Democrats opposed to illegal alien amnesty

[CARLHAYDEN]

You know where I stand on this issue: Democrat STRONGLY ANTI-AMNESTY.

We should do our best to deport them as soon as possible.

Sounds good to me.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Simply dump the illegals in Iraq. It will take longer for them to get back across the border if they're dumped outside of north america.

But we're trying to calm things down in Iraq, not get them angry at us.

Perhpas we could ship them to Venezuela.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, lets examine the reasoning behind the suggestion that if it is impossible to obtain perfection in enforcing a law, we should stop enforcing it.

At the high end, not all murder cases are "closed," so, should we stop trying to apprehend murder suspects?

On the low end, most drivers of motor vehicles exceeding post speed limits do not receiving citations for their violations in most instances, so should we simply give up on enforcing speed limits?

Second, there presently is a way in which aliens can "earn" citizenship (and many have).  Sucessful completion of a term of service in the armed forces of the United States is a long recognized way to "earn" citizenship.

Third, background checks on illegal aliens from Mexico and most central American countries are worthless.  The local police in those countries will NOT report criminality by an individual to American authorities unless the criminality offended an important person in that country, and they want the person back for punishment.  There a a number of quite understandable reasons for this policy, which I will further explain if you so desire.

Fourth, you did not place a "ceiling" on the number of aliens to be allowed to enter this country, nor did you even mention border security?  Are you an advocate of "open borders"?  If you support border security, please explain.  If you believe there should be a "ceiling" on the number of aliens allowed to enter this country, please elaborate.

Fifth, would you please explain why you feel it necessary to use the term "undocumented person" rather "illegal alien."  The people to whom you are referring did not simply lose or otherwise misplace their "documents," but rather illegally entered and/or remained in this country.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, lets examine the reasoning behind the suggestion that if it is impossible to obtain perfection in enforcing a law, we should stop enforcing it.

At the high end, not all murder cases are "closed," so, should we stop trying to apprehend murder suspects?

On the low end, most drivers of motor vehicles exceeding post speed limits do not receiving citations for their violations in most instances, so should we simply give up on enforcing speed limits?

Second, there presently is a way in which aliens can "earn" citizenship (and many have).  Sucessful completion of a term of service in the armed forces of the United States is a long recognized way to "earn" citizenship.

Third, background checks on illegal aliens from Mexico and most central American countries are worthless.  The local police in those countries will NOT report criminality by an individual to American authorities unless the criminality offended an important person in that country, and they want the person back for punishment.  There a a number of quite understandable reasons for this policy, which I will further explain if you so desire.

Fourth, you did not place a "ceiling" on the number of aliens to be allowed to enter this country, nor did you even mention border security?  Are you an advocate of "open borders"?  If you support border security, please explain.  If you believe there should be a "ceiling" on the number of aliens allowed to enter this country, please elaborate.

Fifth, would you please explain why you feel it necessary to use the term "undocumented person" rather "illegal alien."  The people to whom you are referring did not simply lose or otherwise misplace their "documents," but rather illegally entered and/or remained in this country.

I love your use of degrading terms to dehumanize immigrants to justify your extreme positions on the issue. 

The statement "if we'd only enforce the laws we already have" comes up a lot among conservatives as if that's supposed to be an end all solution to the whole debate.  Did you ever consider that maybe the laws on the books are overly strict and they are not effective at all?  Our country pretty much said in the 1920s "Well, all the good white ones came in, and now the dirty brown ones want in, so we better shut the gates!  Hasta la vista, bitches!"

You can ban abortion, but you'll never stop it.  You can ban gay sex, but you'll never stop it.  You can ban drugs, but you'll never stop their use.  You can ban alcohol, people will drink it.  You can ban immigration, and people will still get here and business owners will still hire them.

In this case, you need a system that weighs border security and enforcement with immigration law that allows people to come in.  We can't restrict legal immigration only to one group, be they skilled workers, from a certain country, have a certain number of freckles... whatever.  Immigration law should be flexible and we it should evolve with our country's needs as well as taking in account situations where people are seeking asylum, etc.  Not only for our own good, but for theirs as well.

Also, Mexicans will continue flooding into our country as long as Mexico remains impoverished.

Well. lets take your assertions one by one.

First, someone who comes to this country with no intention to permanent remain is NOT an immigrant, but rather a "sorjourner."

Second, someone who either enters this country illegally, or remains here past their eligibility date is by definition illegally present in this country.  Neither is "undocumented," as the first never had "documents," and the second has expired documents.

Third, my term is legally accurate.  If you find accurate terms "degrading," then I believe that says a lot about your perceptions.

Fourth, it seems to me that if you don't like the laws currently on the books, you try to change them rather than ignore them. 

Fifth, either you are unaware, or deliberately misrepresenting American immigration law/practice.  For decades the majority of legal immigrants to this country have come from Asia and Latin America.

Sixth, as I previously noted, murder is illegal but not all murderers are apprehended.  This does NOT, in my view, constitute an argument for legalizing murder (or failure to vigorously enforce laws against this crime).

Seventh, as I have previously noted in other threads, Mexico is a country generously endowed with natural resources, but whose economy is retarded by an extremely high degree of government corruption (la mordida).

Oh, and to cite both source and statistics, here's some data from Wikipedia:

There were 1,266,264 immigrants who were granted legal residence in 2006, up from 601,516 in 1987, 849,807 in 2000, and 1,122,373 in 2005. The top twelve sending countries in 2006, by country of birth, were Mexico (173,753), People's Republic of China (87,345), Philippines (74,607), India (61,369), Cuba (45,614), Colombia (43,151), Dominican Republic (38,069), El Salvador (31,783), Vietnam (30,695), Jamaica (24,976), South Korea (24,386), Guatemala (24,146), Other countries - 606,370.[9]

So the allegation that the immigrations laws and or practices discriminate in favor or europeans is simply false!

[CARLHAYDEN]

I prefer some sort of middle ground on this overrated issue designed to distract people from the Republican party's failures.

Exactly. We have to except the fact that while strengthenin our border is important, we cannot just deport 12 million people. The idea of massive cattle trains harkens back to what Hitler did to those he thought could not assimilate into German society.  Also, I think it would be unethical to allow millions of Mexicans to starve to death in a country which is run by incompetent crooks that are pillaging thier own country for their retirement. On the other hand, a massive introduction of foreign culture may create an internal culture shock that could create anomie within this country. In all, I believe that Dick Lamm's approach was right on target. We need to focus on how to assimilate new immigrants into our society.

First, let me note that you analogy to Hitler is very far off base.  If laws on the books now where enforced, most of the illegal immigrants would self-deport.  The truth is that millions DO return to Mexico voluntarily every year.

Second, I believe you are correct that if the Mexican government could not use the United States to offset the pillaging of the people of Mexico, there would be a revolution there to remove the bloodsuckers from power.

Third, as I previously noted, the country with the largest number of legal immigrants in 2006 was from Mexico.  So, we are far from discriminating against Mexicans with respect to legal immigration.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Do you favor annexing mexico CARLHAYDEN?

No, I do NOT favor annexing Mexico.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Want to "close" immigration? Fine. Just say goodbye to everything else imported from the rest of the world. That means vegetables from Peru in January, fuel from Saudi Arabia, and cheap goods from China. You can't pick and choose what you want with globalization.

Dean,

Your post was vintage Richard Nixon in that you attributed objectives to others which they have never had.

No one that I know of want to end immigration (however, many would like to end ILLEGAL entry into the country, as well those who overstay visas).

Also, I don't recall anyone opposing international trade.

As to trade with Communist China, I do believe that the United States has failed in its obligation to the American people with respect to allowing food and toys with toxic materials to be be imported into this country from Communist China.  Also, I really don't like allowing the Communists to profit from slave labor, and would support bans on importing products manfactured with slave labor.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I prefer some sort of middle ground on this overrated issue designed to distract people from the Republican party's failures.

Exactly. We have to except the fact that while strengthenin our border is important, we cannot just deport 12 million people. The idea of massive cattle trains harkens back to what Hitler did to those he thought could not assimilate into German society.  Also, I think it would be unethical to allow millions of Mexicans to starve to death in a country which is run by incompetent crooks that are pillaging thier own country for their retirement. On the other hand, a massive introduction of foreign culture may create an internal culture shock that could create anomie within this country. In all, I believe that Dick Lamm's approach was right on target. We need to focus on how to assimilate new immigrants into our society.

First, let me note that you analogy to Hitler is very far off base.  If laws on the books now where enforced, most of the illegal immigrants would self-deport.  The truth is that millions DO return to Mexico voluntarily every year.

Second, I believe you are correct that if the Mexican government could not use the United States to offset the pillaging of the people of Mexico, there would be a revolution there to remove the bloodsuckers from power.

Third, as I previously noted, the country with the largest number of legal immigrants in 2006 was from Mexico.  So, we are far from discriminating against Mexicans with respect to legal immigration.

Sheer numbers don't impress me. Do you have any proportions? Also, if the laws are generally followed, why are you making such a big deal about it? It just doesn't add up. I mean, we are just making a big issue out of something that goes without saying, really...and what do we do with these people so that they do not perish?

First, the numbers I cited disproved a previous assertion that the immigration laws were stacked again latin Americans, and in favor of europeans, not to impress you.

Second, the numbers were for the countries of origin of the top twelve countries for the year 2006.  Those are the latest figures available for lawful entrants.

Third, the laws are NOT being followed by those who ILLEGALLY enter this country.  Illegal aliens were NOT included in those figures.

Fourth, I suggest that we discourage people from trying to illegally enter this country.  It is sad how many of them are killed by 'coyotes' and used as 'mules' to smuggle drugs.

Fifth, are you aware that the richest person in the world is a Mexican, who got rich by getting exclusive utility franchises from the Mexican government!  Unlike Bill Gates, he didn't develop a product, instead he developed relationships with Mexican government officials.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Okay. So everyone is concerned that made-in-China goods are cheap and unsafe, and made in unsafe conditions. But didn't everyone say the exact same thing about made-in-Japan goods in the 1950s, made-in-Hong Kong goods in the 1960s, made-in-Korea goods in the 1970s, made-in-Taiwan goods in the 1980s? I'm sure in 10 years we'll all be fretting about cheap and low-quality made-in-Vietnam goods. Didn't everyone laugh at the first Toyotas and Hyundais to arrive in the US as being lemons?  While I think there should be strict standards about what gets imported (such as no toxic chemicals, produced by companies that don't withold wages, etc) there's no reason to believe that eventually China will not lose its cheap and low quality image.

As for the issue of immigration, I didn't directly address that and am not going to right now.

Boy, you got just about everything wrong.

No everybody is NOT concerned about unsafe items made in Communist China.  Many American CEOs couldn't care less as long as they make a big profit from selling those items.

No everybody did NOT make the same allegations about items made in Japan in the 1950s.

Nor did everbody make the allegations you attribute about goods made in Hong Kong, the Republic of South Korea or the Republic of China!