|
Post by Tired in CV on Mar 20, 2009 2:48:09 GMT -5
Under the leadership of Obama and new Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, have they changed directions from the successful direction the department was taking prior to the change of administrations? Are they committed to keeping out illegal aliens? Why is there pressure for the Border Patrol/Ice agents to make fewer arrests? cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=12573357
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 20, 2009 4:36:53 GMT -5
So the tactics adopted by ICE during the Bush administration are described as "successful" by the Bush apologists at Fox and by former Bush bureaucrats? Big surprise. Unfortunately for anti-illegal zealots, draconian anti-illegal roundups in workplaces are not selling very well with Hispanic voters, who are holding an ever increasing key to elections across the country, so what do you expect from the Obama administration? I hope Republicans keep harping on this issue, as it will dig the hole they are in even deeper...
|
|
|
Post by daleescondido on Mar 20, 2009 5:46:55 GMT -5
Next week the Obama Nation will be announcing immigration reform. Here we go again
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Mar 20, 2009 19:42:27 GMT -5
Cats Out Of The Bag,
Not sure where to put this post but this thread is as good as any. Here is my contribution to the immigration reform debate;
Times are Different:
The argument that our ancestors came here legally is not really applicable. If you haven't been to Ellis Island you need to go. Most of the immigrants that came to the United States in the last 150 years came through Ellis Island. Getting into the country was nothing like it is now. If you eyes didn't leak pus and you didn't cough up something green while someone was watching you could get in. It was that simple.
The idea that those immigrants gleefully learned the language and adopted our culture is just no true. If you think language acquisition is a problem than I suggest you get involved or I suggest we put resources into programs to address it, but to imagine that this generation of immigrants (legal or not) is any less willing to learn the language is just not supported by the facts.
Roy Beck's numbers are not that good. I think even he would admit that much of the numbers are built on approximations and extrapolations and like the due date a doctor gives an expectant mother you know that number is probably not accurate. Might be high or it might be low but we just do not know. What we do know is that his assertion that we cannot afford to take in all the people in the world who are living in extreme poverty is true. It is just that simple. It is okay to feel sad about it but that does not change the reality.
Illegal immigrants pay social security and they pay a lot of it. Lou does not believe this or does not want to but it is an easy number to calculate and the social security administration is happy to share it with you. Whatever we do we need to understand that we will save money in health care and education but we will undoubtedly have to contribute much greater amounts to social security if our reform is successful. That is just a fact. I do not think it is a deal breaker but somebody has to do the math.
The reform needs to be done with our countries best interests in mind and it needs to be done without rancor. I think it was JDredd that suggested that we do not mind immigrants who have money. I would accept that as true and honestly on some levels it makes sense. If we can give preference to people that have the most to offer, country of origin notwhithstanding, than even individuals opposed to legal immigration would support it. I think the reform needs to get away from anchor migration and chain migration.
Just some thoughts....
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Mar 20, 2009 20:01:44 GMT -5
Cats Out Of The Bag, Not sure where to put this post but this thread is as good as any. Here is my contribution to the immigration reform debate; Times are Different: The argument that our ancestors came here legally is not really applicable. If you haven't been to Ellis Island you need to go. Most of the immigrants that came to the United States in the last 150 years came through Ellis Island. Getting into the country was nothing like it is now. If you eyes didn't leak pus and you didn't cough up something green while someone was watching you could get in. It was that simple. The idea that those immigrants gleefully learned the language and adopted our culture is just no true. If you think language acquisition is a problem than I suggest you get involved or I suggest we put resources into programs to address it, but to imagine that this generation of immigrants (legal or not) is any less willing to learn the language is just not supported by the facts. Roy Beck's numbers are not that good. I think even he would admit that much of the numbers are built on approximations and extrapolations and like the due date a doctor gives an expectant mother you know that number is probably not accurate. Might be high or it might be low but we just do not know. What we do know is that his assertion that we cannot afford to take in all the people in the world who are living in extreme poverty is true. It is just that simple. It is okay to feel sad about it but that does not change the reality. Illegal immigrants pay social security and they pay a lot of it. Lou does not believe this or does not want to but it is an easy number to calculate and the social security administration is happy to share it with you. Whatever we do we need to understand that we will save money in health care and education but we will undoubtedly have to contribute much greater amounts to social security if our reform is successful. That is just a fact. I do not think it is a deal breaker but somebody has to do the math. The reform needs to be done with our countries best interests in mind and it needs to be done without rancor. I think it was JDredd that suggested that we do not mind immigrants who have money. I would accept that as true and honestly on some levels it makes sense. If we can give preference to people that have the most to offer, country of origin notwhithstanding, than even individuals opposed to legal immigration would support it. I think the reform needs to get away from anchor migration and chain migration. Just some thoughts.... Larry, Let me summarize your remarks by paraphrasing Pat Buchanan: 'We don't need to pack more unskilled 17th century era workers into our 21st century society'. Unfortunately the immigration quotas set up by our government give higher priority to country of origin and family ties than it does to education or skill levels. Side note: JDredd is a lib and I actually invited him to join us here and give some balance to the discussion. Hard to believe, huh? I would also like to wish you a Happy Birthday.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Mar 20, 2009 20:50:18 GMT -5
Jack, Thanks for the birthday wishes. It was a good birthday as birthdays go. Like all of the issues we face there is a set of facts, as set of beliefs and a set of political realities. I think efforts to reduce catastrophic poverty are a good investment. I think it creates markets and it reduces the lure of radical philosophies and hatred of America. But that is an investment that needs to be made in those countries that have the highest rates. Zimbabwe is of course the poster country for the difficulties that approach faces. I am hoping that the facts and the logic are married with the idea that the reform should be something that has a view three or four decades down the road and not just three of four years hence. I think if we create the best possible plan than even after the politicians water it down we might have something that benefits all parties. Being an illegal alien is no picnic either (whether you eat outside or not) and the current system isn't any better for them than it is for us.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Mar 21, 2009 1:35:10 GMT -5
The reform needs to be done with our countries best interests in mind and it needs to be done without rancor. I think it was JDredd that suggested that we do not mind immigrants who have money. I would accept that as true and honestly on some levels it makes sense. If we can give preference to people that have the most to offer, country of origin notwhithstanding, than even individuals opposed to legal immigration would support it. I think the reform needs to get away from anchor migration and chain migration. Just some thoughts.... [/quote] I agree with you Larry. That is the way our system USED to work somewhat. The language barrier is no more than a nuisance as I can attest to immigrant relatives who settled in an area (Minnesota) where they were comfortable speaking their native Norwegian quite often. We have many such areas around the the country where various immigrants gathered because of the commonality with their native language. The issue about their health not being so important in the past is a misconception. In reality our medical capabilities were not near what we can do today in short order in determining illnesses. They screened for what they were capable of throughout the years. Giving an illegal immigrant citizen status is a slap into all those who have waited for the system. While illegal immigrants come from throughout the world, it is an overwhelming majority of them coming from Mexico, Central & South America. Legalizing any illegal immigrants is a free pass for that country to exceed the authorized quota from that country. Would it be fair to FREEZE all legal immigration from those countries until the illegal immigrant numbers equalizes to what the authorized number would be over the years? Not to do so is unfair to all the people in other countries who want to immigrate. The issue about people assimilating into our culture is real. While your assessment is in the ballpark, the truth is that immigrants do assimilate but not at a quick pace. What is important about that is that the rate of immigration (legal & illegal) has swamped the assimilation to the threshold that many no longer feel the need. The rate of immigration is a big part of the whole scenario and key to those who want current laws enforced so that this country returns to controlled immigration. I recognize that our culture is developed from all the immigrants throughout the years and it is a live culture that will continue to change over time. Yet, like all countries our culture has a base that was developed by our founding fathers. With rapid uncontrolled immigration we our in jeopardy of losing that base. You are quite right about anchor immigration and chain immigration. They need to be stopped!
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Mar 21, 2009 2:01:57 GMT -5
So the tactics adopted by ICE during the Bush administration are described as "successful" by the Bush apologists at Fox and by former Bush bureaucrats? Big surprise. Unfortunately for anti-illegal zealots, draconian anti-illegal roundups in workplaces are not selling very well with Hispanic voters, who are holding an ever increasing key to elections across the country, so what do you expect from the Obama administration? I hope Republicans keep harping on this issue, as it will dig the hole they are in even deeper... So you think that enforcing our laws are draconian. Is it because it divides families? Surely you don't think that ICE and Border Patrol agents are abusive during those roundups do you? I understand what drives some illegals to immigrate to earn money, or in some cases a lot more money than they could earn because their own home government has policies that restricts foriegn develpment. It is their choice to leave their families to work here. My own father did a similar thing by leaving my mother and 2 older brothers living in a trailer in the midwest while he went to Alaska (Adak Island) to work construction and send money home. He did this for almost 4 years before he could get work closer to home. As far as the illegal immigrants who bring their families here or marry here, they have put their own families into a situation where they could be separated. It is NOT our ICE/Border Patrol agents who are separating those families, it is the action of the illegal who makes that separation possible. To blame ICE/Border Patrol is like a criminals mother critisizing the police for arresting their "fine outstanding" son/daughter! I have no personal vendetta against the illegal immigrants. I want to see our laws enforced and, if necessary, adopt a legitmate worker program. I wouldn't even compare with the assistance that CM or Hatch as to giving aid to the illegals, but I can say that throughout my years from Sacramento to San Diego, I have probably given enough food and water to illegals to fill 2 large UPS vans. I do agree with Larry though that in any case, the anchor immigrant provision should be stripped for those here illegally. Giving citizenship status to an illegals child born here is an abuse of the law that allows citizenship to children born here under certain conditions to begin with. It was not supposed to be an all inclusive law.
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Mar 21, 2009 13:21:33 GMT -5
I don’t have the time today to research but is it not true to end anchor migration we would have to change the constitution?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 21, 2009 19:00:45 GMT -5
I have to start out repeating what I said a week or two ago in my first post when I said I was really intimidated by the insighful and well-written posts I was reading here. I still am. I feel lucky if I can manage 3 or 4 sentences of almost coherant writing. But as I said before, I will preservere, even though I probably can only address a few of the many good points made above at the present.
I have to apologize for anything I said that implied that ICE or Border Patrol were not doing a professional job. The trouble with us liberals sometimes is that we get so wrapped up pointing out what needs to be fixed in America that we forget to mention what America does right. Compared with many other countries with illegal immigration problems, I think we do a much more humane job of enforcing our laws. (Come to think of it I mentioned "shooting illegals" in another post on another thread. I plead that my mind was on some other countries) Of course there are a few bad apples, but every organization has those. And it is tough for officers to be a pawn of a political agenda. But I would still call the policies of bringing fear and disruption to workplaces and breaking up families of otherwise law-abiding people as "draconian".
Talking about assimilation reminds me of another pet peeve of mine, which is when people describe something as "Un-American". Occasionally I do it myself, but usually it's tongue and cheek, because frankly I don't think ANYONE is qualified to determine what is or is not "Un-American". But if I was forced to describe something that IS American, it would be the Constitutional amendment that says anyone born inside our borders is a citizen. We may even repeal that clause someday, but if that day comes I for one will believe America is a lesser nation than it used to be.
More to come...
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Mar 21, 2009 19:13:06 GMT -5
jdredd,
"Birthright Citizenship" is a hot button issues and, unfortunately what I perceive to be a flaw in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I'll try to find the numbers, but I believe that the US is one of the last countries in the world that still grants citizenship in this manner.
From NumbersUSA:
Anchor Babies The children born in the United States to illegal-alien mothers are often referred to as "anchor babies." Under current practice, these children are U.S. citizens at birth, simply because they were born on U.S. soil. They are called anchor babies because, as U.S. citizens, they become eligible to sponsor for legal immigration most of their relatives, including their illegal-alien mothers, when they turn 21 years of age, thus becoming the U.S. "anchor" for an extended immigrant family.
While there is no formal policy that forbids DHS from deporting the illegal-alien parents of children born in the U.S., they rarely are actually deported. In some cases, immigration judges make exceptions for the parents on the basis of their U.S.-born children and grant the parents legal status. In many cases, though, immigration officials choose not to initiate removal proceedings against illegal aliens with U.S.-born children, so they simply remain here illegally.
Thus, the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens not only represent additional U.S. population growth, but act as 'anchors' to eventually pull a large number of extended family members into the country legally. In fact, an entire industry has built up around the U.S. system of birthright citizenship. Thousands of pregnant women who are about to deliver come to the United States each year from countries as far away as South Korea and as near as Mexico so that they can give birth on U.S. soil. Some come legally as temporary visitors; others enter illegally. Once the child is born, they get a U.S. birth certificate and passport for the child, and their future link to this country is established and irreversible.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Mar 21, 2009 19:47:47 GMT -5
Assimilating,
The rates of assimilation, those attributes that can be measured, indicate that current immigrants assimilate as fast or faster than previous groups. This where the little Italies, Chinatowns and other areas came from. The immigrant assimilates slowly while subsequent generations assimilate totally. We can look at ways to accelerate this perhaps, but I bring it up because it is an argument made against immigration that really does not hold up. There are plenty of issues and plenty of factors we can use to develop a rational and workable immigration policy. The argument that a certain group of immigrants acquires the language and culture at a slower rate is not supported by any measure that is objective.
Anchor and chain immigration should be a concern addressed by any legislation that attempts to be comprehensive. They are not the same think although they work in similar fashions. We are a sovereign nation and we certainly have a legal right to set our immigration policies in the manner we think is best. Sometimes what is best for the country is not fair to all involved. We need to keep families intact to the best degree possible, but we are not morally obligated to take all family members just because we accepted one family member. I think there is going to have to be an accomadation made that recognizes the individuals who have been waiting for citizenship while trying to reconcile the realities caused by those who did not. Perhaps this is a better time to address this problem when it is not the boiler plate issue that it has been in the past. There is common ground with a lot of these problems. Illegal immigration affects the economy in a number of ways. We probably cannot afford all the enforcement that enforcement only requires. We need some way to create a system that is somewhat self-regulating which means there needs to be incentives for compliance. But we will still need regulation and enforcement.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Mar 22, 2009 14:17:38 GMT -5
Larry, believe it or not some of your points I agree with. However, you did generalize: " Illegal immigrants pay social security and they pay a lot of it. Lou does not believe this or does not want to but it is an easy number to calculate and the social security administration is happy to share it with you." For clarity's sake I did consult SS and here are their findings between 200K-650K pay social security. The numbers of illegals in the country range from 12M-24M depending on the reporting. I NEVER said illegals did NOT pay into SS, I SAID not ENOUGH pay into SS. Since when is 200K-650K alot? Susan J. Dicker in Socialism and Democracy (11/08) "US Immigrants...Conformity," researched and analyzed immigration patterns to the US from c.1892-1965 and c.1972-c.2002 (this 30m yr. period illegal entry) and discovered 2 paradigms for SUCCESSFUL (my emphasis) assimilation: cultural pluralism and Anglo conformity. In both periods (73/30), cultural pluralism took a longer time frame for the immigrant to assimilate and become successful (achieving American dream). When said groups legal entry (Polish/Germans) and illegal entry (Puerto Rican/Costa Rican) came speaking English or learning English, they achieved success at a faster rate, hence more success with Anglo conformity.
You are absolutely correct about investing in countries with abject poverty (Zimbabwe); however, one of the greatest drawbacks to this effort is the corruption of the leadership. How do you solve that issue? Other than assassination, I can think of no solution to "get the money to the people!"
Your analysis of assimilation is very thoughtful and I agree. I think what has happened in this political climate is no one wants to be seen as the "bad guy!" I agree families should be as coherent as possible, should grandma be allowed entry with health concerns? If the immigrant family sponsor can support grandma and her health issues, should she be denied entry? What about Aunt Sophie and her little Clarie who suffers from CF? When these scenarios (both are real) are reported, sympathy is projected and, of course, "everyone" agrees they should be allowed entry. What happens when the sponsoring family says "we can't afford the costs anymore?" Do we send grandma, Aunt Sophie, and little Clarie home? I think these issues should be discussed on a national level, input coming from all of us! Can the clowns in DC divorce themselves from looking at these immigrants as "potential party (whichever) voters" and assess what is best for the nation? I also think we need a national discussion concerning the illegals in this country. We need concrete solutions that can answer to their state of being: deport (not really viable with the non-felony criminal) or not, how can they LEGALLY stay yet not go to the front-of-the-line? This is the kind of discussion and resolution we need at the national level with ALL Americans (yes even the blockheads because sometimes there is a kernel of insight into their rhetoric).
I know we need to examine this problem and come to workable solutions because we can no longer be the banks for these people. Our economy is too stressed to support all who do NOT contribute. And, Larry, by that I mean the people who are here using the ERs as their clinics (I know this because of a recent stay myself), food stamps, public assistance of any kind. We need to reassert our sovereignty and secure our borders and begin the dialog regarding the illegals in a calm, rational fashion.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 22, 2009 15:44:23 GMT -5
"Anglo Conformity"? Is that supposed to be the goal? I totally reject that premise. Sorry, folks, "Anglo" culture is history...salsa overtook ketp some years ago, and hip hop displaced waltzes a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Mar 22, 2009 16:29:56 GMT -5
jdredd, We did not define assimilation. To some assimilation is what you get with a sauce. You cook it down and you have basically one flavor composed of a variety of ingredients. This is comparable to what was called the melting pot. I think assimilation should be more like a salad. There is a blending of tastes but each ingredient maintains its own flavor.
|
|