Imagration Reform

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

are you threatening me bro?

u scared bro?

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

u scared bro?

I skeered bro //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[FurbiesAndBeans 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.

Wanting to point this out. Not everyone's a citizen here. There's people (like myself right now) that are legal permanent residents, and I looked through all the immigration papers and NONE say anything about speaking english being a requirement. Hell, all the immigration papers are in spanish too i believe.

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/beatdeadhorse5.gif.5d70132dea1eb89b73bf2fdbb6027dd6.gif

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

Wanting to point this out. Not everyone's a citizen here. There's people (like myself right now) that are legal permanent residents, and I looked through all the immigration papers and NONE say anything about speaking english being a requirement. Hell, all the immigration papers are in spanish too i believe.

ihre papier bitte!

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Wanting to point this out. Not everyone's a citizen here. There's people (like myself right now) that are legal permanent residents, and I looked through all the immigration papers and NONE say anything about speaking english being a requirement. Hell, all the immigration papers are in spanish too i believe.

I said citizenship, which may or may not be what you are referring to when you say 'legal permanent resident'.

Anyway, about becoming a citizen:

"Naturalization

 

A person who was not born a U.S. citizen may acquire U.S. citizenship through a process known as naturalization.

 

Eligibility for naturalization

 

To become a naturalized United States citizen, one must be at least eighteen years of age at the time of filing, a legal permanent resident of the United States, and have had a status of a legal permanent resident in the United States for five years less 90 days before they apply (this requirement is reduced to three years less 90 days if they (a) acquired legal permanent resident status, (b) have been married to and living with a citizen for the past three years and © the spouse has been a U.S. citizen for at least three years prior to the applicant applying for naturalization.) They must have been physically present for at least 30 months of 60 months prior to the date of filing their application. Also during those 60 months if the legal permanent resident was outside of the U.S. for a continuous period of 6 months or more they are disqualified from naturalizing (certain exceptions apply for those continuous periods of six months to 1 year). They must be a "person of good moral character", and must pass a test on United States history and government[8][9] Most applicants must also have a working knowledge of the English language.[8] There are exceptions, introduced in 1990, for long-resident older applicants and those with mental or physical disabilities.[10][11] This requirement for an ability to read, write, and speak English is not regarded[who?] as too difficult,[clarification needed] since the test requires that applicants read and write in English."

United States nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck!

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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).

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.

I do not have the time to teach remedial logic on an internet forum, and it's really sapping my energy to tediously explain things that should be obvious.

1. The comparison to arguments about slaves is not a comparison of context; it is a challenge via analogy to your logical form and structure. Appealing to popular practice is by no means a valid argument; it wasn't valid pre-abolition, and it isn't now.

2. Arguing on the basis of proximity - It is fallacious to argue from proximity, unless you're citing particular details that could only be known by proximity (and once those details are shared, the value of proximity disappears). If the general form of your argument were true (that you can only determine the validity of an action or proposition if you're near in proximity to the circumstances in question), then there would've been no grounds for us to challenge the morality of what the Nazis were doing in Germany. Certainly it is possible that there could be more insight available to a person of near-proximity, but that insight has not been brought forth in this thread. Of course, none of my arguments thus far have been contingent on proximity (they are universal principles), so why that's even relevant is a little baffling.

3. Tracking illegal immigrant populations - I agree with what you're saying, which is why I prefaced it with a caveat. Of course, you have to wonder on what grounds you're suggesting that the US has a problem so much more severe if there aren't good statistics to support that argument.

4. Why doesn't Canada do it first? I can't tell you why, but your expectation for me to change my entire country's way of thinking before I make a suggestion about policy is, honestly, flat out ridiculous.

5. Milton Friedman - Cite one thing I've said so far that he would disagree with. Perhaps we would've had a philosophical disagreement on the whole "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" perspective, but certainly we are in agreement on the role of government (which is the point of this topic).

6. Feasibility vs morality - That which is moral should always take precedent over that which is feasible. It doesn't matter that slavery is very economically beneficial to the states that employ it. Of course, we are all free to make our choice between these rarely mutually exclusive options, but I think it is obvious that any person who cares about being moral will put morality ahead of feasibility.

7. Charity and social services - Of course charity numbers are relatively low now: a large portion of money goes to tax instead!

Lastly, you (and everyone else in this thread) needs to get off their conservative vs liberal dichotomy. Anyone with an iota of independent thought cannot be lumped into the bi-partisan Democrat vs Republican nonsense, so quit trying to peg me there by presenting "what liberals typically argue" as if that is even remotely relevant to what I'm saying.

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

Da fuck?????????

 

[Bass911 10+ year member]

Mass deportation is the only real answer, anchor babies and all. It will never happen because America makes to much money off illegals and get cheap labor. We don't need any new laws for illegals. We should have enforced the ones we already have. It will get worse because of greedy capitalist wanting cheap labor and moving jobs overseas.

 

[FurbiesAndBeans 10+ year member]

I said citizenship, which may or may not be what you are referring to when you say 'legal permanent resident'.
Anyway, about becoming a citizen:

"Naturalization

 

A person who was not born a U.S. citizen may acquire U.S. citizenship through a process known as naturalization.

 

Eligibility for naturalization

 

To become a naturalized United States citizen, one must be at least eighteen years of age at the time of filing, a legal permanent resident of the United States, and have had a status of a legal permanent resident in the United States for five years less 90 days before they apply (this requirement is reduced to three years less 90 days if they (a) acquired legal permanent resident status, (b) have been married to and living with a citizen for the past three years and © the spouse has been a U.S. citizen for at least three years prior to the applicant applying for naturalization.) They must have been physically present for at least 30 months of 60 months prior to the date of filing their application. Also during those 60 months if the legal permanent resident was outside of the U.S. for a continuous period of 6 months or more they are disqualified from naturalizing (certain exceptions apply for those continuous periods of six months to 1 year). They must be a "person of good moral character", and must pass a test on United States history and government[8][9] Most applicants must also have a working knowledge of the English language.[8] There are exceptions, introduced in 1990, for long-resident older applicants and those with mental or physical disabilities.[10][11] This requirement for an ability to read, write, and speak English is not regarded[who?] as too difficult,[clarification needed] since the test requires that applicants read and write in English."

United States nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A citizen and a permanent resident are two different things. I know a lot of immigrants who are permanent residents with no intention to become citizens. They both hold the same rights, but the citizen is just to say your a citizen, lol. Citizen does require being able to speak english and pass a test that most natural born citizens would fail, but being a permanent resident doesn't require you to know english.

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

I'm still trying to figure out why it's so racist to ask someone for proof of residence when they're suspicious and more than likely not able to speak/understand English very well? Isn't that the logical thing to do with this new bill, since now the police can actually do something when it comes to illegals?

 

[pr-festiva 10+ year member]

A citizen and a permanent resident are two different things. I know a lot of immigrants who are permanent residents with no intention to become citizens. They both hold the same rights, but the citizen is just to say your a citizen, lol. Citizen does require being able to speak english and pass a test that most natural born citizens would fail, but being a permanent resident doesn't require you to know english.

you have to be a citizen to vote and some other minor things that i cant remember right now other then that yep basically the same.my wife is going for dual citizenship,,so there goes a shit load more money and a trip to NYC,, a place i truely hate

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

1. The comparison to arguments about slaves is not a comparison of context; it is a challenge via analogy to your logical form and structure. Appealing to popular practice is by no means a valid argument; it wasn't valid pre-abolition, and it isn't now.

Oh I see, your parallel to slavery is justified, but my parallel to the police is not. Again, if you want to conclude that our govt securing the border is a means to control who works where by keeping illegals out, then me saying the police could also be said to be controlling the work force by keeping criminals in jail is a challenge via analogy to your logical form and structure.

2. Arguing on the basis of proximity - It is fallacious to argue from proximity, unless you're citing particular details that could only be known by proximity (and once those details are shared, the value of proximity disappears). If the general form of your argument were true (that you can only determine the validity of an action or proposition if you're near in proximity to the circumstances in question), then there would've been no grounds for us to challenge the morality of what the Nazis were doing in Germany. Certainly it is possible that there could be more insight available to a person of near-proximity, but that insight has not been brought forth in this thread. Of course, none of my arguments thus far have been contingent on proximity (they are universal principles), so why that's even relevant is a little baffling.

This discussion is all about particular details. If we were talking about walking on the moon, id agree proximity doesn't matter, because neither of us are or ever will be there. Our opinions weigh equally. But we aren't talking about the moon, we are talking about life in the United States, and how illegal immigrants are affecting it. You dont know these answers, all you have are estimated statistics. nIve lived in the eastern US, the southern US, western US, and Im currently in the midwest. You avoiding my questions in my previous reply tells me all your answers would be no, which means you've never even visited the areas in question. Of course you dont think you need to have ever even been here to know better than actual residents, you have the internet.

3. Tracking illegal immigrant populations - I agree with what you're saying, which is why I prefaced it with a caveat. Of course, you have to wonder on what grounds you're suggesting that the US has a problem so much more severe if there aren't good statistics to support that argument.

Wonder no more: first-hand experience. What I have to wonder is how you have grown to decisive in your opinion, with no first-hand experience, and no 'good statistics'.

4. Why doesn't Canada do it first? I can't tell you why, but your expectation for me to change my entire country's way of thinking before I make a suggestion about policy is, honestly, flat out ridiculous.

I didnt say i expected you to change your country's policies, I said dont judge us for our policies when your country has the same policy (not open borders).

5. Milton Friedman - Cite one thing I've said so far that he would disagree with. Perhaps we would've had a philosophical disagreement on the whole "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" perspective, but certainly we are in agreement on the role of government (which is the point of this topic).

Socialized medicine is not financial independence for the individual. Even if your theory of relying on charity worked. Its financial dependence on the group.

6. Feasibility vs morality - That which is moral should always take precedent over that which is feasible. It doesn't matter that slavery is very economically beneficial to the states that employ it. Of course, we are all free to make our choice between these rarely mutually exclusive options, but I think it is obvious that any person who cares about being moral will put morality ahead of feasibility.

The fact that you bring up slavery as an example of morality versus feasibility just tells me you dont understand what I mean by morality versus feasibility.

Feasible: Capable of being accomplished or brought about; possible - feasible: dictionary definitions for feasible | Wordnik

So my point was morality versus what is actually possible. Not morality versus what is economically beneficial (such as slavery). So IOW, my point was feasibility, what is possible, takes precedent over what is the most morally sound choice. The most morally sound choice is to never kill another living creature so long as you live on this earth. The feasible choice is to become a vegetarian and only consume plants.

So now that we both understand what I was saying, lets be more specific. Im not even saying I agree charity-paid universal healthcare is the most moral choice, because I dont. But if it were, its still not the best choice possible because as I said before, there's simply no data to suggest we could raise such large amounts of money, year in and year out no less, by charity.

7. Charity and social services - Of course charity numbers are relatively low now: a large portion of money goes to tax instead!

Here in lies the crux of the flaw in your logic. The bills wont change, someone still pays for the universal healthcare system.

Your plan is nothing more than a 250 million person honor system. There is no doubt some people would not pay this 'charity', so we would rely on others to pay more. Who is the group is going to pay more than their individual share, the poor? Obviously not. Your plan, if it even worked, which it wouldn't, would then set a larger burden on the higher income people, and less on the lower income people. Everyone gets the healthcare, but not everyone pays for it. The tax based system, while I agree is filtered through the inefficiency of our govt, at least attempts to tax everyone, which seems more fair to me since, again, everyone would receive the healthcare.

I guess we are reverting back to point #2 when I say that Canada's universal healthcare system is tax based rather than charity based, is it not?

Lastly, you (and everyone else in this thread) needs to get off their conservative vs liberal dichotomy. Anyone with an iota of independent thought cannot be lumped into the bi-partisan Democrat vs Republican nonsense, so quit trying to peg me there by presenting "what liberals typically argue" as if that is even remotely relevant to what I'm saying.

You are pro climate change. Pro illegal immigration. Pro universal healthcare. 3 major political topics of recent discussion on this forum, all 3 you align with liberals. Yet you balk when I suggested you were liberal, and cop an attitude about it even after I apologized if I had misunderstood your views. To speak frankly, if you are liberal, conservative, libertarian, or nazi, it matters less to me than the amount of time Ive already spent discussing it with you by now. If my apology and subsequent explanations aren't enough, at this point that's your problem.

I do not have the time to teach remedial logic on an internet forum, and it's really sapping my energy to tediously explain things that should be obvious.

Someone is getting a little too big for their breeches. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I'm still trying to figure out why it's so racist to ask someone for proof of residence when they're suspicious and more than likely not able to speak/understand English very well? Isn't that the logical thing to do with this new bill, since now the police can actually do something when it comes to illegals?

They could get around this whole 'racial profiling' thing by just making it harder on all of us by saying we must show proof of identification in our every day lives. Buy a cup of coffee, show ID please. Buy gasoline, need to see your ID first sir. It would mean more of a hassle for all of us legal residents, every single day, but the minorities would no longer be able to claim racial profiling.

Its amazing these guys talk about how ethnically diverse our country is these days, but they seem to think the majority of our cops are white. White, racist, and corrupt.