Democrats opposed to illegal alien amnesty

[Governor PiT]

if there where no borders the entire world could come here.

[2952-0-0]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Do you favor annexing mexico CARLHAYDEN?

No, I do NOT favor annexing Mexico.

[Person Man]

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?

[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.

[2952-0-0]

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.

[defe07]

I'm anti-amnesty because I think we need to secure our borders. We should encourage self-deportation of illegal immigrants and make legal immigration an easier process. When I was going to immigrate to Chile, my whole family got the papers done legally. I believe that the US was founded on legal immigration not illegal immigration. Giving blanket amnesty would send the wrong message in my opinion and massive deportation is also sending the wrong message (probably some countries will call us "racists"). I think self-deportation (without havigng to turn it into racial profiling, which I'm totally against whatsoever) is a fair idea. But we also have to enforce our laws and not have businesses hire illegal immigrants or have the government give out any entitlements. I'm not anti-immigration whatsoever, I just believe in justice. I love immigration, but keep it legal.  

[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!

[2952-0-0]

Boy, you got just about everything wrong.

Nice to see the rhetoric machine humming along.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

China has already started clamping down on some of the worst offenders, and as long as this happens fewer people will buy their goods. And everyone knows that when China sincerely wants something to happen, they will do their utmost to see that it happens. What they do is cruel, but effective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Someone here needs to refresh their history. Those places were synonymous with cheap and low quality goods, and they gradually lost their stigma. 20 years ago people were laughed at for having a Hyundai. Now it's acceptable. 40 years ago the first Toyotas were laughed at as lemons. Now Lexus is considered a luxury car. As for the social and environmental costs, try googling "Minamata" or read up something about the suppression of labour unions in Korea and Taiwan in the 1970s.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I support deporting CARLHAYDEN to Mexico and giving a random illegal citizenship in his place.

[Governor PiT]

I support deporting CARLHAYDEN to Mexico and giving a random illegal citizenship in his place.

I was going to say the same thing about elbowed but he's probably an illegal alien himself.

[Lief 🗽]

Pro-Amnesty. My position is actually more detailed than that, but if the Minutemen and Co. are going to boil it down to a black and white issue, I'll choose amnesty, thanks.

[Governor PiT]

I was actually support giving citezenship to a Mexican illegal as long as there not a criminal or use welfare if I can deport a "anti-racist" left wing facist to Cuba for each one. fair trade off.

[Lief 🗽]

So Mexican citizens wouldn't be allowed to use government services that White citizens are able to use?

Wow.

[Governor PiT]

no illegals shouldn't use welfare services regardless of race. stop playing the race card.

[angus]

Lief's post was a bit contorted, or perhaps misinformed.  Somebody needs to say it:  "Mexican" and "white" are not mutually orthogonal groups.  Something like 10% of mexican citizens are "white" and the remainder are either of indigenous stock or mestizo.  Don't confuse the terms race and nationality.  I am a gringo, for example, and that indicates a nationality.  Racially I'm white.  But not all white folk are estadunidensos and not all estadunidensos are white. 

Just a clarification. 

[Storebought]

angus is hairsplitting: the Mexicans who emigrate illegally to the US are anything but white (if they were, then they wouldn't have needed to emigrate in the first place)

[Inverted Things]

Definitely pro-amnesty, though I wouldn't have a problem with a few of the peripheral limitations such as no criminal record.

For those anti-amnesty people, you should explain to me what should happen in the following situation: A foreign-born woman enters the country, marries an American man, and the two of them have a child together. It is impossible for the woman to become legal. What do you do?

[Verily]

angus is hairsplitting: the Mexicans who emigrate illegally to the US are anything but white (if they were, then they wouldn't have needed to emigrate in the first place)

Unfortunately correct; racial-social lines are drawn much more strongly in Latin America. Those of "pure" or near-pure Spanish blood who might consider themselves white are almost universally also wealthy.

[angus]

angus is hairsplitting: the Mexicans who emigrate illegally to the US are anything but white (if they were, then they wouldn't have needed to emigrate in the first place)

Not true.  Yes, I know Latin American culture makes allowances for institutionalized racism in a way that hasn't been seen in the US or Western Europe since the 60s, but I have encountered plenty of white mexican bartenders and foodservice people in restaurants all over Mexico who have engaged me in conversations.  Folks you'd take for the average brunette Italian-American New Yorker or Bostonian, on first appearances, but who speak only Spanish and who dearly want to know what they need to do to get into the USA legally. 

And, no I'm not hairsplitting.  Regardless of percentages or perceptions or anything I have seen or heard on my many travels into the fascinating land that is Mexico, Lief's implication is one that propagates an inaccurate perception and one that needs to be called out.  This isn't about political correctness.  It's about making sure all understand "Mexican" and "White" are not mutually orthogonal groups.  I'm not suggesting that most Mexicans aren't of indigenous stock, but I am saying you cannot turn a debate about immigration into a debate about race unnoticed.  Lief's post was a thinly veiled attempt to call another poster a bigot.  Fine.  I'm okay with that.  Hell, I call people nasty names all the time.  I don't have a problem with that.  What I have a problem with is inaccuracy and the propagation of inaccurate use of language.  The first rule of any debate is to define terms, and by denigrating a point of accuracy, however subtle and usually ignored, you denigrate the very debate in which we claim to have an interest.

[Mesu]

(D) Pro Amnesty.

People who cross the border without permission shouldn't treated like criminals. If they are criminals than who are their victims? If they were criminals then giving them aid while crossing could be considered a crime. This is messed up because thousands of immigrants have died in the desert heat going around border patrol projects such as operation gatekeeper. Restricting people from giving water to people dying of thrist is a sign of a very oppressive laws that we should not want anything to do with.

Lots of people are worried that in 20 years we will be at the same place again with many people calling for amnesty. Well if we repeal all border control laws restricting migration and make immigration easy enough so that anyone who wishes to be a citizen can be then we won't have to worry about amnesty anymore. As a bonus our laws would be more free and equal(that should be enough of a reason for most democrats to like this idea). In the future a United States with a lot more immigrants isn't a scary thought like some people would want everyone to believe.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Anti-amnesty (R) - to a Tancredo extent almost.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

no illegals shouldn't use welfare services regardless of race. stop playing the race card.

I agree with you on this. Why should we allow non-citizens to use welfare services?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Let's just spend a trillion dollars and build a HUGE fence!!!  And we'll just fund it off budget and call people against the fence anti-American.

We'll use prison labor and illegals apprehended to build the fence and hire private security firms to oversee the operation hired through no-bid contracts.

First we just need to scare the white people into thinking that there are brown people hiding in their yard waiting to kill them.