Well you can understand why some people would be hesitant to try another amnesty again since the last go round at this failed in every particular. Except for the part about granting amnesty to millions. In that regard, it was a success, but there was never enforcement after the amnesty and there wouldn't be after another one, for all the same reasons. So given that if we do an amnesty now, all that means is that in 10 to 15 years we'll need to do another amnesty, and then another... I read the description of the film and fail to see why that would change my mind on the issue.
The question still remains --- do we have secure borders? To adequately answer this question, we need to know what percentage of people who try to enter the United States illegally actually get "caught." Unfortunately, all we have are imperfect measures. Simply put --- This problem has not really addressed this issue by the Cato Institute, the Chicago Tribune and Fox "news." Yes! We know how many we catch, but we don't know if that's most, half, or just a sliver of the total number of people crossing illegally. And let's not forget that statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. In trying to attack President Obama, the Obamaphobic electronic and print media don't deal with the nationwide borders. Why? We both know the answer to this question. Let me leave you with the following thought --- Without a clear-cut definition on what "secure borders" means, it's difficult to grade the Obama administration on its performance. Many signs point to significant progress on stemming illegal immigration, including added staff and resources in border security. But reports have indicated that a sizeable portion of the border is not under "operational control." The film "El Norte" delves into this reality.
If your mom attempted to come here today legally, it would have taken her twice as long and cost at least five times as much. At the same time, the risk to do thing illegally would grow exponentially for every year legally your mom was being delayed without any reason or purpose. The point is that both sides of our immigration system is broken. On the legal side, it is costing way too much for families to reunite and for employers to find the hires they want. And now it is much easier for an employer to move its operations overseas than to deal the immigration and pay the hefty "expedited" processing fees. Furthere,beasue our economy is relying more and more on low skilled labor and these employers do not want or have the money or risk the job to hire someone here locally, those employers are willing ot use illegal immigrants to fill the void. so, what to do with 12 million illegals, with about half as either women who do not work or minors who are in school. The guest worker program is a great idea. But I do not think that the path of citizenship should be part of that process. We all know that any immigrant, legal or illegal, that has committed heinous crimes will not be a part of that pathway. Those that have committed minor violations will be given this chance to become legal and at the same time, the legal immigration side, with more directed enforcement, have employers be able to hire the low wage earners that they need. It is that balance that should be approached instead of all the fear mongering that immigration restrictionists - - - Updated - - - If your mom attempted to come here today legally, it would have taken her twice as long and cost at least five times as much. At the same time, the risk to do thing illegally would grow exponentially for every year legally your mom was being delayed without any reason or purpose. The point is that both sides of our immigration system is broken. On the legal side, it is costing way too much for families to reunite and for employers to find the hires they want. And now it is much easier for an employer to move its operations overseas than to deal the immigration and pay the hefty "expedited" processing fees. Furthere,beasue our economy is relying more and more on low skilled labor and these employers do not want or have the money or risk the job to hire someone here locally, those employers are willing ot use illegal immigrants to fill the void. so, what to do with 12 million illegals, with about half as either women who do not work or minors who are in school. The guest worker program is a great idea. But I do not think that the path of citizenship should be part of that process. We all know that any immigrant, legal or illegal, that has committed heinous crimes will not be a part of that pathway. Those that have committed minor violations will be given this chance to become legal and at the same time, the legal immigration side, with more directed enforcement, have employers be able to hire the low wage earners that they need. It is that balance that should be approached instead of all the fear mongering that immigration restrictionists
As we all know, border security should be paramount, as this amnesty crap will continue forever. Hispanics will vote Democrat no matter what the GOP does on immigration. History has shown, that when a Republican throws out an immigration bone like Reagan did in 1986, the majority of Hispanics still vote for Democrats. This is why I wish the GOP would stop kissing ass, and start pushing for border security and law enforcement.
First of all, my Mom had enough sense, values and morals to do the right thing, and not skirt the laws of the United States. Our immigration system is not broken. Our borders are broken. Our laws are not being enforced by this lawless Administration. We need to stop the flow of illegals first, and figure out what to do with those that are here. Amnesty only condones more of this crap. This country will suffer if this continues. It already has.
Your post misses the point. The fact is that part of the reason why we have illegal immigration is because the legal system is broke. The fact is that many employers who hire illegal immigrants cannot find workers who are willing to work at those prices and work conditions. Finally, we are enforcing the laws to the extent our laws are voluntarily enforced by the populace. And if you want the laws to be totally enforced, you will be getting two to three vehicle violations per day. .
The system is not broken. Millions of folks have come here the legal way. It works. Our immigration laws are not being fully enforced by this Administration.
Again, not exactly. There may be people hwo are coming here legally, but the ones that can come here but don't is where the legal system fails.
Let's take a few moments to update the "anchor babies" issue. Question: Why are all the undocumented foreigners producing offsprings on U.S. soil, if not because of birthright citizenship? The most obvious explanation is that they live here and because they tend to be of childbearing age. But the chief reason is that having kids is what human beings do --- wherever they are and whatever their immigration status. It's clear that changing the citizenship rule would have little or no impact on the fertility of illegal immigrants. What the nativists and xenophobic Americans don't seem to understand is the fact that "birth tourists" are catered to by travel agencies, hospitals and hotels --- offering "deals" for expectant mothers. Nevertheless, what the RINO party, the noise machines at Fox "news", the "teapublicans" and the right-wing mouths in the world of shout-radio won't tell their "faithful" is the fact that the so-called "anchor babies invasion" is not exactly a raging epidemic --- so says the National Center for Health Statistics. If the RINO party wants to "head" them off --- they don't have to amend the United States Constitution. They can just deny tourist visas to visibly pregnant women. Or make it a federal offense to come here solely to have a baby. However, considering the mindset of the xenophobists who have targeted the weak and underprivileged, it's no "fun" to address a modest problem with a minor change. Anti-immigration zealots would rather mount a phony propaganda "crusade" to conquer a mighty mountain. Even if it's really a molehill. Unfortunately, this is a party dominated by the "teapublicans."
The way I see it, "We the people . . . " don't need "comprehensive" legislation. What we need is realism. Simply put --- Accept that millions of foreigners are already living here illegally and are not going to "self-deport." And that we (and they) will b e "better" off if they gain the protection of the law. The draconian measures needed to get "rid" of them all are no longer politically possible, if they ever were. And they probably wouldn't work anyway. Enforcement enthusiasts like the "teapublicans" seem to think the same is "true" of their preferred option. From these xenophobes, you would think every migrant "sneaking across the Tortilla Curtain" only had to get by an unarmed attendant sitting in a lawn-chair. In fact, the southern border increasingly resembles the Berlin Wall. Border security has become the poster child of BIG government programs that "conservatives" typically abhor. It never succeeds, and every failure becomes the rationale for additional funding. Since 2001, the U.S. Border Patrol budget has tripled. The number of agents, which was about 4,000 in 1992, has ballooned to more than 10,000 in 2004 and more than 21,000 today. Doubling the border forces is impractical and a poor use of resources and that $$$$ could be better spent on workplace inspections or the E-Verify system that employers can use to check the citizenship of applicants. Simply put --- If we haven't solved the illegal immigration problem, it's not for lack of "enforcement." We've already done that part of the "comprehensive" approach. Why the "teapublicans" are reluctant to accept these "newcomers," is a puzzle. The punitive approach is unfair in the case of those who were brought here as children and have become Americans in all the customary ways, through no fault of their own. Let me leave you with the following thought --- The choice is not between letting them stay and making them leave. We have already proved that we can't force them out. The choice is between adjusting the law to fit the stubborn facts of life and persisting in measures to make their lives miserable. The latter is a proven loser, in more than one.
I've asked you before, why must "We the People" accept millions of illegals remaining here? Why/How will we be better off? They are already under the protection of the law, legalizing them won't change that. Legalizing them will grant them more Constitutional protections and rights. Why should we give them these? Draconian? No longer politically possible? Probably wouldn't work anyway? States have already shown enforcement measure to work along with the Federal E-verify program. How about some more name calling and partisan ideological ignorance from you, we haven't had enough yet. You can't even refute anything that has been told to you, you just keep repeating the same ignorance all over. Your analogies of the Berlin Wall and Big Government show a poor attempt at understanding ideological differences. There are no mine fields along our border, there is no wall. Big Government describes a government or public sector that is considered to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector, and has also been used to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions - an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation. Our BP is not Big Government now matter how badly you wish to try to rub conservatives noses in your pile of dung. Teapublicans? You do realize that the Tea Party has numerous parties involved in it, right? Its not a Republican organization. Most conservatives are reluctant to accept these law breakers for numerous reasons. They already cost US GDP, to include higher taxes at the local levels to cover them. No state can actually show a benefit overall from them being here, if they are legalized they are low income earners and will take even more in negative tax rates when they file taxes, deplete further any welfare benefits that some people do have to rely upon, etc. You can't even give one example of illegals being beneficial overall. Children brought here by their parents means absolutely nothing. They can still be deported just like their parents (Brennan: Plyler vs Doe). People move all the time, the issue here is deportation (moved by force), that some feel is inhumane. When did we prove we couldn't force them out? Who proved the latter is a loser? You haven't proven, let alone shown, anything at all, other than your ramblings of your inept opinion.
The issue isn't their fertility, the issue is their being given something they have no explicit right to, simply because they think they won't be deported for being the parents of assumed US Citizens. More name calling! In most instances "birth tourism" is catered by persons of the same ethnicity, recent immigrants themselves, looking to make a quick buck. Whether it's a raging epidemic or merely an epidemic, it is happening and will continue to increase in momentum if not stopped. So you admit that birth right is nothing more than public policy and can simply be changed by changing/implementing federal policy/law.
The ones that can come here, but don't? What? Many folks could come here, but choose not to. Many folks may have criminal backgrounds, etc. that they know would prevent them from legally coming here, so they swim the Rio Grande and/or jump a fence.
Now, you are just ranting. The bottom line is: We are a land of laws just like most countries. We have a border that we have a duty to protect. We have the right to determine who gets in, and who doesn't. We have a right to deport those that do not belong here. If automatic citizenship was not granted to illegal babies born here, you would see a decline in this "anchor baby" crap.
How are we better off by rewarding lawbreakers? "Enforcement enthusiasts"? We are a land of laws. Now, you are losing the argument by equating a secure border to the Berlin Wall. They were trying to keep folks in.We have been slacking on the enforcement part of the "comprehensive approach". We accept newcomers that respect this country, and follow our laws just like millions of immigrants in years past. Let me leave you with this thought: The Obama Administration has already proved that they have no interest in sending them home. What we need is a new Administration.
If you haven't realized it, the immigration legislation percolating in the Senate has been pitched as an all-things-to-all-factions compromise. Illegal immigrants will be regularized, but most of "them" will have to wait at least a decade to gain citizenship. There will be more visas and new guest-worker programs, but also stiffer enforcement on the border and in workplaces. But the bill's real priority is to accelerate existing immigration trends. The enforcement mechanisms phase in gradually, with ambiguous prospects for success, while the legislation's impact on migration would be immediate --- more paths to residency for foreigners, instant legal status for the 11 million here illegally, and the implicit promise to future border-crossers that some kind of amnesty always comes to those who come and wait.
That's just it, most do realize what the Democrats in the Senate have pushed. The House won't bring it up, and for good reason. You actually gave the reason: the implicit promise to future border-crossers that some kind of amnesty always comes to those who come and wait.
It is worth the wait. I know several people that did it, and are proud of it. - - - Updated - - - This Administration is condoning more illegal immigration. If I were an illegal, I would have little fear of being punished for being a law-breaker, but would be looking forward to a reward for my illegal activity...benefits and possible amnesty.
Also depends on how patient one is and how long the wait time. I know one fellow who was waiting so long, but was offered a similar job with a rival company and country. I take it you never heard of Chertoff. He is the guy that made famous, closed legal, open illegal when it came ot immigration.
For you, it's more likely a history lesson you need. The person I am referring to is a guy named Michael Chertoff and whose policies were coined, "closed legal, open illegal."
