Oh, and something I have said before, which I did not (but should have) put in my little manifesto post above, is that we should insure that our policies toward and effecting other nations (in our hemisphere, especially) are geared toward helping those nations not to be, or not to become, places that their people need or want to flee from.
I am a self professed Obama-loving progressive, yet the solutions to fixing the immigration problems that I have suggested seem to me (on their face) to be downright anti-humanitarian. But if we want to fix the problem, I think that it is what is needed. It seems to me that independents and conservatives who are true statesmen should be lining up to get these reforms in place, instead of continuing their one trick pony act of obstructionism.
But I will, again, emphasize that reform must include a quick easy path to legal immigration and/or citizenship for those immigrants that can help us build our economy. This is a necessary part and would not represent a repeat of the problems caused by the amnesty given by Reagan in '86, as long as the other reforms I suggested are included.
To deal with the problem primarily thru border control is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS. (I say as a general statement.) To be effective it would require something like a reverse Berlin Wall. Besides being insane, it would not be cost effective. In fact it would be a stupendous waste. If we don't want immigrants, we should not draw them in. (But we do, apparently, want some immigrants. For those, give them a quick, easy path to legal status and/or citizenship.) For the rest, PUNISH anyone who gives them a job. And don't provide them social services. (This last one is a hard choice for us humanitarian types, but, I think, necessary. The ONLY social services for them, if necessary, should be ones that keep them alive and safe until they can be deported.) For illegal immigrants who are here now (excluding refugees of violence), the ones who show good potential for being or becoming productive guest workers and/or citizens, give them a quick easy path to legal status. Deport all the rest. For illegal immigrants who are fleeing violence, provide a refugee camp where they can stay until they wish to leave our country or until they can be deported safely, whichever comes first. Make it clear and true that those who are exceptional and can contribute can get in legally and quickly. And that the rest will have little incentive to be here. The vast bulk of our resources used to address immigration should be put toward getting the immigrants that we want, excluding the ones we don't want, punishing persons who hire illegals, and making it clear to the world that this is how it's going to be.You made two contradictory statements "If we don't want immigrants, we should not draw them in. " "For illegal immigrants who are here now (excluding refugees of violence), the ones who show good potential for being or becoming productive guest workers and/or citizens, give them a quick easy path to legal status." Your second statement draws them in. As long as some who came here illegally are given amnesty, more and more will come in for amnesty. We keep saying, "Okay, the ones who are here NOW can stay but no one else." Then when we see thousands more breaching the border, we say, "Okay, the ones who are here NOW can stay but no one else." and on and on. No wonder they keep coming. Another thing that draws illegal immigration is that their children born here are automatic US citizens, so the kids can't be deported and we are reluctant to deport the parents of minor US citizens, and so on, ad infinitum. We will never solve the illegal immigration problem because, for the most part once they're here they know they can stay. Potential illegal immigrants know this as well as we do. Getting the Constitution changed or even substantially changing immigration laws appears to be impossible. And effective enforcement of laws already on the books is a laughable concept. Lois
Exactly Tim, the problem is immigration policy, not immigrants. Unfortunately it helps the employers to have a broken system and the public is easily manipulated to believe it is in their interest to keep it the way it is.Sorry, I added a controversial "Don't give them social services" in my post after you replied. You may or may not agree with that part. I don't agree with every jot and tittle of what you say, but generally I like the approach of improving conditions for the working class on both sides of the border. Top priorities to me would be getting money out of politics, protecting unions, health care reform, maybe a few others. Not giving tax incentives for corporations to go to foreign countries to avoid regulations would be a big one too. Probably seems like avoiding the issue of the border to some, but it doesn't make sense to focus on that and ignore the cause. This goes for liberals too. I'm not backing down on my statement that, if a child shows up on your doorstep, you help him or her. But, if we're not also looking for why that is happening and working on changing what is causing it, then we're not doing enough. Each individual doesn't have to DO both to be consistent, but you should support both ideas to be consistent. Definitely though, if you're only saying we should plug the leak, that is not enough.
Exactly Tim, the problem is immigration policy, not immigrants. Unfortunately it helps the employers to have a broken system and the public is easily manipulated to believe it is in their interest to keep it the way it is.Sorry, I added a controversial "Don't give them social services" in my post after you replied. You may or may not agree with that part. I say exactly too TimB. Border Control is only part of the solution. It is necessary as a deterrent. It works. I laugh now at Lausten's reply here... I wonder if he actually read your post. :lol: %-P
To deal with the problem primarily thru border control is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS. (I say as a general statement.) To be effective it would require something like a reverse Berlin Wall. Besides being insane, it would not be cost effective. In fact it would be a stupendous waste. If we don't want immigrants, we should not draw them in. (But we do, apparently, want some immigrants. For those, give them a quick, easy path to legal status and/or citizenship.) For the rest, PUNISH anyone who gives them a job. And don't provide them social services. (This last one is a hard choice for us humanitarian types, but, I think, necessary. The ONLY social services for them, if necessary, should be ones that keep them alive and safe until they can be deported.) For illegal immigrants who are here now (excluding refugees of violence), the ones who show good potential for being or becoming productive guest workers and/or citizens, give them a quick easy path to legal status. Deport all the rest. For illegal immigrants who are fleeing violence, provide a refugee camp where they can stay until they wish to leave our country or until they can be deported safely, whichever comes first. Make it clear and true that those who are exceptional and can contribute can get in legally and quickly. And that the rest will have little incentive to be here. The vast bulk of our resources used to address immigration should be put toward getting the immigrants that we want, excluding the ones we don't want, punishing persons who hire illegals, and making it clear to the world that this is how it's going to be.. Tim, I suspect you use the term humanitarian rather loosely here. Not that I have a good plan or comprehension of the immagration problems we face, because I don't. But I don't see any real humanitarian stances in your plan. There are some rather harsh technocratic suggestions here about who should and should not get a chance to become citizens though. Where is the humanitarianism?
Tim, I suspect you use the term humanitarian rather loosely here. Not that I have a good plan or comprehension of the immagration problems we face, because I don't. But I don't see any real humanitarian stances in your plan. There are some rather harsh technocratic suggestions here about who should and should not get a chance to become citizens though. Where is the humanitarianism?If I may cut in here, where do you see a lack of humanitarianism here Dan? What is "technocratic"? What's that? Is that a new word? Does that mean having experts and technicians solve a problem? Sounds like a great idea. Bureaucrats sure aren't solving anything in this regard. Re-iterating once again, 99% of all nations have standards and bureaucracies involved in deciding who should and shouldn't become citizens. It's been that way for about 130-140 years now at least. Why does this seem harsh and un-humanitarian to people? I thought TimB's general idea was brimming with humanitarianism. Positively brimming.
Yet no one is in the least bit interested in the illegal aliens coming over from Canada…the country sending the second largest number. I think 3rd used to be Ireland, I don’t know what it is now. No one challenges a white person with a vaguely foreign sounding ‘American’ accent or an Irish accent, but should you look at all Hispanic (and some of the deportees have not been Mexican, but mentally ill or developmentally delayed and unable to confirm their identities with officials too lazy to check), you have to prove yourself, even if you are 3rd or 4th generation.
Yet no one is in the least bit interested in the illegal aliens coming over from Canada.....the country sending the second largest number. I think 3rd used to be Ireland, I don't know what it is now. No one challenges a white person with a vaguely foreign sounding 'American' accent or an Irish accent, but should you look at all Hispanic (and some of the deportees have not been Mexican, but mentally ill or developmentally delayed and unable to confirm their identities with officials too lazy to check), you have to prove yourself, even if you are 3rd or 4th generation.Oh contrare. I have complained about the immigrant, Ted Cruz (ex-Canadian), many times, although he is supposedly legal. But what you say is correct, IMO. Immigrants should be judged by the content of what they can contribute, not by the color of their skin, or their accent.
To deal with the problem primarily thru border control is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS. (I say as a general statement.) To be effective it would require something like a reverse Berlin Wall. Besides being insane, it would not be cost effective. In fact it would be a stupendous waste. If we don't want immigrants, we should not draw them in. (But we do, apparently, want some immigrants. For those, give them a quick, easy path to legal status and/or citizenship.) For the rest, PUNISH anyone who gives them a job. And don't provide them social services. (This last one is a hard choice for us humanitarian types, but, I think, necessary. The ONLY social services for them, if necessary, should be ones that keep them alive and safe until they can be deported.) For illegal immigrants who are here now (excluding refugees of violence), the ones who show good potential for being or becoming productive guest workers and/or citizens, give them a quick easy path to legal status. Deport all the rest. For illegal immigrants who are fleeing violence, provide a refugee camp where they can stay until they wish to leave our country or until they can be deported safely, whichever comes first. Make it clear and true that those who are exceptional and can contribute can get in legally and quickly. And that the rest will have little incentive to be here. The vast bulk of our resources used to address immigration should be put toward getting the immigrants that we want, excluding the ones we don't want, punishing persons who hire illegals, and making it clear to the world that this is how it's going to be.You made two contradictory statements "If we don't want immigrants, we should not draw them in. " "For illegal immigrants who are here now (excluding refugees of violence), the ones who show good potential for being or becoming productive guest workers and/or citizens, give them a quick easy path to legal status." Your second statement draws them in. As long as some who came here illegally are given amnesty, more and more will come in for amnesty. We keep saying, "Okay, the ones who are here NOW can stay but no one else." Then when we see thousands more breaching the border, we say, "Okay, the ones who are here NOW can stay but no one else." and on and on. No wonder they keep coming. Another thing that draws illegal immigration is that their children born here are automatic US citizens, so the kids can't be deported and we are reluctant to deport the parents of minor US citizens, and so on, ad infinitum. We will never solve the illegal immigration problem because, for the most part once they're here they know they can stay. Potential illegal immigrants know this as well as we do. Getting the Constitution changed or even substantially changing immigration laws appears to be impossible. And effective enforcement of laws already on the books is a laughable concept. Lois My statements were not contradictory in the context of the full post. Notice the "If" in the 1st statement that you had a problem with. There are many illegal immigrants that we do not want here. (I made some realistic suggestions about not drawing them in.) But there are some immigrants that we want. I said let's get those legal. If all of my suggestions were installed, very few immigrants would want to be here if they're illegal. Those who are here now would not want to stay unless they could become legal. If we put the bulk of our resources in insuring that illegal immigrants don't get jobs and don't get social services, then few will want to stay. Few will want to come. We make that policy clear to the world and any who are not qualified will be less likely to make the attempt. This approach is not the Reagan Amnesty, which resulted in the problems to which you elude.
Tim, I suspect you use the term humanitarian rather loosely here. Not that I have a good plan or comprehension of the immagration problems we face, because I don't. But I don't see any real humanitarian stances in your plan. There are some rather harsh technocratic suggestions here about who should and should not get a chance to become citizens though. Where is the humanitarianism?If I may cut in here, where do you see a lack of humanitarianism here Dan? What is "technocratic"? What's that? Is that a new word? Does that mean having experts and technicians solve a problem? Sounds like a great idea. Bureaucrats sure aren't solving anything in this regard. Re-iterating once again, 99% of all nations have standards and bureaucracies involved in deciding who should and shouldn't become citizens. It's been that way for about 130-140 years now at least. Why does this seem harsh and un-humanitarian to people? I thought TimB's general idea was brimming with humanitarianism. Positively brimming. There is this thing called the internet where you can easily look up new words you don't know. Thanx for sharing.
Yet no one is in the least bit interested in the illegal aliens coming over from Canada.....the country sending the second largest number. I think 3rd used to be Ireland, I don't know what it is now. No one challenges a white person with a vaguely foreign sounding 'American' accent or an Irish accent.....Where the heck did you get this garbage from Asanta? Did you just make this up and hope it would stick? Canada is not even on the radar compared to the other North American and Central and South American Nations. Not even on the radar. There's graphs and official figures in the study. Canada is included in the "all other countries" category. And is a very low number.
Mexico continued to be the leading source country of unauthorized immigration to the United States (see Table 3). There were 6.8 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico in 2011, representing 59 percent of the unauthorized population. From 2000 to 2011, the Mexican-born unauthorized population increased by 2.1 million or an annual average of 190,000. The next leading source countries were El Salvador (660,000), Guatemala (520,000), Honduras (380,000), and China (280,000). The ten leading countries of origin represented 85 percent of the unauthorized immigrant population in 2011.US Government Study ]
Yet no one is in the least bit interested in the illegal aliens coming over from Canada.....the country sending the second largest number. I think 3rd used to be Ireland, I don't know what it is now. No one challenges a white person with a vaguely foreign sounding 'American' accent or an Irish accent.....Where the heck did you get this garbage from Asanta? Did you just make this up and hope it would stick? Canada is not even on the radar compared to the other North American and Central and South American Nations. Not even on the radar. There's graphs and official figures in the study. Canada is included in the "all other countries" category. And is a very low number.
Mexico continued to be the leading source country of unauthorized immigration to the United States (see Table 3). There were 6.8 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico in 2011, representing 59 percent of the unauthorized population. From 2000 to 2011, the Mexican-born unauthorized population increased by 2.1 million or an annual average of 190,000. The next leading source countries were El Salvador (660,000), Guatemala (520,000), Honduras (380,000), and China (280,000). The ten leading countries of origin represented 85 percent of the unauthorized immigrant population in 2011.US Government Study ] Right VYAZMA, racism in no way affects the immigration discourse of Americans.
Right VYAZMA, racism in no way affects the immigration discourse of Americans.What if it does in some instances? Then what Dan? I've been with this thread since page one. I've seen several attempts at changing the direction of the discussion, mis-information, people accusing others of racism, everything BUT an honest attempt, an attempt(!) to discuss this question logically or with reason and facts. You yourself tried to paint Tim's post as "unhumanitarian". People who are pro-illegal immigrants throw everything but the kitchen sink into this. Unfortunately, we have posts like Asanta's here that are just outright fabrications. It's no fun having to deal with fabrication and misinformation on a forum that supposed to be based on reason and science and facts. So what then Dan? What if a small number of people who are concerned about illegal immigrants have a racial motivation in their view of illegal immigrants? What Dan? Would you like to scold them? Stay on topic!! Do you have anything else to contribute to this thread? Anything on topic?
HandyDan-Not that I have a good plan or comprehension of the immigration problems we face, because I don’t.Considering your statement here Dan, don't you think you should cool down the assertions, and generalized declarations you are making concerning illegal immigration?
Well, aren’t we all so fortunate to have VYAZMA here to tell what we are really saying, and really mean. It’s like he reads minds or something. He is so right, all the time!
Well, aren't we all so fortunate to have VYAZMA here to tell what we are really saying, and really mean. It's like he reads minds or something. He is so right, all the time!I can only see what you mean by what you write Dan. I don't read your mind Dan- I simply read your posts. I'm sorry you interpret my posts as effrontery. Effrontery is far better than bullsh**ting in my book. Did you want to critique my personality, or add to or refute specific comments herein?