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.
Many people keep saying "illegals" are responcible for a decling of living in their community, increases in crime, and other social ills.
What many fail to realize is that in many cases these people are legal. Since the 1965 immigration act there has been a flood of non-Whites from the third world, mainly Mexico and Latin America.
When you see communities of people who refuse to learn English, give us gangs and crime, and all kinds of other social ills many times these people are legal as well.
Big Business scumbags like Bush support this flood of unskilled immigrants for their labor interests and big business. They live in their suburban wealthy White communities and send their children to private schools. Chances are, the only 'diversity' they experience is their gardener or children's school lunch lady.
It's not only "illegals" it's our flood of immigrants, the majority from Mexico and Latin America, who do not want to become American, learn the language, etc. It's a drain on our country to continue to enrich the wealthy select few and it needs to end.
Based on my experience living in south Texas and seeing these immigrants all my life, I have to disagree with much of your conclusion.
I will agree that there are many wealthy people utilizing immigrant labor, both legal and illegal, and keeping themselves in an ivory tower and isolated from cultural diversity. It is not limited to Bush and his contemporaries. It has been a staple of wealthy society since the founding of society on the planet and is not limited to American society by any means. This type of exploitation knows no racial, ethnic, citizenship, or political boundries. It is not limited to those successful business people either, many fortunes were made from illegal activities such as bootlegging (Kennedy family fortune) and smuggling (Rockefeller family fortune), and plenty of other family fortunes were made in similar ways. There is only a slight difference between an entrepreneur and an opportunist and much of that is in hindsight. And what may be surprising to you is that many of our wealthiest business people are not Republican, but are Democrat by political persuasion. I am not sure what the % breakdown would be, but I would think based on the recent political campaign contributions from the wealthiest zip codes that it leans heavily toward the Democrat side as Democrats have received over 400% more contributions this year than Republicans from those areas.
The mass influx of immigrants contributes to the gang and criminal activity somewhat more than the native population does mainly due to the lower economic status of the group rather than due to any ethnic predisposition. You will also see a great many white, black, and asian gang members that were born to US Citizens and have family in the US for many generations. There are criminals who can trace their family roots back prior to the civil war. Immigrants play a role in our crime and poverty statistics to be sure. It is not a disproportionate role when compared to the rates of crime across the same economic/social strata which includes both immigrants and non-immigrants. I do not have a feel for how much variance there might be between legal and illegal immigrants within these categories, but I suspect there is not much.
An overwhelming proportion of immigrants have the same desires as you and I and expend a comparable effort to blend into our society. Some do not and these are used as an example. While their example is valid and exists in significant numbers it is not representative of the average immigrant, either illegal or not. Don't forget that many of our historical immigrant groups, ie German, Dutch, Czech, Polish, Italian, etc went through a couple of generations before the families were thoroughly integrated into society via language and custom.
So to answer your thread question, which you did not put in your message, Yes as long as it is legal I support unlimited immigration. I feel that if anyone can navigate through our legal and bureaucratic processes, they deserve citizenship!
Location: In an illegal immigrant free part of the country.
2,096 posts, read 1,468,820 times
Reputation: 382
I believe ALL immigration should be halted until we secure our borders and deport the illegal immigrants that are here. The majority of immigration is to replace American jobs with cheap labor. Our middle class is in decline and will continue to decline which is bad for everyone.
Excellent response to a very inflammatory and, IMO, ill-informed OP, johnrex62.
I would disagree with only one point:
Quote:
Yes as long as it is legal I support unlimited immigration. I feel that if anyone can navigate through our legal and bureaucratic processes, they deserve citizenship!
I think legal immigration should be tied to the current population of the US as well as to the unemployment rate. Yearly immigration should not exceed more than 1% of the total US population at any time (and a number closer to 0.5% would probably be more desirable.) Though I am a proponant of immigration and diversity, I recognize that massive and rapid population shifts can cause friction that brings out the negative aspects of diversification. (Xenophobia, overcrowding, culture shock, etc.)
I also believe that immigration should be divorced from family ties (except in the case of spouses and children) and tied to employment instead. A person should demonstrate the ability and the will to contribute to society before they are allowed to immigrate.
So, to answer the OP; no. I do not believe that unlimited legal immigration is desirable. I believe that reasonable limits on immigration should replace the currently unreasonable limits.
I believe today's limits are much less than 1% of the population... the only permanent resident's visa that is unrestricted is the one for spouses to US citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sponger42
Excellent response to a very inflammatory and, IMO, ill-informed OP, johnrex62.
I would disagree with only one point:
I think legal immigration should be tied to the current population of the US as well as to the unemployment rate. Yearly immigration should not exceed more than 1% of the total US population at any time (and a number closer to 0.5% would probably be more desirable.) Though I am a proponant of immigration and diversity, I recognize that massive and rapid population shifts can cause friction that brings out the negative aspects of diversification. (Xenophobia, overcrowding, culture shock, etc.)
I also believe that immigration should be divorced from family ties (except in the case of spouses and children) and tied to employment instead. A person should demonstrate the ability and the will to contribute to society before they are allowed to immigrate.
So, to answer the OP; no. I do not believe that unlimited legal immigration is desirable. I believe that reasonable limits on immigration should replace the currently unreasonable limits.
I think legal immigration should be tied to the current population of the US as well as to the unemployment rate. Yearly immigration should not exceed more than 1% of the total US population at any time (and a number closer to 0.5% would probably be more desirable.) Though I am a proponant of immigration and diversity, I recognize that massive and rapid population shifts can cause friction that brings out the negative aspects of diversification. (Xenophobia, overcrowding, culture shock, etc.)
I also believe that immigration should be divorced from family ties (except in the case of spouses and children) and tied to employment instead. A person should demonstrate the ability and the will to contribute to society before they are allowed to immigrate.
So, to answer the OP; no. I do not believe that unlimited legal immigration is desirable. I believe that reasonable limits on immigration should replace the currently unreasonable limits.
I am not current on specific immigrant law with respect to family priorities, but it was my understanding that Spouse, Children and Siblings were the only family ties that affected immigration eligibility.
I also think we are much closer than apart on the numbers that would be possible under legal procedures. I do not propose a quota because I think that the process itself is self limiting. We do not need to set a limit according to any other standard. There are limited numbers of people and time to process applications and our bureaucracy will see that only a finite number of applications can be processed in a year. That is what I mean by any who can navigate our system deserves to be let in.
The ability to earn a living or demonstrate that a relative already legally in the US is ready and able to support the candidate is also already a requirement for immigration. So I do not see any differences in our positions other than an arbitrary limit setting that we would likely not be able to process enough applications to reach anyway.
PR = Permanent (legal) Resident
Here's the (real--not faked by right-or-left wingers) broad numbers:
Total yearly legal immigration: ~1.1 million
IR's (Immediate relatives: spouses and children of legal residents) ~750,000
Extended Relatives (siblings, parents of adult children of legal residents) ~200,000
Work-Related permanant residencies: ~75,000
Refugees: ~50,000 (not real solid on this number)
Others: ~25,000
The big chunk is IR's, and that's fine. The next big chunk is extended families, and I don't see this as necessary. If your brother wants to immigrate, he should prove that he can hold a job (not have you prove that you can support him--current system).
The remaining tiny chunks are employment-based, like H1's, L1's, etc.
I think the system should be changed (and streamlined, so the backlogs can shrink a bit) to something more like:
Legal yearly immigrants: ~2million
IR's: 750,000/year
Work-Based: 750,000/year (Tied to national unemployment %'s and US total population)
Employment-based legalization of undocumented residents (+sealed borders, fines, background checks, and back taxes): 500,000/year until lowered to negligable levels in terms of % of the population. Once that happens, the extra 500,000 PR applications can be distributed to the IR and employment-based programs as needed.
Why do we need immigrants to cheapen the value of U.S. labor? Wake up folks -- we're being robbed of our country. The middle class and working class are getting screwed by gated community corporatists who do not care about anything other than capital gains. What difference does it make whether or not immigrants (i.e. invaders) have all the correct legal paperwork? When some immigrant gets a job as a result of affirmative action, get's an SBA affirmative action loan, drives up the cost of housing, drives up the cost of insurance, drives up the cost of water and electricity, etc. does it matter whether their paperwork correctly conforms to a dysfunctional social system?
No, I do not welcome unlimited legal immigration. For the umpteenth time: the U.S. land mass can sustain only a limited population. We have now surpassed sustainable population levels. It's absurd to think that the U.S. can sustain an unlimited number of people.
We have not reached critical mass yet, unless you are talking about building cities in the deserts of Arizona and Nevada, or the coasts of Alabama and Florida (whose dumb ideas ...).
Immigration needs to be regulated at legal levels that serve the economic and intellectual/professional needs of the nation. The legal limits are higher than those currently in place, but the limit of illegal migrants accepted needs to be set and enforced at ZERO. The change in net immigration may be lower, as there are many people who come here through loophole channels.
Can the political system set appropriate legal limits? As the posts above mine indicate, very few people trust this country's elites to do what is necessary and right.
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.
