posted
I was amazed about the way people handled speed cameras and stop-light cameras. The most law & order people I know were all demanding maximum mandatory sentences for the possession of small amounts of marijuana. "If you break they law, you must be willing to pay." they told me.
Then camera's were installed and I soon heard another story. "Those are totally unfair, and against the freedoms of this country. They are just money making opportunities for the city/county/state/government and the companies that are behind it all.
I've tried swapping the arguments on them, that strict sentencing for small drug charges are just money making opportunities for the state and the companies like the penal industrial complex, or that speeding is breaking the law and risking the lives of innocent bystanders, so if you are going to break the law the state must do all it can to punish you and make you pay.
They just looked at me and said I didn't understand the difference.
Perhaps I don't. Perhaps the difference isn't as big as they think. Perhaps its that they don't do drugs, so punishing others if fine, but they do occasionally break the speed laws and they don't like paying tickets.
This got me to thinking about other legal issues, and if translated into something like speeding, would my approval or disapproval be the same.
Lets take the "Cell Phone Records" thing the NSA is doing.
It does help stop terrorists, so its a good thing. It doesn't allow for people to hear my phone conversations--just data about whom I call, who called me, when and probably where I made that call from.
I think that's OK to use to stop terrorists from blowing me up.
How about other crimes. Should the FBI be allowed to use it to solve a kidnapping? How about catch bank robbers?
How about the local police use the info to solve local crimes. They could catch a serial killer? How about a stolen phone?
Its simplest use could be used to catch speeders. The phone info is just who you called, and where you were when the call was made. What happens if you make a call at 7:00pm, and another at 7:05 from 7 miles away. Simple math shows that you must have been traveling at $84 miles an hour. The only road nearby is $65. Expect a speeding ticket in the mail.
They are checking millions of calls going back months. If they split the fine with the local authorities, I think this program would pay for itself.
Another one--Path to Citizenship.
A Texas Representative made big news last week arguing that a "Path to Citizenship is unfair to all those who got their citizenship the right way."
Lets give this one the speeding test. Lets change the crime from illegal citizenship to speeding. You are traveling to work at the posted speed limit everyday. You will really be upset that your coworker sleeps late, then zooms to work breaking all the speed laws, and arrives at the same time. You are playing by the rules and he isn't. That is not fair, and every time you see a police man with a speeder pulled over at the side of the road, you cheer. Every time he drives past you and doesn't get caught, you mumble something about "never a cop around when you need one."
What is being proposed is raising the speed limit on the road that you already drove over.
Will you be upset because you used to do 55 every day to work and he did 70. Now its legal for him to do 70. What exactly did you lose by this? Sure, if they did it earlier you could have slept later and been home sooner, but are your really upset that the government is raising the speed limit on a road
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
For what it's worth, we had speeding cameras set up on the freeways here, and they ended up being taken down for the same kinds of bitching that you describe.
What nobody ever mentioned was that the cameras only went off if you were going eleven miles or more over the speed limit.
So it wasn't a matter of people getting screwed because they were going one or two miles over the limit. If you got an automated speeding ticket, you had been going at least 76mph in a 65mph zone.
Not to mention that because the tickets weren't official court summons, so long as you didn't sign and return them you could very safely ignore them. I remember reading about one lady that they ended up actually going after, but she had ignored 300+ automated tickets. Everyone else was okay just ignoring them.
IP: Logged |
posted
I like to lurk and not say anything but your last comment really hit a sore spot with me. I married a Russian citizen back in Jan. 2012 and we are still in the immigration process to allow her to move to the U.S. It has taken us 1 1/2 years so far and will most likely take 2 full years before she will be allowed to immigrate. Neither of us are happy about this, but it's the right way to do it.
I get absolutely livid about people proposing amnesty to people that came into the country illegally - you should not be rewarded for violating the existing laws. It is a huge middle finger towards everyone trying to do it the proper way. (Now I wouldn't object to reforming the current laws to make immigration easier. I would be all for that, with the caveat that everyone currently in the country illegally would have to go to the back of the line.)
Posts: 175 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Get ready to be absolutely livid, then. The amnesty is going to pass, as well it should. Sorry that you've been through a bit of hassle with immigration, but that's no reason for the rest of us to punish people who have lived in and contributed to this country for years.
In fact, those people deserve citizenship more then your wife does. They've lived here for years, paid sales and payroll taxes, and contributed to the economy.
Your wife married an American.
I know which one I think is more deserving of citizenship/green card.
IP: Logged |
posted
So according to you, my wife who has the legal right to move to the U.S., has a less valid claim to legally living here than someone who illegally moved here and never had a legal right to move here... Totally love your logic!
BTW, it sounds like you would support my wife getting legal residence if she had illegally moved here 2 years ago instead of choosing to follow the laws.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Get ready to be absolutely livid, then. The amnesty is going to pass, as well it should. Sorry that you've been through a bit of hassle with immigration, but that's no reason for the rest of us to punish people who have lived in and contributed to this country for years.
Criminal non-residents (all 11 million) broke the law by entering the US illegally and continue to break the law daily by residing here without proper documentation. Requiring that they go through legal channels to obtain citizenship is not a "punishment" any more than requiring a car thief to return the stolen vehicle.
quote:In fact, those people deserve citizenship more then your wife does. They've lived here for years, paid sales and payroll taxes, and contributed to the economy.
Your wife married an American.
I know which one I think is more deserving of citizenship/green card.
You aren't the lest tactful person on Hatrack. You have that going for you. But no. If we were deciding who deserves what according to you, we would have an entirely different justice system in the US. Eisenoxyde's wife deserves citizenship because she married a citizen of the US and because she has respected all the laws established by the legal, law-abiding citizens of this country. You can't say the same for criminal non-residents.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Eisenoxyde
If your wife could have found work, and contributed, then yes, I would have supported her moving here two years ago, illegally.
My point was, the vast majority of those immigrants have been working hard, paying taxes, and contributing to the economy for years, a lot of them a decade or more. They've proven they can fit in, live peacefully, and contribute. And yes, they pay the same sales, property, and payroll taxes as everyone else.
All your wife has proven is that she's willing to marry an American.
Capaxinfiniti
No, see, when a car thief steals a car, he's taken someone else's car. Harm has been done, and property needs to be returned.
An illegal immigrant, one who has committed no other crime then living and working here illegally, hasn't harmed anyone. There is no restitution required.
IP: Logged |
posted
I do like how opponents are so quick to use words like 'criminal' or 'invader', etc. Words that might be technically true but are stripped of context to the point they're nearly meaningless.
Most Americans are criminals or lawbreakers of some sort or another, for big reasons or for the merest convenience. How many people, really, haven't regularly sped, or done a roll-through, or smoked marijuana, or snuck candy into a movie theater, or claimed to be a senior or a child or a student when they weren't, or partaken of pirated media, or avoided taxes? Look around. How many people do you know haven't done one of these things that are quite against the law-it's just that we mutually agree that such laws are trivial?
Does that mean we should just shrug our shoulders over illegal immigration? No. But let's not adopt the high horse, shall we? It doesn't fool anyone.
And then let's ask ourselves of these 'criminals'...who is giving them jobs once they get here? And if you had no marketable skills south of the border and an extended family to support, and you knew that by crossing the border you could inside a week be making much more in cash than you could at home, who wouldn't consider breaking a law?
All of which ignores that illegal immigration isn't much of an issue at the moment anyway, though as the world economy settles will be again. Why do we sneer at these 'criminals' as though they're the problem, when anyone being honest about the situation knows isn't actually the case?
Is it 'fair' that your wife isn't here yet? Well, no, not really but that's really just because of what the law says right now. It's only 'fair' that she become a US citizen because of the laws, and you may be upset all you like that she isn't yet but that's not because of low wage illegal immigrants, that's because of our mess of a system-a system which is kept that way, I should add, not by those after 'amnesty' but those opposing it.
And if we as a country decide there should he amnesty, it'll be fair for the same reason it's fair that your wife gets to marry into a better, safer standard of living and lifestyle.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:An illegal immigrant, one who has committed no other crime then living and working here illegally, hasn't harmed anyone. There is no restitution required.
To the contrary, they've helped to sustain our economy and standards of living while paying into it, and having less access the government services they pay for, and fewer rights as employees than others do. All so we can get cheaper tomatoes on our hamburgers or less expensive chicken or buildings.
Goodness knows we're quick to pound our fist on the table when it comes to discussing 'criminal non-residents', but strangely we don't ask any questions at all when something labor intensive is extremely cheap. It's almost like we're...hypocrites or something.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what I'm understanding is that you believe someone breaking the law is more deserving of living in the U.S. than someone that refuses to break the law.
Also, contributing to the economy is only one way of measuring someone's contribution. My wife is fluent in 4 languages and also has a very strong interest in teaching. She could very well end up teaching foreign languages in a school setting or she may choose to be a stay at home mother and focus on raising our children. Would you consider her to be less deserving of living in the U.S. if she chose to be a homemaker instead of a teacher?
Also, people here illegally violate significantly more laws, including driving without a license or insurance, identity theft (to obtain jobs), etc.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its because in this case "breaking the law" is absolutist thinking and ignores all aspects of humanism, human rights, or whether the law was just in the first place.
Your mad under the false pretense of the "Just World" fallacy, and FYGM, "If I can't have it, than no one else should." Its selfish, self centered, egocentric; that your concerns are more important, than the human rights disaster that is the Amnesty debate.
Because in the end, you'll be fine, in two years or whatever you'll get in; but they never had that chance in the first place and are equally as deserving of leading a good and prosperous existence as you do.
It shouldn't matter how they went about it, what matters is that they want it just as badly for themselves and those they love as you do.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do like how opponents are so quick to use words like 'criminal' or 'invader', etc. Words that might be technically true but are stripped of context to the point they're nearly meaningless.
If you take issue with the accurate term I've used, provide an equally accurate term you find less offensive and I might consider using it.
quote:Most Americans are criminals or lawbreakers of some sort or another, for big reasons or for the merest convenience. How many people, really, haven't regularly sped, or done a roll-through, or smoked marijuana, or snuck candy into a movie theater, or claimed to be a senior or a child or a student when they weren't, or partaken of pirated media, or avoided taxes? Look around. How many people do you know haven't done one of these things that are quite against the law-it's just that we mutually agree that such laws are trivial?
Does that mean we should just shrug our shoulders over illegal immigration? No. But let's not adopt the high horse, shall we? It doesn't fool anyone.
Most (not all) of those examples are trivial compared to entering and residing in a country illegally. I sped to work so I should shrug my shoulders if a coworker slaps his wife around? No. That's nonsensical. Seeing a serious moral and legal difference between two vastly different illegal activities is not adopting the "high horse."
quote:To the contrary, they've helped to sustain our economy and standards of living while paying into it, and having less access the government services they pay for, and fewer rights as employees than others do. All so we can get cheaper tomatoes on our hamburgers or less expensive chicken or buildings.
Goodness knows we're quick to pound our fist on the table when it comes to discussing 'criminal non-residents', but strangely we don't ask any questions at all when something labor intensive is extremely cheap. It's almost like we're...hypocrites or something.
Firstly, the employers who hire criminal non-residents are criminals too. They're part of the problem and addressing illegal employment should be part of the solution. You have a very rose-colored view of illegal immigrants. I don't know anyone who feels cheap tomatoes are worth the cost of illegal immigration and a very negative view of us fighting for fair and substantial immigration reform. You see all the pros and none of the cons. Not all criminal non-residents are in the country to engage in honest work. Many are paid under the table and therefore don't contribute to the system nearly as much as you would have us believe.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
They still pay sales and use taxes of various kinds, and get little in return. For instance, many illegal immigrants would be reluctant to seek police protection or assistance for fear of getting in trouble.
While you're right, capax, that there are moral differences between different illegal acts, you didn't support your assertions about what people "deserve" with any kind of moral reasoning, you just contrasted legal with illegal. So the ball's in your court, really.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your drawing a comparison between speeding and domestic violence really says all I wanted to in one small sentence, capax.
Second, for those who don't feel that cheap food and construction are worth the cost of illegal immigration, you want to talk about rose colored glasses? Let's talk about how concerned this 'anyone you know' really is about that sort of thing *and demonstrates* it by, you know, not buying cheap tomatoes and refusing to accept several thousand dollars savings on construction or a few quarters less for chicken, so on and so forth.
It would actually be pretty simple to see illegal immigration trickle down to a few drops if Americans actually *didn't* think it was worth the benefits. But let's be serious, capax, we spend like we love it, and you know it.
As for an accurate term, by all means you can hide under that umbrella if you like. You're not a driver anymore, by the way, you're a dangerous driver. It's accurate. Don't take issue.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eisenoxyde: So what I'm understanding is that you believe someone breaking the law is more deserving of living in the U.S. than someone that refuses to break the law.
What does "deserving" have to do with anything? What did you do to "deserve" to be here? What did I do?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most people who are paid under the table-particularly those at the lowest end of the economy-wouldn't be paying much in taxes on a paycheck that wouldn't be refunded to them anyway, capax. Being paid under the table is a *loss* in the trade-off between them and the system, from the low wage payer's standpoint.
Or are we seriously gonna have a discussion about whether illegal immigrants are a net drain or gain on the economy? We can have that discussion, if you'd like, but if you want to we're gonna be talking about numbers, not vague stuff like rose colored glasses and deserve or not deserve.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Eisenoxyde
Your wife can be a homemaker and raise your children, that's fine. Of course, when it comes to paying taxes and helping the economy, the illegals contribute more to the country. But being your wife counts for something too. Legally, anyway.
Capainfiniti
Not all Americans are in this country to do hard work, either. Some are even career criminals. The crime rate in the immigrant community is no higher then in others. The crimes that are widespread, such as a lack of insurance and license when driving, are directly attributable to us not allowing them to get them. No one is saying that immigrants, legal or otherwise, who commit serious or numerous crimes should not be deported.
The country needed cheap labor. It wasn't getting it from the native population. The cheap labor from the illegals helped drive the economic boom we all enjoyed so much. Also, a substantial amount of illegals work in legitimate businesses and give fake social security numbers, for which they pay taxes that they will never get a return on.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eisenoxyde: So what I'm understanding is that you believe someone breaking the law is more deserving of living in the U.S. than someone that refuses to break the law.
What does "deserving" have to do with anything? What did you do to "deserve" to be here? What did I do?
I deserve to be here because it's my legal right. It's my legal right because I meet the legally established requirements. It's not an inalienable right to be a citizen of the US, it's a legal designation. Eisenoxyde's wife is in the process of completing those requirements and is therefore more deserving of receiving that coveted designation than a criminal non-resident that merely hopped the fence and bought some fake papers.
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: While you're right, capax, that there are moral differences between different illegal acts, you didn't support your assertions about what people "deserve" with any kind of moral reasoning, you just contrasted legal with illegal. So the ball's in your court, really.
See above. I wasn't attempting to to address what people deserve, morally speaking. It doesn't really have to be such a discussion beyond the implicit moral underpinnings of our legal system.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not sure you know what "deserve" actually means. It is not the same as being entitled. I realize that conservatives often confuse the two.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not sure you know what "deserve" actually means. It is not the same as being entitled. I realize that conservatives often confuse the two.
I'm sure you can benefit this discussion if you actually tried but snide comments like that don't contribute positively to your argument. Neither does your semantics game.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Deserve" has moral connotations. To use it as a substitute for "legally entitled" when discussing the legalities of immigration is circular.
Incidentally, Eisenoxyde seems to be using the term as a moral evaluation, which is more typical. It also makes your response to Kate's inquiry about the sentiment with a separate, legal definition a non sequitur.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amnesty and immigration reform will dramatically raise the quality of life for some of the worst off communities that live and make their lives in our country. Everyone can totally see the disadvantages inherent to that act, morally.
And at the same time, we have to remember the tradeoff. The CBO reported that it would have nothing but dramatically positive effects on our economy. So there's that.
And while I would like to be in favor of amnesty and reform, I have to keep in mind that non-amnesty would only primarily effect the upward social mobility of second and subsequent generation immigrants; we'd just be enhancing and enforcing a dramatic racial underclass, which has always gone off poorly through history.
What a very taxing decision. So many pros and pros to consider. Now, if only I were a conservative who was really scared of brown people with a different language slowly outbreeding me in my own country and voting my party out of existence forever because we've been terrible to them for all of living memory. That would make it a much easier choice.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eisenoxyde: get absolutely livid about people proposing amnesty to people that came into the country illegally - you should not be rewarded for violating the existing laws.
You presuppose that Amnesty is a reward. You also approach your own legal situation (and I'll qualify by saying that it is very, very similar to my own, as an American marrying a Ukrainian citizen), as if following the law is a behavior which is voluntary, and should therefore be preferenced.
In fact, Amnesty and legal immigration have little to do with each other legally. Your stance on one is not a predicate of your stance on another. Amnesty serves to limit the judicial and bureaucratic burden placed upon the state by the rigid enforcement of laws, when enforcing those laws cannot be seen as continuing in the service of the public good.
In fact, you decrying amnesty is slightly laughable, because having one ennacted would almost certainly have positive effects on your own immigration process. And even if it didn't, it would save you untold money in your (and my) tax burden.
We don't do amnesty for illegals- we do it for everyone. We cut our losses and turn an expensive, backwards, regressive and economically destructive process into a positive, cheap, constructive situation. When people howl about amnesty being no good because "they broke the law," I have to laugh. The entire point of an amnesty is to *forgive* the breaking of a law, when the forgiveness is seen as being in the public (ie: yours and mine) best interest.
Do you know what would motivate a person to tear down another for an offense, even when doing so harms that person just as it does the offender? Envy, and wrath. Sins for a reason, when you consider the outcomes.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
What does "deserving" have to do with anything? What did you do to "deserve" to be here? What did I do?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
"Deserve" has moral connotations. To use it as a substitute for "legally entitled" when discussing the legalities of immigration is circular.
Incidentally, Eisenoxyde seems to be using the term as a moral evaluation, which is more typical. It also makes your response to Kate's inquiry about the sentiment with a separate, legal definition a non sequitur.
I was indeed intending moral connotations in regards to my wife as she is following the law instead of violating it, but in response to her other question I have to agree with her somewhat. While I never did anything to 'deserve' my U.S. citizenship, it was given to me as I was born here and there are no additional requirements to keep it.
A few years ago I looked into immigrating to Denmark. In order to do this, I needed to justify why I deserved to live in their country by showing I did not have a criminal record, had a high degree of fluency in at least 1 (preferably 2) of their official languages, and several other things. If I instead entered Denmark without permission or continued to stay after my permission to reside there expired and compounded my lawbreaking by illegally working, driving, etc. I fail to see how anyone could justify that I'd be more deserving of being able to change my illegal status to a lawful one, over someone applying the proper way, merely because I've violated Danish laws for an extended period of time.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I see here is an extreme unwillingness to confront a reality of a situation that contravenes the ideal.
Pass voter amnesty or not, these people stay in our country. Families get broken up or shackled into poverty by being a legal underclass, but they stay.
Oh maybe we should kick them all out and let in only the "deserving" folk who are bringing "deserving" children with them. Okay! Well, it's too bad that the selfsame interests who are upset by immigration are still ruled by business interests who are full and truly addicted to cheap labor. Who want them present as an underclass. Ok, ok, so they're going to stay because that will prevent any possible legislation that would actually get rid of illegal immigrants as opposed to just bloviating about illegal immigrants to sell votes to a demographic of notably xenophobic white people. Man, always sucks to see the sausage get made, eh.
They're here. It's over. The only thing left to decide is if we try to treat them justly.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: "Deserve" has moral connotations. To use it as a substitute for "legally entitled" when discussing the legalities of immigration is circular.
Incidentally, Eisenoxyde seems to be using the term as a moral evaluation, which is more typical. It also makes your response to Kate's inquiry about the sentiment with a separate, legal definition a non sequitur.
That's fair. I can see that. Used in certain contexts "deserve" can have moral connotations, thought I haven't found anything to indicate they are implicit in the word. Even so, in my most recent post, deserve isn't the most accurate word to use, as it would become circular in that context. I didn't interpret Eisenoxyde's position as you did (and he his since clarified, stating your interpretation is correct) so I apologize for the confusion. If he's claiming a moral entitlement - and not a legal one - I'll have to re-evaluate how much of his position I can stand behind.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: They're here. It's over. The only thing left to decide is if we try to treat them justly.
That might be my favorite sentence ever. Very well said.
On another note, my ex-roommate's sister (a naturally born American) married a Brazilian man of Italian decent with dual citizenship that was here legally on a work visa. Now I don't know all the specifics and got this second hand so it could be wrong but from what I was told, the moment they were married, she qualified for citizenship in both Brazil and Italy. I do know that she obtained Brazilian citizenship very soon after the marriage, meanwhile it took him quite some time to get his American citizenship. I don't know if she has obtained Italian citizenship or not though I know they are planning to go there for a visit. As for their new baby boy, they are teaching him Portuguese first.
As for our citizenship, I think it should be tough to acquire but not so tough as to be practically impossible for a well meaning but underprivileged person to obtain. It also should not be racially exclusive in any way.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
What other aspects of Denmark's government do you wish to modify, Eisenoxyde? I'm just curious. Or is this an a la carte situation?
Anyway, as for natural born citizenship, if as a country we decide to do this they'll have citizenship for exactly the same reason you do: because as a society that's what we decided. It's as simple as that. Your citizenship is an arbitrary thing which, at the time you earned it, had done nothing to 'deserve'. Your wife has done nothing to 'deserve' it, except abide by the laws we agree to (and good for her, and you on that, btw). But there's nothing about the law right now that says 'abide by the rules or else you're at the back of the line forever'-that's a decision we haven't made yet, but likely will eventually.
Also it should be noted, this would *hasten* your wife's citizenship.
-------
I'm just fascinated by what a serious respecter of laws we are in this country, for their own sake, for abstract reasons of respect for justice. Who knew?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obama: The country needed cheap labor. It wasn't getting it from the native population. The cheap labor from the illegals helped drive the economic boom we all enjoyed so much.
Then the natives got smallpox and the illegals started calling immigrants later than themselves illegals. It's like the circle of life Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary - I agree that providing a way for people in the country illegally to become legal residents would have an overall positive effect on the country. I would love to see some sort of program that would allow illegal immigrants to adjust their status to legal immigrants, but it would be tough to do without giving the finger towards people who did it the proper way.
Also about your comment about immigrants speaking different languages other than English or possibly having different political viewpoints than I have, doesn't bother me in the least. What has made this country great is welcoming immigrants with open arms and we should return to that policy.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What other aspects of Denmark's government do you wish to modify, Eisenoxyde? I'm just curious. Or is this an a la carte situation
I don't want Denmark to change their laws in the slightest. It's their country, they should be able to choose who is allowed to immigrate to their country. The only reason why I talked about Denmark was to explain my thoughts about needing to prove to a national government why they should allow you to immigrate. (Why you 'deserve' to live in a foreign country.)
Orincoro - I will reply to you later, I don't have the time to give you a proper response right now.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One question. Mary followed the law and worked hard to get into the country legally. Joe broke the law, got into the country illegally. The NEW LAW offers a way for Joe to A)Follow the same path that Mary did, and B) Pay fines and fees as part of that restitution. In other words--to come to this country legally.
Are you arguing that since your wife came to this country legally through a broken and messed up system, people who are already in this country have to follow the same broken and messed up system or its unfair?
My grandmother came to this country in steerage in an old boat taking weeks on the sea. Does that mean I should be upset if someone enters the country via a first class ticket on an airplane? After all, she did it the right way, not the easy way.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant to say emulate, not modify-which parts of Denmark's laws do you want to emulate? Or those of other nations? Somehow I expect that would be a list that only includes those with stricter laws, yes?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I meant to say emulate, not modify-which parts of Denmark's laws do you want to emulate? Or those of other nations? Somehow I expect that would be a list that only includes those with stricter laws, yes?
I would suggest rereading my last post, especially the part where I said "What has made this country great is welcoming immigrants with open arms and we should return to that policy."
Orinoco - I took a while to think about how to best explain my thoughts/feelings about people here illegally and being able to adjust their status to legal residents. I would very much like to see this happen and think what Darth Mauve suggested is probably the best way - having to pay a fine along with their application for legal residency.
I apologize for not being clearer earlier on but the part I strenuously object to is processing the paperwork for illegal aliens before taking care of people who have already submitted their paperwork through the proper channels. In plain words, paperwork submitted on the 2nd of the month should be processed after the paperwork submitted on the 1st of the month.
Finally the current immigration approval system in dire need of an major overhaul and simply trying to cram all illegal immigrants into it wold be an absolute disaster. As such, an amnesty program should streamline the process for everyone, not just for people currently here illegally.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
I agree that the entire process should be streamlined.
Unfortunately, in today's political climate, that's unlikely to happen. The illegals living in the country today are going to be dealt with. We've put as much effort into deporting and encouraging them to leave as big business and the liberal side of the country is going to allow. Their situation is immoral and untenable, and because they are here now and your wife isn't, they're going to be dealt with first.
I'll agree with you that that isn't very fair, but it's not like legislators would be removing quotas and the extensive application process if they didn't have to deal with illegals.
IP: Logged |
posted
Let me just throw in there that unless they've been deported and then re-entered, they aren't here "criminally."
Immigration law is quasi-criminal, which is another way of saying that it really isn't criminal at all. People who enter without inspection (so-called "illegals") or who overstay their visas are subject to deportation, not a term of imprisonment or even a fine.
Anyway, I'm not quite sure why the high dudgeon - it isn't like anyone is saying that we aren't or shouldn't issue K visas because there are too many illegals in the country.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: And at the same time, we have to remember the tradeoff. The CBO reported that it would have nothing but dramatically positive effects on our economy. So there's that.
Yes, but the CBO doesn't have a very good track record lately. The ACA was only supposed to cost 900 billion, and now they have revised that up to over 2.7 trillion.
The CBO report has said that we will start seeing benefits in twenty years. In the short term it isn't really going to help.
I am actually ok with immigration reform, but something has to be done about the border. What I see right now is the "legalize now, secure later" argument. We were fed that back in the 80's, and we never got the enforcement. We should provide a good, legal way for people to come to the US, but we also need to make sure we don't keep repeating history over and over again.
My wife is from Albania. We were married seven years ago while she was here on a student visa. It took five years and over $5,000 in fees before she became a citizen. There were stacks of paperwork we had to fill out, and each form required a fee of hundreds of dollars to be submitted.
Once she got her citizenship, we applied to have her parents come here to the US as permanent residents. This cost almost $1600 and took about a year. Finally they were able to get their visas. We then applied for her brother, who is 19 years old. If my wife would have applied, it would have taken upwards of 10+ years for him to get his visa. My in-laws applied and were told it would take 3-5 years. Luckily he was able to come here on a J-1 visa and arrived in the US last week. He is working at a restaurant near Mount Rushmore.
Here's the kicker - It would take 3-5 years for him to get his permanent resident visa if he was still in Albania. Since he is here in the US already it only takes 3-6 MONTHS. That is true whether he was here illegally or on another type of visa. The fee is also almost half of what it usually is, as they don't have to send paperwork to embassies in other countries.
You are currently rewarded if you break the law and come here, but if you do things the right way, you end up suffering and paying more.
I haven't read enough of the bill to determine if this issue is fixed, but I REALLY hope it is.
I also don't think people realize just how much of an effect the bill will actually have on unemployment. The middle class won't be affected as much as people think, it is the poor that are going to suffer the most.
The argument that immigrants are already paying taxes (payroll and sales tax) goes against the argument by some, such as the Immigration Policy Center, that unemployment won't be affected by immigration reform. The IPC argues that unemployment won't be affected because these new workers will begin to pay taxes, which will create jobs. So which is it? Are they paying taxes already or not?
Paying taxes does not neccessarily mean more jobs. Most public jobs require a higher education than those in the private market. Paying more in taxes may not have a large effect on job growth at all.
I agree that something needs to be done, I'm just not sure that the bill that is currently up for consideration is that the right one. I am also not sure that right now is the time to do this, especially with the jobs problem we currently have.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
