly it is not a concern for resources because you would happily allow someone from New York or Oregon to live next to you, so why not someone from Mexico or Liberia? The only conclusion I can draw is that you are a racist, in which case, it doesn't matter what you think because making policies based on racism is never a good idea.
Finally, you are wrong again - the United States does not have a "national language". Most signs are in English because it is generally accepted that MOST people speak English, but if there are sections of the country where most (or at least more) Americans speak Spanish, then it only makes sense to have signs in that language too.
Evidently you don't know the difference between legal immigrants, citizens and illegal aliens. Or you do and you just don't care. No one is an American unless they were born or naturalized here. That eliminates both legal immigrants and illegal aliens from that category. It really has to be explained to you why immigration laws are good for the citizens of any country?
Ah the race card. Yeah, sure our immigration policies are based on racism. I guess it matters not that we allow in 1 million legal immigrants a year and most of them are Spanish speakers. Yeah, real racism there. Just one more thing before I put you on ignore our national de facto language IS English. So yes we do have an identifying and national language. It matters not that some can speak other languages. It has nothing to do with it. Immigrants and citizens alike who speak another language other than our national language need to learn our language not the way around nor should we be accommodating them in their native language. Bye.
lol "ignore" - being proven wrong, can't support your argument, so just leave. GJGE (not really).
But if that was just talk, then yes, PLEASE explain why immigration laws are "good for citizens of any country". Because from my point of view, they aren't. All those laws do is promote both laziness from locals who think they shouldn't have to compete for jobs (it is better for everyone when there is competition in the workforce, that should be a given) and unnecessarily harms potentially-productive members of society by not allowing them to join society in the first place.
It is racism because you are saying that it's only okay for people who already look like you and talk like you to be American, and if someone doesn't fit that description, then they "aren't American". That definition is garbage. If you language or culture is so "superior" then it should have no problems standing up to outside influence. If it doesn't stand up, then clearly it is inferior and probably should be replaced.
I don't think English will ever be replaced though, because it is the most widely spoken language in the world (I don't care about that crap stat "more people speak Mandarin, derp" - English is spoken in every corner of the world, please find me a country in Africa or the Americas that speaks Mandarin, there aren't any, but there IS an English speaking country on EVERY continent [Guyana, for South America, if you were struggling to think of one there]), but take a look at the entire continent we live on, from the top of Canada to the tip of Argentina... the vast majority of people speak Spanish as their first language, with only a few exceptions of English, Portuguese, and French on the edges. It only makes sense to incorporate all of our neighbors (many of whom are citizens just like you and I) who speak Spanish to interact with them easier. If that means putting up some signs in that language in areas where many of them now live, what's the big deal?
Again, as I said, I feel like a lot of people who refuse to learn English only do so to be spiteful, because they feel like they aren't welcomed, so why try to assimilate? Look at Canada, in 1969 they declared French to be a "national language" alongside English, and the usage of French has consistently DROPPED ever since. Why? Because French speakers no longer felt alienated, and they were more open to learn English at first to be bilingual and then eventually decided it's easier to just use English, so they stopped using French. There was a study a few years ago which found that there are a significant number of native-French speakers who now speak English as their "at home language", and I believe this is partially because Canada has embraced bilingualism, and people who learn both are deciding that English is better than French - just as I believe that people who become bilingual in English and Spanish while living in America will eventually decide that it's better to speak English. But that won't happen as long as Spanish is "taboo" and people fight against it. It just makes those who speak Spanish want to keep their language even more.
Just like the Cold War... the countries that we fought so hard to rid communism from... North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba... are some of the ONLY countries left that still have communism. All the other countries where it wasn't a big deal, Eastern Europe, Africa, etc... they all gave up on it. The only places that clung to it were those who were forced to fight for it, so they don't want to give it up or they will feel like they "lost". This is the same thing. You make it hard for people to speak Spanish here, they are going to cling to their language. If you accept them and accommodate them, they don't care so much about it and are more open to learning English (just like the French speakers in Canada).
It's only illegal because some law says it is. Would you also blindly support any law against anything? "No growing your own tomatoes" - oh, well, it's the law. Growing tomatoes is illegal, therefore bad. Why don't you ask: "WHY is it illegal?"
If there was no law saying that immigration was "illegal" for certain people, would you still support treating them as they are currently treated?
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.
Where is there a right for 
