| Author |
Message |
    
-af
Citizen
Username: Java_drinker
Post Number: 272
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 11:48 am: |     |
For once I agree with Zoe on something, the borders and immigration.
I'm getting quite sick and tied of people who get picked up for outstaying their visas or being here illegally all together and playing it off like it was a jay-walking ticket.
Most of the mid-east nationals deported in the past year were scooped up on such charges and I think that we are about 100,000 people short of making progress. Be you Mexican, Egyptian, Israeli, English, Cuban or Russian, there is a process for coming and staying here and it needs to be enforced. I see the legally residing relatives on TV crying a river something like “I don’t understand how (Mohammad/Juan/Peter or whoever) was arrested and deported, all he did was enter the country illegally and hide from the government”. Lose University policies, H1-B visas and weak Northern and Southern boarders are the place to start.
When I travel to many European destinations my entry and exit are checked against each other with the understanding that if I outstay my visa (or welcome) I will be identified and sought after. There is no reason that this can’t be done here. For starters, it would have netted over half of the 19 people who committed the horrible atrocities on 9/11/01. Is that so much to ask of visitors here, to leave when you say you are going to or at least register if you stay? This is not a civil liberty issue, outstaying your visa is a criminal offence and criminals do not have (or deserve) such protection.
While I conceder myself pretty middle-of-the-road on social issues, this one has got my blood boiling. When my fore-parents came to this country in the late 1800’s there was a process they had to follow and even though it was not as rigorous, there were major hurdles to overcome. I would expect that everyone else who wants to live the Great American Dream should have to do the same.
Few will argue that this is one of the best countries on the planet to live, but that “open for business” sign on our front door comes with a price. It’s there to make sure you are whom you say you are, that you aren’t bringing diseases with you, that you haven’t been kicked out of whatever godforsaken hole you come from for trying to topple that government and that you aren’t the type to take out a few city blocks while you go looking for 7 virgins or the promise du-jour. It is a high price to pay but not one too high to achieve.
We have enough of our own freeloaders, religious fanatics, career criminals and other ill-willed individuals to carry.
|
montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 23
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 1:05 pm: | |
Ah yes, the borders...
First of all, NAFTA already allows relatively free movement for Canadians and Mexicans.
Several border areas in the U.S. are dependent on Canadian or Mexican cities for their economic well-being, just as some areas of Canada and Mexico are dependent on U.S. cities. People (in all three countries) cross these borders in increasing numbers. Completely free movement for NAFTA citizens is only a matter of time.
The U.S. also has bilateral agreements with many other states that make visas unnecessary, and although there should be matching of the I-94 cards (filled in on arrival and surrendered on departure), this is a manual process with a lot of room for error. Unless the U.S. implements consistent exit control at its border crossings (i.e. you cannot leave the country without showing a U.S./Canadian/Mexican passport or surrendering your entry card), the I-94 system is of limited value in detecting people who have stayed too long.
Reference to the experience of prior immigrants is not a good argument. African slaves, Chinese laborers, Latin Americans, Acadians (cajuns) and many others did not pass through the Ellis Island experience.
The borders have always been porous, and the enforcement arbitrary and capricious. I suspect that very few people subject to U.S. immigration laws see them as having genuine moral authority, no matter what they might say publicly.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1680
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 7:50 pm: | |
Most illegal immigrants are willing to work very hard under conditions that violate some of all of the labor laws in this country. Perhaps we should shut down businesses that employ illegal immigrants and send the owners to prison.
Of course, many a respected member of our communities would be going to jail and we would have to pay a lot more for our fresh fruits and vegetables and landscaping.
The xenophobic portrait of illegal immigrants is one of freeloading bums. The reality is that the majority of illegal immigrants work under harsh conditions and do whatever they can to stay out of the spotlight of the law. |
Elmwoodian
Citizen
Username: Java_drinker
Post Number: 280
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 9:15 am: | |
The only point that is valid about illegal immigrants is that they are illegal immigrants. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 677
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 2:40 pm: | |
My own feeling, which is based on my experiences with Haitian and Cuban communities in Miami during the 5 years I lived there, is that the net effect of illegal immigrants on the country is negative. I am no expert on the subject, and I am open to the possibility that my experience is atypical, but it seems to me that most illegal immigrants are simply looking for an easy life, not a productive one.
Is that wrong? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not confident that America has the resources and infrastructure to justify leaving our borders as loose as they are. This ain't the 20's, the country is a very different place. I'd like to see more manpower assigned to both eliminating illegals and processing legal immigrants. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 678
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 2:44 pm: | |
(And no, this is not some other person using my screen name... I'm very liberal on most issues, but that's really how I feel on this one.) |
montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 24
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 3:39 pm: | |
Illegal? You mean like exceeding the speed limit? Or having sex with a same-sex partner? Or alcohol (not the 20's any longer, of course)? Or travelling to Cuba? Really!
Surely there's a deeper argument than this. |
Elmwoodian
Citizen
Username: Java_drinker
Post Number: 281
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 4:42 pm: | |
NO, montagnard, I mean illegal as in against the law and punishable by the courts.
There are many laws that I too disagree with, some I think are wrong on their face and even those I would break. But that does not mitigate that fact that the action is illegal. Using your logic: if I hold up a bank, but I really, really need the money then it’s OK? No.
Illegal immigration is illegal for a reason, illegals place an enormous drain on resources like public hospitals, schools, the police, and the INS. They, by and large, do not pay taxes, do not play by the rules that we have to, and do not give back to the country that they are here to take from.
I welcome all visitors, immigrants and new citizens with open arms. America is the dream that so many strive for, those who can make it while following the law deserve everything they can get. Those who do it illegally (no matter your intent) should be returned to their origin and charged for the expense of shipping.
There isn’t much stopping people from going through the correct process of immigration, not everyone gets it, but that’s life. If our doors were open to the world then what would be the incentive to bettering their own countries?
illegal
SYLLABICATION: il·le·gal
ADJECTIVE:
1. Prohibited by law.
2. Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
3. Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.
NOUN: An illegal immigrant.
|
montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 25
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 1:28 am: | |
The definition of legality requires a little more nuance.
Apart from the fact that laws and regulations change with the political wishes of the voters (or possibly the lobbyists), the enforcement of the law also varies greatly.
In NYC, for example, 35% of the population is foreign-born, and the police do not check a person's immigration status when responding to routine crimes. An NYC government that took a tough line on immigration would risk defeat in the next election. States that depend heavily on immigrant labor have to be similarly accomodating.
What does "illegal" mean if the rules are inconsistent and actively opposed by many of the elected bodies responsible for their enforcement? Does the Federal immigration law take precedence over the wishes of city and state voters, or does it fall into the same gray area as medical marijuana or same-sex marriage?
Yes, some undocumented immigrants will get caught and deported, just as some people who regularly exceed the speed limit will lose their licenses. When viewed as a whole, however, the motor vehicle laws and the enforcement effort reflect a political consensus that speeding is wrong but not worth bothering about beyond making a few unfortunate examples. Immigrating without INS documents is apparently seen by voters in much the same way.
The political consensus can shift, of course, and the rules for issuing INS documents and procedures for verifying their possession can be changed. National identity cards may ultimately be required for U.S. citizens, and the police may be authorized to check identification in more situations.
I would not expect the consensus to shift rapidly however, and the concept of "legal" and "illegal" immigration will remain debatable for some time. The term "undocumented immigrant" or "undocumented person" may be better suited to rational discussion. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 681
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 2:30 pm: | |
Regardless of the terminology you use, the point is that a person residing in the country illegally is committing a considerably more serious breach of law than a speeder. |
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 90
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 2:55 pm: | |
why so? speeders risk the lives of innocents around them- immigrants don't. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 39
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 2:58 pm: | |
In terms of 'taking services and giving back nothing in return' -- Alan Greenspan testified and the U of IL did some research a while back on that and said that the net on immigrants (what they pay versus what they receive) works out to a plus for the U.S. THey pay more in taxes than the services they access (or don't -- probably out of fear).
As well, other studies (in the LA Times I believe)have found that illegal immigrants really do come to this country to work. it's their second generation that is more likely to go on the dole -- no doubt after looking at the habits of the native born.
I believe illegal immigrants are illegally here, no question. But if it's about who uses and doesn't give back anything, I think a far greater drain is from the US native-born population than anyone coming over the border. Welfare reform is all well and good, but being able to vote for a politician that takes money from the working population so as not to trouble you going door to door demanding your fellow man pay for your existence (nevermind not having to say 'thank you for the free healthcare, sir')is the bigger drain by far.
Deport the slackers, keep the workers.
Would Maplewood pass Prop 187? Is it fair to call them greedy and racist if they do? |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page