Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Immigration Bill goes down in flames

2456710

Posts

  • ShmoepongShmoepong Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    I really, really don't understand what the threat of legalizing some of these people is. Can someone explain why making these people legitimate citizens is a negative thing? I mean do we still think that they're going to go away if we don't legalize them or something?


    I grabbed this off About.com.

    Top 9 (why 9?) benefits of being an American Citizen

    1. A citizen can vote
    2. International travel can be easier for US citizens with visa waivers.
    3. Citizens can bring more relatives from abroad more quickly.
    4. Citizens cannot be deported.
    5. Citizens can retire abroad with full social security benefits.
    6. Citizens are entitled to more public benefits (supplementary security income, food stamps, financial aid, etc...).
    7. A citizen can hold office.
    8. Children born abroad who are under 18 years of age and unmarried may be able to naturalize automatically when a parent does so.
    9. Citizens have more financial and tax benefits (i.e. better rates and approvals on mortgages/loans).

    Most of what I see is a huge burden on our beauracracy (administratively and fiscally) at the local and federal level. Past that, we'd have just legalized an entire voting bloc entitled to shift American politics.

    I think the boogeyman here is a cultural attack on American norms. On that note, I can't resist a good laugh with the Onion: Immigration - the Human Cost.

    Shmoepong on
    I don't think I could take a class without sparring. That would be like a class without techniques. Sparring has value not only as an important (necessary) step in applying your techniques to fighting, but also because it provides a rush and feeling of elation, confidence, and joyful exhaustion that can only be matched by ... oh shit, I am describing sex again. Sorry everyone. - Epicurus
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited June 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    You have got to be kidding me. That's the dumbest thing I've heard in the last 5 minutes.

    Racism is a nice diversionary argument, but it's got nothing to do with this. Birthright entitlements too. It's a nice fancy phrase, you should use it more often.
    Believe me, it is.

    Give me one reason you are allowed to live and work here and another isn't.

    Because I have met the qualifications for citizenship. My grandfather was allowed to live and work here because he waited in line on Ellis Island in 1902 after deciding to leave Italy.

    How is that racist? How is that a birthright entitlement?

    ryuprecht on
  • Lord JezoLord Jezo Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    You have got to be kidding me. That's the dumbest thing I've heard in the last 5 minutes.

    Racism is a nice diversionary argument, but it's got nothing to do with this. Birthright entitlements too. It's a nice fancy phrase, you should use it more often.
    Believe me, it is.

    Give me one reason you are allowed to live and work here and another isn't.

    Because I was born here and they weren't.

    That's all the reason I need.

    Lord Jezo on
    Clipboard03.jpg
    I KISS YOU!
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    You have got to be kidding me. That's the dumbest thing I've heard in the last 5 minutes.

    Racism is a nice diversionary argument, but it's got nothing to do with this. Birthright entitlements too. It's a nice fancy phrase, you should use it more often.
    Believe me, it is.

    Give me one reason you are allowed to live and work here and another isn't.

    Because I have met the qualifications for citizenship. My grandfather was allowed to live and work here because he waited in line on Ellis Island in 1902 after deciding to leave Italy.

    How is that racist? How is that a birthright entitlement?
    I might be misunderstanding you, but didn't you just basically say that you "met the qualifications for citizenship" by being born here?

    Kaputa on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    celery77 wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Granting amnesty addresses the silly rule of law idealism. This is such a circular argument it makes me sick.

    There is not one single supportable argument against opening up the borders and granting amnesty. They all fail. It is racism and enforcement of birthright entitlements, plain and simple. Stop acting like it isn't.
    You know?

    Few things really sort get me pissed off more than when conservatives can't even embrace conservative ideals like rewarding people for work, providing as much economic opportunity as possible, and the benefit of competition. This bill is one of the few truly conservative things Bush has attempted, and it's shit on in a wave of xenophobia and tired stereotypes.

    Uh...I would disagree. Amnesty is not a conservative idea. Legal immigration would be. Increase the amount of immigration, but keep it through legal means. Conservatism (and common sense) also dictates that you protect society.
    How does amnesty threaten society? And please don't say "rule of law" until you've addressed my point re: the fact that law changes based on society's needs all the time. In this case I say society is better served by admitting the immigration laws are fucked up and attempting to address that, by making different citizenship processes legal.

    Can you tell me why it's necessary for a US citizen to begin their citizenship process outside the country, by filing appropriate papers etc., before crossing the border? Because I don't see why that need be the only way to legally achieve US citizenship.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • GlalGlal Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Whilst I understand objecting to immigrants from an economic point of view, I always facepalm when "they should have done it legally"! is brought up. Yes, millions of people are breaking the law because they are too lazy to do it legally. And not, maybe, because it's too restrictive and they are desperate. Especially when it comes from people whose claim to citizenship is "my ancestors did all the hard stuff".

    Next up, second generation millionaires telling bums to just make their own damned fortune.

    Glal on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Maybe we should address the reasons as to why so many immigrate illegally?

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Granting amnesty addresses the silly rule of law idealism. This is such a circular argument it makes me sick.

    There is not one single supportable argument against opening up the borders and granting amnesty. They all fail. It is racism and enforcement of birthright entitlements, plain and simple. Stop acting like it isn't.
    You know?

    Few things really sort get me pissed off more than when conservatives can't even embrace conservative ideals like rewarding people for work, providing as much economic opportunity as possible, and the benefit of competition. This bill is one of the few truly conservative things Bush has attempted, and it's shit on in a wave of xenophobia and tired stereotypes.
    Its too bad that the war didn't work out, then he could have just forced it through on his popularity alone, like Reagan.

    Picardathon on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited June 2007
    Kaputa wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    You have got to be kidding me. That's the dumbest thing I've heard in the last 5 minutes.

    Racism is a nice diversionary argument, but it's got nothing to do with this. Birthright entitlements too. It's a nice fancy phrase, you should use it more often.
    Believe me, it is.

    Give me one reason you are allowed to live and work here and another isn't.

    Because I have met the qualifications for citizenship. My grandfather was allowed to live and work here because he waited in line on Ellis Island in 1902 after deciding to leave Italy.

    How is that racist? How is that a birthright entitlement?
    I might be misunderstanding you, but didn't you just basically say that you "met the qualifications for citizenship" by being born here?

    For me personally? Yes. Citizenship is available for all those born or naturalized here. I met those qualifications by being born, yes. As did most of the 300 miliion people in this county. My granfather was the immigrant, not me. He did it legally, and now I'm legal.

    ryuprecht on
  • NisslNissl Registered User
    edited June 2007
    Glal wrote:
    Yes, millions of people are breaking the law because they are too lazy to do it legally. And not, maybe, because it's too restrictive and they are desperate.

    I feel terrible about the living conditions in much of the third world, but these half-assed measures where every two decades or so you reward people for not following the rules are not the solution.

    Nissl on
    360: Purkinje
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Shmoepong wrote: »
    I grabbed this off About.com.

    Top 9 (why 9?) benefits of being an American Citizen

    1. A citizen can vote
    2. International travel can be easier for US citizens with visa waivers.
    3. Citizens can bring more relatives from abroad more quickly.
    4. Citizens cannot be deported.
    5. Citizens can retire abroad with full social security benefits.
    6. Citizens are entitled to more public benefits (supplementary security income, food stamps, financial aid, etc...).
    7. A citizen can hold office.
    8. Children born abroad who are under 18 years of age and unmarried may be able to naturalize automatically when a parent does so.
    9. Citizens have more financial and tax benefits (i.e. better rates and approvals on mortgages/loans).

    Most of what I see is a huge burden on our beauracracy (administratively and fiscally) at the local and federal level. Past that, we'd have just legalized an entire voting bloc entitled to shift American politics.
    But that's focusing solely on the costs, while ignoring the benefits like increased tax revenue as work comes up from under the table and an increase in citizens working with the state as opposed to against it because any interaction might result in the immediate loss of their livelihood.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Maybe we should address the reasons as to why so many immigrate illegally?
    Either we need to become less awesome, or we need to make Mexico not suck anymore.
    No one wants to do the first one, and there are so many roadblocks in the way of accomplishing the second one that I wouldn't even know where to start.
    I mean, when you fought off the Spanish for the right to have a massive gap between the rich and poor, then your society has a problem.

    Picardathon on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    You have got to be kidding me. That's the dumbest thing I've heard in the last 5 minutes.

    Racism is a nice diversionary argument, but it's got nothing to do with this. Birthright entitlements too. It's a nice fancy phrase, you should use it more often.
    Believe me, it is.

    Give me one reason you are allowed to live and work here and another isn't.

    Because I have met the qualifications for citizenship. My grandfather was allowed to live and work here because he waited in line on Ellis Island in 1902 after deciding to leave Italy.

    How is that racist? How is that a birthright entitlement?

    You're right, it's not. It's Amnesty is what it is, letting that Italian into our country and, after following prescribed guidelines, becoming a full citizen. Sheer Amnesty!

    moniker on
  • edited June 2007
    gumrucker wrote: »
    I'm not saying we shouldn't change immigration policy, I'm saying just leagalizing millions of people is a bad idea.

    Cripes. Read the last line of my post.

    I'm all for changing the policy, opening the the floodgates, and allowing into the country at a speedy pace. Let's do it legally -- As in change the new immigration quotas/rates/requirements/whatevers to allow for more immigrants from everywhere into the country-- not reward those who decided to take it upon themselves to disregard the laws of the country they want into so badly.

    gumrucker on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    You have got to be kidding me. That's the dumbest thing I've heard in the last 5 minutes.

    Racism is a nice diversionary argument, but it's got nothing to do with this. Birthright entitlements too. It's a nice fancy phrase, you should use it more often.
    Believe me, it is.

    Give me one reason you are allowed to live and work here and another isn't.

    Because I have met the qualifications for citizenship. My grandfather was allowed to live and work here because he waited in line on Ellis Island in 1902 after deciding to leave Italy.

    How is that racist? How is that a birthright entitlement?
    I might be misunderstanding you, but didn't you just basically say that you "met the qualifications for citizenship" by being born here?

    For me personally? Yes. Citizenship is available for all those born or naturalized here. I met those qualifications by being born, yes. As did most of the 300 miliion people in this county. My granfather was the immigrant, not me. He did it legally, and now I'm legal.
    You aren't legal just because your grandfather entered legally. You would have been legal anyway because you were born on US soil.

    Couscous on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited June 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Maybe we should address the reasons as to why so many immigrate illegally?

    Because the legal process is difficult and cumbersome.

    You could argue that it should be, because it's worth it to be a US citizen.

    Or you could say it shouldn't be, because we need the labor and we can spare the room.

    Regardless, it doesn't mean that people should be able to choose to ignore those rules and expect no consequences.

    ryuprecht on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Maybe we should address the reasons as to why so many immigrate illegally?
    Either we need to become less awesome, or we need to make Mexico not suck anymore.
    No one wants to do the first one, and there are so many roadblocks in the way of accomplishing the second one that I wouldn't even know where to start.
    I mean, when you fought off the Spanish for the right to have a massive gap between the rich and poor, then your society has a problem.
    Well, we could try to fix the fact that we allow illegal immigrants to work and be exploited. Perhaps we could blame the institutions hiring the illegal immigrants, rather than the immigrants themselves.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited June 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    You have got to be kidding me. That's the dumbest thing I've heard in the last 5 minutes.

    Racism is a nice diversionary argument, but it's got nothing to do with this. Birthright entitlements too. It's a nice fancy phrase, you should use it more often.
    Believe me, it is.

    Give me one reason you are allowed to live and work here and another isn't.

    Because I have met the qualifications for citizenship. My grandfather was allowed to live and work here because he waited in line on Ellis Island in 1902 after deciding to leave Italy.

    How is that racist? How is that a birthright entitlement?

    You're right, it's not. It's Amnesty is what it is, letting that Italian into our country and, after following prescribed guidelines, becoming a full citizen. Sheer Amnesty!

    I'm assuming that's sarcasm. Am I right?

    ryuprecht on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Regardless, it doesn't mean that people should be able to choose to ignore those rules and expect no consequences.
    They don't expect no consequences. The bill requires them to do stuff in oder to become legal. And stop waving the whole "rule of law" stuff. It is mostly BS that has been ignored in dozens of other issues.

    Couscous on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited June 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Regardless, it doesn't mean that people should be able to choose to ignore those rules and expect no consequences.
    They don't expect no consequences. The bill requires them to do stuff in oder to become legal. And stop waving the whole "rule of law" stuff. It is mostly BS that has been ignored in dozens of other issues.

    So because it's been ignored in one instance means it should be ignored in others? Two wrongs don't make a right.

    ryuprecht on
  • GlalGlal Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Nissl wrote: »
    Glal wrote:
    Yes, millions of people are breaking the law because they are too lazy to do it legally. And not, maybe, because it's too restrictive and they are desperate.
    I feel terrible about the living conditions in much of the third world, but these half-assed measures where every two decades or so you reward people for not following the rules are not the solution.
    I don't know. Has making homosexuality legal rewarded people for being sexual deviants, or merely corrected an unjust law? Where I'm standing, the problem is that making them legal is only fixing half the problem, not that it's itself the problem.

    Glal on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Nissl wrote: »
    Glal wrote:
    Yes, millions of people are breaking the law because they are too lazy to do it legally. And not, maybe, because it's too restrictive and they are desperate.

    I feel terrible about the living conditions in much of the third world, but these half-assed measures where every two decades or so you reward people for not following the rules are not the solution.

    The bill proposed a shitload of rules that they had to follow. How is 'learn english, pay back taxes, and don't break a single law before we'll let you be considered for citizenship based on our arbitrary point system' a reward? Is there some sort of creamy center with nuget in this process that I was unaware of?

    moniker on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Regardless, it doesn't mean that people should be able to choose to ignore those rules and expect no consequences.
    They don't expect no consequences. The bill requires them to do stuff in oder to become legal. And stop waving the whole "rule of law" stuff. It is mostly BS that has been ignored in dozens of other issues.

    So because it's been ignored in one instance means it should be ignored in others? Two wrongs don't make a right.

    It was ignored at the very founding of the USA. Unless you believe that the USA should never have existed, you should believe that rule of law can be ignored in certain cases.

    Couscous on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    gumrucker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    I'm not saying we shouldn't change immigration policy, I'm saying just leagalizing millions of people is a bad idea.

    Cripes. Read the last line of my post.

    I'm all for changing the policy, opening the the floodgates, and allowing into the country at a speedy pace. Let's do it legally -- As in change the new immigration quotas/rates/requirements/whatevers to allow for more immigrants from everywhere into the country-- not reward those who decided to take it upon themselves to disregard the laws of the country they want into so badly.

    What part of this bill was a reward? Was it the miles of red tape attached to the undocumented workers or the dozens of hoops that they had to jump through? I mean, free tape and hoops can be fun.

    moniker on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited June 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Regardless, it doesn't mean that people should be able to choose to ignore those rules and expect no consequences.
    They don't expect no consequences. The bill requires them to do stuff in oder to become legal. And stop waving the whole "rule of law" stuff. It is mostly BS that has been ignored in dozens of other issues.

    So because it's been ignored in one instance means it should be ignored in others? Two wrongs don't make a right.

    It was ignored at the very founding of the USA. Unless you believe that the USA should never have existed, you should believe that rule of law can be ignored in certain cases.

    Oh I get it. We should cherry-pick our examples and run with those. Gotcha.

    ryuprecht on
  • edited June 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    I'm not saying we shouldn't change immigration policy, I'm saying just leagalizing millions of people is a bad idea.

    Cripes. Read the last line of my post.

    I'm all for changing the policy, opening the the floodgates, and allowing into the country at a speedy pace. Let's do it legally -- As in change the new immigration quotas/rates/requirements/whatevers to allow for more immigrants from everywhere into the country-- not reward those who decided to take it upon themselves to disregard the laws of the country they want into so badly.

    What part of this bill was a reward? Was it the miles of red tape attached to the undocumented workers or the dozens of hoops that they had to jump through? I mean, free tape and hoops can be fun.

    Not getting kicked out is a nice perk.

    gumrucker on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    You're right, it's not. It's Amnesty is what it is, letting that Italian into our country and, after following prescribed guidelines, becoming a full citizen. Sheer Amnesty!

    I'm assuming that's sarcasm. Am I right?

    No it's Ad Absurdum. If you can call this current proposal an Amnesty bill with a straight face then I can claim Ellis Island was simply an Amnesty program as well.

    moniker on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2007
    gumrucker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    I'm not saying we shouldn't change immigration policy, I'm saying just leagalizing millions of people is a bad idea.

    Cripes. Read the last line of my post.

    I'm all for changing the policy, opening the the floodgates, and allowing into the country at a speedy pace. Let's do it legally -- As in change the new immigration quotas/rates/requirements/whatevers to allow for more immigrants from everywhere into the country-- not reward those who decided to take it upon themselves to disregard the laws of the country they want into so badly.

    What part of this bill was a reward? Was it the miles of red tape attached to the undocumented workers or the dozens of hoops that they had to jump through? I mean, free tape and hoops can be fun.

    Not getting kicked out is a nice perk.
    HAH!
    You seriously think we could manage that? 8 Million immigrants who are imbedded in society and don't want to go, you think that we could forcefully remove them without a massive economic backlash (and an insurgency!)
    Man, you're just funny. You really ought to put that in your comedy act.

    Picardathon on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Regardless, it doesn't mean that people should be able to choose to ignore those rules and expect no consequences.
    They don't expect no consequences. The bill requires them to do stuff in oder to become legal. And stop waving the whole "rule of law" stuff. It is mostly BS that has been ignored in dozens of other issues.

    So because it's been ignored in one instance means it should be ignored in others? Two wrongs don't make a right.

    It was ignored at the very founding of the USA. Unless you believe that the USA should never have existed, you should believe that rule of law can be ignored in certain cases.

    Oh I get it. We should cherry-pick our examples and run with those. Gotcha.
    My point is that you can't say that something is wrong just because it violated the rule of law when there are tons of cases where the rule of law was violated and most people didn't have a problem with it. Unless you think the USA should never have existed, you are selectively using the rule of law as a reason for being against something.

    Couscous on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    gumrucker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    I'm not saying we shouldn't change immigration policy, I'm saying just leagalizing millions of people is a bad idea.

    Cripes. Read the last line of my post.

    I'm all for changing the policy, opening the the floodgates, and allowing into the country at a speedy pace. Let's do it legally -- As in change the new immigration quotas/rates/requirements/whatevers to allow for more immigrants from everywhere into the country-- not reward those who decided to take it upon themselves to disregard the laws of the country they want into so badly.

    What part of this bill was a reward? Was it the miles of red tape attached to the undocumented workers or the dozens of hoops that they had to jump through? I mean, free tape and hoops can be fun.

    Not getting kicked out is a nice perk.

    Putting 20 million people on a plane is not a pragmatic stance. If you just want bluster and sound bytes it's a great stance to hold, but if you want to solve problems and improve the country it just fails miserably.

    moniker on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    gumrucker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    I'm not saying we shouldn't change immigration policy, I'm saying just leagalizing millions of people is a bad idea.

    Cripes. Read the last line of my post.

    I'm all for changing the policy, opening the the floodgates, and allowing into the country at a speedy pace. Let's do it legally -- As in change the new immigration quotas/rates/requirements/whatevers to allow for more immigrants from everywhere into the country-- not reward those who decided to take it upon themselves to disregard the laws of the country they want into so badly.
    Why is doing a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork while being physically outside of the country any better than doing the same thing while being inside it, where you already are? And why is it better to further penalize the people who have already made some inroads into integrating and establishing themselves on US soil to instead let in a new wave of people who will have to begin the process of adjusting and assimilating all over?

    It's like this paternalistic insistence that they have to stand outside and ask before we let them in, instead of just admitting that they're already here and perfectly fine house guests, we might as well start charging them rent.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • edited June 2007
    gumrucker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    I'm not saying we shouldn't change immigration policy, I'm saying just leagalizing millions of people is a bad idea.

    Cripes. Read the last line of my post.

    I'm all for changing the policy, opening the the floodgates, and allowing into the country at a speedy pace. Let's do it legally -- As in change the new immigration quotas/rates/requirements/whatevers to allow for more immigrants from everywhere into the country-- not reward those who decided to take it upon themselves to disregard the laws of the country they want into so badly.

    What part of this bill was a reward? Was it the miles of red tape attached to the undocumented workers or the dozens of hoops that they had to jump through? I mean, free tape and hoops can be fun.

    Not getting kicked out is a nice perk.
    HAH!
    You seriously think we could manage that? 8 Million immigrants who are imbedded in society and don't want to go, you think that we could forcefully remove them without a massive economic backlash (and an insurgency!)
    Man, you're just funny. You really ought to put that in your comedy act.

    Because we can't manage that is even more reason to not leagalize them. If we can't manage to enforce the current laws, what makes people think we could manage the new ones with an exponetially more paperwork/redtape/enforcement?

    gumrucker on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2007
    I really can't wait until someone gets over 60 senators and we can actually get shit done. Or we could possibly get satan on the democratic side, the republicans really advanced their agenda well when they had Tom Delay.

    Picardathon on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    gumrucker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    I'm not saying we shouldn't change immigration policy, I'm saying just leagalizing millions of people is a bad idea.

    Cripes. Read the last line of my post.

    I'm all for changing the policy, opening the the floodgates, and allowing into the country at a speedy pace. Let's do it legally -- As in change the new immigration quotas/rates/requirements/whatevers to allow for more immigrants from everywhere into the country-- not reward those who decided to take it upon themselves to disregard the laws of the country they want into so badly.

    What part of this bill was a reward? Was it the miles of red tape attached to the undocumented workers or the dozens of hoops that they had to jump through? I mean, free tape and hoops can be fun.

    Not getting kicked out is a nice perk.
    HAH!
    You seriously think we could manage that? 8 Million immigrants who are imbedded in society and don't want to go, you think that we could forcefully remove them without a massive economic backlash (and an insurgency!)
    Man, you're just funny. You really ought to put that in your comedy act.

    Because we can't manage that is even more reason to not leagalize them. If we can't manage to enforce the current laws, what makes people think we could manage the new ones with an exponetially more paperwork/redtape/enforcement?

    Because they are paying for the paperwork and redtape by paying the money that they are required to in order to become legal under the bill.

    Couscous on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2007
    gumrucker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    I'm not saying we shouldn't change immigration policy, I'm saying just leagalizing millions of people is a bad idea.

    Cripes. Read the last line of my post.

    I'm all for changing the policy, opening the the floodgates, and allowing into the country at a speedy pace. Let's do it legally -- As in change the new immigration quotas/rates/requirements/whatevers to allow for more immigrants from everywhere into the country-- not reward those who decided to take it upon themselves to disregard the laws of the country they want into so badly.

    What part of this bill was a reward? Was it the miles of red tape attached to the undocumented workers or the dozens of hoops that they had to jump through? I mean, free tape and hoops can be fun.

    Not getting kicked out is a nice perk.
    HAH!
    You seriously think we could manage that? 8 Million immigrants who are imbedded in society and don't want to go, you think that we could forcefully remove them without a massive economic backlash (and an insurgency!)
    Man, you're just funny. You really ought to put that in your comedy act.

    Because we can't manage that is even more reason to not leagalize them. If we can't manage to enforce the current laws, what makes people think we could manage the new ones with an exponetially more paperwork/redtape/enforcement?
    So you support the status quo?
    Unguarded borders, massive (and growing) illegal population, psychos like the minutemen gaining momentum.
    All this because the trillion dollar US government can't be bothered with creating the proper bureaucracy.

    Picardathon on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Does anyone know if there's a study or statistic out there which shows the ratio of how many terrorists or drug dealers come across with the number of gardners, maids, and laborers?

    moniker on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Does anyone know if there's a study or statistic out there which shows the ratio of how many terrorists or drug dealers come across with the number of gardners, maids, and laborers?
    I was under the impression it was roughly 1:1.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • edited June 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    Because we can't manage that is even more reason to not leagalize them. If we can't manage to enforce the current laws, what makes people think we could manage the new ones with an exponetially more paperwork/redtape/enforcement?

    Because they are paying for the paperwork and redtape by paying the money that they are required to in order to become legal under the bill.

    I'm paying for the paperwork and red tape and enforcement of kicking them out right now and thats not getting done, what does it matter where the money comes from?
    So you support the status quo?
    Unguarded borders, massive (and growing) illegal population, psychos like the minutemen gaining momentum.
    All this because the trillion dollar US government can't be bothered with creating the proper bureaucracy.

    No, I'm all for change, I just think this is the wrong way to do it.

    gumrucker on
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    gumrucker wrote: »
    I'm not saying we shouldn't change immigration policy, I'm saying just leagalizing millions of people is a bad idea.

    Cripes. Read the last line of my post.

    I'm all for changing the policy, opening the the floodgates, and allowing into the country at a speedy pace. Let's do it legally -- As in change the new immigration quotas/rates/requirements/whatevers to allow for more immigrants from everywhere into the country-- not reward those who decided to take it upon themselves to disregard the laws of the country they want into so badly.
    Why is doing a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork while being physically outside of the country any better than doing the same thing while being inside it, where you already are? And why is it better to further penalize the people who have already made some inroads into integrating and establishing themselves on US soil to instead let in a new wave of people who will have to begin the process of adjusting and assimilating all over?

    It's like this paternalistic insistence that they have to stand outside and ask before we let them in, instead of just admitting that they're already here and perfectly fine house guests, we might as well start charging them rent.

    The problem isn't necessarily the people who are already here, the problem is the people who would come if we start widely granting amnesty. If something like this is set up, sneaking across the border will become a viable means of seeking citizenship, possibly far more viable then actually attempting to follow standard immigrantion proceedure. Being able to avoid being caught for however long it takes for amnesty to kick in should never be a primary criteria for citizenship.

    jothki on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    ...

    moniker on
Sign In or Register to comment.