Email This to a Friend
The Real Immigration Double Standard
Ruben Navarrette Jr. recently argued that there is a double standard against Mexican flags at rallies in the U.S. But the real double standard is another: punishing immigrants who follow the law and rewarding those who do not.
In a recent article posted at Pajamas Media, Ruben Navarrette Jr., an editor at the San Diego Union Tribune, offered an apologia for those “immigrants” who paraded in the streets of America on May Day while waving the Mexican flag.
There is an obvious problem with his argument. He conflates “immigrant” with “illegal immigrant.” These are two separate and distinct groups, both legally, politically and, frankly, also ethically. One group of immigrants has entered our country legally, thus demonstrating right from the beginning the intent to respect our laws. In so doing, implicitly announcing their intentions to honor those aspects of the American Dream that have been a beacon to untold millions of immigrants before them: liberty, self-reliance, equality before the law, equality of opportunity, and the promise of unlimited possibility for those willing to work hard and play by the rules.
The second group is here in constant and continuing violation of our laws. They demand “rights” that do not exist for them. They live in the shadows because their status does not permit them to exercise the rights they demand — obviously, if they already possessed such rights, they wouldn’t be asking for them. Navarrette also does not seem to understand the crux of the resentment toward illegal immigrants who wave Mexican flags in American streets. He notes:
This was a political gesture, like, say, a march for immigrants’ rights. Yet, some will insist, those who marched on Washington waving the Israeli flag were probably U.S. citizens and those who marched last week on May Day were, in all likelihood, immigrants. And that makes a difference. But wait. We know from media reports that many of the pro-immigrant marchers were U.S. citizens, including the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
I don’t think most Americans have any real problem with other Americans who wave the banners of their former countries in celebrations here. Yet it is certainly understandable that Americans might resent the brazen sense of unearned entitlement demonstrated by those who live here in a state of illegality and who thrust the flags of their current nation (the only one in which they hold legal residency or citizenship) while demanding “rights” that are beyond their legal status in the first place.
I agree with everything Mr. Navarrette says about those immigrants who have followed the rules, waited their turn, and live in the United States in full compliance with our laws. But when he conflates legal immigrants with illegals under the general rubric of “immigrants,” he practices a pernicious form of dishonesty that poisons all his arguments and, indeed, the discussion itself. And, strangely enough, his position even shows great respect to those who legally emigrated into the country from Mexico, often waiting for years while patiently working their way through the endless convolutions of U.S. immigration procedures. To make the claim that such folks are no different — that they are all part of some vast, amorphous group of “immigrants” that includes all those who didn’t endure the same hardships — is to render their patience, their respect for the law, and the goals they have worked so hard to reach a sad joke. More fools them, for obeying the law.
Navarrette’s argument is profoundly immoral because it runs counter to our notions of equality, fair play, and rewarding those who do work hard and play by the rules.
If the guest you have invited to a party at your house shows up in native garb, you welcome him as your equal, your friend and fellow. But if the burglar who broke into your home wears the same foreign clothing and demands the right to live in your spare bedroom? Perhaps not so much.
William T. Quick is the founder, editor-in-chief, and publisher of Daily Pundit.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
89 Comments
1. Ed Wallis:Mr. Quick, you forgot to mention that your same “burglar” not only “demands the right to live in your spare bedroom,” (i.e. violation of U.S. residency laws) after breaking in(i.e. violation of U.S. immigration laws) but also demands your job (i.e. violation of U.S. employment laws), to be sent to your childrens’ school at your expense (read: your tax dollars), and to be covered under your family’s health insurance policy at your expense (again: your tax dollars).
May 14, 2008 - 2:16 am 2. Ed Wallis:Agreed, Mr. Quick; fine article.
The “burglar” (i.e. violating U.S. immigration laws) you mention at the end not only
“demands the right to live in your spare bedroom” (i.e. violating U.S. residency laws), but also
demands a job from your employer (i.e. violating U.S. employment laws),
demands the use of your family’s health insurance, to cover his costs at your expense, and
demands the use of your childrens’ school, at your expense as well.
May 14, 2008 - 3:47 am 3. mishu:often waiting for years while patiently working their way through the endless convolutions of U.S. immigration procedures.
Maybe that’s part of the problem. How come some immigrants have to wait years while others get to legally waltz right in. Hardly seems like equality befor the law.
May 14, 2008 - 4:19 am 4. Ed Wallis:“mishu,” I can answer part of your question – NONE of which has to do with ethereal “fairness.”
As I understand it, the U.S. allots a certain number of immigrants from some countries…when that limit is reached, others must wait.
In other cases, paperwork was not done properly or filed through incorrect channels. THERE ARE GOOD REASONS for the paperwork: among others, SOVEREIGNTY. SECURITY.
I know of cases where applicants tried to “cheat” or “shortcut” the process – and are politely told “where to go.” And rightly so.
The only folks I know of who “waltz in” are diplomats…hardly typical “immigrants.” Unless you are suggesting the illegal aliens who “waltz over” our southern border….
Play by the rules or suffer the consequences.
May 14, 2008 - 6:00 am 5. Dan Irving:Mr Quick you hit the nail right on the head. I really hate it when people try to cloud the issue by lumping all immigrants together. In fact, I’d go so far as to say the only immigrants are those here legally – all others are criminals. Giving amnesty to anyone here without permission is giving the bird to those that followed the rules and gained their citizenship honestly.
As far as the path to citizenship goes – I do think that part needs reform. The more the merrier imo – everyone should be able to pay the same yearly dues on Apr 15th. I’m also partial to trading military service for citizenship. Join up and after your term you get your citizenship. If someone is willing to die for my freedom I’d be more than happy to welcome them as a fellow American.
May 14, 2008 - 6:36 am 6. Sam:Cleanly separating illegals from legal immigrants depends upon absolute deference for the current immigration laws. To the paleocons, the current immigration laws are to this debate as “states rights” were to the South in the Civil War. Suggest a change to current immigration law, and you’ll find out how much “respect” for the law they have, not to mention how much “respect” they have for our whole system and our legislators. Not much. It is about the law for them as long as the law helps them. When the law doesn’t favor their political position, their “respect” for stops abruptly.
But to see that this
May 14, 2008 - 7:31 am 7. Joanna:One of the pastors at my college church was an immigrant from Liberia. While I was there, I witnessed part of his journey through the path to citizenship. During this stressful time, I never once saw him express resentment, impatience (other than the kind that comes from excitement, like a child waiting for Christmas) or a sense of entitlement. In addition, while he often spoke of Liberia and led mission trips there, he never said anything to indicate that he still considered himself a citizen of that country. That, I think, is the crucial difference: If you want to move to another country and take up permanent residence there without renouncing your citizenship in your nation of origin, you can’t expect to be treated like a citizen of your new home. The reason: You aren’t one.
May 14, 2008 - 7:44 am 8. mishu:The only folks I know of who “waltz in” are diplomats…hardly typical “immigrants.” Unless you are suggesting the illegal aliens who “waltz over” our southern border…
Nope, Cubans are immediately welcome when they make it ashore. Some eastern European countries get green cards handed out like candy.
May 14, 2008 - 8:18 am 9. SwingShiftCEO:There are even more double standards in the immigration debate: what if we adopted the laws and enforcement tactics Mexico uses on its own southern border? What if we started sending our most violent criminals south of the border? What if our embassies and consulates helped American citizens emigrate illegally to Mexico?
Arizona has the right idea: punish the employers, make the illegal jobs go away, and the illegals will leave. The demand will always be there, so it’s best to remove the supply.
Once our politicians (and us) stop making it easy for companies that hire illegals, the majority of the problem should fix itself. Follow the money…
La reconquista se ha muerto. No se puede.
May 14, 2008 - 8:22 am 10. Rubicon:That our immigration laws & systems are a mess is patently obvious. However, that alone does not justify ignoring our laws. Neocons do NOT want laws that force different standards on anyone. They just want the law obeyed.
May 14, 2008 - 8:40 am 11. Charles:The other day I read an article saying an Irish immigration group wants a separate law for illegal alien Irish immigrants. My answer is NO. The law is the same, no matter who you are. The Cuba deal was discussed in our Congress as was given a special status for a special political reason. Few other nations have this status. Is it fair? No. Should we have it? Somehow, I doubt it. BUT!!! It “is” the law. And those who obey the law, get to stay. Those who do not, get sent home.
Commingling legal & illegal into one group is just another attempt to obfuscate & distort the issues. Living next door does not mean special privileges, unless our Congress debates the issue & makes decisions accordingly. Until then, obey the law.
And obtaining amnesty while others waited years, is simply unfair to anyone & everyone who wants to come here. The systems need fixed. Until then, obey the law.
Republicans still trying to run amnesty through congress.
The reason the republicans lost in mississippi is that they are still trying to sneak illegal aliens into the country with stuff buried in bills going through congress. Consider this law with a little clause forbidding employers from checking the status of illegals. That’s just the start:
Section 101(b)(2)(A), which reduced to simple language* would preempt and ban any and all state or local law for immigration-related issues enacted to impose employer fines or sanctions, or would forbid any laws requiring employers to verify work status or identity for work authorization. It would also prevent any unit of government from verifying status of renters, determining eligibility for receipt of benefits, enrollment in school, obtaining a business or other license, or conducting a background check.
This preemption, buried deep in the text of the bill, would kill all the laws recently enacted by long-suffering states and localities in response to the federal government’s unwillingness to enforce its own federal laws on immigration. Gone would be the recent highly effective and highly successful enforcement legislation of Arizona and Oklahoma, the local laws and ordinances of towns like Hazleton, PA, Costa Mesa, CA, Herndon and Prince William, Virginia, and over a hundred other localities, and of hundreds more in process of enactment.
For one example, the control of business licenses is now one of the few areas not preempted. It is one of the few tools still left to states and local governments to fight the presence and hiring of illegal workers, and the award of benefits and welfare. NEVA would take even those tools away. Having abdicated its own responsibilities on immigration enforcement, the Congress is apparently on a search-and-destroy mission for any lower elected body that might actually want to follow the rule of law and provide the protection for its citizens that the federal government seems incapable and unwilling to provide.
Although labeled “bipartisan”, this bill submitted by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) is overwhelmingly Republican in its sponsorship (28 out of 31). It appears to be a counter to Democrat Heath Shuler’s SAVE Act legislation, a much better, if not perfect, alternative now blocked by fellow Democrat Speaker Pelosi’s pro-illegal obstinacy.
May 14, 2008 - 9:25 am 12. Tony:To the paleocons, the current immigration laws are to this debate as “states rights” were to the South in the Civil War. Suggest a change to current immigration law, and you’ll find out how much “respect” for the law they have, not to mention how much “respect” they have for our whole system and our legislators. Not much. It is about the law for them as long as the law helps them. When the law doesn’t favor their political position, their “respect” for stops abruptly.
That assertion is oversimplified and deceptive, at best.
Do I oppose changes to our current immigration law to immediately confer protected (and eventually legal) status on illegal immigrants? Absolutely.
On the other hand, I would have no problem whatsoever with significantly increasing the number of legal immigrants we allow into this country from whatever home country, so long as they follow the rules for applying to enter, pose no security or criminal threat to us, and either speak fluent English up front, or gain English fluency as soon as is practicable. I also don’t have a problem with hiring a bunch of additional people at the State Department to handle the increased applications.
In a nutshell -
Change the rules to allow more people to immigrate? Yes!
Change the rules to allow those here illegally to stay? No!
Very simple, very equitable, not at all racist.
May 14, 2008 - 9:39 am 13. Trent Telenko:Mr. Quick,
The issue is far more than “…runs counter to our notions of equality, fair play, and rewarding those who do work hard and play by the rules.”
The Mexican criminal gangs are defacto using the large illegal Mexican immigrant communities as “human shields” against American legal and migration control agencies.
A real sweep and crack down in America that takes out these criminal figures and their smuggling rat lines into Mexico will also take out a significant portion of the illegal alien community providing cheap labor for American agriculture, construction and small businesses.
That runs counter to not only Mexican foreign policy goals, but huge American business and government-client special interests. Mexican and American elites benefit from the cheap illegal Mexican labor in America and not in Mexico playing politics there.
Democrats have no idea of the populist implications of this situation, while McCain is trying to ignore and placate his base over it.
May 14, 2008 - 10:21 am 14. Assistant Village Idiot:Tony – you forget that Sam can read minds. He has an Acme Motiv-o-meter and can tell what you really think, regardless of the external facts. Navarette has one also, and knows that your distinction between legal and illegal immigrants is just a ruse; you really just want to keep people down.
Mishu – your information about Eastern Europeans is just wrong.
May 14, 2008 - 10:25 am 15. billy:At the risk of getting philosophical, I believe the core of the problem revolves around the intersection of human rights and the state’s securing of those rights. Most (all) would agree that all humans are endowed with inalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc). The problem arises when the inalienability of pursuit of happiness runs into a border. States are the guarantors of those human rights and they can only *practically* do so for legal citizens (social contract and all). However, if my pursuit of happiness entails flouting your social contract who are you to deny me that right? Your correct answer is “I’m the one who protects your rights. No contract, no protection.” Practically speaking though, this just doesn’t fly. If the state adopted a strict interpretation of this line it would “allow” for the imprisonment, killing, enslaving etc. of folks who’s rights are not protected. Such a perspective is not only ethically/morally suspect but also politically infeasible. So the answer is some middle and muddy and blurry ground where the state doesn’t “want” to protect rights of the folks here without the tacit social contract entailed by citizenship, but it does anyway.
Ironically, it’s these same kinds of arguments that are made against decisions to “suspend” Geneva rights of captured terrorists. My question remains: how can you suspend something or protect something that someone does not have? The act of suspending or “taking away” rights begs the question that they existed and were held in the first place.
The solution is not easy. Either states and borders are meaningless or rights are not truly inalienable or we devolved into a mean nasty and brutish state of nature – red in tooth and claw.
May 14, 2008 - 10:29 am 16. Tushar:I came to US legally in 1999, and applied for a Green Card. At current speed, I am expected to get it in year 2012. Till that time I must work in the same profession, same job and refuse promotions (promotion means the process starts over). But when I finally get it, who will be laughing then? Bwahahaha!
May 14, 2008 - 10:31 am 17. Brian Levine:I would add to your burglar analogy that the homeowner is standing on the front lawn waving money, the front door is open, and the homeowner is pleading with the burglar to come in.
May 14, 2008 - 10:31 am 18. Twok:Here is a detailed solution on the legal/illegal immigration problem. Except that it is too logical for the idjits in congress to pass.
May 14, 2008 - 10:33 am 19. JPP:Navarrette is a highly biased, ethnic Latino activist, who cries that he and his family have been “discriminated against” but then again Ruben boy, how did you wind up going to an Ivy League school, if the USA is so bigoted?
Jack-ass.
The problem with illegal immigration centers on the chronically corrupt country of Mexico. Mexicans receive more visas for legal immigration than any other nation on earth and still Mexico also in number on in illegal aliens entering the USA. What’s up with that, Jose?
Reform your own corrupt country instead of half of your population running away and fleeing. Mexico is actually a fairly wealthy nation.
May 14, 2008 - 10:33 am 20. Daily Pundit » I Have A New Piece Up At PJM:[...] Pajamas Media » The Real Immigration Double Standard [...]
May 14, 2008 - 10:38 am 21. David Thomson:Race guilt underpins the mindset of those who possess a lenient attitude toward illegal aliens. America is presumably a racist nation that must pay for its sins. A dark skin individual has the right to violate our laws. They are victims deserving our sympathy and above criticism. Race guilt threatens the very existence of Western Civilization. It can no longer be ignored.
May 14, 2008 - 10:40 am 22. Twok:The stupid thing about greencards is that they have the same quota of 10,000 per year per country. This means that India and China applicants are on waiting lists of 7-40 years, while many small countries cannot even consume their quotas.
What a silly, wasteful perversion of ‘affirmative action’ this is..
May 14, 2008 - 11:00 am 23. uburoisc:The Mexican tribalists like Ruben Navarrette use the waves of illegal immigrants from their tribe as a way to bolster their political and cultural power in the United States; down the line, those numbers will mean that they can continue to bypass US immigration laws that are supposed to apply to all tribes equally. When the Mexican tribalists muddle the distinction between legal and illegal immigration (which they do as a matter of course, and it is quite calculated and intentional), what they are really trying to do is make sure their tribe has a tremendous advantage over any other tribe in getting in to the US.
The Mexican tribalists do not care about other tribes or ethnic groups, only their own; they are not universalist in their aims or outlook, rather, they are narrowly provincial, selfish, and tribal. The best way to put an end to the waves of gate-crashers and line-jumpers is for all the legal immigrants from tribes other than Mexicans to stand up and make a colossal stink about the Mexican illegals and their tribal apologists in this country.
May 14, 2008 - 11:12 am 24. rjschwarz:This the point I’ve been using to see who is full of crap on the immigration debate. When someone conflates immigrants and illegal immigrants they are creating a strawman in order to slander people with claims of being un-American and/or racist when in fact those fighting against illegal immigrants are on the side of those coming in legally and may in fact be for reform of legal immigration, increasing the numbers, etc and simply opposed to a race-based lower class of undocumented sweatshops.
May 14, 2008 - 11:16 am 25. M. Simon:The screw up was in 1848 when we failed to annex Mexico.
We are in the process of remedying that failure through a slow process. It will take time.
May 14, 2008 - 11:19 am 26. rjschwarz:The other argument you rarely hear is what the migrant worker phenomina has done to Mexico. It acts as a safety valve that works to prevent the need for political or economic reform. Making the wealthy in Mexico super-wealthy and forcing the poor to risk their lives in the desert.
The US needs to stop illegal immigration (at the border and the Visa layovers) and streamline legal immigration. There is a path to becoming an American and we should not promote policies that increase the odds of people risking their lives.
May 14, 2008 - 11:20 am 27. rjschwarz:The last arguement is that the Pilgrims were illegal immigrants and thus whites are hypocrites for opposing illegal immigrants. Well one look at what happened to the Native Americans should convince everyone that allowing illegals didn’t work out very well for the Native Americans throughout Latin and North America and we’d be fools to duplicate their policies.
May 14, 2008 - 11:22 am 28. uburoisc:One other observation, I would imagine that if more people from other countries were allowed to legally immigrate to the US, many of those people would do the jobs that illegal Mexicans are now employed doing. The Mexican activists do not want these legal immigrants poaching the jobs that are currently being done by illegal immigrants.
May 14, 2008 - 11:46 am 29. Nessus:Most Americans want a modest reduction in legal immigration and a strict crackdown on the illegal variety, which creates many other law-breaking behaviors as well, such as identity theft, social security fraud, income tax evasion, etc.
Those foreigners who simply want to find a job and make money, I suggest they try China or India, who have the world’s fastest growing economies. We want citizens, American citizens, not “guest workers” or “temporary workers” – no such thing as a temporary worker. Once here, they are here for life and will sponsor their entire extended families and even whole villages.
Furthermore, certain religions and cultures (Islam, Hindu) are not exactly well suited to become Americans, their value systems are so different than traditional Judeo-Christian, British law/custom, Euro-based, Caucasian culture that the USA was based on. Better their immigration numbers be restricted. Not nice to say but frankly, it’s the truth. Just like I wouldn’t move to India or Yemen, they shouldn’t move here. Fish out of water.
People need to grow up and realize culture matters! That’s why nation-states are important, so people of like minded cultures can live together instead of this nonsensical, “globalism” and mass immigration. It won’t last because people will retreat to the comfort of their own culture. And they should.
May 14, 2008 - 12:02 pm 30. mishu:AVI, check this link out.
May 14, 2008 - 12:36 pm 31. Bill Dalasio:Tony and Assistant Village Idiot,
While I’ll certainly agree that Sam is guilty of gross overgeneralization, I’m not entirely convinced that there is not an element of old-fashioned nativism in the “anti-illegal” camp. How else do you explain folks like Tom Tancredo (perhaps the de facto spokesman for the case) proposing things like “holidays” on legal immigration?
May 14, 2008 - 12:45 pm 32. Seerak:There is an obvious problem with his argument. He conflates “immigrant” with “illegal immigrant.”
The obvious problem with Quick’s argument — and nearly every anti-immigration position I run across, including his — is that there are *two* questions at stake, not one.
The one Quick focusses on is illegality, which boils down to the rule of law. This is a position I can agree with — as individuals we cannot opt out of laws we don’t like; rather, we should make the case to change those laws — to make them right.
THAT is the second question at stake here — what should the law be? Should the border be open? Should it be closed? Should it be something in between — and if so, what standards are the proper ones for excluding some and permitting others to enter?
It is this latter question which makes one pro- or anti-immigration.
If your genuine position is anti-illegal immigration, that position itself gives you no reason to oppose the simplest solution to illegal immigration, as offered by Harry Binswanger — make them legal.
If, however, you do not agree with Dr. Binswanger, that is fine — but that disagreement has nothing to do with being anti-illegal immigration!
There do exist people who oppose illegal immigration on the grounds of the rule of law, but also favor removing legal obstacles to immigration. Theirs is an opinion I can respect.
But those of you favoring more immigration restrictions — i.e. are anti-immigration — but passing yourselves off as merely anti-illegal immigration — are dishonestly sailing under false colors, and deserve no respect.
May 14, 2008 - 12:47 pm 33. submandave:Nessus, while I couldn’t agree more that illegal immigration needs to be greatly curtailed not only on its own basis but also the attendent criminality that often surrounds it, I could not disagree more vehemantly that “certain religions and cultures” are not well suited to become Americans. That you off-handedly lump Islam and Hiduism together, for example, shows to me a general lack of understanding about the fundametal beliefs of either one or both. I know, work and live with immigrants of Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, animist and even no faith whom I consider more ardent and better embodiments of the “American spirit” than many others I know who were native-born.
May 14, 2008 - 12:47 pm 34. Twok:Nessus,
Your screed is ignorant on so many levels :
1) India and China? Those are fast-growing economies, but very poor countries (much poorer than Mexico). Tons of people leave India and China to come to the US, Australia, etc. every year.
2) Hindus are not suitable to be Americans????? Indians are the richest ethnic group in America, richer than your so-called Judeo-Christian whites. It appears that Hindu Indians are better assimilated to America than your Judeo-Christian whites are.
3) “Just like I wouldn’t move to India or Yemen, they shouldn’t move here.”
er… didn’t you just say that people should move to India due to a high-growth economy? You are falling apart even within one post, you moron.
Dumbshits like Nessus are the reason US immigration policy is so messed up – he is shockingly ignorant of the outside world, and assumes that everyone who is brown will someone be poor and unable to assimiliate (true of Mexicans, but very untrue of Indians, Chinese, etc.)
Supreme ignorance.
May 14, 2008 - 12:51 pm 35. Sam:> There are even more double standards in the immigration debate: what if we adopted the laws and enforcement tactics Mexico uses on its own southern border?
SwingshiftCEO: Mexican law is being changed on that; it is a holdover from the past. It hasn’t been signed yet, but no doubt will be since it passed the house unanimously very recently.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/237249
> What if we started sending our most violent criminals south of the border?
That’s absurd. They don’t send them here. Anymore than we send our criminals there, but US criminals have been going to Mexico to escape IUS law for 200 years. Don’t you watch old Westerns? And it happens in every nations borders. Big shocker, eh? Criminals work the legal system. There are ways of trying to deal with this, and they are imperfect, but suggesting that Mexico *sends* criminals to us intentionally (as Castro has we know) is entirely irresponsible.
> What if our embassies and consulates helped American citizens emigrate illegally to Mexico?
Here I agree with you. Mexico should be told to stop this, and they can be made to stop this because they have a change in leadership who we can deal with far better than V. Fox. But they aren’t our enemy.
Mark
May 14, 2008 - 12:53 pm 36. Sam:> Mishu – your information about Eastern Europeans is just wrong.
Assistant Village Idiot: Nope. I have two personal friends who immigrated from Bulgaria a few years ago on a lottery system. I don’t know that I’ll call it “like candy” though.
May 14, 2008 - 12:59 pm 37. Sam:> The reason the republicans lost in mississippi is that they are still trying to sneak illegal aliens into the country with stuff buried in bills going through congress.
Charles: Can you name one viable “restrictionist” candidate? Just one? Just one candidate that accords with your views? And if that view is so popular, why don’t candidates emerge to exploit it? Insert_Conspiracy_Theory_Here
May 14, 2008 - 1:01 pm 38. Don:Article 33 of the Mexican Constitution -
“Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualities determined in Article 30. They have the right to the guarantees of Chapter I of the first title of this Constitution, but the Executive of the Union has the exclusive right to expel from the national territory, immediately and without necessity of judicial proceedings, all foreigners whose stay it judges inconvenient. Foreigners may not, in any manner, involve themselves in the political affairs of the country.”
May 14, 2008 - 1:05 pm 39. Sam:> On the other hand, I would have no problem whatsoever with significantly increasing the number of legal immigrants we allow into this country from whatever home country, so long as ….
In a nutshell -
Change the rules to allow more people to immigrate? Yes!
Change the rules to allow those here illegally to stay? No!
Very simple, very equitable, not at all racist.
Tony: You and I agree on this issue. That is my view. My assertion is that your view and mine is opposed by the majority of the persons commenting in this thread. So how about it folks? Do you agree that we need to allow more legal immigrants to enter?
May 14, 2008 - 1:06 pm 40. Sam:> The one Quick focusses on is illegality, which boils down to the rule of law. This is a position I can agree with — as individuals we cannot opt out of laws we don’t like; rather, we should make the case to change those laws — to make them right.
Seerak: When otherwise law-abiding citizens violate one particular law with impunity that should tell you something. We learned this during prohibition, which spawned an violent organized crime machine that took decades to squash. Why do otherwise law abiding US citizens hire illegal aliens? The right way to change laws is Congress, naturally.
May 14, 2008 - 1:13 pm 41. Nessus:Twok – after you calm down, I’ll tell you that I’m not talking about money – I’m talking about culture, get it?
Yes, many Asians (from China, India) are excellent money making machines but culturally, they are not Western, Judeo-Christian, get it? Very often their hearts belong to “the mother land”; they have little affinity for Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc. Those are just “white men” to them. If that upsets your sensitivities, too bad. Grow up. As I said, they have homes – they are called India, China, etc.
submandave – In fact I know quite a bit about the arab warrior cult called Islam. Care to debate me? Even some deep thinkers around the news magazines and internet news sites are advocating restricting muslim immigration. On what grounds? Unsuitability, that’s the reason why. Because Islam is not only a religion but a political ideology as well and one antithetical to the Western tradition.
If you don’t favor reducing (and I said MODESTLY) reducing US immigration, like the majority of Americans want, then what do you call yourself, since you don’t respect the will of the majority of people? Hmmm, interesting….
You see boys (and those of your who are foreigners), the USA is no more a “nation of immigrants” than virtually all other nations. We do not exist for the sole purpose of acting like an employment office for the world. Get it? We have a history, a people, a culture, a language, a geography, etc., that have shaped this country. If you just snuck across the Rio Grande or are here on a “temporary” H-1B visa from Crapistan, you have no respect and no connection with is land.
May 14, 2008 - 1:31 pm 42. dre:nessum
“Furthermore, certain religions and cultures (Islam,
May 14, 2008 - 1:34 pm 43. Nessus:Hindu) are not exactly well suited to become Americans, their value systems are so different than traditional Judeo-Christian, British law/custom, Euro-based, Caucasian culture that the USA was based on.”If Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Mexicans and others are so smart and hard working, why are their nations such failures for oh, centuries? Why do their people live in the mud?
Hmmm, curious. And why do so many of said peoples wish to flee to the West? If they are so smart, they should have figured out how to organize one’s culture politically and economically on their own, without the stupid caucasians in the West showing them the way.
May 14, 2008 - 1:40 pm 44. MarkD:Seerak,
Your argument is basically “change the law or you are anti-immigrant.”
Reduced to absolutes, your argument is that we have no right to exclude anyone from our country, and by their existence, anyone in the world has a right to come here.
The argument is absurd. I want free gas, but the Saudis want to be paid for their oil. Life isn’t fair.
May 14, 2008 - 1:44 pm 45. Nessus:Why are the people in European nations (not that damn “EU” nonsense), rebeling against their political elites? It’s the IMMIGRATION, stupid! They don’t want their culture decimated by huge waves of muslims, hindus, buddhists, etc. It’s not a matter of hate; it’s a matter of adult common sense. The Italians want Italy to remain Italian. The French want France to remain French. Ditto England, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Greece, etc.
Culture matters and immigration is the number one enemy of preserving one’s culture and heritage. So called “multi-culturalism” doesn’t work – and in fact, it’s pure Marxism-Leninism.
This immigration rebellion is just starting in the USA, it will grow stronger as more pols begin to tap into it for their own political futures and for respecting the will of the majority of Americans.
Once again, it’s not hate; it’s adult common sense. You can not have a country without common heritage, religion, language, customs, values, traditions, etc. If you try, which “globalism” is trying to accomplish, it will reduce us all to simply economic “utils”, who’s only purpose in life is to consume mobile phone contracts, sneakers and lousy movies, music and crap made in China.
May 14, 2008 - 1:50 pm 46. Noah Nehm:Wait, is this the same Ruben Navarrette Jr. that argues that a vote against Obama is equivalent to racism?
Note to self: Put Ruben in my ignore file…
May 14, 2008 - 2:30 pm 47. James:On the other hand, I would have no problem whatsoever with significantly increasing the number of legal immigrants we allow into this country from whatever home country
I see no reason why we should do any such thing. If some prospective immigrant can fill a pressing need we have in America, all right. But it’s absurd to suggest that we must allow in two million new legal immigrants per year “just because”. There has to be some genuine benefit to all Americans, not just to the employers making a buck off the deal.
May 14, 2008 - 2:34 pm 48. Sam:> If Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Mexicans and others are so smart and hard working, why are their nations such failures for oh, centuries? Why do their people live in the mud?
America is the best country I think, but then I was born here so I’m biased. But I’ve always wondered how thinking your country is the best (as we all should) somehow makes Americans think non-Americans lives are crap.
It doesn’t. A better question is why do Americans know so little about everyone else. Just for one example, though poverty is a problem in Mexico, they have a rapidly growing middle class and actually have the world’s 12th largest economy now and are our 3rd or 4th largest trading partner. They can grow their way out of the problem they are in right now and they are. Their biggest threat is nativists who reduce Mexico to the issue of illegal immigration are also protectionists -most of them. You could tell a similar story about China and India.
May 14, 2008 - 2:38 pm 49. James:Sam
So how about it folks? Do you agree that we need to allow more legal immigrants to enter?
If you want me to agree with you, a good start might be to make some actual arguments in support of that position instead of calling people names for not simply going along with your wishes.
I see no reason why we should increase the number of legal immigrants, which is already greater then the number of legal immigrants taken in by the rest of the world combined. But I’m willing to listen to what you have to say, if you have something to say.
May 14, 2008 - 2:39 pm 50. Sam:> My assertion (Sam – me) is that your view and mine (increase legal immig) is opposed by the majority of the persons commenting in this thread.
> (Nessus) immigration is the number one enemy of preserving one’s culture and heritage.
Nessus has voted. Anybody else?
May 14, 2008 - 2:43 pm 51. Sam:> Why are the people in European nations (not that damn “EU” nonsense), rebeling against their political elites? It’s the IMMIGRATION, stupid! They don’t want their culture decimated by huge waves of muslims, hindus, buddhists, etc. It’s not a matter of hate; it’s a matter of adult common sense. The Italians want Italy to remain Italian. The French want France to remain French. Ditto England, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Greece, etc.
Nessus: Europe is in a world of hurt. They are committing demographc suicide. But we’ve already done this and thrived. Visit Miami sometime. A massive foreign takeover, no? German immigratns were 40% of Fort Wayne IN and Cincinnati OH at one time. We assimilate Islamicists or throw them out; they welcome them. Europe and the US are not the same on immigration.
May 14, 2008 - 2:48 pm 52. James:If your genuine position is anti-illegal immigration, that position itself gives you no reason to oppose the simplest solution to illegal immigration, as offered by Harry Binswanger — make them legal.
Good grief! So, if I’m anti-bank-robbery, and somebody proposes to “solve” the problem by making robbing banks legal, and I don’t go along with it, then I’m not really anti-bank-robbery after all?
The contortions you people go through in an effort to justify that which cannot be justified is worthy of a liberal Democrat. If illegal immigration is wrong, then it’s not going to magically become right by rewarding tens of million of felons.
Nessus has voted. Anybody else?
I vote that you attempt to make arguments in support of your position. Otherwise, I’ll start to think that you have no arguments.
May 14, 2008 - 2:50 pm 53. James:Harry Binswanger is a capitalist in the same sense as Karl Marx. If he honestly believes in this “free movement of labor” pap, he could always quit his tenured position with a university and get a job in the free market.
It’s remarkable how many people of his ilk are themselves NOT working in the free market economy.
May 14, 2008 - 3:05 pm 54. Nessus:Mexico is improving, know how? Uncle Sam. China is improving. Know how? Uncle Sam. China is for another day.
Mexico is a joke. A centuries long corrupt, inefficient government. Mexico with 10% “beautiful” white descendents of the Spanish and 90% Mexican-Indians, who have been denied much access to society. Thus the ruling class of white Mexican elites, encourage their Indian peasants to “migrate” to the USA, make money illegally to send back to the corrupt mother country.
Jorge Bush (not Juan McAmnesty) don’t have the spine to give Mexico what it really needs: tough love. Tell Mexico to grow up and act responsibly, not like a dependent child. We sent much of our manufacturing industry to Mexico in the 1990s and now they wish to send 20-40 million of the peasants into our country. Americans don’t want their hometowns turned into Tijuana. They don’t want their kids being force-fed Spanish instead of using class time more usefully on English, US history/Constitution, math, science, etc.
Instead, we’re brainwashed into “celebrating” Sinkhole de Mayo.
Kiss my ass elites (business, government, media).
May 14, 2008 - 3:36 pm 55. Tom Grey:Fine note, the legality is a key issue.
I think those applying for legal immigration and work visas need faster processing and more respect.
The housing market could use more legal immigrants to support demand by workers.
tiny typo of disrespect: “his position even shows great respect to those who legally emigrated into the country from Mexico,”
May 14, 2008 - 4:35 pm 56. James:The housing market could use more legal immigrants to support demand by workers.
So, we’re going to bring in illegal immigrants to build houses nobody needs, and then bring in yet more (il)legal immigrants to create a demand for those houses?
Is this what passes for free market economics in America today? Adam Smith is spinning in his grave.
May 14, 2008 - 5:12 pm 57. Nessus:It’s very simple. If you want your home town to become Tijuana, then keep quiet and “celebrate” Sinkhole de Mayo, like your told to by the govt.-media complex.
If you want your children to grow up as Americans and proud of Washington, Adams, Lincoln, etc., then the 3,000 per day illegal alien parade across our southern border must stop.
Mexico is a rich country that refuses to reform itself so consequently, it encourages it’s peasants to cross the border, work illegally and send money back to the mother country. Even with all it’s oil wealth, Mexico’s number one source of revenue is remittances sent back by their poor peasants. How pathetic.
Bush, McCain, Clinton, Osama/Obama don’t have the spine to stop this invasion because they are paid off by corporate interests who want the steady stream of cheap laborers to continue.
’nuff said.
May 14, 2008 - 5:28 pm 58. Bruce:Legality is just part of it….sheer numbers matter as well, whether legal and/or illegal, numbers matter.
Most Americans want a reduction is raw numbers. Mexicans need to stay in Mexico and reform their corrupted government.
May 14, 2008 - 5:30 pm 59. Sam:> If you want me to agree with you, a good start might be to make some actual arguments in support of that position instead of calling people names for not simply going along with your wishes. I see no reason why we should increase the number of legal immigrants, which is already greater then the number of legal immigrants taken in by the rest of the world combined. But I’m willing to listen to what you have to say, if you have something to say.
James: my point was that Tony’s view and mine (that legal immigration is too difficult, needs reform, and the numbers allowed are too low) was a minority view. I think you and others have confirmed my point. I have not made the argument that we should have higher legal caps and I wouldn’t here. I’m simply pointing out that I find that when people claim “oh I have noooo problem with legal immigrants, it’s only the illegals” that it generally turns out to be false.
May 14, 2008 - 5:40 pm 60. Sam:> Mexico is improving, know how? Uncle Sam. China is improving. Know how? Uncle Sam. China is for another day.
Nessus: You’re absolutely right. We are feeding their economies. But we’re feeding our own as well. How is it that international trade impoverishes us? Have you seen our US GDP figures over the last decade or so?
> Mexico is a joke. A centuries long corrupt, inefficient government. Mexico with 10% “beautiful” white descendents of the Spanish and 90% Mexican-Indians, who have been denied much access to society. Thus the ruling class of white Mexican elites, encourage their Indian peasants to “migrate” to the USA, make money illegally to send back to the corrupt mother country.
That’s as dumb as people claiming the US hasn’t changed since the Civil Rights struggles decades ago. Mexico has undergone radical political change in the last 10 years. And people are demanding their government be accountable now. Especially now with Calderon. No nation that is as corrupt as you say grows at the rate Mexico is. 12th largest economy for GDP, and our 3rd or 4th largest trading partner. Radical departure from the past. No change there …. nope, none at all, eh? They have a lot of problems, but things are improving. There economy passed the trillion GDP mark in 2004. They are not a hopeless case at all. But I suspect you’d like them to be and stay as you have them in your mind. How else to explain the lack of factual knowledge of Mexico, despite the fact that you know how to use Google?
May 14, 2008 - 5:52 pm 61. Michael Canzano:Let us face the non politically correct facts.
May 14, 2008 - 7:29 pm 62. Dark Helmet:An addition of “Illegals” to a Nation is a subtraction in civilization.
California is burdened with a 20 billion dollar deficit. Half of which can be attributed to “Illegals” and their “Anchor Babies”.
Naverette is just another USA educated traitor.
He belongs in Mexico.
American Christian Infidel
You turkeys have all missed the boat. The reason the borders are not enforced is because of the long term plan to create a North American union, one people, one form of currency and one government. Our country was sold out a long time ago. That G*damn super high way is already a forgobe conclusion. But wait, chingasos…. it gets better. obama bill turns our monet , courts and guns over to the UN. Senate is passing this bill, for Gods sake, check it out.
Oh, the main thread….. immigrants are citizens, alians are criminals. Case closed.
May 14, 2008 - 7:57 pm 63. Casey:Day before yesterday 600+ arrested (in Iowa), 75% of which had illegal documents — identity theft has been skyrocketing. Social Security Admin protecting the rights of criminals against that of citizens (including legal residents). One could say that if your identity is not protected then you really have no rights. This is a true betrayal.
May 14, 2008 - 9:49 pm 64. Assistant Village Idiot:Mishu & Sam. A green card lottery in Bulgaria is not even a partial proof of your point. Your sample set is those who are already here. Since the Iron Curtain collapsed, we have allowed many Eastern Europeans to immigrate. It is still difficult, and much desired, for most Eastern Europeans to get here. I have many Romanian friends who would love to come here and cannot.
As to more legal immigration – yes, certainly. We have shown that our economy can absorb a higher number than the current restrictions. Were it spread among more countries, there would be less danger of non-acculturation, and whatever general anti-immigrant sentiment there is would reduce considerably.
May 14, 2008 - 9:52 pm 65. Sam:> That G*damn super high way is already a forgobe conclusion.
Yeah, Ike opened a rat’s nest with highways. North/south highways were definitely a bad idea; better run them east/west into the oceans where US citizens can’t intermix with foreigners. The horror.
May 14, 2008 - 9:53 pm 66. MlR:“How else do you explain folks like Tom Tancredo (perhaps the de facto spokesman for the case) proposing things like “holidays” on legal immigration?”
Since when did opposing endless mass immigration become a thought crime?
I bet you have absolutely no idea that this country went through numerous periods in its history, some decades long in duration, during which immigration was temporarily reduced to allow assimilation of prior waves. There is nothing ahistorical or amazing about this proposition.
May 14, 2008 - 10:43 pm 67. MlR:But all that’s moot anyway. We can’t even have a debate over these issues because we have no control over our own policies. Our politicians allow our laws to be broken for cheap labor and votes. Tens of millions of people and counting – this is corruption on a third-world level.
May 14, 2008 - 10:47 pm 68. MlR:But any debate is moot, regardless, because we’ve effectively forfeited control of the entire issue. Immigration levels, origins, requirements – these are all things to be decided through the political process legally. Our politicians instead allow our laws to be disregarded at will, our citizenship diluted, for business contributions and votes. Businesses that break the law are rewarded over those that follow it and politicians select their own voters. Tens of millions of people and counting. This is corruption on a third-world scale.
May 14, 2008 - 10:53 pm 69. MlR:Sorry for the double.
May 14, 2008 - 11:19 pm 70. Sam:> But any debate is moot, regardless, because we’ve effectively forfeited control of the entire issue. Immigration levels, origins, requirements – these are all things to be decided through the political process legally. Our politicians instead allow our laws to be disregarded at will, our citizenship diluted, for business contributions and votes.
Paleos think the country is going to Hell, but they thought that 30 years ago, then 20, and now. Earth to MIR: our birth rate is low so our population is aging, we abort babies at a high rate, and we have a raging fire of an economy that needs workers. We need H1-B workers to with science degrees too, but the cap is absurdly low on those too. Or we could get US rug-rats to get interested in science again. There are alternatives to immigration always. But no one considers the alternatives, so employers hire who is available, or stop producing.
May 14, 2008 - 11:51 pm 71. Dark Helmet:Sam,
The super highway is a sell out of our nation. Either you are for America for against her.
May 15, 2008 - 5:48 am 72. MlR:“Paleos think the country is going to Hell, but they thought that 30 years ago, then 20, and now. Earth to MIR: our birth rate is low so our population is aging, we abort babies at a high rate, and we have a raging fire of an economy that needs workers. We need H1-B workers to with science degrees too, but the cap is absurdly low on those too. Or we could get US rug-rats to get interested in science again. There are alternatives to immigration always. But no one considers the alternatives, so employers hire who is available, or stop producing.”
Earth to Sam, I’m not a Paleon-Conservative.
Telling that you didn’t dispute a single thing I said, only changed the subject.
Try again:
“But any debate is moot, regardless, because we’ve effectively forfeited control of the entire issue. Immigration levels, origins, requirements – these are all things to be decided through the political process legally. Our politicians instead allow our laws to be disregarded at will, our citizenship diluted, for business contributions and votes. Businesses that break the law are rewarded over those that follow it and politicians select their own voters. Tens of millions of people and counting. This is corruption on a third-world scale.”
May 15, 2008 - 7:26 am 73. Sam:> The super highway is a sell out of our nation. Either you are for America for against her.
Dark Helmet: I grew up in rural Indiana on a farm two miles away from I-69, the route that goes South. The extension that is planned for that highway will shave off ~time from the trip from Michigan to Brownsville. Oh the horror! You can get there now just fine, it is just slower than it needs to be once you get to TX. If only Ike had not built those highways!
I also lived in Brownsville TX for a number of years, and you think you’re striking some blow against Mexico, but in fact you really want to screw South Texas too. And anything that does trade with Ohio, Indiana, Michigan …. Look at the city of Anderson (IN) website and you’ll see it has a Chinese and Japanese translation of the page. Lots of people in the Midwest have foreign jobs, and they like them pretty well. Leave the highway planning to the adults.
May 15, 2008 - 12:09 pm 74. Sam:> But any debate is moot, regardless, because we’ve effectively forfeited control of the entire issue. Immigration levels, origins, requirements – these are all things to be decided through the political process legally. Our politicians instead allow our laws to be disregarded at will …
If our politicians lack the will, why is illegal immigration down dramatically the last few years? Why have they built airbases for predator drones to fly the Northern and Southern border, found them to be effective, and now are planning to add more to the border drone fleet? Why have they tripled the border patrol head count during teh Bush administration?
If you didn’t know any of that, and it is true, you are either a Paleoconservative, or just uninformed. And you didn’t did you? But the conspiracy theories are what identifies the Paleos. And why would politicians trust you when you never give credit where it is due. Chasing the Paleo vote is a fool’s errand.
Why are there immigration raids now? Why are deportations up dramatically? I could go on …. but you get the idea. The Paleos are conservative populists. The idea is not to solve the problem, so much as to create an impression that supports their view. Could it be that the problem is not as simple as you think, and that politicians are not quite as craven as you think? Nah … Back to conspiracy 101.
And where are the federalists when you really need them? Why can’t states enact employer sanctions? Why must it be the feds? Arizona recently did. If it is considered good legislation, then others will follow. If not, not. Since when did Republicans become advocates in vast expansions of federal power? Oh right. Country is going to Hell in a handbasket, so we can declare martial law in the Southern border? Screw TX, NM, and AZ, right?
May 15, 2008 - 12:31 pm 75. Jim:I offer a simple position: America is composed of It’s citizens. Its immigration policy was made to protect it’s sovereignty and to protect the way of life of those citizens. Simply put-illegals don’t belong here.
May 15, 2008 - 6:22 pm 76. Sam:> I offer a simple position: America is composed of It’s citizens. Its immigration policy was made to protect it’s sovereignty and to protect the way of life of those citizens. Simply put-illegals don’t belong here.
This is called begging the question. The question has been in this thread “What should our laws be?” Laws are made for people, not people for laws. They are not to be arbitrary.
And the biggest question of all: why do otherwise law-abiding US citizens break only that one law with impunity? Probably never since Prohibition has so many people violated a single law with no remorse. and that (bad) law is a good reflection on how an “enforcement only” approach only works in cases where there is widespread ageement that breaking a law is morally wrong. In Prohibition people didn’t feel that way; now many don’t feel that way hiring illegals. Why? And that’s the the problem you must address if you want to impose stiff employer sanctions.
May 15, 2008 - 7:38 pm 77. Ed Wallis:FROM MARK STEYN:
“A couple of weeks back, Statistics Canada reported that, after adjustment for inflation, Canadian wage-earners are earning less than in 1980. For example, in British Columbia the median wage-earner earns 11.3% less than a quarter-century ago. The media flew into a dither about all the usual fixes — increase taxes on the rich, etc — until one lone columnist, Trevor Lautens, pointed out the obvious:”
“In recent decades immigration, especially in British Columbia, has massively swung away from Europe to the less-developed (awful phrase) world… The plucky (another vanished word) of any nationality can overcome anything, as many praiseworthy immigrants have. But any immigrants to Canada without English, notoriously hard to learn and internationally valued — see the April 28 New Yorker story on Li Yang, who literally shouts what he calls “Crazy English” to his students in China — or French, are likely to settle into ethnic ghettos where they are vulnerable to exploitation, including lousy under-the-table wages…”
“So it’s not surprising that, as a group, immigrants for decades have dragged down Joe and Jane Median’s income.”
“When advanced economies admit ever larger numbers of unskilled workers (plus a chain of relatives through “family reunification”), they are importing poverty. The President says this is to do “the jobs Americans won’t do”. For the sake of argument, take him at his word. So why won’t Americans do them? Because they’re a great way to ensure you live in poverty. So we import foreigners to be our poor people. Can we import just the right number to ensure that poverty doesn’t “grow”? Unlikely.”
“There are arguments to be made both for and against immigration, but you can’t be in favor of mass unskilled immigration and then pledge to fight the “war on poverty”. It’s like spooning out a bathtub with a thimble while leaving the faucets running.”
May 16, 2008 - 6:00 am 78. Dan Larson:When the founding fathers immigrated here what immigration law did they have to obey?
May 16, 2008 - 6:27 am 79. Sam:The US has always been and ought to remain open to anybody with the gumption to succeed and the willingness to pay its taxes, obey its laws.
The only people who complain about immigrants are those who are afraid they or their friends can’t compete.
Ed: Mark Stein is an interesting writer, but the Canadian economy has a slew of problems. And I’ve argued for immigration reform that includes skilled and educated folks. And I think an intelligent immigration policy could limit unskilled immigrants. But we don’t have a coherent immigration policy. What we have is chaotic, and the ones determined that it be that way by taking no action but enforcement are the same folks who stir up the outrage over it. That’s why I think they are demagogues.
May 16, 2008 - 7:24 am 80. j clark:My Canadian wife and I spent untold hours waiting and thousands of dollars on immigration lawyers to get her into the US legally. Even then she couldnt work for nearly a year. We sacrificed and we waited, because thats the way it is. Part of the waiting is the US gov. checking you out, its a slow process, but its the rules. The crybabies calling for “coherent immigration reform”? it is coherent and its slow and it needs to be. We have a fundemental right to know who is coming into the country. I get sick to my stomach watching hordes of illegals marching, demanding thier “rights”. Behaving in ways that in thier own countries would land them in jail. They deserve to be rounded up and thrown over the border. Getting into the US is privilege,not your right. If you dont like the rules and dont want to abide by them, No problem go back to the third world toilet you come from and change it.
May 16, 2008 - 8:43 am 81. Ed Wallis:Dan Larson: “The US has always been and ought to remain open to anybody with the gumption to succeed and the willingness to pay its taxes, obey its laws.”
…including immigration, residency and employment laws! (You contradict yourself, Dan…)
May 16, 2008 - 8:57 am 82. Sam:> Dan Larson: “The US has always been and ought to remain open to anybody with the gumption to succeed and the willingness to pay its taxes, obey its laws.”
…including immigration, residency and employment laws! (You contradict yourself, Dan…)
Ed: And you’re begging the question. As we all know, US citizens break this law without remorse on a wide scale and employ illegal immigrants, and that is why illegals come here. Unless you want to say that to break one law is the same as breaking them all, Dan is being consistent. Crossing the border is a misdemeanor, BTW. Attempts to criminalize it in Congress have failed miserably. So why do otherwise law-abiding Americans break this one law with impunity, like no time since the massive law-breaking of the Prohibition era laws?
May 16, 2008 - 12:14 pm 83. Sam:> My Canadian wife and I spent untold hours waiting and thousands of dollars on immigration lawyers … We sacrificed and we waited … its a slow process, but its the rules. The crybabies calling for “coherent immigration reform”? it is coherent and its slow and it needs to be … to know who is coming into the country … go back to the third world toilet you come from and change it.
This is absurd. People respect reasonable laws. Anyone that has tried to adopt foreign children or marry foreign spouses knows that our immigration laws are broken. And that encourages disrespect, and also lack of enforcement of laws that are incoherent. But the Paleos don’t want any legal changes, yet they want enforcement. Bureaucratic mess as security doesn’t work. There is a long wait time not because they are checking you out; they gave visas to the 9/11 hijackers after 9/11 remember? And it is a function of government to have laws that work.
BTW, as far as I’m concerned Canada is a 3rd world toilet. Their health care system sucks so bad their citizens have to cross into the US (against Canadian law?) to get a doctor to treat them. It’s sad.
May 16, 2008 - 12:26 pm 84. Ed Wallis:“SAM”, Thanks for admitting to all that you are a criminal apologist. No pseudo-logic suffices to explain away your drivel. Change laws when you see them to be unfit. Ignore them – at your peril.
May 16, 2008 - 1:59 pm 85. Sam:> “SAM”, Thanks for admitting to all that you are a criminal apologist. No pseudo-logic suffices to explain away your drivel. Change laws when you see them to be unfit.
The laws do need to be changed, as I’ve said. And you’re wishing one particular law violation made one a criminal, regardless of what the law says, correct? I didn’t make it a misdemeanor, our legislators did. They can change its status any time they wish.
May 16, 2008 - 4:59 pm 86. spudmom:I am a small business owner and have recently signed up for E-verify (the instant check to screen out illegals.) It’s incredibly easy, takes about an hour to go through the online training, takes about a minute to check a new hire, and the rules are simple. Now, in my business (EMS education) there aren’t too many illegal immigrants who would apply, but if I can add that simple step to my employment process, every other employer can, too. I think the real reason the government doesn’t mandate this step (along with getting the I-9 form, a W-4, etc.) is that if all those illegals can’t be employed, they aren’t paying Social Security to phony accounts. Our own Idaho senator, Larry Craig, is pushing for this illegal immigrant amnesty added to the Iraq spending bill, because local farmers can’t get Americans to do the work. So, do we allow illegals to have amnesty only if they are filling a need for farmers, hotels, and meat packing plants? I would much prefer streamlining the legalization process than give lawbreakers a free pass just because we want cheap produce. Huddled masses from all over the world deserve the chance at the American Dream, not just our southern neighbors.
May 17, 2008 - 8:55 am 87. Sam:> I am a small business owner and have recently signed up for E-verify (the instant check to screen out illegals.) It’s incredibly easy … if I can add that simple step to my employment process, every other employer can, too …
E-verify began as a program called “Basic Pilot”. I suppose they renamed it because it was problematic, and several large companies were raided by INS that did require Basic Pilot. I suspect we’ll need a better system before requiring such a thing.
> So, do we allow illegals to have amnesty only if they are filling a need for farmers, hotels, and meat packing plants? I would much prefer streamlining the legalization process than give lawbreakers a free pass just because we want cheap produce.
I agree, but demogoguery being what it is, I think most in this folder would rather not streamline the legal process and give a free pass to lawbreakers. They hope keeping the status quo will improve their chances of convincing everyone that a crisis is at hand (card to use at election time) and that immigration (legal and illegal) is polluting our culture.
May 17, 2008 - 9:40 am 88. Sam:> Our own Idaho senator, Larry Craig, is pushing for this illegal immigrant amnesty added to the Iraq spending bill …
Oh and isn’t this shameful how they have to sneak these sorts of things by “in the dead of night?” The RealID Act, a program that if carried out will have large ramifications for everyone, was done as a rider on an Iraq war spending bill by Sensenbrenner after failing to pass the Senate. It is sad when our legislators legislate this way. But the Paleos only decry these “dead of night” operations only when they disagree with the action; if they agree they like it. I oppose it always.
May 17, 2008 - 9:53 am 89. Warrl:By some amazing coincidence, the US started accumulating a huge number of illegal immigrants right after Congress changed the immigration laws to drastically decrease the number of LEGAL immigrants permitted each year.
The arguments that the country needs immigrants are substantially correct. However, we need to combine a greater openness to LEGAL immigrants with a systematic and effective crackdown on illegals and those who abet them. (Starting with “sanctuary cities” that flout US immigration law – they are criminals, not governments, and only governments are permitted to collect taxes.)
There is precisely one group of illegal immigrants I have any sympathy at all for. They are people who did not really COME here, but rather, WERE BROUGHT here as children – and have since grown up here and become productive law-abiding (aside from an inherited immigration problem) adults. They never had a foothold in adult society anywhere other than here. If we can construct a reasonable and reasonably-enforceable definition, I’d say give these people an exemption.
Other than that probably-small group, any process for legalizing illegals MUST involve at least one of two components: (1) They pay a quite substantial penalty, and/or (2) they leave the country, wait their turn, and STAY OUT of the country until their turn comes up.
May 20, 2008 - 10:24 pm