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.
I said what I said because current law, although it defines what now is illegal immigration (there, I used your term!) is not facing reality that the immigration system as currently being defined and enforced just doesn't make sense.
The problem isn't illegal immigration, it is how it is defined. It is too broad, and because the label of "illegal" can be put on what is happening, it is easy to be against it.
What changes would you make? Would you leave them the same and increase enforcement? Or do you have suggestions to change them to be more realistic, improve cost to the taxpayer, enhance the economy and keep the real bad people out.
Or would you rather just beat the drum "are you against illegal immigration or not"?
Doesn't matter if you think our immigration laws aren't realistic they are what they are and what is on the books has to be followed until or if it is changed. Your opinion doesn't matter to the law! You aren't even going to vacation here anymore so what's it to you anyway?
How is the term illegal immigration not being defined correctly and being too broad? It's really very simple if you don't have the papers to come here legally and you come here anyway you are an illegal alien. If you come and overstay your visa and don't apply for a renewal within the allotted time you are an illegal alien. How much simpler can it be?
By the way, illegal immigration and/or illegal alien aren't "our" terms they are the lawful terms used in our immigration laws to describe those in our country illegally.
no, at the moment, it is black and white, excepting 1 grey area - asylum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad
The problem IS the current law. Undocumented immigration (I know, it's a trigger word for you ) is not a black or white issue, but a continuum.
Who should be stopped? Well obviously criminals. But after that it gets fuzzy. ...
Now imagine revamping and improving immigration law in the USA, and in three years getting a chart that looks similar to that as the illegal element of immigration declines, and legal increases?
Would that be a better solution than the current black and white... illegal or legal?
Methinks yes. Everyone wins. The USA taxpayer wins. The immigrants win. The employers win. CBP wins by being able to use limited resources to concentrate on those that truly should be excluded.
It's not a white or black issue.
those who should be stopped, turned around, and sent home are those who choose to ignore the existing laws of the US immigration system.
if they come through Mexico, then why would we have either qualms or responsibility for doing anything beyond getting them back across the border?
Once we have an agreement that says "turn them around at the border", "decrease those crossing the border" (which can be personnel, technology, or de-motivation), lose everyone already given a deportation order, straighten out the overstays, and a resolution on DACA - then we can talk about changes.
It really is that simple.
On asylum, it's almost like restrictions on abortion clinics where they have a waiting period, or have to show them a picture of a fetus.
Require every NGO that gets a dime of US Gov't money to provide them the reality of their chances of gaining asylum - the limited circumstances under which it is approved. Take out ads on radio and TV (how expensive can it be?) in Latin America for 3 months telling them how unlikely asylum is, and they're going to get detained in prison-like conditions and turned around.
We have plenty of "good" laws. Enforce them. Black and white.
I said what I said because current law, although it defines what now is illegal immigration (there, I used your term!) is not facing reality that the immigration system as currently being defined and enforced just doesn't make sense.
The problem isn't illegal immigration, it is how it is defined. It is too broad, and because the label of "illegal" can be put on what is happening, it is easy to be against it.
What changes would you make? Would you leave them the same and increase enforcement? Or do you have suggestions to change them to be more realistic, improve cost to the taxpayer, enhance the economy and keep the real bad people out.
Or would you rather just beat the drum "are you against illegal immigration or not"?
do Canada's immigration laws - and yes, they do have them - only "keep the real bad people out" but allow everyone else in?
Is there a 1st world nation that you can point to that has immigration laws that only "keep the real bad people out" but allow anyone else to declare themselves a resident at will?
If the left doesn't like what the writing of a law says, they simply set out to change the meanings of the words. Ether it now fits their agenda, or the original language is now rendered useless and the law can be butchered, misused and ultimately overturned by a leftist judge.
We've seen this tactic used again and again. The left will simply make up new words and definitions to bludgeon their opponents with.
kind of like this?
Quote:
not facing reality that the immigration system as currently being defined and enforced just doesn't make sense.
The problem isn't illegal immigration, it is how it is defined. It is too broad,
let's make sense: for every 1 deported having been adjudicated, we will allow that # additionally in the next year.
ie - deport the 1.2MM already adjudicated in 2023? Well, the green card cap for 2024 just got increased by 1.2MM.
do Canada's immigration laws - and yes, they do have them - only "keep the real bad people out" but allow everyone else in?
Is there a 1st world nation that you can point to that has immigration laws that only "keep the real bad people out" but allow anyone else to declare themselves a resident at will?
Canada's immigration system is different. Its refugee system is much better.
It has a point system, which arguably makes sense if the purpose is to build the economy. Both Canada and the USA need immigration if we want our economies to continue to function the way they have been.
My suggestion is that when legal immigration is increased, the resources to keep bad people out can be more focused. Is it a magic bullet? Of course not, but it would improve the situation.
Canada's immigration system is different. Its refugee system is much better.
It has a point system, which arguably makes sense if the purpose is to build the economy. Both Canada and the USA need immigration if we want our economies to continue to function the way they have been.
My suggestion is that when legal immigration is increased, the resources to keep bad people out can be more focused. Is it a magic bullet? Of course not, but it would improve the situation.
You want legal immigration to the US increased despite the fact that we don't have unlimited buildable land nor do we have unlimited potable water? Are you even aware of what is happening to Lake Mead these days? Do you know how many areas depend on it for their water supply? You've already whined about FL wanting to build another turnpike. Yet you don't seem to be able to make the connection when it comes to why. The US allows 1 million legal immigrants into this country per year and untold numbers of illegals. All those people will need places to live, water to drink and roads to drive.
How about you encourage Canada to allow 1 million legal immigrants into the country per year? Heck, after all, there is all this room in the northern parts of the provinces and territories. Think about this. Do some deep thinking.
Once again, how many people is too many for you? 1 billion? 2 billion? Funny how you won't answer that question---just like you won't give a straight answer regarding illegal immigration.
You want legal immigration to the US increased despite the fact that we don't have unlimited buildable land nor do we have unlimited potable water? Are you even aware of what is happening to Lake Mead these days? Do you know how many areas depend on it for their water supply? You've already whined about FL wanting to build another turnpike. Yet you don't seem to be able to make the connection when it comes to why. The US allows 1 million legal immigrants into this country per year and untold numbers of illegals. All those people will need places to live, water to drink and roads to drive.
How about you encourage Canada to allow 1 million legal immigrants into the country per year? Heck, after all, there is all this room in the northern parts of the provinces and territories. Think about this. Do some deep thinking.
Once again, how many people is too many for you? 1 billion? 2 billion? Funny how you won't answer that question---just like you won't give a straight answer regarding illegal immigration.
The issue of water shortages in the west is real, driven much because of the years long drought, climate change, and the propensity to grow high water use luxury agriculture like almonds and avocados.
The USA is much more than one region. How many people are needed? I am not that expert, however, many economic forecasts show that many more are needed.
In addition, Canada takes in 3 times the number of refugees, in raw actual numbers, than the USA does. It is doing its fair share. So, Canada encourages more immigration, in fact, it wants even more. Why do you think that is?
You want legal immigration to the US increased despite the fact that we don't have unlimited buildable land nor do we have unlimited potable water? Are you even aware of what is happening to Lake Mead these days? Do you know how many areas depend on it for their water supply? You've already whined about FL wanting to build another turnpike. Yet you don't seem to be able to make the connection when it comes to why. The US allows 1 million legal immigrants into this country per year and untold numbers of illegals. All those people will need places to live, water to drink and roads to drive.
How about you encourage Canada to allow 1 million legal immigrants into the country per year? Heck, after all, there is all this room in the northern parts of the provinces and territories. Think about this. Do some deep thinking.
Once again, how many people is too many for you? 1 billion? 2 billion? Funny how you won't answer that question---just like you won't give a straight answer regarding illegal immigration.
BOS2IAD, when someone doesn't give a straight answer but instead parrots an agenda endlessly, they're only capable of repeating what they've been taught. Giving a direct answer throws them into a panic. They also try to wear you down so you finally give up. And basically this is what's happening with illegal migration in the U.S. Drone on with the deflective language, keep up the pressure, and ignore the concerns, until voila! mission accomplished.
As I told OG, you can't expect much from some people.
oh, not so "many". However, when folks type this as if we're supposed to be the world's welfare state ...
then the # likely grows.
On this forum - well, really, the Illegal Immigration Forum - there's about 3 people who say "we need less legal immigration too".
And that's a a travesty. Legal immigration makes Americans poorer while diluting our political power. This should be the most obvious thing in the world, but one-sided propaganda can override common sense and reason.
I said what I said because current law, although it defines what now is illegal immigration (there, I used your term!) is not facing reality that the immigration system as currently being defined and enforced just doesn't make sense.
The problem isn't illegal immigration, it is how it is defined. It is too broad, and because the label of "illegal" can be put on what is happening, it is easy to be against it.
What changes would you make? Would you leave them the same and increase enforcement? Or do you have suggestions to change them to be more realistic, improve cost to the taxpayer, enhance the economy and keep the real bad people out.
Or would you rather just beat the drum "are you against illegal immigration or not"?
There is no need for any changes to current immigration law in the US. It is good as it is. There, I answer your question.
Now your turn, are you for or against illegal immigration? A simple YES or NO answer should do the job. I don’t need your opinion about current immigration law. I want to know if you are for or against illegal immigration. It is not a hard question
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.
) is not a black or white issue, but a continuum.
