Imagration Reform

[TnT_Sounds 10+ year member]

Just putting my $.02 in.
First of all, I am a legal immigrant. I have personally gone through the immigration process myself and it's a pain in the @ss to be honest. Second, there's very few reasons why people would be allowed to immigrate. Third, it is not cheap to pay all the processing fees to become an immigrant, plus the lawyer fees since most people can't understand for shit anything in the forms. Yes they are do-able without a lawyer, but it takes a long time understanding all the forms and getting everything ready.

If you have ever met anyone who's here illegally, most of them will tell you that they come here to make money and then to return to the Mexico or their home country. Few of the illegals here come here to join gangs or just be a messed up person. Those "illegals" that commit crimes are usually the descendants of illegals who were born in the US thus not being illegal anymore.

Speaking from personal experience, it is VERY hard to make a decent living in Mexico. My cousin worked at a video rental place (just like a small privately owned shop) and his pay for an 8 hour shift was around $4.50. Thats for a whole day! Wages down in Mexico are EXTREMELY underpaid. If you were a Mexican seeking a better life, going the legal way to get into the US is almost impossible. Getting the savings to be able to process any papers would take a couple years of savings. Once you could finally put the papers in, you run the risk of them denying you (which happens a lot btw). That means all that money that you saved up goes to waste. That's one of the main reasons people get here illegally... getting in the legal way is too hard and expensive.

Anyways i think i've ranted enough.

EDIT: The only thing i see wrong with the AZ Immigration law is that any cop can stop you and ask for papers without a real reason to. Why not do it like CA and have check points at certain places and check there?

Amen. Cops dont need more reasons to be allowed to discriminate. Luckily I was born in the US (Arizona, go figure..) and I didn't have to go through this process of making my way in.

Thank you. Someone understands..

If we give them a chance to pay a fine and some still don't come forward then yea deport them. You have to cut your losses somehow. At least if they come forward they are paying something which is what you want. How do you plan on going about deporting them all? They're not going to come forward. If they are aloud to come forward pay a fine and start paying taxes and garnish their paychecks at least they're paying something.

we are getting over populated anyway, they need to go back with their anchor babies

 

[subzero 5,000+ posts]

leave all the fine mexican bitches here...

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

are you dumbasses still debating this?

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

And the title of the thread is STILL spelled wrong. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

And what does that have to do with the validity of the argument itself? This is every bit as preposterous a way to argue as it was when enlightenment folk argued that every other country owns slaves, too.

Comparing securing our borders and getting the illegal immigrant population under control to slavery? Someone is getting carried away.

The point of me saying every other country secures its borders is, if you want someone to be the first to try it, go lobby your own govt, dont chastise us for not being your guinea pig. This country is already famous for accepting the poor, the downtrodden, etc etc... to try and get a guilt trip given to us for wanting to (omg) actually know who lives here, and actually make everyone pay their fair share... its preposterous.

I'll remember that "every other country in the world doesnt make it right" argument the next time a non-American tells us we should abolish the death penalty and recite that we are the only 1st world country who uses it.

When a government tells you who can work for your company and who can't, that's the government wielding control in the economy. When skilled folk are restricted from being able to compete and produce in the economy, that's the government becoming excessively entangled.
The purpose of the police force is not analogous to any of those other issues. I do agree with getting rid of the Department of Education, though. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Again, this is not the govt simply saying who can and cant work for a company, its the govt securing who does and does not cross our border, does and does not immigrate here. Propose a plan that allows the govt to not secure our borders and control immigration, that wouldn't lead to complete chaos. Anyone can come and go as they please? Taxes on a voluntary basis. Murderers, terrorist, ******, thieves and even spies free to enter and exit the country at their convenience? Not to mention, if we open our borders so freely, it would wreak havoc on our international travel system. Competing for jobs not just with people from out of state anymore, but from people out of country who would gladly move here if they happen to get the job. People committing crimes then slipping across the border to avoid pursuit or even prosecution. (does Mexico offer asylum when the death penalty is possibl, like many other countries do?) The list of problems a truly open border would create are enormous, which is exactly why no other country has ever tried it before. So again, spend your time telling Canadians to change their system, be the world's guinea pigs. Dont expect us to do it for you. How crazy would it sound for American's to be complaining Canada hasn't opened their borders, or hasn't tried edible currency, or perhaps if we got upset because Canada hasn't tried an all-women's space program yet! You'd tell us to do it first, if we think it's such a great idea.

You trying to suggest the govt securing its borders is simply a way to control who works what jobs is ridiculous. As I said before, if you want to look at it in that manner, yes keeping illegals out DOES control who works for certain jobs. Again just like cops locking up bank robbers is a means of keeping criminals from getting jobs. Or, securing the border is a means of the govt controlling where certain people can shop, is a means of telling which people they can or cant sleep, or controlling where they can have ***. My god, our government securing our borders from illegal immigrants is just like telling certain people (Mexicans) where they can or cant breath!

Im sorry Neil, but I guess we just disagree here. IMO the govt should have the right to control who gets to work a permanent in-country job, if the new employee in question is not in this country legally. If you want to complain about the govt meddling in private company hiring practices, start a thread complaining about affirmative action.

The police parallel is just as valid as every time the liberals try to use it. In fact, more so here imo, as securing our borders is a function I hold fairly closely to a police force. The national guard would probably be the more appropriate than actually police though.

You're not going to defeat the argument by stating I'm not close enough in proximity to make an assessment. That's simply terrible logic.

How is it terrible logic to suggest you dont even live here, so your experience and opinions are of lesser value to the topic? Its terrible logic to suggest direct experience trumps hear-say and theory? Have you spent any time in the southern US states to give an experienced opinion on how the immigrants are affecting things? Do you know many illegal Mexican immigrants to give a first-hand opinion of their attitudes, actions or motives? Do you actively participate in the US job market so as to be able to give your knowledgeable opinion on how it is being affected?

Here's something of interest: tracking populations of illegal immigrants is inherently difficult, but Canada and the US have about the same rate of illegal immigrants entering per naturalized citizen. Every year, the equivalent of 0.3% of the naturalized citizen population immigrates illegally into either country. So while the scale of the challenge is different, the relative struggle is not.

Translation: "tracking populations of illegal immigrants is difficult, but here's a statistic you should believe anyway".

But like I said, whether or not Canada has the same problem bears nothing on the merits of the argument itself.

Beyond leaving me the right to suggest you, Canada, be the world's guinea pig first. You double-dog-daring us to go first just isn't enough.

Wasn't it you criticizing me earlier for not reading enough economics? And yet you're clearly confused about what a classical liberal, neoliberal, or libertarian is. I even made explicit who my economic beacon is, so to speak, in Milton Friedman.

I know who Milton Friedman is, and I listed a few stances you've taken that I dont think he would have agreed with you on. *shrug* Where is the confusion here?

So how does one accomplish action on climate change without the nanny government? It falls on the consumers to patronize businesses who are greener in scope; the consumer needs to demonstrate that they are willing to pay the cost of the technology shift. Either way, that cost will need to be paid, it's just that doing so without government intervention is a freer, more efficient, way of doing so. Admittedly, it is completely possible that the majority of consumers will never look at their purchases in this light, but it's up to people like me to carry out the conversation and win the argument, not legislate my views upon others.

The point is to make an argument that is feasible, not just one you think is morally correct. Ultimately I agree with you Id love to see those large issues tackled without getting our inefficient governments involved, but that simply wont happen. Less govt control over such things has been tried before, and failed. If the govt has no control over these issues, the manufacturers can simply get together and decide none of them will spend money on smoke stack scrubbers or minimize pollution run-off. This sort of back-door business deal is already common, with less govt interference it would be rampant (and this coming from a small-govt conservative).

For something like universal health care, that would likely work through charity and non-profit organizations, to which those interested in supporting it would have to donate their money (and likely a considerably disproportionate amount compared to their fellow Americans).

Do you honestly believe we could pay for universal health care by way of charities? Im not going to go research the annual budget of major charity organizations compared to the projected annual healthcare budget, but I still feel confident when I say that is not a realistic solution.

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

Omg.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

are you dumbasses still debating this?

u mad bro

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

Perplexed. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

as far as moving "between" phx and flag....theres nothing in between. its a vast waste land is right. im not moving becasue i dont like the state, i jsut cant find a decent job becasue the mexicans drive down the cost of labor, the audio shops here are full and dont care how exp you are they want to pay u 9/hr.

A quote from another thread ITT. How many legal, tax paying American's have to change their entire lives to suit the illegal immigrants who have come here, before we start to say time-out, there's a real problem here...?

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Perplexed. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

nah, definitely mad bro.

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

What's clear is no matter how many times I explain my 'issue', you will tell me Im wrong, and tell me what my issue really is.
And no, Im not saying only illegals cant speak english, Im simply saying one of the requirements of citizenship is proving a basic knowledge of the language. Any extreme opinion you want to draw from that truth is your conclusion, not mine. You imply even many legal immigrants cant speak english, I explain they have to have at least a basic knowledge of it to be 'legal', and you reply with that Im saying only illegals cant speak english correctly. Sorry if I sound ignorant to you when I spell out the law to you, but that's your problem, not mine.

Ill reply to you when I have more time Neil.

I gave you a clear comparison to your idiotic logic here and you don't understand.

You didnt disprove me. Ive repeated many times now that to be a legal resident, one of the criteria is a basic knowledge of English. If the number of legal Hispanics here dwarfs the number of illegals, we should have no reason to need to use anything other than English.

I'm convinced you have little to no reading comprehension skills now. I'm done with you. Post all you want I'm not reading. You have an issue with the Hispanic culture, but they're not going anywhere so just sit and complain.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I gave you a clear comparison to your idiotic logic here and you don't understand.

I'm convinced you have little to no reading comprehension skills now. I'm done with you. Post all you want I'm not reading. You have an issue with the Hispanic culture, but they're not going anywhere so just sit and complain.

Ah yes, yet again you tell me what Im thinking. Great call. Im against ILLEGAL immigration, so clearly Im a biggot. Let me know how I feel about the gulf oil spill too. lol

And finished off with the usual final comment from an illegal supporter: "they arent going anywhere so this is me sticking my tongue out at you".

I hope you never live to regret your words, I really do.

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

I mad bro.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I mad bro.

Simmer down bro.

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

Simmer down bro.

are you threatening me bro?