Immigrants push for reforms at rallies across U.S.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The politically correct claim is that our immigration system is broken. I want to scream every time I hear that! Who broke it? Our open borders minded politicians with their selective enforcement of the law. It's our fault if they stay in positions of "leadership" when they continue to act in ways that don't represent the country's best interest. I blame illegals and those who knowingly employ them for playing our system, but I blame politicians on all levels for letting them do so. If more of us held them responsible for this state of affairs, they couldn't get away with their failure to protect our sovereignty and the value of US citizenship.

[jundp 191]

I continue to be amazed at the attitudes of many on here and the rudeness displayed to others on BOTH sides of any issue.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I continue to be amazed at the attitudes of many on here and the rudeness displayed to others on BOTH sides of any issue.

Amazement comes cheap these daze! Heh?

[Heracles 417]

I don't have it as we speak but I have seen it on the news many times before. I paid extra attention to it because I have cursed the TV a number of times over it. Last time I saw something about the stimulus and e-verify, which was a few months ago, they were even questioning whether it will still be around as funding is due to expire soon. On face value though, the democrats are in charge in all levels of government. So what are they doing about it?

Amnesty will only mean that over the next decade or two, rather than 20,000,000 illegals, you will have an extra 50,000,000 illegals. The next round will know that they too will eventually get amnesty.

Someone might think wow we are such nice people and humane but the reality is that for the poor Americans, amnesty cements a future of 3rd world equivalent poverty for them. Instead of having to compete with 10 people for a job, they will have to compete with 20 or 50. Absolutely no country in the world has ever managed to improve their standard of living by increasing the number of people living in poverty. First rule of thumb for most other developed and even 1st world socialist countries is help your own poor and disadvantaged first. Then start to trickle in other disadvantaged people, from abroad, to help them too.

Fighting fire with fire doesn't work with poverty. It only leads to more poverty.

OK.

So, firstly - no citation. Just more opinion.

Secondly, more rehashing of all the reasons why "amnesty" is a bad thing. Haven't we covered this? I think I've stated several times now that I personally agree that a blanket amnesty is bad, largely for the reason you give - it encourages more law breaking behavior.

Thirdly - we get a rant about historically unsubstantiated "fact" : "Absolutely no country in the world has ever managed blah blah blah...". I mean, those kind of statements are the easiest paper tigers to knock down. OH YEAH, HE SEZ: Well what about Moldonova in the mid 13th-century that grew its standard of living 78.3% after blah blah blah. Neither you nor I nor ANYONE can say "absolutetely no country did ANYTHING". Really dude. Don't make those kind of sweeping generalizations. You have a possibly credible argument, buttress it with facts not nonsense. (I'm trying to help you out here....)

I think you may confuse me for someone who just pulls figures from their buttocks. I don't. I would not have mentioned any of the above if I had not read about them. I don't come from a nation where we speak for the sake of speaking or being heard. But anyway, cultural attributes and so forth or obviously beyond the scope of this discussion.

Sure you can sit here and claim that my statements are huge generalizations but does that mean they are not true or invalid? I am not going to spend a few hours citing every statement or checking out every country I have read about, been too and lived in. Anyone who has lived abroad or actually migrated from abroad, to other first world countries, would know how different the system is when compared to the United States. Once again, I don't need to cite that.

Now when it comes to the countries prosperity and immigration, that is a no-brainer for most abroad; for reasons stated earlier. I have never heard of a government or union to be pro-illegal aliens abroad. Quite the contrary actually. If you're going to ask for a citation, well your not going to get it. There are plenty of articles around on what other nations, with a higher standard of living and higher quality of life ranking, are doing to protect it. One of which is getting tough on illegal aliens. Their legal immigration system still works well, they just don't allow or permit illegal aliens to function freely in their country.

Time to learn from other nations as they do from one another. Hence their huge success in so many facets of life. First rule of immigration is that you have to take the personal and emotional side out of the equation. Need a citation? Okay, maybe I'll have my friend pop by who works for the 'Department of Immigration' in Australia. You know, in that country where one in four Australian's was born overseas. The same country that has a zero tolerance policy on illegal aliens and anyone employing them. Furthermore, they just reduced the legal immigration quota to help protect the welfare of Australian (citizens and legal residents). And that's without people living in tents or million being unemployed or on the street.

PS Also keep in mind that numerous European nations, including Canada, have implemented and use Australia's highly successful, fair and multicultural points immigration system.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Constellation

[DeadPoolX 9]

Two points:

1. No one is claiming that "all Mexicans are illegal" or that all "illegals are Mexican." That said, the majority of illegal aliens are from Mexico. It's only natural for many Americans to associate the word "illegal alien" with Mexicans.

2. While deporting 12 million illegal aliens is a nice idea, it's physically and economically impossible. As someone else said on here, it would severely drain state and federal law enforcement. While it's very true that illegal immigration is illegal, there are other more serious crimes. That doesn't mean illegal aliens shouldn't be addressed, but we can't redirect law enforcement from murder and rape cases to illegals aliens.

None of the above means I am pro-amnesty. The thought of naturalizing 12 million illegal aliens is disgusting when law-abiding individuals have to pay thousands of dollars and wait months or years to enter legally. That's just to become a PR. Citizenship is hardly granted so easily.

Allowing illegal aliens amnesty would simply encourage other illegals to come in. The U.S. has already made it clear that it can't -- and won't -- do anything about the situation but offering a reward for illegal activity is beyond the current stupidity of neglect.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Just like the war on drugs is broken.

[scandal 951]

I think you may confuse me for someone who just pulls figures from their buttocks. I don't. I would not have mentioned any of the above if I had not read about them. I don't come from a nation where we speak for the sake of speaking or being heard. But anyway, cultural attributes and so forth or obviously beyond the scope of this discussion.

Sure you can sit here and claim that my statements are huge generalizations but does that mean they are not true or invalid? I am not going to spend a few hours citing every statement or checking out every country I have read about, been too and lived in. Anyone who has lived abroad or actually migrated from abroad, to other first world countries, would know how different the system is when compared to the United States. Once again, I don't need to cite that.

Now when it comes to the countries prosperity and immigration, that is a no-brainer for most abroad; for reasons stated earlier. I have never heard of a government or union to be pro-illegal aliens abroad. Quite the contrary actually. If you're going to ask for a citation, well your not going to get it. There are plenty of articles around on what other nations, with a higher standard of living and higher quality of life ranking, are doing to protect it. One of which is getting tough on illegal aliens. Their legal immigration system still works well, they just don't allow or permit illegal aliens to function freely in their country.

Time to learn from other nations as they do from one another. Hence their huge success in so many facets of life. First rule of immigration is that you have to take the personal and emotional side out of the equation. Need a citation? Okay, maybe I'll have my friend pop by who works for the 'Department of Immigration' in Australia. You know, in that country where one in four Australian's was born overseas. The same country that has a zero tolerance policy on illegal aliens and anyone employing them. Furthermore, they just reduced the legal immigration quota to help protect the welfare of Australian (citizens and legal residents). And that's without people living in tents or million being unemployed or on the street.

PS Also keep in mind that numerous European nations, including Canada, have implemented and use Australia's highly successful, fair and multicultural points immigration system.

What we appear to have learned here is:

1. You continue to state your views as though they are facts, but refuse to back them up. This is a public forum on the Internet, so by all means do feel free to say anything you like. But your saying "it's so" doesn't make it so. It's your view of what you think is so, nothing more. If you are unwilling or unable to back it up with a reference to something outside your own rambling, the indictment is in. You write: Sure you can sit here and claim that my statements are huge generalizations but does that mean they are not true or invalid? If they're UNSUBSTANTIATED generalizations?? Umm... like, you betcha I think they're invalid!

2. Your single external source of authority is your "friend who works for the "Department of Immigration' in Australia". Got me there, dude. Your friends are WAY cooler than mine

3. You apparently believe Australia's model of controlling immigration flows has broad applicability to the rest of the world. Never mind that Australia is an island-continent that shares no land borders with any other nation, and whose nearest neighbors (Papua New Guinea and Indonesia) are separated by hundreds of miles of open tracts of sea. That's a really great model to emulate along the US southern border, or at the common entry points of illegal immigration from Africa into Europe (Malta, Canary Islands).

4. Canada is in Europe

5. You apparently believe that the US is failing at controlling illegal immigration in ways that other (unnamed) countries with higher standards of living are succeeding, and that the US should emulate those. Since you talk vaguely of "other nations" with "higher standards of living", let's presume you mean Western Europe. Here's an article to disabuse you of any notion that they have any better control of the problem than the US does: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-06-09-Rome_N.htm

In a debate reminiscent of one occurring in the USA, many European leaders are under public pressure to tighten their borders and stop the rising crime and social strain caused by a tide of illegal immigrants.

"Migratory pressure on Europe is huge and is destined to increase," says Hugo Brady of the Center for European Reform, a London think tank. "Very few societies welcome large influxes of foreigners. But you'll never stop immigration. What the EU and member states are doing is trying to manage it." In other words, they're approximately in the same situation the US is in. They're trying to control it, but the problem is bigger than they are. Same as it is here.

6. Your apparent adoration for these other "successful" countries and desire to emulate their models ... does this extend to their universal healthcare policies? Their tax policies? After all those have as much to do with their GDP and quality of life as their immigration policies, if not more so! Glad to know you're such a progressive liberal as to think we should have a Scandinavian model in America.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's a lot of moments in this thread.

As far as E-Verify goes.... Hmmm

[peejay 327]

There's a lot of moments in this thread.

As far as E-Verify goes.... Hmmm

Hmmm...what? Are you surprised that the chamber of commerce types and business associations that have a record of hiring illegal labor are against E-Verify? Oh my! Say it isn't so.

You might also be unsurprized that LaRaza, LULAC, MALDEF, the Mexican government, and their ilk are against it too. Nothing new there either.

[justashooter 430]

In Miami, more than 300 minority rights activists

but the crowd appeared to be much smaller.

a contingent of about 50 people.

A line of about 225 marchers

Dozens of Latin American ice cream vendors

Thousands turned out in Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin,

One of the largest gatherings assembled outside the White House. More than 2,000 people rallied there to call for change in immigration policy.

Students at the rally called for passage of the DREAM Act, which was reintroduced in the Senate in March. It would make undocumented immigrants brought into the U.S. under the age of 15 eligible for in-state tuition.

"Our future is here," said Shayna Yang, 17, who moved to the U.S. from Indonesia five years ago to join her father. She wants to become an immigration lawyer. Without the DREAM Act, her hopes for college might be dashed.

"Allow us to show what we can do if we are citizens of the United States," she said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-0...-protests_N.htm

sounds like a lot of non-events that could have been target rich environments.

then there is the illegal chick who wants to go to college for free...

gee. why didn't i think of that?

[Ban Hammer 13,150]

In Miami, more than 300 minority rights activists

but the crowd appeared to be much smaller.

a contingent of about 50 people.

A line of about 225 marchers

Dozens of Latin American ice cream vendors

Thousands turned out in Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin,

One of the largest gatherings assembled outside the White House. More than 2,000 people rallied there to call for change in immigration policy.

Students at the rally called for passage of the DREAM Act, which was reintroduced in the Senate in March. It would make undocumented immigrants brought into the U.S. under the age of 15 eligible for in-state tuition.

"Our future is here," said Shayna Yang, 17, who moved to the U.S. from Indonesia five years ago to join her father. She wants to become an immigration lawyer. Without the DREAM Act, her hopes for college might be dashed.

"Allow us to show what we can do if we are citizens of the United States," she said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-0...-protests_N.htm

sounds like a lot of non-events that could have been target rich environments.

then there is the illegal chick who wants to go to college for free...

gee. why didn't i think of that?

i guess she's too ugly to be a stripper to get her college money

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's a lot of moments in this thread.

As far as E-Verify goes.... Hmmm

Hmmm...what? Are you surprised that the chamber of commerce types and business associations that have a record of hiring illegal labor are against E-Verify? Oh my! Say it isn't so.

You might also be unsurprized that LaRaza, LULAC, MALDEF, the Mexican government, and their ilk are against it too. Nothing new there either.

It sounds as though there are legitimate concerns that the E-Verify system may create more expensive red-tape for businesses and expand bureaucracy. At least - that's what I'm getting from it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

E-Verify (formerly the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program) is an online system operated jointly by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration (SSA). Participating employers can check the work status of new hires online by comparing information from an employee's I-9 form against SSA and Department of Homeland Security databases. More than 87,000 employers are enrolled in the program, with over 6.5 million queries run so far in fiscal year 2008.

E-Verify is free and voluntary, and is the best means available for determining employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security numbers.

http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/gc_1185221678150.shtm

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

E-Verify (formerly the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program) is an online system operated jointly by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration (SSA). Participating employers can check the work status of new hires online by comparing information from an employee's I-9 form against SSA and Department of Homeland Security databases. More than 87,000 employers are enrolled in the program, with over 6.5 million queries run so far in fiscal year 2008.

E-Verify is free and voluntary, and is the best means available for determining employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security numbers.

http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/gc_1185221678150.shtm

I think there were some concerns about it being mandatory. I think that's what the issue is about.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

E-Verify (formerly the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program) is an online system operated jointly by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration (SSA). Participating employers can check the work status of new hires online by comparing information from an employee's I-9 form against SSA and Department of Homeland Security databases. More than 87,000 employers are enrolled in the program, with over 6.5 million queries run so far in fiscal year 2008.

E-Verify is free and voluntary, and is the best means available for determining employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security numbers.

http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/gc_1185221678150.shtm

I think there were some concerns about it being mandatory. I think that's what the issue is about.

The biggest concern is the requirement for an onsite inspection of employement records prior to approval. Now, who would be concerned about that issue?

Edited May 4, 2009 by Mister_Bill