Actually NAFTA was supposed to address the inequity wage problem. It also was to take care of environmental inequalities. When the businessmen in charge made the final contracts it neglected those problems. If wages and conditions improved in Mexico they would not leave to come here. Sadly NAFTA became a way to export American Jobs with 3rd world working conditions. The jobs that have to stay here Crop picking and construction for example are simply suppressed in terms of working conditions and wages. When they claim they are doing jobs Americans wont they are lying. They are doing jobs we wont for practically no money and terrible working conditions. Start paying a livable wage for crop picking and you will have a lot of people willing to do the work.
I envision two massive walls, each spanning 100 feet into the air and 50 feet under the ground, decked out in machine gun nests, scout towers, and topped with razor wire. Vibration detectors would be buried at appropriately spaced intervals to detect tunneling. Between the walls would be a network of heavily patrolled, caged roads – everywhere else, land mines. Also, in front of the first wall would be a moat filled with saltwater crocodiles and a perpetually on fire oil slick. Also, a viper pit, somewhere.
Repeat for 2000 miles.
Actually, I’d go with an open border policy for all of Central and South America as reparations for the Monroe Doctrine.
I think there is a certain amount of bigotry behind those who oppose amnesty, but I don’t think all who oppose amnesty are bigots. I certainly hope not – I oppose what some call amnesty and I don’t think I’m a bigot. I am, however, a legal immigrant and a naturalized citizen.
I do think illegal immigrants should be deported. I also think we need to do some rather large adjustments to the quotas we have for immigrants so that we don’t have the large differential between demand for workers and visas available. We might wind up with about the same number of immigrants, but the proportion of legal to illegal should go down.
I don’t like the idea of automatically granting illegal immigrants citizenship for rather selfish reasons. My family and I have had to go through a fair number of hoops to live in the US and become US citizens. We’ve lived by the laws and played by the rules, and I think all of us are proud to be American. While I am sympathetic to hardship cases and I realize the inequities of the current system, just saying to someone who came here illegally and didn’t play by the rules, “OK, it’s all right. You’re now a citizen, same as her,” doesn’t strike me as quite fair. That, by the way, is why I suspect other naturalized citizens oppose amnesty.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t call what was in the last immigration bill an easy path to citizenship. In fact, it struck me as a bit harsh. Raising $5,000 and spending a year back in your home country after residing in the US for, what was it, 13 years isn’t exactly an easy path. I might be able to do it if I had to, but the disruptions to my current life would be considerable. It might mean that only those who really want to become citizens do so, but I suspect many might choose to remain here illegally because they were unwilling or unable to fulfill the requirements.
I oppose amnesty and would support a vastly more secure border, with modern electronic verification of citizenship for employment. I would also support a much larger yearly legal quota of controlled and regulated immigration into the country. My reasons are thus, we have been for the past few decades enabling an entire country to our south and it’s getting worse every year. As long as Mexico can depend on us as a safety valve and has the flow of dollars coming in from it’s expatriated countryment, there is no reason for it’s government to confront and solve some of the instutional problems it has. Those citizens that might be motivated to work for change will instead simply pack up and leave for the US in many cases, we get the benefit to Mexico’s detriment. As much as having a hard working and vibrant workforce in our country is positive, having a prosperous and wealthy neighbor to our south would be much better. I also feel that when our country’s entire immigration policy is so dominated by Mexico, it is unfair to the rest of the world and detracts from diversity. There are people all over the world that would love a chance to live and work here but can’t because it’s not as easy as walking over a land border for them. What of the people in Asia, Africa and eastern Europe who want a shot at a life here? We cannot allow unchecked open immigration for all, the environmental and social impacts would be too much to sustain, but we could be much more fair and reasonable about whom we extend our welcome to.
Indeed, Siege. The big practical issue here is spending the year back in the home country. That’s why I favor the $5,000 fee, but no spending the year back… on a limited basis. Just something to ‘balance the books’ on this huge issue we have, for… allowing for government screwups, say, five years. After that, $5,000 and the year back.
You’re right, that isn’t fair. You had to jump through all those hoops to get here: filling out paperwork, paying appropriate fees, waiting around in your home in England until the forms were processed. And here are all these illegal immigrants, getting a free ride by coming here across a desert on foot, swimming across rivers, giving their meager life savings to untrustworty coyotes who may just steal their money and abandon them in the middle of nowhere. And, of course, once they get here, there’s the constant fear that they’ll be caught and deported, and have to do the whole thing all over again. What a pack of chislers, eh? You’re really getting the short end of the stick, there. The unfairness of it all is really staggering.
“I had to suffer, so you should, too” strikes me as the worst reason for a policy I’ve heard in quite a while.
Think of what the world would really be like if everyone decided that no one who came later could have it better.
It’s not revelling in others’ suffering or wishing hard luck on others. It’s feeling a bit hard done to when, having obeyed the laws and behaved appropriately, it looks like others who broke those laws and didn’t follow the procedures are given an easier path to citizenship than we were. That’s not the path to citizenship in the current bill. This is trivializing things, I know, but think of it as being stuck in rush hour traffic and watching a guy drive down the shoulder so he can get ahead of you and get home a bit sooner.
Are you saying we should reward others for cheating?
No, I’m saying that things are pretty messed up right now, and we have to face the situation as it is. The least disruptive thing to do does reward people for cheating. It’s unfair, but we’re dealing with millions of people, here. It’s only unfair, not immoral, and so, I think we kind of have to let ‘unfair’ things happen in this case, for a limited time.
If the rules were unfair, we shouldn’t punish people for breaking them, especially just to make other people feel better.
I make no claim to being an immigration expert, but I would guess that it’s also much easier to come here legally from England than from Mexico. If that’s so, you’re adding insult to injury.
It is not suffering, it is fairness before the law. By granting amnesty, one group is treated differently by the law than another one was.
I have heard this from many naturalized citizens who acted in good faith as potential members of our nation. They feel that amnesty is a reward to those who broke the law, did not wait in line, did not pay the fees, did not go through the interviews, etcf.
Yes, sneaking the through the Arizona wastelands is much worse than grabbing British Airways Flight XXY from Heathrow to LA. However, not all illegals snuck in - many overstayed their tourist visas.
Legal immigrants ALSO have to constantly worry about deportation, rejection, etc. A friend could not go home to visit a sick parent because if they left their status when returning would be uncertain. They could not change jobs until the green card was finalized. They played by ALL of those rules, with many problems that they caused. They are understandably and legitimately upset that the rule breakers will not be penalized at all.
That all said, I do agree with an opportunity for amnesty being PART of a complete solution. However, putting spurious motives on teh part of the legal immigrants is flat out wrong.
However, she still had the language barrier.
Well, when my grandparents came here from East Galway, they had it easier than you. They simply showed up at Ellis Island & passed their physicals. No expensive immigration lawyers needed. They became legal residents immediately & citizens in a few years.
Unfair!
Precisely. The current system is unfair and it is easier for an engineer from England to get into the country than it is for an unskilled person from Mexico. That’s why I think we must do something about the gross inequities in the current system.
That said, let’s take two hypothetical people who want to immigrate to the US from Mexico. Both of them know the quota’s set too low to accomodate everyone who wants to come here. One decides to take his chances, eventually gets into the country legally, becomes a permanent resident, and, after jumping through the requisite hoops, becomes a naturalized US citizen some years later. The other decides to forego the legal hassles and obstacles and comes to the US illegally. Yes, he does face greater obstacles than the first man, but those are obstacles he’s chosen to face in pursuit of his goals. Eventually, the US decides to grant him citizenship. Now, I’m not saying there should be no way for illegal immigrants to become citizens. I’m just saying that to the man who came here legally and waited years to become a citizen would be entitled to be unhappy if the man who came here illegally were granted an easier path to citizenship than he was and he would be entitled to feel penalized for following the rules.
Which makes it the height of hypocrisy for you now to claim that it would be unfair to you for amnesty to be offered to them.
Okay, maybe not the height of hypocrisy. But at least a stepladder of hypocrisy.
How on Earth is that the easy path to citizenship? Let’s compare, here: which is the greatest hardship: sitting at a table filling out lots and lots of forms, or fleeing across a desert on foot? Hmm. On the one hand, I really don’t like paperwork. But then, I’m not a huge fan of dying from exposure, either. What to choose, what to choose…
Nobody held a gun to their heads. I have no sympathy for them.
How wonderful for you.
Just to clarify things a little bit here, I don’t think people are risking their lives dealing with human traffickers and 500 miles of open desert because it’s EASY to enter America legally.
We’re the United Freakin’ States, people. We’re supposed to embrace people who are fleeing oppressive, criminal governments. Why have we made it so impossible to immigrate here? Because we’re afraid of some economic consequence?
Here’s some simple economic rationale for immigration. More legal workers = more money circulating through the economy, more demand for goods and services, more jobs, and more tax revenue.
The economy doesn’t suffer when a hundred Americans turn old enough to work. The economy doesn’t suffer when a hundred new immigrants get jobs, either.
I don’t feel like I’m living in the same America of my youth. Closed borders and tough immigration laws go against every “American” ideal I can imagine. What in the world happened here?
So it looks like the question comes down to this, which I’d like to toss out to everyone on this thread: which current immigration laws are unfair? What immigration laws should exist? What should the penalty for breaking those be?