CDZ IMMIGRATION: Not what it is but what it should be.

[Foxfyre]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

Um.. wait... we've got the cart before the horse here. The question, "What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy?" when de-euphemized, means, "When do you think it's acceptable to have men with guns infringe upon the right of free movement of presumably innocent people?"

The only moral answer to that question is "Never".

There is no 'right of free movement' across borders. Period.

I'd love to know just where you even get that idea...who legislated that 'right'?

natural rights?

There is no 'natural right' to cross a border when a nation's laws forbid that any more than there is a 'natural right' for you to enter my home without my permission.

 

[Foxfyre]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

Um.. wait... we've got the cart before the horse here. The question, "What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy?" when de-euphemized, means, "When do you think it's acceptable to have men with guns infringe upon the right of free movement of presumably innocent people?"

The only moral answer to that question is "Never".

There is no 'right of free movement' across borders. Period.

I'd love to know just where you even get that idea...who legislated that 'right'?

natural rights?

Ahhh...so the Palestinians were just trying to exercise their 'natural rights' in Gaza?

Come on. Please keep this to U.S. immigration laws please. We can go off in all sorts of directions but I would really appreciate a reasoned discussion on what the immigration laws should be and why.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

There is no 'right of free movement' across borders. Period.

I'd love to know just where you even get that idea...who legislated that 'right'?

I got the idea from the founding fathers (and many others), and determined its validity by logic and earnest introspection.

No one needs to "legislate" anything, Man does not have the power to create or grant rights.

Rights are "self-evident", "God-given", and "unalienable".

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

Um.. wait... we've got the cart before the horse here. The question, "What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy?" when de-euphemized, means, "When do you think it's acceptable to have men with guns infringe upon the right of free movement of presumably innocent people?"

The only moral answer to that question is "Never".

That may make sense to you, but I'm sorry, it does not make sense to me. The question is pretty cut and dried. Do you or could you support any of the proposed laws listed in the poll and explained a bit in he OP? Or would not not support any of them? And why?

Guns is a topic for another thread.

No, I do not support any of the laws proposed because they are all founded on an immoral premise - that one man has a right to deny passage to a presumably innocent person without a valid property claim.

I do not have a right to cross the border of your personal property without permission, but who may make a valid property claim on an entire half-continent? And to deny passage to that individual is to violate the valid right of free association of every individual within that half-continent. If I want a Mexican person to come to my house for dinner, who are you to deny him passage if he's not walking over your property?

 

[Foxfyre]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

Um.. wait... we've got the cart before the horse here. The question, "What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy?" when de-euphemized, means, "When do you think it's acceptable to have men with guns infringe upon the right of free movement of presumably innocent people?"

The only moral answer to that question is "Never".

That may make sense to you, but I'm sorry, it does not make sense to me. The question is pretty cut and dried. Do you or could you support any of the proposed laws listed in the poll and explained a bit in he OP? Or would not not support any of them? And why?

Guns is a topic for another thread.

No, I do not support any of the laws proposed because they are all founded on an immoral premise - that one man has a right to deny passage to a presumably innocent person without a valid property claim.

I do not have a right to cross the border of your personal property without permission, but who may make a valid property claim on an entire half-continent? And to deny passage to that individual is to violate the valid right of free association of every individual within that half-continent. If I want a Mexican person to come to my house for dinner, who are you to deny him passage if he's not walking over your property?

The Constitution is a document described by the Founders as establishing a government OF the People, BY the People, and FOR the People. This country belongs to we the people, the citizens of the United States, as much as my home belongs to me. And we the people, through our lawfully elected representatives, have every right to determine what laws will protect our borders, our language, our culture. Without borders, language, and culture, a country isn't really a county.

I have no say re who you invite onto your personal property or your home, nor do you have any say who I invite onto my personal property or my home. We both have a say via our lawfully elected representatives who may use the courthouse we and everybody else lawfully residing in our county jointly owns, who uses the state capital building that we and everybody else lawfully residing in the state owns, or who enters the country that we all jointly own.

 

[Syriusly]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

Um.. wait... we've got the cart before the horse here. The question, "What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy?" when de-euphemized, means, "When do you think it's acceptable to have men with guns infringe upon the right of free movement of presumably innocent people?"

The only moral answer to that question is "Never".

That may make sense to you, but I'm sorry, it does not make sense to me. The question is pretty cut and dried. Do you or could you support any of the proposed laws listed in the poll and explained a bit in he OP? Or would not not support any of them? And why?

Guns is a topic for another thread.

No, I do not support any of the laws proposed because they are all founded on an immoral premise - that one man has a right to deny passage to a presumably innocent person without a valid property claim.

I do not have a right to cross the border of your personal property without permission, but who may make a valid property claim on an entire half-continent? And to deny passage to that individual is to violate the valid right of free association of every individual within that half-continent. If I want a Mexican person to come to my house for dinner, who are you to deny him passage if he's not walking over your property?

Without borders, language, and culture, a country isn't really a county.
.

Well lets talk about that- I have heard that claim before but is it really true?

Let us look at the history of the United States as an example.

Borders: For the vast part of the American history we had borders- not always well defined or agreed upon- but those borders were not closed at all. People went back and forth between the United States and Canada and Mexico with no restrictions for most of our history. So was the United States not a country for most of our history?

As far as 'language' is concerned- while English has always been our foremost language- it certainly has never been our only language. Did the United States suddenly stop being a country after the Louisiana Purchase and the addition of a population that was majority French and Spanish speaking?

And culture? We have always been a melting pot of cultures. Amish. Orthodox Jews. Mormons. Navajo. Cajuns. There is no one 'American culture'- and never has been- but there is one American constitution that all Americans should know and uphold.

 

[Foxfyre]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

Um.. wait... we've got the cart before the horse here. The question, "What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy?" when de-euphemized, means, "When do you think it's acceptable to have men with guns infringe upon the right of free movement of presumably innocent people?"

The only moral answer to that question is "Never".

That may make sense to you, but I'm sorry, it does not make sense to me. The question is pretty cut and dried. Do you or could you support any of the proposed laws listed in the poll and explained a bit in he OP? Or would not not support any of them? And why?

Guns is a topic for another thread.

No, I do not support any of the laws proposed because they are all founded on an immoral premise - that one man has a right to deny passage to a presumably innocent person without a valid property claim.

I do not have a right to cross the border of your personal property without permission, but who may make a valid property claim on an entire half-continent? And to deny passage to that individual is to violate the valid right of free association of every individual within that half-continent. If I want a Mexican person to come to my house for dinner, who are you to deny him passage if he's not walking over your property?

Without borders, language, and culture, a country isn't really a county.
.

Well lets talk about that- I have heard that claim before but is it really true?

Let us look at the history of the United States as an example.

Borders: For the vast part of the American history we had borders- not always well defined or agreed upon- but those borders were not closed at all. People went back and forth between the United States and Canada and Mexico with no restrictions for most of our history. So was the United States not a country for most of our history?

As far as 'language' is concerned- while English has always been our foremost language- it certainly has never been our only language. Did the United States suddenly stop being a country after the Louisiana Purchase and the addition of a population that was majority French and Spanish speaking?

And culture? We have always been a melting pot of cultures. Amish. Orthodox Jews. Mormons. Navajo. Cajuns. There is no one 'American culture'- and never has been- but there is one American constitution that all Americans should know and uphold.

Immigration policy, at least until recently, has always included the requirement that a person applying for citizenship will learn English sufficiently to be able to communicate. This is in recognition that a country is stronger and more cohesive if there is a common language regardless of all other languages that may be spoken.

And it also included, at least until recently, the expectation that those receiving citizenship status would renounce loyalty to their previous and all other countries and would be American with all the rights and duties that come with that. Yes, each person would bring elements of their former culture that would be fun, interesting, and enriching of the American culture, but nevertheless, America has its own unique and identifiable culture, expectations for courtesy/protocol, laws, and regulations. We didn't want people who hated America to come here, but those who would love and respect and be good citizens of America.

 

[Syriusly]

Um.. wait... we've got the cart before the horse here. The question, "What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy?" when de-euphemized, means, "When do you think it's acceptable to have men with guns infringe upon the right of free movement of presumably innocent people?"

The only moral answer to that question is "Never".

That may make sense to you, but I'm sorry, it does not make sense to me. The question is pretty cut and dried. Do you or could you support any of the proposed laws listed in the poll and explained a bit in he OP? Or would not not support any of them? And why?

Guns is a topic for another thread.

No, I do not support any of the laws proposed because they are all founded on an immoral premise - that one man has a right to deny passage to a presumably innocent person without a valid property claim.

I do not have a right to cross the border of your personal property without permission, but who may make a valid property claim on an entire half-continent? And to deny passage to that individual is to violate the valid right of free association of every individual within that half-continent. If I want a Mexican person to come to my house for dinner, who are you to deny him passage if he's not walking over your property?

Without borders, language, and culture, a country isn't really a county.
.

Well lets talk about that- I have heard that claim before but is it really true?

Let us look at the history of the United States as an example.

Borders: For the vast part of the American history we had borders- not always well defined or agreed upon- but those borders were not closed at all. People went back and forth between the United States and Canada and Mexico with no restrictions for most of our history. So was the United States not a country for most of our history?

As far as 'language' is concerned- while English has always been our foremost language- it certainly has never been our only language. Did the United States suddenly stop being a country after the Louisiana Purchase and the addition of a population that was majority French and Spanish speaking?

And culture? We have always been a melting pot of cultures. Amish. Orthodox Jews. Mormons. Navajo. Cajuns. There is no one 'American culture'- and never has been- but there is one American constitution that all Americans should know and uphold.

Immigration policy, at least until recently, has always included the requirement that a person applying for citizenship will learn English sufficiently to be able to communicate. This is in recognition that a country is stronger and more cohesive if there is a common language regardless of all other languages that may be spoken.

And it also included, at least until recently, the expectation that those receiving citizenship status would renounce loyalty to their previous and all other countries and would be American with all the rights and duties that come with that. Yes, each person would bring elements of their former culture that would be fun, interesting, and enriching of the American culture, but nevertheless, America has its own unique and identifiable culture, expectations for courtesy/protocol, laws, and regulations. We didn't want people who hated America to come here, but those who would love and respect and be good citizens of America.

Which doesn't address either your claim or my response.

Your claim was that a country was not a country without 'borders, language and culture'- not whether immigrants had to learn English(another relatively recent addition).

Do you agree that the United States for most of our history had relatively poorly defined borders that had no immigration controls at all?

Do you agree that the United States has always been a nation of people who have spoken a multitude of languages- not just one?

Tell me more about the American 'unique and identifiable culture'- and how it applies to the Amish, Orthodox Jews, Navajo, Mormons and Cajun citizens of America.

 

[danielpalos]

Number 9 on the poll and the O.P. should remedy the work shortage problem without straining our finite social services.

As for merit, the Canadians have a pretty good list of what would constitute merit. I'm sure we could come up with something as comprehensive:

Immigrate to Canada - Canada.ca

I have no problem with saying that immigrants- other than refugees- should not receive social services- and deporting them if they ask for them.

But I don't see why we should put more emphasis on allowing immigrants into the United States that more directly compete with Americans for high paying jobs- than immigrants who take jobs that Americans do not want.

low wage jobs usually get subsidized at public expense.

If millions of people are not here illegally working at substandard wages--many being paid below the table--I'm pretty sure there will be fewer low wage jobs. But low wage jobs are important for entry level workers to develop work ethic, acquire skills, get references, and prepare themselves for better jobs by which they can support themselves.

There should certainly be a provision in the immigration law making it illegal for employers to knowingly hire illegals. That would be implied in a way in No. 8 on the poll but I couldn't add a No. 11 for that specific provision.

Capitalism works. Only the right wing prefers to eschew capitalism for their socialism on a national basis, at every opportunity.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage would be more effective, and result in the poor needing fewer social services; along with paying more in taxes and local costs.

I would like to keep the topic on illegal immigration laws and what they should be please. The minimum wage is a topic for another thread though it is a topic that should be revisited now and then.

who would you rather hire, at fifteen dollars an hour?

 

[danielpalos]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

Um.. wait... we've got the cart before the horse here. The question, "What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy?" when de-euphemized, means, "When do you think it's acceptable to have men with guns infringe upon the right of free movement of presumably innocent people?"

The only moral answer to that question is "Never".

There is no 'right of free movement' across borders. Period.

I'd love to know just where you even get that idea...who legislated that 'right'?

natural rights?

Ahhh...so the Palestinians were just trying to exercise their 'natural rights' in Gaza?

Yes, they were. I, personally, believe we need a Deylicate in Palestine, to better ensure peace in that region.

 

[danielpalos]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

Um.. wait... we've got the cart before the horse here. The question, "What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy?" when de-euphemized, means, "When do you think it's acceptable to have men with guns infringe upon the right of free movement of presumably innocent people?"

The only moral answer to that question is "Never".

There is no 'right of free movement' across borders. Period.

I'd love to know just where you even get that idea...who legislated that 'right'?

natural rights?

There is no 'natural right' to cross a border when a nation's laws forbid that any more than there is a 'natural right' for you to enter my home without my permission.

apples and oranges; and, yes, you have have a right to trespass, in defense of self and property.

 

[danielpalos]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

Um.. wait... we've got the cart before the horse here. The question, "What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy?" when de-euphemized, means, "When do you think it's acceptable to have men with guns infringe upon the right of free movement of presumably innocent people?"

The only moral answer to that question is "Never".

There is no 'right of free movement' across borders. Period.

I'd love to know just where you even get that idea...who legislated that 'right'?

natural rights?

Ahhh...so the Palestinians were just trying to exercise their 'natural rights' in Gaza?

Come on. Please keep this to U.S. immigration laws please. We can go off in all sorts of directions but I would really appreciate a reasoned discussion on what the immigration laws should be and why.

immigration means applying for citizenship. anything else is simple tourism.

 

[Foxfyre]

That may make sense to you, but I'm sorry, it does not make sense to me. The question is pretty cut and dried. Do you or could you support any of the proposed laws listed in the poll and explained a bit in he OP? Or would not not support any of them? And why?

Guns is a topic for another thread.

No, I do not support any of the laws proposed because they are all founded on an immoral premise - that one man has a right to deny passage to a presumably innocent person without a valid property claim.

I do not have a right to cross the border of your personal property without permission, but who may make a valid property claim on an entire half-continent? And to deny passage to that individual is to violate the valid right of free association of every individual within that half-continent. If I want a Mexican person to come to my house for dinner, who are you to deny him passage if he's not walking over your property?

Without borders, language, and culture, a country isn't really a county.
.

Well lets talk about that- I have heard that claim before but is it really true?

Let us look at the history of the United States as an example.

Borders: For the vast part of the American history we had borders- not always well defined or agreed upon- but those borders were not closed at all. People went back and forth between the United States and Canada and Mexico with no restrictions for most of our history. So was the United States not a country for most of our history?

As far as 'language' is concerned- while English has always been our foremost language- it certainly has never been our only language. Did the United States suddenly stop being a country after the Louisiana Purchase and the addition of a population that was majority French and Spanish speaking?

And culture? We have always been a melting pot of cultures. Amish. Orthodox Jews. Mormons. Navajo. Cajuns. There is no one 'American culture'- and never has been- but there is one American constitution that all Americans should know and uphold.

Immigration policy, at least until recently, has always included the requirement that a person applying for citizenship will learn English sufficiently to be able to communicate. This is in recognition that a country is stronger and more cohesive if there is a common language regardless of all other languages that may be spoken.

And it also included, at least until recently, the expectation that those receiving citizenship status would renounce loyalty to their previous and all other countries and would be American with all the rights and duties that come with that. Yes, each person would bring elements of their former culture that would be fun, interesting, and enriching of the American culture, but nevertheless, America has its own unique and identifiable culture, expectations for courtesy/protocol, laws, and regulations. We didn't want people who hated America to come here, but those who would love and respect and be good citizens of America.

Which doesn't address either your claim or my response.

Your claim was that a country was not a country without 'borders, language and culture'- not whether immigrants had to learn English(another relatively recent addition).

Do you agree that the United States for most of our history had relatively poorly defined borders that had no immigration controls at all?

Do you agree that the United States has always been a nation of people who have spoken a multitude of languages- not just one?

Tell me more about the American 'unique and identifiable culture'- and how it applies to the Amish, Orthodox Jews, Navajo, Mormons and Cajun citizens of America.

You are entirely missing the point. Yes, various groups have their own ways, cuisine, customs, traditions, even rules, but nevertheless they consider themselves American above all, and those who deserve to be here consider themselves extremely fortunate that they are American. And having a common language benefits us all and certainly is not the same thing as 'an ONLY language.)

In the late 18th Century, America was wide open and needed people to populate it. By the mid to late 19th Century, America was well populated and we were being more careful who came by routing new immigrants through Ellis Island. By the 20th Century it was prudent to establish laws to control who came here. The first comprehensive immigration laws were enacted in the 1920's.

Population when the Constitution was ratified: about 4 million or the current population of Los Angeles.

Population in 1850: about 23 million or a little more than the current population of Florida.

Population in 1950: about 151 million. Large cities were becoming over crowded and more of the nation's resources are routed to them that started the stress and depletion of rural America.

Population now: about 320 million. At that rate of growth we will be 600 million by 2040 or 2050 with a corresponding increase in need for public resources..

To preserve quality of life and also our ability to be a shining example for the world and also to have the resources to help others in times of distress, we simply cannot continue taking in everybody who wants to be here instead of where they are--that number no doubt is in the billions.

In order to become a U.S. citizen, you need to satisfy the various requirements described in the article Who Can Apply for U.S. Citizenship. Most people also need to pass tests on their knowledge and understanding of:

• the fundamentals of history and of the principles and form of government of the United States, and
• the English language, as it is spoken, written, and read.

MORE

Becoming a U.S. Citizen

At one time I was blessed to be able to teach citizenship classes to immigrants seeking citizenship and have attended quite a few swearing in ceremonies, never with dry eyes. It is quite a moving experience. But if the folks did not have a reasonable command of English, they wouldn't have benefited from the classes as that was the only language I taught in and interpreters were not provided. (We also offered classes in English as a second language.)

 

[Foxfyre]

I have no problem with saying that immigrants- other than refugees- should not receive social services- and deporting them if they ask for them.

But I don't see why we should put more emphasis on allowing immigrants into the United States that more directly compete with Americans for high paying jobs- than immigrants who take jobs that Americans do not want.

low wage jobs usually get subsidized at public expense.

If millions of people are not here illegally working at substandard wages--many being paid below the table--I'm pretty sure there will be fewer low wage jobs. But low wage jobs are important for entry level workers to develop work ethic, acquire skills, get references, and prepare themselves for better jobs by which they can support themselves.

There should certainly be a provision in the immigration law making it illegal for employers to knowingly hire illegals. That would be implied in a way in No. 8 on the poll but I couldn't add a No. 11 for that specific provision.

Capitalism works. Only the right wing prefers to eschew capitalism for their socialism on a national basis, at every opportunity.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage would be more effective, and result in the poor needing fewer social services; along with paying more in taxes and local costs.

I would like to keep the topic on illegal immigration laws and what they should be please. The minimum wage is a topic for another thread though it is a topic that should be revisited now and then.

who would you rather hire, at fifteen dollars an hour?

Not relevant to the thread topic. Please keep the discussion limited to immigration policy and what it should and should not be.

 

[Foxfyre]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

Um.. wait... we've got the cart before the horse here. The question, "What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy?" when de-euphemized, means, "When do you think it's acceptable to have men with guns infringe upon the right of free movement of presumably innocent people?"

The only moral answer to that question is "Never".

There is no 'right of free movement' across borders. Period.

I'd love to know just where you even get that idea...who legislated that 'right'?

natural rights?

Ahhh...so the Palestinians were just trying to exercise their 'natural rights' in Gaza?

Yes, they were. I, personally, believe we need a Deylicate in Palestine, to better ensure peace in that region.

Not relevant to the thread topic please.

 

[Foxfyre]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

Um.. wait... we've got the cart before the horse here. The question, "What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy?" when de-euphemized, means, "When do you think it's acceptable to have men with guns infringe upon the right of free movement of presumably innocent people?"

The only moral answer to that question is "Never".

There is no 'right of free movement' across borders. Period.

I'd love to know just where you even get that idea...who legislated that 'right'?

natural rights?

There is no 'natural right' to cross a border when a nation's laws forbid that any more than there is a 'natural right' for you to enter my home without my permission.

apples and oranges; and, yes, you have have a right to trespass, in defense of self and property.

No, you do not. All of us do so all the time, but even pulling into the neighbor's driveway to turn around and go the other direction without your neighbor's permission to do that is classified as a trespass. Nobody has a right to enter the USA without permission. Citizens have automatic permission but even they are still subject to inspection by Customs.

 

[danielpalos]

Um.. wait... we've got the cart before the horse here. The question, "What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy?" when de-euphemized, means, "When do you think it's acceptable to have men with guns infringe upon the right of free movement of presumably innocent people?"

The only moral answer to that question is "Never".

There is no 'right of free movement' across borders. Period.

I'd love to know just where you even get that idea...who legislated that 'right'?

natural rights?

There is no 'natural right' to cross a border when a nation's laws forbid that any more than there is a 'natural right' for you to enter my home without my permission.

apples and oranges; and, yes, you have have a right to trespass, in defense of self and property.

No, you do not. All of us do so all the time, but even pulling into the neighbor's driveway to turn around and go the other direction without your neighbor's permission to do that is classified as a trespass. Nobody has a right to enter the USA without permission. Citizens have automatic permission but even they are still subject to inspection by Customs.

Defense of self and property are considered, natural rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

Um.. wait... we've got the cart before the horse here. The question, "What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy?" when de-euphemized, means, "When do you think it's acceptable to have men with guns infringe upon the right of free movement of presumably innocent people?"

The only moral answer to that question is "Never".

There is no 'right of free movement' across borders. Period.

I'd love to know just where you even get that idea...who legislated that 'right'?

natural rights?

Ahhh...so the Palestinians were just trying to exercise their 'natural rights' in Gaza?

Come on. Please keep this to U.S. immigration laws please. We can go off in all sorts of directions but I would really appreciate a reasoned discussion on what the immigration laws should be and why.

immigration means applying for citizenship. anything else is simple tourism.

That is one way to look at it and I tend to agree. But the law generally defines green card holders, i.e. those residing here permanently whether or not they ever apply for citizenship, to be immigrants. I would think the proposed immigration laws in the O.P. would also apply to those receiving green cards.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no 'right of free movement' across borders. Period.

I'd love to know just where you even get that idea...who legislated that 'right'?

natural rights?

There is no 'natural right' to cross a border when a nation's laws forbid that any more than there is a 'natural right' for you to enter my home without my permission.

apples and oranges; and, yes, you have have a right to trespass, in defense of self and property.

No, you do not. All of us do so all the time, but even pulling into the neighbor's driveway to turn around and go the other direction without your neighbor's permission to do that is classified as a trespass. Nobody has a right to enter the USA without permission. Citizens have automatic permission but even they are still subject to inspection by Customs.

Defense of self and property are considered, natural rights.

That is true. And I'm sure the Founders would agree that the defense and security of our borders falls into that general category.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is interesting to me that the lowest number of votes so far is for No. 3: DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members.

I wish some of you who didn't vote for that one but did vote for some or all the others would provide your rationale for a 'no vote' on that one.

Is it that you think the DACA kids should be able to bring or keep their currently illegal families here? Or that the DACA kids should not be allowed to stay period?