If I make my way past your home security system, would you let me live in your house? Should I take it personally if you refused?
Why are our immigration laws stupid because they don’t protect the wages of illegal immigrants? I’m really curious as to why the government should protect the wages of someone who shouldn’t be here.
I would hope so. What’s stopping them, though?
Would you be just as pissed off if you hear an immigrant from Mexico saying the same thing?
There are immigrants who are here legally, who were just as bad off - if not worse off - than immigrants who are here illegally.
That’s exactly what I’m saying.
LilShieste
P.S. - I’ve got to drop out of this conversation for now… lunch break is over.
LilShieste, you make it sound like, for an average non-famous foreigner with no ties to the US or anyone here, that coming in legally vs. illegally is as easy as ‘stop at border, fill out a quick form, you’re legal’- yeah, who wouldn’t, if that were the case?. But the difference in sneaking up the El Paso and legal entry is maybe seven years, if you’re lucky, and if you don’t have connections or ties, it may not happen, ever. Look at your hungry, shoeless kids and explain to them that they can’t have a better life because of some stupid law.
And if you really say you would abide by the law in their shoes, maybe you would, but wouldn’t it be awfully tempting? If you’re starving and you see a pie on a windowsill, for most people, at some point your hunger is going to supersede your ethics. Does that make them bad people or criminals?
Do you even know the entry process for poor illegals with no ties or sports skills?
The danger in pricing unskilled labor out of the domestic market while allowing the country to flood with more unskilled laborers is so freaking obvious… There’s only so much need for gardeners and field laborers - after all of these illegal immigrants gain amnesty and no longer have any incentive for keeping hush about being paid below minimum wage, therefore making employers being less willing to chance illegal underpayment, what do you think will happen (nothing, because you’re not thinking, apparently)?
I have no reason whatsoever to trust the US or Canadian authorities to reliably tell the difference between those two cases.
It is an undeniable fact that people are denied refugee status and deported back into situations in which their life is in immediate danger. The frequency of this can be debated, but not the fact that it does happen. Neither I, nor you, nor your system of political asylum, can effectively determine whose life will be in danger if they are deported.
As long as this remains a fact, I for one fervently hope that sanctuary is available for such people.
Have you ever been poor? I don’t mean US poor, I mean third world poor.
Have you ever gone to Mexico City and seen a shoeless five year old girl in a dirty dress, who should be in school, selling chiclets for a nickle to help her family earn money? Well, if that girl broke into your security system, what would be your reaction? Call the cops, put this little bitch in jail!
Granted the US can’t be expected to save every poor person in the world.
But the idea that immigrants are going to come in and ruin the country is laughable, same as it was in the early 1900’s. And last time I checked, the country isn’t “full”. And if those you allow in are working and contributing, isn’t that a good thing? Wouldn’t the country prosper? And even if not, I’d rather see a country go in debt helping others, than war spending, any day.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying open the borders and have a million people lined up at Nogales by weeks end. My policy would be to let those here stay, keep up the appearances of returning illegals found sneaking in, but in reality, allowing it. Its the policy that’s pretty much been in place for years, and its not causing problems.
If not, please see this thread.
Do tell.
And surely your not implying the only thing an illegal has the capacity to do is landscape and wash dishes? Who does the skilled labor in Mexico City?
Because if the illegal immigrant reports that they’re being exploited, they get thrown out of the country. If the penalty for illegal immigration was less severe, they would not be recalcitrant about reporting these abuses.
The law. You know, the one we’ve spent the last two pages debating?
Honestly, do you think people are dragging their families for miles through dangerous desert, living on the fringes of society, under constant fear of arrest and deportment, because they simply can’t be bothered to get a green card? People come here illegally because they have no other way into the country. If they had other options, they would leap at them.
I think you’ve entirely missed the point of the argument.
There’s compassion for you. If you’re going to argue that people should starve rather than break our immigration laws, why on Earth should they respect those laws? Why should they respect those that support these laws? I sure as hell wouldn’t.
On second thought, make that “don’t.”
You’d do differently (ignoring the slur)?
Not when the industrial revolution is going in the exact opposite direction that it was in the early 1900’s.
Yes, and I’d like it to be those we allow, not those who allow themselves.
Oh my God, I wouldn’t! We’re not a charity, we’re a nation with our own problems.
If I came home and a very poor young illegal girl was in my kitchen eating Frosted Flakes like she hadn’t eaten in a week, my first reaction would be that it would break my fucking heart, and I would probably start bawling like an infant. Police would not enter my mind at any point. But hey, I have empathy for those who are less fortunate than me. And if it was an inconvience and a bit of a cost to me to go out and buy more cereal, hey, I’ll manage. And, anyway, I’m sure you see the difference between breaking into a person’s house and an illegal alien who comes here and acquires his own personal lodgings.
Well said, and I have to say sure checks are needed, but it always amazes me that people like **buttonjockey308 ** ignore on purpose that laws were changed before to deal with this issue, even I agree that better control is needed at the border, but OTOH not giving any chance to the ones already here because of the former lack of control remains an inhuman position. Many former illegals that got the chance of legalizing their status then are now good American citizens.
- Ed.
Salvadoran-American.
Former illegal too, became a legal resident thanks to NACARA and amnesty laws and then a citizen in the 90’s. So I guess I will be always like a murderer to the OP.
Appeal to emotion aside, what percentage of people who come here illegally do you think are actually starving? I’ll wager it’s smaller than you think.
This is an issue I have a lot of conflicted feelings on, personally. I’m not a heartless monster and I’m not a xenophobe. If my own wife hadn’t broken the law years ago by overstaying her tourist visa we’d never have gone out, married, and had eleven amazing years together. I’ve met a lot of other immigrants through her, a large percentage of whom are here illegally, and by and large they are really nice people who work hard and don’t cause trouble. The INS (or whatever the current acronym) has since repeatedly denied visas for her sister and niece who would like to come visit us, which is very frustrating.
I don’t know many Mexicans, but the Brazilians I’ve met who come here are not starving. The economy is not great there and the standard of living is much simpler overall, but they have homes and careers and families, and many of them are professionals (doctors and lawyers who come here to clean toilets and deliver pizzas). They come here because of an impression (somewhat true, somewhat exaggerated) that the U.S. is a cash cow to be milked, and an expedient to getting the material wants they can’t afford back home. They make as much money as possible, send a lot of it home, and either stay as long as possible or return, hoping they’ll be able to get back in again in the future and do it again.
Some of those who are unable to obtain a visa attempt to enter via the Mexican border, which is extremely dangerous. (And I really believe that the rise in undocumented immigration is only making it harder for those who want to gain entry legally— unable to do much about the border crossers, the U.S. simply tightens the valve and refuses nonimmigrant visas to legal applicants.) I hope it is not too hypocritical of me to say that while running across the border and overstaying a visa are both breaking the law, in the latter case at least there is valid documentation about who’s entering, fingerprints, etc. While the “terrorism” specter may be overstated by those with a particular agenda, the fact is that it’s a huge security risk to have people entering the country with no documentation or identifying information whatsoever.
I get frustrated by the insinuation by many pro-immigrant liberals that if you support anything short of full amnesty for illegals and a porous border, or if you make any discussion of the potential negative social and economic consequences of mass, unchecked immigration on this country, you are a bigot. I consider it the ideological counterpart to the conservative “if you object to our policies, you’re supporting the terrorists.” It’s just not that simple.
Oh, I’m not claiming that all illegal immigrants, or even most, are starving. There are, after all, scads of illegal Canadian immigrants that no one ever complains about, and it’s not exactly like they came here fleeing the gulags of Sasketchawan. But there are a lot of people who come here illegally because back home, they can barely manage a subsitence-level existence, and those were precisely the immigrants LilShieste said should just sit at home and starve until we decide to get off our asses and reform our immigration system. I do differentiate between those who come here because the alternative is total destitution, and those who come here because the alternative is having to drive a used SUV. Unfortunetly, our immigration system does not distinguish between these two types of immigrants, and I find unconscionable to throw out those in the first group, just to get at those in the second group.
Listen, pal, I know about the IRCA, how it helped and how it hurt. My position is, was and likely always will be in this debate that the church is an accessory to a crime, and just like any accessory to any crime, should be held accountable. If you ARE illegally in this country, you KNOW and must ACCEPT the risk that you and your family will be detained and deported. That said, let me draw MY distinct line about crime and criminals, lest you be any further deluded;
There are essentially 4 kinds of crime: (this is WAY shorthand, but I’m tired)
Part I Violent crimes (murder, robbery, forceable rape)
Part I Property Crimes (burglary, larceny auto theft)
Part II crimes (under which violations of immigration law usually fall)
Part III (summary, civil, local ordinances, aggravators etc)
There is a correlation between each of these parts, as they are all violations of the law to whatever extent, and those that would commit said violations are considered to be criminals, subject to criminal prosecution (or in part III civil action as well).
To remedy the violation of any one of the parts there is a “punishment” or, more recently, a “corrective plan” (I consider it more of an incentive really, but that’s neither here nor there) that allows the violator the ability to pay, with time or money, his or her debt to society, who created and hence enforce the laws.
That “corrective plan” is in equal severity (in most cases) to the severity of the violation (pot possession not withstanding).
If you murder someone just because it was tuesday, you, in my opinion, forfeit your right to continue to live. The law sees it this way too, at least in some places.
If you speed, you’re given a ticket which imposes a fine and is directed at “punishing” (or again with the incentives) you for breaking the law you KNEW about before you did it.
See, a direct link between crime and punishment. It is what I, (perhaps poorly explained, or perhaps you didn’t bother to read the entire thread, either way) believe is proper, it is how the law (basically) works, and despite what you or I think of the way the law IS, it is that way regardless, and will be that way until someone else comes up with something better.
I do NOT think illegals are the same TYPE of criminals as murderers and arsonists, but they are, as you were, a criminal, and the law, as it is written should apply to every man, woman and child that sets their foot on the soil here.
As for giving those a chance who are already here? Cool, I’m for it, but it means sacrifice, not just “filling out an application”. The rules are tough, and the wait and expense can be grueling, but once you’re here, the direction is yours which way to go.
This, as you can likely attest, is one of, if not THE greatest country on earth, if you want to be a citizen here, it requires you to sacrifice. My father and his father sacrificed a part of themselves that I would not have to (though I have regardless). I am lucky to be born and bred an American, I understand that, in fact, I embrace it, most in the world are not as lucky as I am.
I want others to be lucky, I want the choice of prosperity to be made available to as many people as we can afford with our resources to sustain, but each and every one of them needs to do it correctly, within the boundaries of our regulations. Or they risk enforcement action. Period.
Buster, or amigo would fit.
Do it and you will see how we vote in the future.
I knew the risks, and the deluded is you.
And you did not bother to see that I mostly agree with enforcement, now tell why I should not asume that you are not a dunderhead?
The law was changed to give this “criminal” a chance, that is a fact, deal with it, because future laws will help the ones that are already here and it is also a fact that I was the one that got amnesty, today even the most moderate plans right now will require illegals to pay a fine for the crime. That is fair IMO.
Ronald Reagan and Bush senior did the choice for me by ignoring the death squads of El Salvador.
I knew that already, and I do want it to be even better, by the way that sacrifice involved (while I was an illegal) do electronic testing of components (liquid nitrogen, radiation and corrosive tests, fun!) that eventually did go into Tomahawk missiles that kicked Saddam’s butt, saving the lifes of many American soldiers and pilots by them not needing to risk being in harm’s way.
Or make some new human laws similar to what was done before, Period.
There, as usual, I’m a dunderhead in English grammar. 
But my excuse is that English is my second language, what is yours on purposely missing my position in this matter?
Surely those against illegals would agree that some exception should be for citizens of countries like Iraq, where America is directly causing many to be homeless, parentless, etc?
I’m not talking about law, I’m talking about ethics. Rights are a matter of ethics. The purpose of law is supposed to be to secure rights.
Suppose there were a law that said people couldn’t eat ice-cream. Then we could have a debate about “illegal ice-cream eaters”. The term “illegal” is ridiculous, thrown in for no reason other than the fact that there is a frivolous law. They’re just plain old ice-cream-eaters, and the law is unethical.
With immigrants, same same. There should be no such thing as a “national border”. It doesn’t belong to anyone but government. What should happen is that the land owners who live adjacent to Mexico should be allowed to decide for themselves who can and who cannot come across their property. And the US government should do everything in its power to assure that their wishes are carried out. That’s what rights are all about: the authority to determine what you will do with what you own, meaning everything from your land to your trinkets to your body and mind. Laws should secure rights, and nothing more.
That’s my opinion, anyway.
YOU are missing the point.
The point is whether or not the government has the power to punish.
Stipulated: it does.
The point is not whether the government is free to determine the proportionality of the punishment to the crime.
Stipulated: it does.
Our disagreement is to the proprtionality of the response to the offense.
The question is: In the face of a disproportionate (albeit legal) punishment to a crime NOT committed out of any intent to do harm, is it ethical to attempt to thwart the application of said punishment by extralegal means chosen specifically for their utility in thwarting that application and drawing national attention to the fact that the punishment far outweighs the crime?
Resolved: YES it is.
One of the reasons why I wave the flag so proudly is because here our law is (or is at least intended to be) based on the preservation of liberty. If the law disproportionately damages one family or one man in the name of reducing the danger created by nine other men, then the law is flawed and must be corrected.
I submit to you that we are in such a correction period now.
I further submit that not all correction happens via due process of law, nor has it traditionally, nor should it.
I further submit to you that your ascribing knowledge of the law to illegal immigrants is disingenuous and creates false ground on which to stand.
To wit, administrative law in our nation has provisions whereby standard hearings can be suspended if the petitioner in question believes (and can prove) that the interests of fairness would not be served by initial administration hearings. How many illegal immigrants (not even as a whole, but who might qualify for it) do you think are aware of this?