Printable View
In all seriousness, I need someone to teach me something here.
I'm baffled. I don't understand the argument for amnesty. I don't see the benefits, and I don't see what the problem is with forcing illegals in this country to register and to go through a process.
What's wrong with going through such a process? We aren't saying we don't want people to emigrate here, we just want to know who you are.
That's what the entire country is saying Phil.... No amnesty should be allowed, either go through the process or get out.
PhilQuote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
There are 12 million illegal people in this country, by having them register, they are issued a visa overnight, that is 12 million poeple that entered this country illegally that now have the right to stay in this country.
The reason that I bring up the 12 million illegal number is that the same problem still exist, how to stop the next batch of illegal aliens from entering the country?
Maybe next time, we could be looking at 50 million.
In that 12 million number there are gang members, child molestors, & of course people that live the American life......
If they secured the borders, then maybe, we can talk what to do with these 12 million....
Currently, in order to become a citizen, you have to take a test and go through a bit of a process.
Instead of just knowing history, I say that anyone with a light criminal background be required to do 4 years int he military to get their citizenship. I think that is very fair.
Military is a bad idea, sort of like the draft. You get people who basically have no desire to be there with no commitment or loyalty to fight for this nation. The draft during the 60s and 70s proved that, why take people who don't want to be there, your diminishing the quality of your fighting force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
I say place them in civil service and have them clean the streets or something to that affect.
I disagree. I think if an able-bodied person wants to be inthis country....they get to show how bad they want to be anAmericanand start their life anew.
It's not forcing them if they are the ones that want in the US. They get the opportunity to prove themselves.
From my limited knowledge of the McCain/Kennedy bill recently pushed forth in Congress, I understand the process for being granted amnesty would still involve the applicant returning to their home country for some amount of time, which is similar to the process regular Green Card applicants must go through.
While I'm not a big fan of granting 12 million people a pass for dishonoring our borders and breaking our laws, in reality there is no way we're ever going to remove even a fraction of those already here. It would be better to have a record of who they are and then begin closely monitoring the comings and goings of future immigrants.
Phil who said they really want to be here in the first place and we would be forcing them to enter the military given your belief? Also what kind of quality solider are you going to get out of a criminal? This person already has moral and ethical issues if they committed a crime. If we were to follow your logic then we should allow our own citizen criminals to go into the service vs. prison to "prove" themselves and start "anew". This philosophy has been debated and studied before and forced military service or the ultimatum of service is the wrong idea and does not benefit the armed service at all, infact it’s a huge hindrance. It is not the job of the military to rehabilitate someone. If someone committed a crime then they should either be sent back to their country without trial or sent to jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
Tehn you kick them the **** out and tightent he border and shoot inthe head anyone that violates it.
I firmly believe that we should be able to protect our borders with snipers and use death to protect them. It is an invasion otherwise.
This is a nice article....
[ I agree with Phil though....... deport deport deport deport deport.. People say its impossible and before that it was impossible to build a wall etc etc. None of this is impossible. On the contrary, it should be done ASAP...day in and day out...every hour,...every minute.. Deport, deport deport.. ]
Trust Teddy Kennedy, again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 16, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By William J. Federer
In 1965, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization.
He ushered through the Senate the immigration policy of President Lyndon B. Johnson, stating Feb. 10, 1965:
"I want to comment on ... what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. ..."
Kennedy continued:
"Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [this bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area. ..."
Kennedy assured:
"Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates or those with contagious disease. ... As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge. ..."
Kennedy answered critics of the 1965 immigration bill:
"The charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage. ..."
Kennedy promised:
"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."
Democratic demographics
An interesting observation is that prior to LBJ's 1965 immigration policy, most immigrants to the United States were from Europe, with 70 percent coming from the United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany.
European immigrants assimilated, as they were culturally and economically similar to America's population. Immigrants were educated and, interestingly, many tended to become Republicans.
After the implementation of LBJ's policy, immigrants came from poorer countries, were less educated, more dependent on government, and, interestingly, tended to become Democrats.
In attempting to understand his motivation for the current immigration bill, one wonders if Sen. Kennedy has studied the impact of 20 million more Democrat votes, especially with the long-term effect of "chain migration" and higher birth rates.
And with many in the Republican base disapproving of the bill, its passage may discourage their campaigning for the next Republican nominee, contributing to a possible Democrat presidential victory in 2008.
Mexification
Other large-scale demographic changes can be observed around the world.
Lebanon went from a majority Christian country to a majority Muslim country after it was given independence from France in 1943. This was accomplished through a process called "Islamification" – the number of Muslims moving into Lebanon increased, along with higher birth rates, resulting in more control of elections.
Tibet has resisted unification with China and as a result has been subjected to a process called "Sinofication" – the forced migration of Chinese into Tibet. As the population of Chinese in Tibet increases, Tibet's resistance to unification with China decreases.
Increased Latin-American immigration into the U.S. not only translates into more Democrat votes, but lessens resistance to the proposed "North American Union."
During the Clinton administration, NAFTA and GATT were ratified (1993 and 1994), allowing global conglomerates to bring less expensive goods and grains to Mexican consumers. This put tens of thousands of Mexican farms and manufacturers out of business. Then the value of the peso collapsed in 1995, resulting in millions of displaced workers migrating north.
The situation was compounded by a "strong dollar" and the loss of trade protections for U.S. manufacturers and farmers, putting them in a position of needing less expensive labor to compete with the less expensive goods and grains available globally.
A century ago
Immigrants formerly received no automatic entitlement benefits upon arrival in America, but since there was no minimum wage they could easily get a job, allowing them an opportunity to learn the language and a skill. Extended families lived together, pooling their resources until they could get ahead. Churches and charities provided welfare and social services.
Goodbye middle class
Today immigrants arrive and are entitled to taxpayer-funded welfare and social services, resulting in increased use of emergency rooms, increased welfare rolls, increased enrollment in free public schools and increased cost of law enforcement. Since most illegal immigrants operate on a cash basis, avoiding taxes, middle-class taxpayers pay more to cover the increased use of public services. As taxes increase and wages decrease, America's working middle class is squeezed.
The New York Times, Oct. 28, 2003, stated: "Nearly one Mexican in five regularly gets money from relatives employed in the United States, making Mexico the largest repository of such remittances in the world, according to a poll sponsored by the Inter-American Development Bank."
Whereas typical American workers spend most of their earnings in America, helping the U.S. economy, immigrant workers send most of their earnings back to their home countries.
The Associated Press, Sept. 24, 2003, quoted Mexican President Vicente Fox saying: "Remittances are our biggest source of foreign income, bigger than oil, tourism or foreign investment. ... The 20 million Mexicans in the United States generate a gross product that is slightly higher than the ... billion(s) generated by Mexicans in Mexico."
Some remember Teddy Kennedy's promise regarding the 1986 amnesty bill:
"This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forth an amnesty bill like this."
The most significant effect of the 1986 amnesty bill was the expectation of future amnesty, which contributed to increased illegal immigration.
Kennedy now states regarding his current Kyl-Kennedy immigration bill:
"Year after year we've had borders that aren't secure and a system that is broken. ... Well, now it is time for action – 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system. ... I've been around here long enough to know that opportunities like this don't come often."
Trust Teddy Kennedy, again? He certainly knows the immigration problem very well.
He helped create it!
Here is something to piss people off:
The handling of Gomez-Gutierrez’s case has sparked criticism from victim advocates. They say they are upset not only for what they call lenient sentences but because immigration officials did not deport him after he finished serving time on three prior DWI convictions in 2002, 2004 and 2005.Quote:
Gomez-Gutierrez was driving with a blood-alcohol content that was three times the legal limit when he plowed into the rear of a car on U.S. 59 near the entrance to Kingwood, investigators said. The car’s occupants, Maria Ortiz and her daughter, Vanessa, who was five months pregnant, died instantly.
Gomez-Gutierrez, a 25-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico, is now facing his fourth drunken driving charge. But this time it has been elevated to two counts of intoxicated manslaughter and failure to stop and render aid. Investigators say he fled from his disabled vehicle after the wreck.
Three prior DWIs and not one single deportation.
Who is at fault? The Harris County Sheriff’s Department blames the feds for not deporting illegals. But local police in Houston have a sanctuary policy that prevents officers from asking suspects about their citizenship status.
There is plenty of blame to go around. The failure is systemic; it occurs at every level of government — from cities like Houston that perpetuate sanctuary policies, to the federal government, which refuses to staff local jails with enough ICE agents.
The bottom line is simple: until we are deporting every single illegal alien who is in this country committing crimes and putting people’s lives at risk, don’t talk to me about amnesty. Maria Ortiz, Vanessa Ortiz, and Nathaniel Ortiz deserved better from our government.