#2: Answer 3
What we need to do is provide an improved legal immigration process. One that will offer protection, yet provide a legal means of entry that is manageable.
Once here, we also need a strict process of tracking and reporting along with strict conduct rules that result in deportation for those that do not comply.
The illegals already here will have x amount of time to apply via this process as well. Failure to do so = deportation.
Those captured crossing illegally will be taken into custody and will provide unpaid manual labor for public works projects while their application is processed.
They have a limited right to control their borders. Stopping criminals for example in perfectly valid. But I feel that they (morally) have very limited rights to stop people from immigrating or leaving.
[quote=“Nobody, post:1, topic:537335”]
Second question: What do you feel about people who are against illegal immigration?
[ol]
[li]Most of them are racists.[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]
This. They tend to be hostile to immigrants according to skin color. They in my experience tend to assume that everyone of a particular skin color is an illegal immigrant. And they are seldom concerned about the people who break the law by hiring illegals immigrants. It’s not about the law for most people, it isn’t even really about immigration; it’s about race, and self justification. We are exploiting them, so we demonize them in order to not feel bad for what we are doing. We set up the law to make it very difficult to impossible for them to enter legally, then blame them for entering illegally while setting up our economy under the assumption that they will. We rant about how they are evil criminals, but go after the poor brown skinned illegal workers, and not the white skinned illegal workers and rich white employers who break the law by employing them.
Which I’m sure will conveniently never go though. Slavery under another name.
Governments should be able to control their borders - otherwise you aren’t really a sovereign country.
The reason people aren’t as opposed to Canadians is that they are more likely to assimilate and not require affirmative action or welfare. See below article for the problems of subsequent generations of Hispanic migrants. It explains how people often refer to previous waves of immigrants, but they adapted far more quickly. Now you’re creating a large underclass.
“For DV-2010, natives of the following countries1 are not eligible to apply because the countries sent a total of more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. in the previous five years: BRAZIL, CANADA, CHINA (mainland-born), COLOMBIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, ECUADOR, EL SALVADOR, GUATEMALA, HAITI, INDIA, JAMAICA, MEXICO, PAKISTAN, PHILIPPINES, PERU, POLAND, SOUTH KOREA, UNITED KINGDOM (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and VIETNAM. Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR, and Taiwan are eligible.”
The idea that US immigration policies is racist is insane. 27% of the legal permanent residents in this country are from Mexico. Of the top 20 countries from which immigrants come, only 3 are European. Canada is the only other country which is predominately white. Those 4 counties together account for less than 8% of permanent residents. At least 40% of permanent residents are from Latin America. That is not even taking into account the 29% of permanent residents from “other” countries. Only 3 of the top 20 countries of birth are English speaking.
I think all borders should be 100% free and open. People should be able to come and go as they please with no restrictions or limitations.
Most of them are not racists.
I’m going by the South African case here, where the vast majority opposition to other African illegal immigrants (Zimbabweans, Somalis, Nigerians) comes from Black South Africans, not Whites. Mostly, here, opposition is in the form of the following argument: “Many South Africans are still poor, almost 20 years after Apartheid. Our government needs to focus on uplifting its own people, and providing for refugees from other African countries draws away from that effort, especially when they are here illegally. This goes especially for people who live in shanties and see refugees being put up in halls and supplied with all their material needs by foreign agencies.”
Now, I’m against nation-states in the first place, but I can sort of see the utility of getting your own region up before uplifting your neighbours, as it puts you in a better position to do that uplifting.
The reason I specified unpaid was too try not to make being on a public works labor detail an incentive over their current life in their home country. However, I realize that the prospect of 3 squares and healthcare is still plenty enough of an incentive for many.
I feel that among very developed wealthy countries the borders should be open so anyone can move, work, reside with no restrictions. At a minimum I would include US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe, Japan, S. Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Brunei, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait.
“Economic” immigration among these places would be minimal which is the primary thing immigration laws are trying to prevent.
Yes, they are dealing with their problems. Mexico has done a lot in the last few decades to address some of its economic and political problems. Maybe for the very reasons I mentioned.
Compare that to a country like North Korea where everyone is essentially locked inside the country and nobody can leave. That’s a country which is avoiding reform.
I believe the borders should be opened, but not open. That is, we need to allow most of the people who currently cross the border for low paying temporary jobs to do so legally. Charge them a fee at the border- cheaper than what the smugglers charge, obviously- assign them federal taxpayer ID numbers, and grant them six-month work visas.
Use the fees to defray the cost of patrolling the border and providing basic services. Limit medical care for undocumented workers to specific facilities set up and funded for that purpose.
Most importantly, require employers to enroll in USCIS’ e-verify system and fine employers of illegal workers. Fine “under the table” employers of illegal workers the full amount of their workers’ unreported income, up to the federal minimum wage.
I have a problem with the standards set by the US today limiting immigration. I believe that control of the borders is good, but as the laws are written currently, they are too restrictive and racist.
The people I see denouncing illegal immigration since it really became a big big issue about 5 years ago are mostly racist. Any peek into their rallies, their signs, the incendiary nature of their political hacks, and their solutions smack of overt racism
The number from Mexico and Canada was zero. Cite. That’s because citizens of Mexico and Canada cannot enter the Diversity Lottery. Your figure of 17 if probably those from the Bahamas.
Countries excluded from the Diversity Lottery are those that already send relatively large numbers of immigrants to the U.S., including Canada, Mexico, China (except for Hong Kong), India and the U.K. (except for Northern Ireland).
(I’m fairly familiar with the rules, because my name came up in the Diversity Lottery when I entered about 10 years ago, and I now have a green card based on that.)
And my answers to the questions:
(1) the U.S. should have some controls on immigration, just as all First World countries need to. In doing so, it should be trying to bring in people who can make a significant contribution to the U.S. economy because of the skills and qualifications.
(2) I think that there’s a large segment of racism among the people most vocal about “illegals”, because they identify “illegals” as Mexicans. They don’t care about illegal immigration from Canada or Europe – in fact, they probably think that it doesn’t exist – because those people are white like they are…
This is flat-out wrong. None of the 9/11 hijackers came in through Canada. They were all legally in the U.S., having entered from countries other than Canada, using valid documents issued by the United States.
That doesn’t stop the myth from being repeated, from people who should know better, like Hilary Clinton, John MCain, and Janet Napolitano, the U.S. homeland security secretary:
Countries have every right to control their borders. Its a basic question of sovereignty.
There is racism underlying some of the anti-immigration rhetoric just like there is racism underlying some of the anti-Obama sentiment but I don’t think it is a driving factor. For example if all the illegal immigrants were rich refugees from a communist revolution in South and Central America, I doubt people would be as upset about the illegal immigration problem regardless of the color of their skin.
With that said, I am willing to bet which side of the debate most racists are lining up on.