Time magazine article on Amnesty

[jimmyjamsslo]

I'm just reading this article now, so I haven't formulated any opinions on it yet.

TIME ADVOCATES AMNESTY

 

[X_805]

A small rebuttal:

"1. Amnesty can work politically."

Hmm... Who cares if it works politically? I don't care about politics. I care about my country.

"2. Amnesty won't depress wages — globalization has already done that."

Amnesty will contribute to globalization and is part of globalization.

"3. Amnesty won't undermine the rule of law."

Sure it won't... Comparing jaywalking to illegal immigration? Please Time. Come up with a better analogy.

"4. Amnesty won't necessarily add to the social-services burden."

Yeah. Because they are already using our social services.

"5. Amnesty doesn't have to spawn even more illegal immigration."

No it doesn't. Our welfare state does.

 

[BW4Paul]

Did you catch how the article actually plugs for a National ID? Yeah, this amnesty idea is sounding better and better.

While Mexico patches itself up, at least the security options are better today than in 1986. There is both the political will and the technology to make enforcement a serious part of any amnesty plan. National ID cards, real employer verification, high-tech border controls can all aid in making sure that this would be the last amnesty of this size.

 

[wwycher]

Time Magizine? Time Warner?
Duh, of course they are agreeing with the amnesty bill. The propaganda machine is in full swing. The next thing they will tell you is Fred Thompson can't lose and he is not even in the race.lol Globalist media machines they are. I need to read more of the Rockefeller's books.
I think that they have laid out most of this stuff out already in their evil plans to chip everybody and create a cashless global corpration.

 

[RPR-omaha]

I am going to have to disagree with most of the people on this board. I am for amnesty. Thats what makes me angery about most politicans. They are scared to say the word when it should be part of the debate.
I do not want to kick 12 million people out of the country. It seems hypocritical to me to blame the immigrants when all they are doing is taking advantage of the fact the government won't enforce its own laws. Also deporting 12 million people would be extremely costly. It would require vast expansions of federal power. Real ID is an example of the federal government using illegal immigration as a means to enhance its power illegally. Besides I do not think this bill is amnesty. The illegals have to pay 5K$ and wait at least 5 years for citizenship. I cannot remembe the exact number of years but I am pretty sure it is at least 5. However I cannot support the bill. It is crappy. It is full of a bunch of little compromises and it does not secure the whole border. Politicans need to get some guts and make big compromises. All small compromises do is give corporations more power and encourage corruption.
I would like to see the government build a fence across the whole border. That would drastically cut illegal immigration.

Then after fencing off the border I would want the government to allow all illegals a chance to become citizens. Any criminals (felons) would of course not be given this oppurtunity. The only requirement I would want is for them to stay the country for the next 5 years.
The last thing I would want is to have an immigration debate. I believe many of the pressing questions on immigration are ignored in favor of illegal immigration which could be easily solved. We would need to determine who is allowed in. Do we allow families in or emphasize skills? How many do we let in? Who should we refuse entry? Should birth right citizenship be abolished? Should we try to assimilate the immigrants or will they do it naturally? If we decide to assimilate the immigrants how should we do that? Those are all important issues that needed to be debate. However these issues are being ignored.
I am interested in hearing your guys views on immigration. I would like to learn more on the subject.

 

[angelatc]

The problem for me is that there are people who have waited 10-15 years at a chance to come to this country and be American. The Mexicans don't want to be American - they just want to work.

I learned in Kindergarten that it is rude to cut to the front of a line, and punishment was always being sent to the very back of the line.

They broke the law - why shouldn't they be punished? In the very least, why should they be rewarded?

Bringing in families? HOw much more of a burden can our social security program stand?

 

[X_805]

I am interested in hearing your guys views on immigration. I would like to learn more on the subject.

They are already here so I don't quite think we can kick them out. They are the scapegoat. I never really thought of illegal immigrants this way until Ron Paul pointed it out at a debate. We blame them instead of blaming our welfare state. We give so much free stuff who wouldn't want to come here?

Build a reasonable fence. Put some of the soldiers we have protecting borders in other countries on our own borders. And transition out of the welfare state. That transition will be hard though. You know, I'm going to spend the whole of tomorrow thinking more into this. Unemployment is bad, but it gives you time to think.

 

[mikelovesgod]

So many other countries kick out their illegals it shows it can be done. It's done not for the good of the country, or for the good of the immigrants, but for large corporations to lower their cost of labor. Less American $$$ in America, and it strengthens corporate sponsors and creates an instant constituency of voters.

It's rotten to the core, and draining the system. I once heard a rebuttal that the war is draining the budget more, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. They are killing us from within and eroding our sovereignty.

 

[SeanEdwards]

What bothers me the most about the entire immigration debate is how everyone talks in terms of the collective. The illegals are this, the illegals are that. The only choices on the table are let them all in, or kick them all out.

Why can't we treat the problem as one involving lots of individuals, instead of one monolithic mass? Some illegal immigants currently in the US were brought here when they were very young children or babies, and have lived their entire lives in the U.S. How can anyone be serious about deporting children that have lived in the U.S. their whole lives, attended U.S. schools, and know no other home?

The defenders of amnesty will constantly cry about how the "illegals" are good people just trying to work hard and improve their lives. But they don't know anything about this multitude. All their collectivism is projection of their own attitudes, hopes and desires. Sure there's good people that happen to be illegal immigrants, and I'm certain there's other ones that rape and murder without remorse. Anyone claiming to know anything at all about the attitudes and history of 12 million+ human beings is lying or a fool.

The truth is that the people already here do have an interest in the equation. Legal immigration should be welcomed, but immigration needs to be managed in a lawful orderly way so that everyone's rights are protected. I'm all for legal immigrants, but I don't think that means I have to accept people with Super incurable TB having the right to enter my country on their terms, without any regard to my rights. There are legitimate rational reasons for managing immigration that have nothing to do with bigotry.

But mainly, the whole collective notion of the debate offends me. What I would like to see is the borders controlled so that the incidence of illegal entry is reduced, and every illegal that wishes to secure legal status should have to appear before an immigration court to plead their case as an individual and explain why they should be allowed to stay. Those decent folks who have lived right and have legitmately become a part of America should get to stay, and those who don't should get the boot.

The way I'd work it is I'd say if the illegal turns themselves in and tries to get right, then even if the court rules against them they just have to leave but retain the possibility of legally immigrating to, or visiting the U.S. in the future. Then those illegals who don't turn themselves and just try to remain in the U.S. illegally, would face if caught, basically certain deportation with a lifetime exclusion on re-entry to the U.S.

 

[nayjevin]

ah, a cool & rational approach is refreshing

SeanEdwards: they don't know anything about this multitude. All their collectivism is projection of their own attitudes, hopes and desires

AMEN.

 

[Erazmus]

I do not want to kick 12 million people out of the country. It seems hypocritical to me to blame the immigrants when all they are doing is taking advantage of the fact the government won't enforce its own laws. Also deporting 12 million people would be extremely costly.

I still don't know why this argument keeps coming up. No matter how many times people agree with the fact it can't be done on both sides of the fence, it keeps coming up. This argument is actually an artificial distraction to keep people from talking about solving the problem. Obviously illegal immigration has become a gigantic problem. When you look at a problem as a whole, it looks like it’s too enormous to tackle. So you can’t look at it that way. There are many things that can be done to solve the problem in smaller chunks, if you will.

1) First, and foremost, stop rewarding this illegal behavior. Do not give amnesty or any other possibility to citizenship without going through the proper legal channels. I am all for putting money towards increasing staff for the legalization process to help with the back log. But things must go through a legal process, that’s why it’s there. How can we be a nation of laws if we keep making exceptions to the rules?

2) Second, stop the citizenship by birthright. I think America is the only country in the world that allows two non-Americans (illegal aliens) to give birth to a child, and then it immediately grants citizenship to the child. This in essence allows the whole family to stay. This is an exploit to the system and wasn’t the intent of the 14th Amendment. I think at least one parent should have citizen status for the child to obtain this status.

3) Enforce the laws on the books. When illegal immigrants are found and detained, they should be deported as they are found, not let go as they currently are. Obviously trying to deport 14 million simultaneously is an absurd notion, and this argument should be dropped. It’s like saying we should go find every criminal in America and put them in jail. We don’t know where to find them. But we DO put criminals in jail when they are caught.

4) Start fining the employers. If the work dries up, the illegals will leave.

There are more possibilities to fighting the problem, but those outlined above are a great start. I do agree with you about the real ID crap.

Also, the bill is amnesty because it immediately grants legal status for those illegals already in the country. Any bill that bypasses the legal process of immigration and allows legal residency, is in fact, amnesty. It is amnesty because it forgives the crimes of the past.

Amnesty: a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.

*edit* I just read Sean's post. Looks like we're essentially saying the same things.

 

[qednick]

As an immigrant myself (from Britain) I'm a little annoyed that my wife and I (she's a native Texan) had to jump through 15 hoops backwards, spend a ton of money and wait several years before finally getting a permanent resident card - all above board. I still can't apply for citizenship until early 2009. Seems kind of crazy that someone can flout the law, enter the country illegally, wave 5 grand in cash and be given citizenship in 5 years.

I'm all for immigration but it has to be done right. Giving any kind of amnesty to people who flouted the country's laws is just not right when there are people and genuine couples like my wife and I who have done things the hard, expensive and fully legal way.

 

[angelatc]

Why can't we treat the problem as one involving lots of individuals, instead of one monolithic mass? Some illegal immigants currently in the US were brought here when they were very young children or babies, and have lived their entire lives in the U.S. How can anyone be serious about deporting children that have lived in the U.S. their whole lives, attended U.S. schools, and know no other home?

THey should blame their parents, not us. The high school graduation rate among hispanics is abysmal. I *might* be willing to give a break to the youth who actually graduated from high school, but that's about it.

MIkeLovesGod is right about the corporate influence.

The right is all about cheap labor, and the left is all about poor people who vote Democrat. We the working people are screwed.

If we kicked them out of our schools, arrested and deported them when they were pulled over for speeding etc, then pretty quickly they would go home.

The AFrican American community should be absolutely up in arms about this. The invasion took away their best hope for assimilating into mainstream, working America.

 

[angelatc]

The way I'd work it is I'd say if the illegal turns themselves in and tries to get right, then even if the court rules against them they just have to leave but retain the possibility of legally immigrating to, or visiting the U.S. in the future. Then those illegals who don't turn themselves and just try to remain in the U.S. illegally, would face if caught, basically certain deportation with a lifetime exclusion on re-entry to the U.S.

We already have laws like that on the books. Doesn't mean squat. The Life time excluded just hire lobbysists and politicians, or they just come back anyway.

I don't care about the birthright citizenship clause. I don't think that an AMerican baby gives the whole family the right to stay. I think it entitles the baby to come back when she/he is 18, or to stay here in a foster care program. IT isn't the responsibility of government to keep family together.

I'm sorry, but for a brief time in the late'90's I saw BK & McD's paying $1000 signing bonuses to employees willing to commit to a six month stint flipping burgers, and the pay was $7-$8 to start - not minimum wage - with another $1.00 after 90 days. UPS started running a daily shuttle into the inner city to transport workers to their hub. Then, the Mexicans showed up.

It's crazy - I remember when a UPS driver job was a gret job to get. Benefits a-plenty, and a generous pay scale. In my Dad's world, UPS driver was a career choice that would let you buy a home and raise a family. Seeing those jobs going to the Arrfican American community proved that the supply-and-demand labor system was working.

But instead, the government allowed the MExicans to flood the market, so wages fell whole profits rose.

Look at Construction. The past 2 years have been flat or down, but the 10-12 years prior to that were record breaking. Houses were being builf=t at a pace never before seen. That should have created a labor shortage, forcing wages to rise. But they dropped. PRofit levels continue to reach record levels, so I know there's some wiggle room in there somewhere.