Question for liberals

If you're a liberal/left-winger, and assuming you're capable of differentiating between legal and illegal immigration, then please answer my question:

Would you be able to look into the eyes of a person who has spent years earning US citizenship and say that illegal immigrants deserve citizenship, too?

And bonus questions:

Why do liberals make it into a race issue? Why is everything a race issue for these upper middle class yuppies who, except for perfunctory inclusion of token minorities into their social cliques, spend their entire lives around other yuppies?

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems the liberals' self-righteousness thrives in isolation from the ailments it seeks to remedy.

 

Well, yeah. I mean most amnesty programs make it about as hard to obtain citizenship as doing it normally. Besides, what real business of anyone's is it how hard it is for someone else to do something? By your logic no one should have ever been able to use a calculator to solve problems when all the rest of us had to use pencils and slide rules (god I'm old)

How about a link proving that all liberals have always lived in ivory towers? Credible proof or it's not so.

 

Public policy is always in flux, with new ideas, new concerns, new histories coloring what is, with what ought to be, and what can be, with what can no longer be and vice versa.. You need to see existing law in all fields, not as a period, but as a comma. If you don't, your constant frustration and resentment will drive everyone else crazy.

 

I'm liberal but I don't understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration.

immigration should be viewed in how it affects the lives of existing citizens, not about whether it's fair.

Other than the cost of total net immigration, I couldn't care less. In my country we have a very right wing approach to immigration and we mostly only let in paying immigrants. Illegal immigrants are quietly deported. This doesn't reduce the hardship to the Australian people because our hospitals, schools and housing can't keep up. We have the highest real estate prices in the world and they are rocketing up again. All of our personal earnings get funneled into banks. Overseas buyers own houses here which they let out or just leave empty, while homeless numbers rocket.

So yeah, that's "legal" right wing immigration for ya.

I'd rather we just let in an equal number of poor immigrants. It wouldn't improve this intensely oppressive situation but at least we'd be able to flash the compassionate card, if it even has worth anymore.

 

Yes. I'd have no problem telling them that at all. I'd say I wasn't the one who made it difficult for you to get citizenship. Your problem is with the conservative bigots who did, maybe you should join me in trying to have them voted out of office. Congratulations and welcome to America

 

I don't know, did anyone ask the legal immigrants after those flaming libruls Reagan and Bush signed amnesty orders?

 

No.

I see it as an illegal immigration issue that has nothing to do with race.

The way one judges another group says more about the one doing the judging than those being judged.

You are mistaken as the above is nothing but a steriotype. Again how one judges another says more about the judge than the judged.

I am a liberal and against illegal immigration.

 

they should have to pay a fine, work for 5 years without any entitlements, then pay back taxes, and then get in the back of the line for citizenship.

 

I am neither liberal nor conservative on the issue; however, I have an insight that nobody else will have. I spent six years working in immigration law.

First, we try to categorize immigration violations as "illegal." While technically correct, the term illegal tries to convey a sentiment that is inconsistent with immigration law. Entering and being present in the United States is not a crime. Being here without papers is civil law. It is only punishable by a small civil fine (maximum $250) and deportation. There are crimes that can be committed in association with an improper entry and if a foreigner does it repeatedly, the offense rises to the level of a felony (much like multiple DUIs become felonies.)

The thing is, we are expecting everyone to follow a set of outdated rules that are not in our best interests. Bear in mind, the word immigration means that the person coming here has the intent to become a citizen. Millions of people come here to find a job and make some money. They have no intention on becoming a citizen and we don't need them as citizens. But both the left and the right; conservative and liberal seem to think that the only way to legitimately be in the U.S. is via a route that takes us to citizenship. Both are wrong.

It is impossible to outlaw liberty in a de jure Republic as envisioned by the founding fathers. Before the Fourteenth Amendment people came from all over the world to partake of the opportunities and not all of them qualified to be citizens. We have a right and a moral obligation to regulate the flow of people in and out of the United States, but we cannot force all of them to become citizens. So, you cannot say that a person who comes here to work should be treated the same as the guy who applied to become a citizen.

We've got to get rid of these nutty ideas that welfare and a public education is a right. Once we nail down, exactly, the privileges of citizenship, that will begin to dissuade people from entering here for the freebies and not jeopardize the liberty that every person is born with.

 

It is not about illegal immigration but why immigration is illegal. Why do we make it illegal for others to immigrate to this country when our own ancestors had to immigrate (unless you are a Native American)?

As for the race issue, it is because the ones who always talk about illegal immigration are always talking about Mexicans. That and the first laws that restricted immigration were targeted at people from specific countries (namely, the Chinese).

 

And how is this a problem? Most countries want to protect the mainstream culture.

 

Liberal is not the same as left-wing. Liberal means being open to different opinions and new ways of thinking as distinct from being of closed mind and old-fashioned or conservative. Left-wing means being socialist, believing that critical industries should be state-owned. Neither of these philosophies have any bearing on immigration as such.

 

As an Immigrant myself the answer to your question is, Yes I can look myself in the mirror and state that that those that have lived here for most of their lives the opportunity to apply for citizenship without worry of being arrested and deported.

Almost every time I see race brought up in threads it is by a Conservative, just as you just did. That said I do not bring race into any discussion unless on rare occasions it is actually pertinent to the topic.

 

Because it is hypocritical. "My ancestors can come here and take over the dominate culture but you can't".

 

That's the way it works, especially if said culture comes out of the stone age and/or is decidedly inferior. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it. Survival does.

 

I can do this at a family event. You see I have in-laws in which some of the family went thru the full process and others whom simply over stayed their Visa's and were granted amnesty in the 80's by Reagan.

I can assure you I have no problem and nor do the other family members with saying they deserved to be here as just as much.

 

Inferior by whose standards? One can say any culture is inferior if one has superior firepower, but might doesn't make right.

 

yes, would the right be able to look into a 18 year olds eyes that has lived here sense they were 2 years old and knows no other place to call home, and tell them they need to be deported

common sense has to be used... not just throwing the baby out with the bath water approach.....

.

 

WTH?! You're population of homeless are increasing and you want to let more poor in from other countries?

Wow. I don't even know what level of stupid to classify that in.

 

Let's be accurate here:

The people the "Secure the border" advocates have a problem with are the Hispanics from south of the border who come to the United States to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. Since those people are not interested in becoming citizens (for the most part) they are NOT immigrants. Immigration, by its definition, means that the person comes here with the intent on becoming a permanent resident.

The Secure the border guys cannot understand that Liberty is an unalienable Right; it is a Right that is even guaranteed to the foreigner - regardless of how they came into the United States. With respect to these foreigners, the Secure the border lobby continues to call them "illegal" (without regard to the notion of a presumption of innocence) as if they were guilty of a crime.

Improper entry as the statute is titled is not a crime. Entering without papers is a civil misdemeanor with a maximum $250 fine. IF the offender commits other acts, those ARE crimes and are punishable separately. These related offenses could be things like lying to authorities, producing false papers, evading the LEOs, and repeated unauthorized entries into the U.S. But, bear in mind, the offender has to be caught in the act. Being present in the U.S. without papers is not a crime. Improper entry cases are not heard in a criminal court nor are they under criminal jurisdiction. Improper entry is under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General's office and that person is in the Executive branch of government.

As the United States Supreme Court duly noted:

"...it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."

ARIZONA Et Al v.UNITED STATES http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

Through the Kennedy Immigration Laws (liberal Democrat laws the Secure the border types want enforced) make the false presumption that government grants Rights and it's okay to criminalize Liberty.

 

Rule 11 thread closure

Shangrila
Moderator