Just what CAN/WILL Obama do on immigration?

[BrainGlutton]

FTR, I don’t like “illegal alien,” because people are not illegal, nor “undocumented immigrant,” because that implies the only problem is that they omitted a bit of paperwork. A better term would be “impermissive immigrant,” because they’re in the country without the required official permission.

[adaher]

So what would an unlicensed cab driver be? An “impermissive cab driver”?

Personally, I’m one of those libertarian types who thinks people should be able to move across borders freely if they are law abiding citizens. However, I"m also one of those libertarians who believes in rule of law, and our immigration system is lawless. Whatever we do decide to do as far as levels of immigration, who is and is not permitted to come here, we need to make that decision and then enforce it. Not just say we’ll enforce it and then 10 years from now start talking about how we need to fix our broken immigration system by legalizing 10 million illegals.

The current bill being supported by many Republicans and all Democrats and the President legalizes only those who came before 2011. That means everyone coming in now needs to be shipped out. That’s what current law says, it’s what future law says. Do it.

[slash2k]

@pkbites

There are legal channels to enter this country (as there ought to be. I’m not suggesting blocking legal immigration).

There are NOT, however, legal channels for most Mexican and Central American immigrants.

For laborers (unskilled/semi-skilled workers) from those countries, pretty much the only way to get in legally is to be related to or married to a U.S. citizen or somebody who already has a green card. If you are not family, there’s basically no line to stand in or paperwork to do that will get you in legally. As long as there is no legal route, but plenty of economic incentive (both bad times at home and employers stateside looking to hire), there will be “impermissive immigrants.”

[Chronos]

They are certainly here illegally. That does not make the people themselves “illegals”. Are you an illegal when you’re speeding in your car?

[DigitalC]

@pkbites

It most certainly is illegal to enter this country without proper authorization. You can sugar coat it all you want but they are here illegally.

At what point do even you say enough? 50 million? 100 million? 1 billion illegal immigrants? Legally or illegally not everyone can come here.

Do you call anyone who breaks any law “illegals”?

[Ludovic]

@BrainGlutton

FTR, I don’t like “illegal alien,” because people are not illegal, nor “undocumented immigrant,” because that implies the only problem is that they omitted a bit of paperwork. A better term would be “impermissive immigrant,” because they’re in the country without the required official permission.

I think I like your phrase better than the other two, but “illegal alien” has the advantage of everyone knowing what it means. “An illegal”, of course, is right out.

[DingoelGringo]

@slash2k

Mexico periodically has programs to “regularize” illegals living in that country. Once a Guatemalan, etc., is regularized in Mexico, they have all of the same rights as any other legal foreign resident.

Meanwhile in the U.S.A., we DON’T knowingly give voter registration cards to illegals, nor are they eligible for most forms of welfare. (The few states that give drivers’ licenses to illegals do so because they’d rather have licensed and insured drivers on the road.)

Our economic well-being to some extent DEPENDS upon a supply of low-paid workers from abroad. The very reason illegals come here is because American employers will hire them. Most of those employers know very well that they are hiring illegals; it’s part of the business plan. If the employers would not hire them, they would not come.

Now what happens to those businesses if the supply of illegals dries up? As several states have learned to their cost, driving away illegals usually results in crops rotting in the fields. If we didn’t have lots of imported labor working in the fields and processing/packing plants, the price of food would be significantly higher, just to name one example, and food inflation doesn’t usually contribute to economic health.

Whether you agree that this situation is desirable or not, it IS the situation in which the U.S. finds itself.

Oh, and what is this “our own heritage” you speak of, if not that created by the fusion of immigrant cultures?

I ran my business for 3 decades on illegals. I’d put them to work on a subcontractor basis and they’d form a corporation. I’d be in the clear since I was paying to a legal corporation. Then at the end of the tax year the corp would file taxes and after 2 years of paying taxes the corporation would file proper paperwork and hire the owner of the corporation as a legal employee. I helped 20 people become legal residents.AND am proud of it. It is better than forcing these same people to steal to feed their kids.

[Der_Trihs]

@Voyager

I wonder what would be good enough for the haters. No illegal crossings? Raids on businesses? Detention camps?

Driving out or killing everyone with brown skin or a “Mexican sounding” name. These “anti illegal immigrant” campaigns always involve persecuting legal immigrants and people whose families have been here for generations. Racist persecution is a central feature of the “fight against illegal immigration”.

@Velocity

The reason is the perception of Canadians is different than the perception of Mexicans.

Because Mexicans are brown, and because we are exploiting Mexicans while trying to blame them for it.

@pkbites

Mexicans and those from other Central America nations are engaging in a form of invasion.
There are legal channels to enter this country (as there ought to be. I’m not suggesting blocking legal immigration). The border needs to be secured and those who came here as adults illegally need to go. They are an insult to immigrants that came here legally.

Garbage. There are no legal ways for virtually any of them to immigrate. We want them here, but we want them here illegally so we can exploit and abuse them, then blame them for it.

They aren’t “invading” us, we are exploiting them.

[BobLibDem]

@pkbites

It most certainly is illegal to enter this country without proper authorization. You can sugar coat it all you want but they are here illegally.

At what point do even you say enough? 50 million? 100 million? 1 billion illegal immigrants? Legally or illegally not everyone can come here.

Because we can’t take in 100 million that means we can’t take in say 10,000?

I personally don’t care what laws they broke to get here. We can absorb these women and children easily.

[Velocity]

@Der_Trihs

These “anti illegal immigrant” campaigns always involve persecuting **legal **immigrants and people whose families have been here for generations.

My family immigrated legally to the United States. And I’m not white. Do tell me in exact detail how I have encountered persecution from such campaigns.

[Velocity]

@BobLibDem

I personally don’t care what laws they broke to get here.

With this sort of attitude, why have immigration laws at all?

[PaulParkhead]

@BrainGlutton

FTR, I don’t like “illegal alien,” because people are not illegal, nor “undocumented immigrant,” because that implies the only problem is that they omitted a bit of paperwork. A better term would be “impermissive immigrant,” because they’re in the country without the required official permission.

Yeah. The term used for that specific offence used to be “Entered Without Inspection”. Don’t know if that’s still the case. But even a person who might otherwise have been admissible is not admissible if they don’t submit to an inspection by CBP officials when they arrive. “I’m sick of all these EWIs around here!” doesn’t seem to have the same ring to it.

As to “illegals”, I dunno. If we apply that definition to anyone who commits a crime, I suppose I’m surrounded by “illegals” here in the UK. Lots of people exceed 70mph on the motorway.

[PaulParkhead]

@Velocity

With this sort of attitude, why have immigration laws at all?

Good point. Why?

[adaher]

You do need to at least keep criminals and people with infectious diseases out. Plus you want to reserve certain society benefits for citizens or legal residents. You don’t want people to just cross the border and collect from the taxpayers.

[PaulParkhead]

@adaher

You do need to at least keep criminals and people with infectious diseases out. Plus you want to reserve certain society benefits for citizens or legal residents. You don’t want people to just cross the border and collect from the taxpayers.

That makes sense, I suppose. Folks searching for a generous welfare state would probably be best advised to consider somewhere other than the USA, though.

[pkbites]

@BobLibDem

Because we can’t take in 100 million that means we can’t take in say 10,000?

What is your plan for removing the millions of illegals so there are only 10k remaining?

[DigitalC]

There is no reason to remove them, we could use more really.

[Clothahump]

**Just what CAN/WILL Obama do on immigration?
**
He could try enforcing existing laws. But he won’t.

[BrainGlutton]

@DigitalC

There is no reason to remove them, we could use more really.

We would really miss them if they left. I recall about eight or nine years ago when they had a one-day nationwide general strike, just not going to work that day, and it hurt a lot of businesses. It is said that in half the restaurants in LA, if you walked into the kitchen and shouted “La Migra!” there would be nobody left to work the shift.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Plus you want to reserve certain society benefits for citizens or legal residents. You don’t want people to just cross the border and collect from the taxpayers.

Somehow I doubt drawing food stamps is much of a motivation for them.