Poll: 63% of Americans favor letting illegal immigrants become citizens if they pass a background check and learn English

[natty bumppo 297]

This person didn't know the law was being broken as they stealthy invaded a foreign country?

This person was not aware of the consequences of being caught? Never “warned and informed” ?

Second scenario for them, they moved out of desperation and after a while (their daughter, also illegal, was applying to college in the US - and got in, by the way- ) they wanted to do things right by the country that has given them so much...but couldn't find the way to do it without being banned forever, and going back to having no floor, no roof, no food, no nothing.

Caro

cash out ... go home ... and she can re-apply for a student visa. (is the US the only country with colleges ?)

illegal ... non valid SSN ... ITIN (maybe) ... potentially carrying ... false documents possibly obtained by identity theft

note:

it's not our responsibility to fix the worlds or another nations problems (this is for another thread)

if they've been here so long ... take their $$$ back home ... and buy a better house.

Edited June 16, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

People are sent to jail and prison for breaking the law day in and day out. That disrupts their lives and that of their families, doesn't it? We have no problems disrupting the lives of millions of Americans and lawful residents but God forbid, we inconvenience the illegals or those that harbor them. I don't get that logic.

I think that however unfair that seems some sort of compromise (yes, amnesty) will have to be made regarding 20 million resident illegals. I agree with securing the border and enforcing labour laws, though there's a question in my mind as to how enforceable the latter part really is.

For people who've been here a (really) long time (20+ years) I think the issue becomes one of squatters rights. Granted they shouldn't have done what they did (which is easy to say at the end of the day) but the fact that successive governments have chosen to largely ignore this issue makes the US Government (in a general sense) complicit in that crime.

The US government is not complicit in this crime. There's just too much of this crime being committed for the government to effectively get a handle on it. Illegals are arrested, arraigned, deported each and every day. The government just cannot keep up with the masses of criminals. Saying that the government is complicit in this crime is like suggesting that the government is complicit in people committing DUI's. There are far more of those occuring each day than the government will ever be able to address. That, though, doesn't lead anyone to suggest that it's the government's fault that people drive drunk.

If we admit (as I believe some here already have - especially when I note how exasperated people here seem to be by each new piece of proposed legislation on this issue) that successive governments have purposefully chosen to turn a blind eye to the issue of illegal immigration, passing little legislation with any teeth - for various reasons - from losing key voter demographics, to allowing employers to benefit from a pool of extremely cheap labour - then absolutely they are complicit. That the problem has gotten to to where it is today largely through incompetence doesn't lessen that, in my view - although of course it demands a clear and definitive solution.

While I wouldn't condone illegal immigration, I can't fault someone wanting to get out of desperate circumstances to a chance of a better life - its human nature, regardless of whatever the law says. That said, if you have formed significant ties to this country over a period of many years, if being deported would essentially put you in a position with no job, no roof over your head, and no family connections - then I have a hard time saying "tough luck" to someone. However horrible people think that crime is - I can't see any justification whatsoever for taking away everything a person has. How many illegals apply to that definition I can't say (probably a minority), but I hardly see deporting grandmothers, and old men being justifiable based as it seems to be, on a (mean-spirited) conception of social justice.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They were destitute when they got here. If they have been here 20+ years then they should have something saved up. If they are still destitute when we ship them back to where they belong then it's their own fault. And squatters rights don't apply to immigration regardless of how PC it sounds.

Maybe - but as they say possession is 9/10 of the law, and like it or not - those people are already here... and judging by the demonstrations in the south of the country - there would seem to be something of an organised movement to protect their interests.

I'd go as far as to suggest that this is the reason why few politicians are standing up to propose and ratify legislation that meets the broader public demands. If in doing so it causes a political schism in the country - its not surprising that this has become something of a circular debate in the house and senate. Lots of talk, little action. In other worlds, little different to approach taken over the last 30-40 years.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

People are sent to jail and prison for breaking the law day in and day out. That disrupts their lives and that of their families, doesn't it? We have no problems disrupting the lives of millions of Americans and lawful residents but God forbid, we inconvenience the illegals or those that harbor them. I don't get that logic.

I think that however unfair that seems some sort of compromise (yes, amnesty) will have to be made regarding 20 million resident illegals. I agree with securing the border and enforcing labour laws, though there's a question in my mind as to how enforceable the latter part really is.

For people who've been here a (really) long time (20+ years) I think the issue becomes one of squatters rights. Granted they shouldn't have done what they did (which is easy to say at the end of the day) but the fact that successive governments have chosen to largely ignore this issue makes the US Government (in a general sense) complicit in that crime.

The US government is not complicit in this crime. There's just too much of this crime being committed for the government to effectively get a handle on it. Illegals are arrested, arraigned, deported each and every day. The government just cannot keep up with the masses of criminals. Saying that the government is complicit in this crime is like suggesting that the government is complicit in people committing DUI's. There are far more of those occuring each day than the government will ever be able to address. That, though, doesn't lead anyone to suggest that it's the government's fault that people drive drunk.

If we admit (as I believe some here already have - especially when I note how exasperated people here seem to be by each new piece of proposed legislation on this issue) that successive governments have purposefully chosen to turn a blind eye to the issue of illegal immigration, passing little legislation with any teeth - for various reasons - from losing key voter demographics, to allowing employers to benefit from a pool of extremely cheap labour - then absolutely they are complicit. That the problem has gotten to to where it is today largely through incompetence doesn't lessen that, in my view - although of course it demands a clear and definitive solution.

There's a difference between turning a blind eye and not putting the resources behind a problem that it would take to fix it. Sticking with the other example (which also is a widespread problem), by any measure, there are not nearly enough resources available to curb drunk driving. To derive from that lack of enforcement and resources a complicity of the government in committing the crime of driving under the influence would ridiculous. Same goes for drug traffic which the government does not get a handle on. Is the government complicit in that crime too? Seeing that we have all kinds of crimes committed each and every day, is the fact that government does not prevent each and every one of them an indication that the government is complicit in all those crimes as well? We have one criminal organization governing this country then. And we better afford amnesty to all those criminals that have committed their crimes with the complicity of the government. Tear down those jails and prisons, we have no more use for them. Well, maybe we ought to keep a few to jail the government.

Edited June 16, 2007 by ET-US2004

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

People are sent to jail and prison for breaking the law day in and day out. That disrupts their lives and that of their families, doesn't it? We have no problems disrupting the lives of millions of Americans and lawful residents but God forbid, we inconvenience the illegals or those that harbor them. I don't get that logic.

I think that however unfair that seems some sort of compromise (yes, amnesty) will have to be made regarding 20 million resident illegals. I agree with securing the border and enforcing labour laws, though there's a question in my mind as to how enforceable the latter part really is.

For people who've been here a (really) long time (20+ years) I think the issue becomes one of squatters rights. Granted they shouldn't have done what they did (which is easy to say at the end of the day) but the fact that successive governments have chosen to largely ignore this issue makes the US Government (in a general sense) complicit in that crime.

The US government is not complicit in this crime. There's just too much of this crime being committed for the government to effectively get a handle on it. Illegals are arrested, arraigned, deported each and every day. The government just cannot keep up with the masses of criminals. Saying that the government is complicit in this crime is like suggesting that the government is complicit in people committing DUI's. There are far more of those occuring each day than the government will ever be able to address. That, though, doesn't lead anyone to suggest that it's the government's fault that people drive drunk.

If we admit (as I believe some here already have - especially when I note how exasperated people here seem to be by each new piece of proposed legislation on this issue) that successive governments have purposefully chosen to turn a blind eye to the issue of illegal immigration, passing little legislation with any teeth - for various reasons - from losing key voter demographics, to allowing employers to benefit from a pool of extremely cheap labour - then absolutely they are complicit. That the problem has gotten to to where it is today largely through incompetence doesn't lessen that, in my view - although of course it demands a clear and definitive solution.

There's a difference between turning a blind eye and not putting the resources behind a problem that it would take to fix it. Sticking with the other example (which also is a widespread problem), by any measure, there are not nearly enough resources available to curb drunk driving. To derive from that lack of enforcement and resources a complicity of the government in committing the crime of driving under the influence would ridiculous. Same goes for drug traffic which the government does not get a handle on. Is the government complicit in that crime too?

As those crimes (DUI and Drug trafficking) are not ones driven by economic necessity on the part of the perpetrators I'm not sure I see the implicit parallels in your analogies.

As I said, successive governments for one reason and another, have chosen (through intended design and otherwise) to do diddly squate about illegal immigration - if you're aware of a problem, and do nothing about it - through fear of losing votes (if you alienate certain demographics) or because certain interests who back your campaign have a vested interest in keeping things as they are - then yes, the government (as an institution) is indeed complicit... I don't see how the drug trade or drunk driving is being represented in such a way that knowingly perpetuates the illegal activities.

But if we go back to your analogies I think you've made something of an unconscious admission here. If you're suggesting that the government can't curb drink driving and drug trafficking (through lack of resources) - what makes you think they'll be any more successful with regards to curtailing illegal immigration via enforcing employment laws (assuming of course that a real concerted desire to fix the problem in a definitive way actually exists in the house and senate). As I see it - nothing much is happening on this issue (currently) and our elected officials are sitting around with their thumbs up their #######'s; little different to what has gone on over the last 40-odd years.

Edited June 16, 2007 by erekose

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We have one criminal organization governing this country then. And we better afford amnesty to all those criminals that have committed their crimes with the complicity of the government. Tear down those jails and prisons, we have no more use for them. Well, maybe we ought to keep a few to jail the government.

As I said before - I realize this is an emotional issue for many people, but the arguments really aren't best served by indulging in melodrama.

Again I don't agree with illegal immigration, but we have to face certain realities - that of 20 million undocumented people living in our country. They are already here, and getting rid of them will be far from easy. Zero tolerance is all well and good, but then we're back at "enforcement and available resources". Clearly some sort of solution is called for - but I think some of the current demands being made are unrealistic - in terms of the political will required to push forward and approve those demands, and potentially unrealistic in terms of the logistics of actually enforcing the laws and finding sufficient manpower and resources to devote to the problem. The result being - that some sort of amnesty will be inevitable (as I see it), whether people like it or not. That's just being pragmatic IMO.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

People are sent to jail and prison for breaking the law day in and day out. That disrupts their lives and that of their families, doesn't it? We have no problems disrupting the lives of millions of Americans and lawful residents but God forbid, we inconvenience the illegals or those that harbor them. I don't get that logic.

I think that however unfair that seems some sort of compromise (yes, amnesty) will have to be made regarding 20 million resident illegals. I agree with securing the border and enforcing labour laws, though there's a question in my mind as to how enforceable the latter part really is.

For people who've been here a (really) long time (20+ years) I think the issue becomes one of squatters rights. Granted they shouldn't have done what they did (which is easy to say at the end of the day) but the fact that successive governments have chosen to largely ignore this issue makes the US Government (in a general sense) complicit in that crime.

The US government is not complicit in this crime. There's just too much of this crime being committed for the government to effectively get a handle on it. Illegals are arrested, arraigned, deported each and every day. The government just cannot keep up with the masses of criminals. Saying that the government is complicit in this crime is like suggesting that the government is complicit in people committing DUI's. There are far more of those occuring each day than the government will ever be able to address. That, though, doesn't lead anyone to suggest that it's the government's fault that people drive drunk.

If we admit (as I believe some here already have - especially when I note how exasperated people here seem to be by each new piece of proposed legislation on this issue) that successive governments have purposefully chosen to turn a blind eye to the issue of illegal immigration, passing little legislation with any teeth - for various reasons - from losing key voter demographics, to allowing employers to benefit from a pool of extremely cheap labour - then absolutely they are complicit. That the problem has gotten to to where it is today largely through incompetence doesn't lessen that, in my view - although of course it demands a clear and definitive solution.

There's a difference between turning a blind eye and not putting the resources behind a problem that it would take to fix it. Sticking with the other example (which also is a widespread problem), by any measure, there are not nearly enough resources available to curb drunk driving. To derive from that lack of enforcement and resources a complicity of the government in committing the crime of driving under the influence would ridiculous. Same goes for drug traffic which the government does not get a handle on. Is the government complicit in that crime too?

As those crimes (DUI and Drug trafficking) are not ones driven by economic necessity on the part of the perpetrators I'm not sure I see the implicit parallels in your analogies.

How does the reason for the crime have anything to do with whether the government is complicit in committing it? Many a drug trafficker will tell you how economically necessary it is for them to engage in the trade. I ain't buying the economic necessity argument at all. It's greed on the part of the American enabler as well as those trafficking the illegals over here. As for the illegals themselves, desire - sure. Necessity my behind.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We have one criminal organization governing this country then. And we better afford amnesty to all those criminals that have committed their crimes with the complicity of the government. Tear down those jails and prisons, we have no more use for them. Well, maybe we ought to keep a few to jail the government.

As I said before - I realize this is an emotional issue for many people, but the arguments really aren't best served by indulging in melodrama.

Again I don't agree with illegal immigration, but we have to face certain realities - that of 20 million undocumented people living in our country. They are already here, and getting rid of them will be far from easy. Zero tolerance is all well and good, but then we're back at "enforcement and available resources". Clearly some sort of solution is called for - but I think some of the current demands being made are unrealistic - in terms of the political will required to push forward and approve those demands, and potentially unrealistic in terms of the logistics of actually enforcing the laws and finding sufficient manpower and resources to devote to the problem. The result being - that some sort of amnesty will be inevitable (as I see it), whether people like it or not. That's just being pragmatic IMO.

If we up the stakes for folks to employ illegals here - I am talking fining businesses out of business and jailing any and all staff that is engaged in the hiring of these illegals w/o exception - I am quite certain that we can make significant progress on that front even with limited resources. If that is truly tried and fails, I'm willing to consider alternatives. Until then, I think we have options left that are much better than rewarding those that chose to pizz on our laws with an amnesty. You may call that melodramatic. I call it a matter of justice. You can't let illegals get away with those things that Americans pay hefty prices for day in and day out. There's no justice in formally putting the illegal crowd above the law.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We have one criminal organization governing this country then. And we better afford amnesty to all those criminals that have committed their crimes with the complicity of the government. Tear down those jails and prisons, we have no more use for them. Well, maybe we ought to keep a few to jail the government.

As I said before - I realize this is an emotional issue for many people, but the arguments really aren't best served by indulging in melodrama.

Again I don't agree with illegal immigration, but we have to face certain realities - that of 20 million undocumented people living in our country. They are already here, and getting rid of them will be far from easy. Zero tolerance is all well and good, but then we're back at "enforcement and available resources". Clearly some sort of solution is called for - but I think some of the current demands being made are unrealistic - in terms of the political will required to push forward and approve those demands, and potentially unrealistic in terms of the logistics of actually enforcing the laws and finding sufficient manpower and resources to devote to the problem. The result being - that some sort of amnesty will be inevitable (as I see it), whether people like it or not. That's just being pragmatic IMO.

If we up the stakes for folks to employ illegals here - I am talking fining businesses out of business and jailing any and all staff that is engaged in the hiring of these illegals w/o exception - I am quite certain that we can make significant progress on that front even with limited resources. If that is truly tried and fails, I'm willing to consider alternatives. Until then, I think we have options left that are much better than rewarding those that chose to pizz on our laws with an amnesty. You may call that melodramatic. I call it a matter of justice. You can't let illegals get away with those things that Americans pay hefty prices for day in and day out. There's no justice in formally putting the illegal crowd above the law.

I didn't say I agree with an amnesty, just that I see it to be inevitable.

As for melodrama - I was addressing the comment about "the criminal government" and "tearing down jails". As I said, contrary to what people want to see happen to illegal immigrants - there are certain realities to be faced. It hardly needs to be pointed out that what 'should' be done doesn't necessarily translate into what 'will' be done.

[natty bumppo 297]

They were destitute when they got here. If they have been here 20+ years then they should have something saved up. If they are still destitute when we ship them back to where they belong then it's their own fault. And squatters rights don't apply to immigration regardless of how PC it sounds.

Maybe - but as they say possession is 9/10 of the law, and like it or not - those people are already here... and judging by the demonstrations in the south of the country - there would seem to be something of an organised movement to protect their interests.

I'd go as far as to suggest that this is the reason why few politicians are standing up to propose and ratify legislation that meets the broader public demands. If in doing so it causes a political schism in the country - its not surprising that this has become something of a circular debate in the house and senate. Lots of talk, little action. In other worlds, little different to approach taken over the last 30-40 years.

meaning ownership ... this is 9/10 of the laws. what do they legally own ?

and if they own ... show documentation of legal status.

Edited June 17, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We have one criminal organization governing this country then. And we better afford amnesty to all those criminals that have committed their crimes with the complicity of the government. Tear down those jails and prisons, we have no more use for them. Well, maybe we ought to keep a few to jail the government.

As I said before - I realize this is an emotional issue for many people, but the arguments really aren't best served by indulging in melodrama.

Again I don't agree with illegal immigration, but we have to face certain realities - that of 20 million undocumented people living in our country. They are already here, and getting rid of them will be far from easy. Zero tolerance is all well and good, but then we're back at "enforcement and available resources". Clearly some sort of solution is called for - but I think some of the current demands being made are unrealistic - in terms of the political will required to push forward and approve those demands, and potentially unrealistic in terms of the logistics of actually enforcing the laws and finding sufficient manpower and resources to devote to the problem. The result being - that some sort of amnesty will be inevitable (as I see it), whether people like it or not. That's just being pragmatic IMO.

If we up the stakes for folks to employ illegals here - I am talking fining businesses out of business and jailing any and all staff that is engaged in the hiring of these illegals w/o exception - I am quite certain that we can make significant progress on that front even with limited resources. If that is truly tried and fails, I'm willing to consider alternatives. Until then, I think we have options left that are much better than rewarding those that chose to pizz on our laws with an amnesty. You may call that melodramatic. I call it a matter of justice. You can't let illegals get away with those things that Americans pay hefty prices for day in and day out. There's no justice in formally putting the illegal crowd above the law.

I didn't say I agree with an amnesty, just that I see it to be inevitable.

As for melodrama - I was addressing the comment about "the criminal government" and "tearing down jails". As I said, contrary to what people want to see happen to illegal immigrants - there are certain realities to be faced. It hardly needs to be pointed out that what 'should' be done doesn't necessarily translate into what 'will' be done.

I don't believe much in inevitability. Other than for death which is ultimately inevitable.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They were destitute when they got here. If they have been here 20+ years then they should have something saved up. If they are still destitute when we ship them back to where they belong then it's their own fault. And squatters rights don't apply to immigration regardless of how PC it sounds.

Maybe - but as they say possession is 9/10 of the law, and like it or not - those people are already here... and judging by the demonstrations in the south of the country - there would seem to be something of an organised movement to protect their interests.

I'd go as far as to suggest that this is the reason why few politicians are standing up to propose and ratify legislation that meets the broader public demands. If in doing so it causes a political schism in the country - its not surprising that this has become something of a circular debate in the house and senate. Lots of talk, little action. In other worlds, little different to approach taken over the last 30-40 years.

meaning ownership ... this is 9/10 of the laws. what do they legally own ?

and if they own ... show documentation of legal status.

That was a figure of speech. What they "possess" is the fact that they are in the country in large numbers and appear to have some sort of organised support - again in reference to the large protests in states such as CA last year.

[pedroh 21]

They were destitute when they got here. If they have been here 20+ years then they should have something saved up. If they are still destitute when we ship them back to where they belong then it's their own fault. And squatters rights don't apply to immigration regardless of how PC it sounds.

Maybe - but as they say possession is 9/10 of the law, and like it or not - those people are already here... and judging by the demonstrations in the south of the country - there would seem to be something of an organised movement to protect their interests.

I'd go as far as to suggest that this is the reason why few politicians are standing up to propose and ratify legislation that meets the broader public demands. If in doing so it causes a political schism in the country - its not surprising that this has become something of a circular debate in the house and senate. Lots of talk, little action. In other worlds, little different to approach taken over the last 30-40 years.

meaning ownership ... this is 9/10 of the laws. what do they legally own ?

and if they own ... show documentation of legal status.

That was a figure of speech. What they "possess" is the fact that they are in the country in large numbers and appear to have some sort of organised support - again in reference to the large protests in states such as CA last year.

there's another protest right now.. there's a convoy going to DC (think already made it there) supported by the TV Channel Univison.. where they gathered 1 mill signatures and gave the letter to the White House..

http://i.univision.com/pdf/local/LetterPor...Migratorial.pdf

(it's in english too ^^)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

there's another protest right now.. there's a convoy going to DC (think already made it there) supported by the TV Channel Univison.. where they gathered 1 mill signatures and gave the letter to the White House...

Any word on how may of those signatures are from folks eligible to vote around here? Those would be the only one's that actually matter. Signatures of wanna-be immigrants mean jack.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

there's another protest right now.. there's a convoy going to DC (think already made it there) supported by the TV Channel Univison.. where they gathered 1 mill signatures and gave the letter to the White House...

Any word on how may of those signatures are from folks eligible to vote around here? Those would be the only one's that actually matter. Signatures of wanna-be immigrants mean jack.

Even so - there's a certain amount of safety in organized movements.