Immigration Reform

[lynn63]

Why are they even discussing immigration reform when they already grant citizenship for over 1 million people a year?

In 1925, people were concerned about the flood of immigrants entering this country that were taking their jobs which is why they had to pass the the immigration reform then to limit the number of people getting citizenship to 300,000 a year. In 1954 they deported over a million Mexicans in one year.

With our current economy in such bad shape with so many that are citizens without work, it is stupid of our government to continue granting citizenship at this time. They also are not limited the age group because Obama just added over 1 million seniors to the beneficiary list in 2009 and 2011 that did not have citizenship prior to 65 years of age.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Why are they even discussing immigration reform when they already grant citizenship for over 1 million people a year?

In 1925, people were concerned about the flood of immigrants entering this country that were taking their jobs which is why they had to pass the the immigration reform then to limit the number of people getting citizenship to 300,000 a year. In 1954 they deported over a million Mexicans in one year.

With our current economy in such bad shape with so many that are citizens without work, it is stupid of our government to continue granting citizenship at this time. They also are not limited the age group because Obama just added over 1 million seniors to the beneficiary list in 2009 and 2011 that did not have citizenship prior to 65 years of age.

This is a question I continually ask. Why do we actually "need" this supposed "immigration reform" bill?

What I mean is, we already have ample immigration laws (that apparently we have chosen NOT to enforce) so now what? We pass a law to circumvent OUR OWN LAWS!?!?!

I know this seems ridiculous, but is that not what we are doing?

 

[LilOlLady]

It is sad, pathetic, un-American to hear the crap coming from MSNBC all day to excuse amnesty. What part of illegal have we forgotten? To up hold the constitution we have to uphold our law. It is who we are and what this great country is about. Our founding fathers would be ashamed of what leaders of today is crashing this country, the constitution and immigrants who gave blood, sweat and tears to build this country and with a stroke of a pen it’s all gone. MSNC is talking to illegal aliens but no one is talking to main stream America and asking them how they feel about amnesty.
We need a few good men in our military. We need the more in the Mexican military to help fight out of control drug cartels. The pay income taxes and when they make purchases. They also get tax credits even if they pay on taxes at all and tax refunds. They get free healthcare through hospital emergency rooms resulting in hundred or hospitals going bankrupt. They get welfare, food stamps, public housing and Medicaid by way of their anchor babies. Free school lunches. This leave taxes paid in negative.
They purchase homes and million defaulted on their loans leaving banks in trouble and bailed out by American taxpayers. Cost of law enforcement and incarcerations. Gang crime. Taking jobs from americans and lowering wages. This is just the tip of the iceberg. With amnesty and family re-unification this problem will triple.

 

[LilOlLady]

And what happens to those who do not meet the qualifications or pass a background check? NADA Because it will separate families. If they get to stay, Rubio they are already ahead of the line and it is a reward for bad behavior. They already get welfare and ER healthcare. what part of they get to stay do they not understand. Taxes they pay is a negative when the cost of the benefits they DO get. I am listening to Rubio Rhetoric on Foxnews and getting sick. If you have to pay them more they will be replaced with American workers. Comp. Immg. Reform is a joke and a political scam.

 

[jasonnfree]

More people, cheaper wages.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Ding, ding, ding.

Jasonfree nails it.

Reagan started the process of turning US labor into functional chattel bouncing back and forth from lower paying work than previous generations had to unemployment. Big casino was Reagan's amnesty for 4million illegals, because the effect was less scrutiny for another 4million who didn't take the offer. Every subsequent president has kept the borders open while claiming to try to shut it down. The idea is to create a system in which people who have jobs are grateful enough to give up the vacations and the work perqs their parents had.

Nominally this is so US citizens can "compete" with forced labor in shit for brains economies. In reality it is because corporations "can". Since both parties are now subsidiaries of corporations, not much is likely to change, although Democrats will try to keep government unions happy.

Neither party cares about improving the lot of US citizens below what is typically a 'director' level and used to be the regional/division level just below VP and the quasi professional or professional support staff it takes to manage a plug and play workforce. It seems likely that unless US citizens wake up, that by 2040 US labor can expect to be plug and play, take it or leave it, and the US will be very clearly divided between a "have" class, about 25% of Americans securely employed and everyone else.

Reagan started it but Clinton sealed it with NAFTA, other pacrim trade deals and sanctifying the WTO, not to mention the assault on the middle class by ending Glass Steagall and deregulating naked speculation in essential commodities. The $80million Slick "earned" in his first ten years out of office in "speech and consulting" fees may be directly connected to some of his presidential decisions. Marc Rich is silent on the issue.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The thing that always stands out, at least to me, is that the United States has laws on the books that SPECIFICALLY state that (1) it is illegal to be in this country without proper documentation and (2) Those apprehended MUST be either held in prison or deported back to their country. THAT IS THE LAW.

I agree that Reagan "sort of" opened the door for illegals, however, this problem existed all the way back to Dwight D Eisenhower's administration (The Wetback Act) - and yes, that was what it was called. Laws have existed since to protect America's sovereignty.

Why is it then, that both liberals and conservatives feel this inane "need" to bend over backwards to accomadate the Latino's attempt to violate our countries' laws? This nonsense (and it IS nonsense) that we "can't deport 11million illegals" is nothing more than waving the white flag of surrender, when WE have more than 15 MILLION Americans out of work? We can fight wars in 2 countries, mobilized millions in WWII, yet we can't send these "trespassers" back home?

Sorry, I don't buy this. It's much like the current gnashing of teeth over gun laws - the answer is SIMPLE. ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE!!!!

 

[MaryL]

Why is it young Americans seem to feel an affinity with illegal aliens? I see that kids now days also vote according racial lines and not on merit. They somehow think they are fighting oppression and are righting past wrongs. But they ignore facts, (and I think, that is why Obama is in office. ) That is why immigration reform has become so popular. What laws are illegal aliens breaking? It doesn’t seem to matter anymore. Our young people have little or no idea what it is to be an American anymore . I thought we all opposed crime and despise people that choose to skirt laws for their benefit, but that seems to have changed; now we accept illegal aliens breaking immigration law because the laws are petty and nobody seems care who breaks what law gets broken if they aren’t Caucasians. Of course that might be a little hypocritical, but who cares anymore? I do, and always have.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Why is it young Americans seem to feel an affinity with illegal aliens? I see that kids now days also vote according racial lines and not on merit. They somehow think they are fighting oppression and are righting past wrongs. But they ignore facts, (and I think, that is why Obama is in office. ) That is why immigration reform has become so popular. What laws are illegal aliens breaking? It doesn’t seem to matter anymore. Our young people have little or no idea what it is to be an American anymore . I thought we all opposed crime and despise people that choose to skirt laws for their benefit, but that seems to have changed; now we accept illegal aliens breaking immigration law because the laws are petty and nobody seems care who breaks what law gets broken if they aren’t Caucasians. Of course that might be a little hypocritical, but who cares anymore? I do, and always have.

Honestly, we can only blame ourselves as parents. 90% of parents, in the last 40 years, have been so busy trying to put beans on the table and, with a little luck, bettering our station in life just a little, that we failed to see what was happening in our schools.

Our kids have been taught revisionist history by radical, politically correct "teachers" with a union agenda,whose idea of "America" is the "collective" and us calling each other "comrade". Those same children are now in society or are graduating colleges and universities and are parroting what their "handlers" have taught them. Honestly, it's not really their fault.

Children are being indoctrinated with this "America is an evil place" pretty much from 1st grade on. About 6 weeks ago, my 10 year old Grandaughter was visiting me and my Wife and told us, quite in passing, that her teacher had told her that "she would love to see the evil America fall, because we are an evil country". So help me God.

I was at the Child's school the next day and confronted the 23 year old young lady in front of the Principal. She denied saying it. Thankfully, the Principal questioned the rest of the class. They backed up my Grandaughters story. The teacher was IMMEDIATELY suspended and will NOT return to that classroom.

Whether a person is a "bible-believer" or not, the passagel IS true. "You reap what you sow".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why are they even discussing immigration reform when they already grant citizenship for over 1 million people a year?

In 1925, people were concerned about the flood of immigrants entering this country that were taking their jobs which is why they had to pass the the immigration reform then to limit the number of people getting citizenship to 300,000 a year. In 1954 they deported over a million Mexicans in one year.

With our current economy in such bad shape with so many that are citizens without work, it is stupid of our government to continue granting citizenship at this time. They also are not limited the age group because Obama just added over 1 million seniors to the beneficiary list in 2009 and 2011 that did not have citizenship prior to 65 years of age.

No one will be ‘granted’ citizenship, nor ‘amnesty,’ for that matter.

Undocumented immigrants will be required to follow the same naturalization process, as well as other requirements, a consequence of their being undocumented.

But due process can not be denied undocumented immigrants due to some unfounded fear they’d adversely effect the economy.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

The thing that always stands out, at least to me, is that the United States has laws on the books that SPECIFICALLY state that (1) it is illegal to be in this country without proper documentation and (2) Those apprehended MUST be either held in prison or deported back to their country. THAT IS THE LAW.

I agree that Reagan "sort of" opened the door for illegals, however, this problem existed all the way back to Dwight D Eisenhower's administration (The Wetback Act) - and yes, that was what it was called. Laws have existed since to protect America's sovereignty.

Why is it then, that both liberals and conservatives feel this inane "need" to bend over backwards to accomadate the Latino's attempt to violate our countries' laws? This nonsense (and it IS nonsense) that we "can't deport 11million illegals" is nothing more than waving the white flag of surrender, when WE have more than 15 MILLION Americans out of work? We can fight wars in 2 countries, mobilized millions in WWII, yet we can't send these "trespassers" back home?

Sorry, I don't buy this. It's much like the current gnashing of teeth over gun laws - the answer is SIMPLE. ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE!!!!

Up through Nixon's terms illegals came and went. Sure some stayed, but mostly they had places to work seasonally, then went home. These were the Mexicans who really did take jobs Americans didn't want.

Can't explain why but they started staying in the 1970s. My personal opinion is welfare cheating; in those days social services personnel led the "if we don't spend it this year, they'll cut us next year" bleat low quality state and locals bragged about back in the day, so fraud was incredibly rampant. Some of them learned the language and got jobs.

By Reagan's time big employers of low skill labor saw the potential and the result was Reagan's amnesty. Be clear I don't give a fuck about cowboys and Indians (nutball Republicans vs the fake liberal freakshow). Neither party's core actions match their words so to me all of the leadership of both parties are lowlife cocksuckers and serious partisans are basically human cattle. In my past an important lesson was to not see filigree and shadow but rather to see what is THERE, including separating promises from results. By 1982 it was pretty clear there was no there, there, in the nutball revolution. By 1986 Goldwater and Buckley had concerns about deficits and the national debt but proximity to the president bought their general silence.

In a hundred years 1980 will be seen as a sea change in US politics. A disastrous sea change. Every president since IKE has been a step down with the exception of Pap Bush, who cut growth in spending and raised taxes thereby setting the stage for Clinton/Rubin to balance the budget by accident. Because the economy was undergoing disorderly change, and because anti-American fake liberal scum really do believe immigrants are better than citizens, resistance to amnesty was painted as mean spirited grinchy stuff instead of good judgment.

Lack of adults in the process, from Reagan, a halfwit who never had an original thought, to Tip O'neill who never met a bag of money he wouldn't blow someone to get at, and because borrowing created the illusion of growth, amnesty passed. It was one of the worst decisions of the ReagaNUT years because look what happened next: it was like rats coming over the rail of a cheese ship.

Anyway, that is what the recent history of illegals looks like to me.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The thing that always stands out, at least to me, is that the United States has laws on the books that SPECIFICALLY state that (1) it is illegal to be in this country without proper documentation and (2) Those apprehended MUST be either held in prison or deported back to their country. THAT IS THE LAW.

I agree that Reagan "sort of" opened the door for illegals, however, this problem existed all the way back to Dwight D Eisenhower's administration (The Wetback Act) - and yes, that was what it was called. Laws have existed since to protect America's sovereignty.

Why is it then, that both liberals and conservatives feel this inane "need" to bend over backwards to accomadate the Latino's attempt to violate our countries' laws? This nonsense (and it IS nonsense) that we "can't deport 11million illegals" is nothing more than waving the white flag of surrender, when WE have more than 15 MILLION Americans out of work? We can fight wars in 2 countries, mobilized millions in WWII, yet we can't send these "trespassers" back home?

Sorry, I don't buy this. It's much like the current gnashing of teeth over gun laws - the answer is SIMPLE. ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE!!!!

Up through Nixon's terms illegals came and went. Sure some stayed, but mostly they had places to work seasonally, then went home. These were the Mexicans who really did take jobs Americans didn't want.

Can't explain why but they started staying in the 1970s. My personal opinion is welfare cheating; in those days social services personnel led the "if we don't spend it this year, they'll cut us next year" bleat low quality state and locals bragged about back in the day, so fraud was incredibly rampant. Some of them learned the language and got jobs.

By Reagan's time big employers of low skill labor saw the potential and the result was Reagan's amnesty. Be clear I don't give a fuck about cowboys and Indians (nutball Republicans vs the fake liberal freakshow). Neither party's core actions match their words so to me all of the leadership of both parties are lowlife cocksuckers and serious partisans are basically human cattle. In my past an important lesson was to not see filigree and shadow but rather to see what is THERE, including separating promises from results. By 1982 it was pretty clear there was no there, there, in the nutball revolution. By 1986 Goldwater and Buckley had concerns about deficits and the national debt but proximity to the president bought their general silence.

In a hundred years 1980 will be seen as a sea change in US politics. A disastrous sea change. Every president since IKE has been a step down with the exception of Pap Bush, who cut growth in spending and raised taxes thereby setting the stage for Clinton/Rubin to balance the budget by accident. Because the economy was undergoing disorderly change, and because anti-American fake liberal scum really do believe immigrants are better than citizens, resistance to amnesty was painted as mean spirited grinchy stuff instead of good judgment.

Lack of adults in the process, from Reagan, a halfwit who never had an original thought, to Tip O'neill who never met a bag of money he wouldn't blow someone to get at, and because borrowing created the illusion of growth, amnesty passed. It was one of the worst decisions of the ReagaNUT years because look what happened next: it was like rats coming over the rail of a cheese ship.

Anyway, that is what the recent history of illegals looks like to me.

I am hard pressed to necessarily disagree with your assessment. However, Reagan is long gone, as is Tip O'Neil. The "problem" is greatly exacerbated, and no one in American politics cares to do anything but make excuses.

The question, however, still remains. United States Immigration Law specifically states that undocumented and illegal aliens "...may not maintain residence within the boundaries of the United States and SHALL be deported or held in prison".

Regardless of gutless politicians, who see these folks as a potential voting block, they (our politicians) are bound by law to do their duty; yet they simply refuse, opting instead, to manipulate the law as THEY (or the latest polling data) sees fit. Nearly always, in direct violation of the law.

Popular opinion is now, if the "people" don't like the law, simply ignore it.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Why are they even discussing immigration reform when they already grant citizenship for over 1 million people a year?

In 1925, people were concerned about the flood of immigrants entering this country that were taking their jobs which is why they had to pass the the immigration reform then to limit the number of people getting citizenship to 300,000 a year. In 1954 they deported over a million Mexicans in one year.

With our current economy in such bad shape with so many that are citizens without work, it is stupid of our government to continue granting citizenship at this time. They also are not limited the age group because Obama just added over 1 million seniors to the beneficiary list in 2009 and 2011 that did not have citizenship prior to 65 years of age.

No one will be ‘granted’ citizenship, nor ‘amnesty,’ for that matter.

Undocumented immigrants will be required to follow the same naturalization process, as well as other requirements, a consequence of their being undocumented.

But due process can not be denied undocumented immigrants due to some unfounded fear they’d adversely effect the economy.

Sorry, but I disagree completely with this statement. The ONLY "due process" these people are entitled to is a hearing before an immigration panel. Once it has been determined that they are here illegally, they are sent packing.

Due Process followed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why are they even discussing immigration reform when they already grant citizenship for over 1 million people a year?

In 1925, people were concerned about the flood of immigrants entering this country that were taking their jobs which is why they had to pass the the immigration reform then to limit the number of people getting citizenship to 300,000 a year. In 1954 they deported over a million Mexicans in one year.

With our current economy in such bad shape with so many that are citizens without work, it is stupid of our government to continue granting citizenship at this time. They also are not limited the age group because Obama just added over 1 million seniors to the beneficiary list in 2009 and 2011 that did not have citizenship prior to 65 years of age.

No one will be ‘granted’ citizenship, nor ‘amnesty,’ for that matter.

Undocumented immigrants will be required to follow the same naturalization process, as well as other requirements, a consequence of their being undocumented.

But due process can not be denied undocumented immigrants due to some unfounded fear they’d adversely effect the economy.

Sorry, but I disagree completely with this statement. The ONLY "due process" these people are entitled to is a hearing before an immigration panel. Once it has been determined that they are here illegally, they are sent packing.

Due Process followed.

You disagree that undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process then say they are entitled. At least you’re consistent in not making sense.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

The thing that always stands out, at least to me, is that the United States has laws on the books that SPECIFICALLY state that (1) it is illegal to be in this country without proper documentation and (2) Those apprehended MUST be either held in prison or deported back to their country. THAT IS THE LAW.

I agree that Reagan "sort of" opened the door for illegals, however, this problem existed all the way back to Dwight D Eisenhower's administration (The Wetback Act) - and yes, that was what it was called. Laws have existed since to protect America's sovereignty.

Why is it then, that both liberals and conservatives feel this inane "need" to bend over backwards to accomadate the Latino's attempt to violate our countries' laws? This nonsense (and it IS nonsense) that we "can't deport 11million illegals" is nothing more than waving the white flag of surrender, when WE have more than 15 MILLION Americans out of work? We can fight wars in 2 countries, mobilized millions in WWII, yet we can't send these "trespassers" back home?

Sorry, I don't buy this. It's much like the current gnashing of teeth over gun laws - the answer is SIMPLE. ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE!!!!

Up through Nixon's terms illegals came and went. Sure some stayed, but mostly they had places to work seasonally, then went home. These were the Mexicans who really did take jobs Americans didn't want.

Can't explain why but they started staying in the 1970s. My personal opinion is welfare cheating; in those days social services personnel led the "if we don't spend it this year, they'll cut us next year" bleat low quality state and locals bragged about back in the day, so fraud was incredibly rampant. Some of them learned the language and got jobs.

By Reagan's time big employers of low skill labor saw the potential and the result was Reagan's amnesty. Be clear I don't give a fuck about cowboys and Indians (nutball Republicans vs the fake liberal freakshow). Neither party's core actions match their words so to me all of the leadership of both parties are lowlife cocksuckers and serious partisans are basically human cattle. In my past an important lesson was to not see filigree and shadow but rather to see what is THERE, including separating promises from results. By 1982 it was pretty clear there was no there, there, in the nutball revolution. By 1986 Goldwater and Buckley had concerns about deficits and the national debt but proximity to the president bought their general silence.

In a hundred years 1980 will be seen as a sea change in US politics. A disastrous sea change. Every president since IKE has been a step down with the exception of Pap Bush, who cut growth in spending and raised taxes thereby setting the stage for Clinton/Rubin to balance the budget by accident. Because the economy was undergoing disorderly change, and because anti-American fake liberal scum really do believe immigrants are better than citizens, resistance to amnesty was painted as mean spirited grinchy stuff instead of good judgment.

Lack of adults in the process, from Reagan, a halfwit who never had an original thought, to Tip O'neill who never met a bag of money he wouldn't blow someone to get at, and because borrowing created the illusion of growth, amnesty passed. It was one of the worst decisions of the ReagaNUT years because look what happened next: it was like rats coming over the rail of a cheese ship.

Anyway, that is what the recent history of illegals looks like to me.

I am hard pressed to necessarily disagree with your assessment. However, Reagan is long gone, as is Tip O'Neil. The "problem" is greatly exacerbated, and no one in American politics cares to do anything but make excuses.

The question, however, still remains. United States Immigration Law specifically states that undocumented and illegal aliens "...may not maintain residence within the boundaries of the United States and SHALL be deported or held in prison".

Regardless of gutless politicians, who see these folks as a potential voting block, they (our politicians) are bound by law to do their duty; yet they simply refuse, opting instead, to manipulate the law as THEY (or the latest polling data) sees fit. Nearly always, in direct violation of the law.

Popular opinion is now, if the "people" don't like the law, simply ignore it.

Thanks for a well considered response. We don't need to agree on the history to agree 100% that elected and hired officials' refuse to enforce the law. It looks like its going to get worse before it gets better.

One wonders how much worse it has to get to move enough people to make a difference against malfeasance in and by government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The great maority of illegal immigrants are 'home'; they are not going back to their country of origin. The great majority have native-born American relatives, who are going to be punishing within ten years those American politicians who have been yelling to evict their relatives.

Let's make them part of the solution and taxpayers, guys.

 

[RandallFlagg]

No one will be ‘granted’ citizenship, nor ‘amnesty,’ for that matter.

Undocumented immigrants will be required to follow the same naturalization process, as well as other requirements, a consequence of their being undocumented.

But due process can not be denied undocumented immigrants due to some unfounded fear they’d adversely effect the economy.

Sorry, but I disagree completely with this statement. The ONLY "due process" these people are entitled to is a hearing before an immigration panel. Once it has been determined that they are here illegally, they are sent packing.

Due Process followed.

You disagree that undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process then say they are entitled. At least you’re consistent in not making sense.

Typical liberal dilution. I said the ONLY thing they are "entitled" to is the hearing that WILL get them sent BACK ACROSS the border.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RF, more immigrants have been deported by this president's administration than the last president's.

But . . . mass deportation will not happen.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The great maority of illegal immigrants are 'home'; they are not going back to their country of origin. The great majority have native-born American relatives, who are going to be punishing within ten years those American politicians who have been yelling to evict their relatives.

Let's make them part of the solution and taxpayers, guys.

So, "country of origin" is what? NOT one's birthplace? Or is it the country that you just "happen to be in"?

Funny, I always thought that the law was fairly clear on a person's "birthplace"....Supposing that "I have been here illegally for the last 30 years, so that makes it OK" is leftist speak for - "we are a nation of laws, until it's a law that we don't care for - then we'll just ignore that law"

Make up your mind. Do we enforce our laws? or not?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is not "leftist" speak at all. It is right of center to left of center common sense speak. Go check the figures on immigration reform.

YOU, RF, are in the small minority on this. Since the great majority are staying, let's make them in the open and taxpayers.