Amnesty In America

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluecuracao

This article helps explain the point system.

As for the punishments/conditions and how it is not amnesty, this will help.

The law says people that have entered this country illegally are to be deported. If they are not, it is amnesty.

[cowhead]

and hmm... what are the odds that someone's going to pay 5k as a fine when they are already here and more or less integrated? I treid to emigrate to canada and/or ireland and lt me tell you.. canada's a beeyotch... ireland (when I was looking anyway) wasn't so bad, but they were dealing with a bad emigration problem at the time.. nowadays? dunno. I was willing to go thru the proper channels... then again.. my life here isn't so bad... in a few more years I may try again...

on the above note, yeah... sorry... the 'american way' is not supposed to be deception etc. (yeah yeah yeah.. i know... but it's the ideal that we are dealing with. not the reality). I think that if you are here illegally, yes. you ought to be deported and billed for the transit costs... heh.. then again if you can't bill someone for medical costs (with the evil machine that that is) then.. well... the above is kinda moot.. huh?.. or for being able to find someone after they have committed vehicular manslaughter.. heh... suppose it's asking too much to ask them to pay the bill...then again I think I need a nap since I've been doing a job most americans don't want to do all day.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by monster

MASHfreak, you talk of two sides, but you only seem to deal with one type of immigrant? What about the highly skilled immigrants? The people who are brought in because there is not available USC with the desired skills. They come here legally, but are also affected by laws made to deal with illegal immigration. You need these immigrants, if only to replace the skilled Americans who emmigrate out. Entire different ball game but same ball field.

I thought we were specifically talking about illegal immigrants.

Either or, I am in favor of keeping these highly skilled immigrants, who wouldn't? Unless you are getting at something different.

Eventually a movie will be made about this and it will be called ... The Amnestyville Horror.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

None of the four answers provided are what I think of the matter.

I'm really not very interested in any of the provisions of this Act. It does nothing to address the root cause of the problem: that other nations lack a middle class into which the mass of the poor may bootstrap themselves, either within or between generations. Searching for a solution, they come to a place that basically started out entirely as middle-class smallholders: the United States.

We aren't going to solve our immigration problem. The solution is in Mexico and the rest of Latin America homegrowing a middle class. They need to lose the culture of corruption that is pretty much the retirement plan for minor officialdom -- I've no clear idea how many times this multiplies, in effect, the tax burden on the people and their economy, but multiply it it clearly does. They need to secure property rights from rapaciousness public or private, and they're not too good at that yet, witness Chavez's antics in Venezuela. He'll buy them a depression yet before he's ousted.

Large Landowners vs. Everybody Else There is no way to keep things, as land-reform revolutions demonstrate. Ownership of all descriptions must be generally spread around, not exclusively concentrated, and with it, the wealth. North America got this right; Latin America needs to.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I agree, Mexico and southward, grew out of the Spanish system of masters and peons. Every time they had a revolution, they ended up with a different master, rather than a changed system. It seems to be the nature of the people to accept masters until they become too cruel to suffer anymore.

It is NOT, however, our job to change things there, because it will just bite us in the ass again, as it has everywhere else.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Or, just blame the entire nation--that seems reasonable.

I don't know about that. I am pretty sure Al Gore won the popular vote. The people voted Democrates to lead both the House and the Senate so things should be going our way.

I guess we need to be sticking more than a flimsy twig in that Republican cog.

[TheMercenary]

No truly effective comprehensive immigration reform bill passed in the 109th Congress because the entire immigration debate was saddled by proposals to enact a mass amnesty and reward those who have broken the law. Thus, the 109th Congress yet again missed an opportunity to pass an immigration reform agenda that will truly serve our national interest.

Last year, there were some gains in the enforcement arena. Congress authorized the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the southern border, the hiring of more law enforcement agents, and the creation of more detention space. In addition, Congress passed the REAL ID Act to improve the uniformity and integrity of driver's licenses issued throughout the United States. These were all reforms that FAIR advocated and fought for on Capitol Hill.

Unfortunately, while the passage of these measures suggests progress, it is entirely uncertain whether they will bear fruit. First, the funding for these reforms is by no means certain. For example, Congress only authorized about $1.2 billion needed for fencing, an amount proponents say will actually only build about 390 miles. Ongoing funding is also needed for the creation of detention space and the hiring and training of law enforcement agents. And, even if lawmakers are dedicated to funding these reforms, it will take at least a couple of years to see results. Finally, the incoming Congress and the election of many new members creates further uncertainty with respect to these enforcement reforms and any others on FAIR's agenda. Some members of Congress have publicly stated they intend to revisit immigration-related legislation passed in the 109th Congress (specifically the Secure Fence Act) and make adjustments where deemed necessary. This does not bode well for reformers who supported their passage in the first place.

In the area of legal immigration, the 109th Congress can claim no progress whatsoever. No action was taken on the urgent need to limit and roll back immigration, no action was taken to eliminate abuse in the refugee and asylum program, and an immense backlog still exists in processing immigration applications due to slow-moving background checks. Meanwhile, in the last waning hours of the session, Congress managed to pass special interest language extending three guest worker programs. These programs allow nurses, doctors, and certain skilled individuals to work in the United States and compete with U.S. workers.

In short, while the 109th Congress did not pass a comprehensive immigration reform package, a handful of smaller immigration-related measures passed via other bills. These measures were:


http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServe..._reform_agenda

Originally Posted by wolf

Amnesty will cost us more than deportation.

No amnesty, close the borders. Tight.

Exactly, I was wondering why there was not a "no amnesty, we have a right to enforce our perfectly reasonable laws" option.

[tw]

Originally Posted by duck_duck

Everything americans do is confusing so why is this different? Half of you think it is acceptable to be invaded and the other half does not.

Especially the part where posts are based on invented facts. Invaded? They are here because we need workers, they need the work, and the law is written to undermine free market principles. 1.8 million needed just for agriculture. So the law only permits 29,000. An intelligent person would say the law is wrong. But no-o-o-o. We must enforce an unenforceable law only because it is a law.

Another outright lie - illegal immigrants cost us more money. A complete myth. They pay taxes and don't apply for refunds. They are some of the best employees in town. When removed in mass, the region then goes into economic downturn. 60 Minutes in June 2006 demonstrated this myopia when we complain about the illegals. Federal agents were invited into Nebraska to sweep illegals from meat processing plants. Federal sweep was so successful that the region suffered a massive economic downturn. The Feds were strongly invited to leave so that the illegals would come back.

As if the lessons of prohibition can be forgotten, suddenly we blame porous borders. More bull by those who only know because they can shit?

In the Silicon Valley, ICs are important. That's not integrated circuits. ICs now account for more than 50% of the employees: Indians and Chinese. Even there, H1-B government approval has been limited by stupid laws causing some companies to move operations out of America. More immigration problems solved - by driving businesses out of the country. Blame those evil Indians and Chinese by passing more legal restrictions.

Illegal immigration problem only exist where wacko extremist wants to blame the people and not blame draconian and myopically inspired laws. 29,000 visas for an industry that needs 1.8 million immigrants? That is justification for blaming those immigrants.

Pass a law that bans kissing anyone named Monica. That will solve all sex problems - in the same spirite of current immigration laws. Only problem with illegal immigrants are those who know answers by denying the real problem - the law.

From outside the country, everything would appear confusing. They are not us. Therefore they must be evil. Ban them from the country. 29,000 visas for an industry that needs to employ 1.8 million immigrants. Therefore the law could never be wrong.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

We aren't going to solve our immigration problem. The solution is in Mexico and the rest of Latin America homegrowing a middle class. They need to lose the culture of corruption that is pretty much the retirement plan for minor officialdom -- I've no clear idea how many times this multiplies, in effect, the tax burden on the people and their economy, but multiply it it clearly does. They need to secure property rights from rapaciousness public or private, and they're not too good at that yet,

I agree with a lot of this except the anti-socialization part but do you think the US has anything to do with this?

witness Chavez's antics in Venezuela. He'll buy them a depression yet before he's ousted.

Besides the dip in the early 2000's, Chavez has done decently well for Venezuela. They are in a slow but steady rise since the dip, which mainly had to do with oil prices.

Originally Posted by xoxoxbruce

It is NOT, however, our job to change things there, because it will just bite us in the ass again, as it has everywhere else.

I wouldn't say that. Just because all of our modern way of changing things in other countries has bitten us in the ass doesn't mean that if we do it right, it can't perform miracles. The biggest problem we've had is that we try to force other countries to our way of thinking and do to take matters into our own hands.

We can't forget how well the Marshall Plan did for European countries after WWII. There are ways of helping countries get out of poverty, but we just haven't been exercising them lately.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Especially the part where posts are based on invented facts. Invaded? They are here because we need workers, they need the work, and the law is written to undermine free market principles. 1.8 million needed just for agriculture. So the law only permits 29,000. An intelligent person would say the law is wrong. But no-o-o-o. We must enforce an unenforceable law only because it is a law.

OK, keep the 1.8 million working in agriculture and send the other 15 million home.

Another outright lie - illegal immigrants cost us more money. A complete myth. They pay taxes and don't apply for refunds.

You still don't think the ones not working for cash, are too stupid to fill out a W-4 form with a bunch of dependents, so they not only don't have to apply for a refund they end up delinquent before they move on.

There are a slew of websites with tons of charts and numbers saying you're wrong, but you'll say they are bias and lying.
OK, lets take the state of Minnesota which would be far below the states with big impact like CA, TX, etc. This report by the The Office of Strategic Planning & Results Management, Minnesota Department of Administration, to Governor Tim Pawlenty.
Federal cost per household headed by an illegal alien... $2736 each
Minnesota deports most of the illegal alien criminals, but the really serious criminals cost $13 million to incarcerate.
Medical care? Minnesota ate $36 million on illegals.
K-12 education has two categories;
Illegal alien kids = $118 million
legal kids of illegal aliens = $39 million

Again, this is Minnesota, faaaaaaar from the border, with a relatively small population of Illegals.

They are some of the best employees in town.

Now that's an anecdotal generalization that can't be applied to ANY single group

When removed in mass, the region then goes into economic downturn. 60 Minutes in June 2006 demonstrated this myopia when we complain about the illegals. Federal agents were invited into Nebraska to sweep illegals from meat processing plants. Federal sweep was so successful that the region suffered a massive economic downturn. The Feds were strongly invited to leave so that the illegals would come back.

The greedy meat packing plants hired a raft of cheap illegals to boost their profits in violation of Federal law, and when they got caught red handed, all of a sudden they are short handed. Boo hoo for them, they deserve much worse.
So we should let the robber barons have their way? Go back a hundred years in human and workers rights? Going back to the days when people didn't know if they would still be employed at the end of the day? Jobs weren't made any safer than would save the company money, which wasn't much, because there's plenty of cheap labor waiting outside the door if you get killed on the job? Back to the days when if you get sick and miss a day, you are permanently replaced? Fuck that shit.

As if the lessons of prohibition can be forgotten, suddenly we blame porous borders. More bull by those who only know because they can shit?

Your slinging bull. The lesson of prohibition is that the government can't stop the people from something if they want it. The war on drugs proves it all over again. None of that applies to this situation because the people don't want illegals running around the country. Even the ones that want them here want the government to know who they are. Only an idiot would want anyone that feels like it, waltzing across the border unchecked.

In the Silicon Valley, ICs are important. That's not integrated circuits. ICs now account for more than 50% of the employees: Indians and Chinese. Even there, H1-B government approval has been limited by stupid laws causing some companies to move operations out of America. More immigration problems solved - by driving businesses out of the country. Blame those evil Indians and Chinese by passing more legal restrictions.

Substitute cheap labor for ICs. The robber barons are international and China is subcontracting to Africa for cheaper labor. They will work real cheap and hopefully their mud hut won't wash away next time it rains. But hey, it's a step up from cardboard, so they should be grateful.
tw & co, want the US to be a third world country, figuring engineers will be OK, and maybe even respected. If they succeed they are more likely to be lynched.

Illegal immigration problem only exist where wacko extremist wants to blame the people and not blame draconian and myopically inspired laws. 29,000 visas for an industry that needs 1.8 million immigrants? That is justification for blaming those immigrants.

See UG is wrong, you're not a communist, you're an anarchist. The law is strangling business, don't change the law, just let everybody do what they damn well please. Ignore laws that cut into the robber barons profits. One bad quarter and they'll have to exercise that multi-million dollar golden parachute. Oh, the humanity

Pass a law that bans kissing anyone named Monica. That will solve all sex problems - in the same spirite of current immigration laws.

Careful there, it's the dry season and that strawman might burst into flames.

Only problem with illegal immigrants are those who know answers by denying the real problem - the law.

No the only real problem is people disregarding the law instead of changing it. It's too easy for that to become a habit... drivers license, insurance, good tires and brakes, he doesn't, why should I?

From outside the country, everything would appear confusing. They are not us. Therefore they must be evil. Ban them from the country. 29,000 visas for an industry that needs to employ 1.8 million immigrants. Therefore the law could never be wrong.

Change the law if it doesn't work. Are you trying to convince me the robber barons don't have the suck to do that? Bullshit. They want the illegals to be illegal so they can turn back the clock 100 years and they've got you shilling for them. They love employees they can harrass and intimidate, employees that can't say shit or they'll be turned in.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

snip~ I wouldn't say that. Just because all of our modern way of changing things in other countries has bitten us in the ass doesn't mean that if we do it right, it can't perform miracles. The biggest problem we've had is that we try to force other countries to our way of thinking and do to take matters into our own hands.

Yes, aiding will help many countries but unilaterally deciding another country has to change is pretty arrogant.

We can't forget how well the Marshall Plan did for European countries after WWII. There are ways of helping countries get out of poverty, but we just haven't been exercising them lately.

Well, the Marshall plan took the ashes of Europe and reconstructed it in our own image. Whether that was best for the people there is up for debate. Sure it made them economically successful but what was the social and cultural cost?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Sure it made them economically successful but what was the social and cultural cost?

Very expensive, as it has been for our social, health, and judicial systems.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Sure it made them economically successful but what was the social and cultural cost?

No matter what they do their culture will most likely be lost. Its sad but it has happened to basically every first-world country that exists today.