Include them? I say start with them first! Pinching pennies to save your family business is one thing, but if you’re pinching pennies in a multi-billion dollar industry waves to Walmart, then you need a serious looking into as far as employment hiring ethics.
I guess I’m not going to get an answer to this.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
Sounds like a good plan to me.
Are you saying that you would allow every single human being that wanted in, in?
Why don’t you answer my question? At what point would you close the door? 2 billion? 6?
OK, treis, gotcha this time! You know who sent us that statue with those clearly un-American sentiments enscribed? The French, that’s who, the original cheese-eating surrender monkeys! It was our Anglo forefathers who carved a great nation out of the American Indian, as disgraceful a bunch of losers as ever infested a contintent (except for the Cherokee, of course. Cherokee are cool.)
And lets take Chris Rock’s advice, and give placenames that give proper respect to the real Americans: Ciudad de los Angeles, my ass! Its Angelburg! San Diego? Gus Johnson! Albuquerque? Something we can friggin’ spell! And we can short circuit all those lowlifes who try to take the Lord’s name in vain, from now on, its Josh Christ!
disclaimer: the previous is intended purely as sarcasm, and in no wise reflects the views of this poster, or anybody else with a lick of sense.
Are you against illegal immigration, or just immigration in general? Because that’s another debate entirely.
My personal answer would be “allow the number of people in that is in the economic best interests of the country”. What that actual number and educational/professional requirements would be is not something I’m going to go into here. I’m a computer scientist, not a political major.
Note that this is not an ethical judgement at all. Ethically, there is no reason why you have any more right to be born in a wealthy country than a starving third worlder. So I find you moral outrage absolutely horrific. Having said that, the country is responsible for it’s own citizens only. Not pleasant, but in today’s climate, entirely necessary. I see disallowing people to move around freely as a neccesary evil until such time as the entire world sorts itself out.
I don’t really understand what wasn’t clear about my post. Anyone who wants to come and breathe the free air of America is more than welcome to.
But illegal immigration skews the numbers and control mechanisms that are used to accomplish that.
I don’t see a reason to ever “close the door”. If there’s a demand for these people’s services then let them come in. Supply and demand and all that. Of course, spongers should be rooted out but you don’t seem willing to tolerate the presence of any illegal immigrants, including those who just want to work. May I ask what, precisely, is it about being born in a particular country which entitles you to a job over a foreigner willing to do the same work for less?
I was, of course, referring to legal immigration. I tend to agree that illegal immigration is a problem. Depending on what the economic benefit of masses of people streaming across are, it must either be halted or converted into masses of people legally streaming across (or, something somewhere in the middle).
Hell, you can add the past 4presidential elections with that as well. 
Yes, let them all in. If they can get here, and they can work, then we’ve got room for them. The door should never be closed. The very concept of an “illegal” immigrant is abhorrent. The right to pull up your stakes seek a better life for yourself and your family some where else ought to be a fundamental human right.
Uh, we used to have the bracero program for Mexican farmworkers, European countries have guest worker programs. Why not here and now?
Is forcing poor people to risk and often lose their life crossing the desert really a good way to control immigration?
Does controlling border crossing increase our national security?
Does me asking the above questions prove I’m a bigot?
Morality, decency, kindness, open-mindedness. Turning in a wetback (so sue me) in this situation who does nothing more than violate immigration law (1st offence isn’t even criminal) is just a chickenshit thing to do. This old boy pays sales taxes and contributes to property, gross receipts, and income taxes being paid. It’s not the end of the world that he gives his opinion in a political forum.
Right. And no illegal immigrant will ever again dare to speak up at one of these open meetings, for fear of being deported. I think it’s more important to get all views on this issue, especially from the people being most effected by it, than to take the chance to scoop up one lone illegal and shut down any future hope of a truly open exchange of ideas on a vitally important issue that, on a national scale, is intrinsically tied to both foreign and domestic policy.
And if American weren’t swamped with illegal immigrants, it might have a mind to increase the quotas on the legal ones.
Well, there’s nothing left to argue, then. If you actually believe that, I can’t see what you and I can discuss.
But Nocturne was discussing the difficulties for someone who is applying for entry as a spouse of a US citizen. As far as i’m aware, quotas do not apply to such applicants anyway.
Plus there’s the whole point of controlling what criminals or terrorists get into the country.
“We’ve got enough already, thanks. We don’t need yours.”
Except that, to my knowledge, every terrorist act commited on US soil was commited by someone who was in the country legally. As for criminals, lets start by shutting down the inumerable networks set up to funnel illegal immigrants into our country… by removing the necessity for them in the first place. It’s a lot harder for a criminal to sneak in when you don’t have hordes of otherwise law-abiding citizens coming over the border to act as cover, and an entire industry based around facilitating such illicit entries.