[QUOTE=Forbes]
Obama’s DHS has so far deported more people than during the first six and a half years of George W. Bush’s administration. Just shy of 1.5 million unauthorized immigrants have been forcefully deported from the United States under Napolitano’s leadership. These annual deportation figures are higher that at any other time in U.S. history, pushing the backlog for deportation cases to a record 314,147 this June. The government is apprehending unauthorized immigration so quickly that it cannot effectively process them all.
[/QUOTE]
Obama is no friend to DREAMers. I know DREAMers and they bitch about Obama on Facebook every single day. What he says he supports and what his actions demonstrate are actually two very different things.
Proud? After Banana Republics, US sponsored death squads, the war on drugs, thousands of firearms headed south everyday, greedy bankers tanking the economy of the entire world… Not proud.
And now we will take the children most effected by these policies and unceremoniously dump them on some Salvadorian runway.
We are a fairly shitty neighbor to have. Better than the Mongolians or the Romans were though…
Because life has become tenuous in Central America. Drug cartels target children in revenge murders and recruit them as couriers and killers. Families with relatives in America send their children north with coyotes to try to get them across the border, knowing that they won’t immediately be deported. Others send their kids and just hope that they won’t be sent back or be caught.
There was a news story the other day about the “death zone” in, I believe, Arizona. It’s a vast area of no water and incredible heat. A local man in the story described finding many, many bodies on his land; people who had died of exposure and thirst. I can’t remember how many bodies have been found there this year alone, but it’s estimated that the actual count is much, much higher.
It’s a real dilemma for politicians: if you let them stay, they become a burden on local resources and assistance programs, schools, etc. If you throw them back in the pool, they’re likely to drown, and nobody wants dead children on their conscience.
I disagree. If you let them stay and integrate themselves into the existing productive social fabric, they are less of a burden on society as a whole, than the burden of creating an entire infrastructure of prevention, detection, capture, due-process, and deportation, along with the presence of a marginalized underground comprised of those undetected, along with the erosion of civil rights among a general public presumed guilty of unlawful status.
If Burden is your concern, immigrants whose status is legal constitute absolutely no burden at all on America, because they help “form a more perfect union” that the Preamble lists as a fundamental American goal… The simple solution is to just give them all legal status, and any burden immediately evaporates, the same as any other legal immigrant.
What if pro-abortionists told you that your unborn child is “a burden on local resources and assistance programs, schools, etc.”. Would you consider that a compelling argument?
In other words, you have no disagreement with any of the content of my post, you have just decided to interpret my remarks as calling you a baby hater. Do I understand correctly? What exactly did I say that led you to believe I called you a baby hater?
Did you, or did you not reference the argumentative position (to which I responded) that additional children constitute a burden on the social infrastructure, as one of the two summation points within what you called a dilemma?
Of course adding 60,000 poor, uneducated young latinos to the citizenry puts a burden on social infrastructure. Is that really contestable…?
Are they expected to suddenly turn into doctors and lawyers who can immediately pay back the tremendous expense we incur by adding them to the books?
If you want to argue that the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term costs then that’s fine. I disagree; by your logic we should have no border and allow anyone in to form a “more perfect union.”
Yes, that would not be a bad idea. That’s what we had when my grandparents came. When the job market got too saturated to economically sustain more influx, they would stop coming, and a lot would go back.
Florida was not harmed by Cuban immigration – “poor uneducated” Cuban emigres are now flourishing. Same with Asians on the west coast. Look at Vancouver, which is doing better than any American west coast city, with a mostly Asian population, as Canada is easier to get into than the US.
Yes, anyone who can physically get into the USA would be issued a provisional residence status, subject to becoming employable, reporting status every few months, and staying out of trouble. There is room in my country for anyone who wants to be a good American. As for forming a more perfect union, we ain’t done yet (contrary to popular belief).
I said the dilemma was that of politicians. You chose to interpret it as my position. You then went on to talk about unborn children and abortion, which had nothing to do with my comments.
I agree that people can and usually do assimilate and become productive citizens. To imply that a ten year old child is going to immediately be a successful and productive member of society is disingenuous at the least. It doesn’t happen overnight. Children who cross the border without parents to care for them immediately become wards of the state for however long it takes to either find a relative to take them in, or to process them for deportation. The dilemma for politicians is that if they insist on sending them back across the border, they’re seen as heartless bastards. If they insist on allowing them to stay for humanitarian reasons, somebody has to pay for their food, lodging, schooling, etc. That falls on the taxpayer, who politicians are loathe to piss off.
Did you get the part about this being the politicians’ dilemma, or do I need to put it in larger font for you?
No I didn’t. I accepted your statement that it was a legitimate position and therefore, feeding a dliemma. As one so often does, I mentioned an analogous issue, to illustrate that the broad position is untenable since it would have to include both. .
The current influx of illegals is so that the far left can assert their agenda-- force America into decline so that our wealth can be redistributed globally. Read up on the Cloward-Piven strategy. This is a created crisis & will only be stopped by the American people. Hundreds of cities have started protesting & turning back those buses.
There is no influx of illegals. There is now a big wall up at the border. Those people on the busses are not being released, but going to an internment center (prison camp) What do you think should be done with the people on the bus? Should they just drive back and forth between groups of protesters forever?
I’m not anti-immigration. I understand its value, and its important to keep in mind that the US allows more legal immigrants than all other nations combined.
Ostensibly, we are already quite generous. I do not care for those who cut in line, even if they are fleeing some hellhole in Central America. We simply can’t just let anybody and everybody in. To do so crowds out the highly-skilled immigrants that our businesses depend on in the technological sector.
I think almost everyone believes that. There are very few people that are anti-immigration in the U.S. even among the most insular and backwards types. What most people object to, me included, is having defacto open borders for certain groups of people that are brazen enough just to waltz right in like they own the place and jeopardize the immigration prospects of people that are following the correct process.
The ‘brown people’ argument is a red herring used as a weapon by people that either don’t believe in national borders to begin with or are so bleeding heart that they are incapable of making hard choices when confronted with any dilemma that has any emotional element to it. I like Central American kids as much as anyone and I truly feel bad for them but they can’t just hide in the back of a truck and swim a river and expect to be embraced in some special way just because their country is terrible. Lots of countries are terrible but we can’t save them all.
The U.S. already has a generous immigration policy and always has, much more so than the vast majority of Europe and Australia and light-years beyond xenophobic countries like Japan. It is completely false that it is easier to emigrate to Canada than the U.S. as well. They are more strict in almost all ways. Even professional Americans can have a hard time emigrating legally to Canada because of their scoring system but that is their right just like it is the U.S.'s right, and the right of every country, to control its own borders. That is a big part of the definition of a country.
The U.S. does need immigration reform but the current policy of just throwing the barn doors open to some cute kids and other groups who are bold enough to endanger themselves to get here (but only selectively and ambiguously) is no way to run any type of fair and effective immigration system.