American Immigration Reform
 

Blah blah blah another thread about illegal immigration. If you don't want to discuss it, don't post in here.

There has been a lot of discussion about the morality of immigration reform in the US, but not a lot of proposed solutions to improve the current situation. Obviously there isn't much support for building a Berlin wall between the United States and Mexico, and support for the increased military presence on the border seems to be up in the air as well.

Personally, I think that enforcing immigration laws at this stage of the game will do nothing but instigate a conflict between the United States and Mexican governments, but that may just be the best thing for our country at this point. A major concern in removing illegal immigrants from our soil is the impact it will have on the economy and the fact that it's heavily protested by the legal/illegal Mexican community at large.

However, another militaristic conflict between the United States and Mexico, while seemingly unrealistic, has been long coming. I personally think that we should go all in with our plans for increased border aggression and if they want to fight back, then so be it. It would be beneficial to our economy and, if a territorial dispute were added to the conflict, we could greatly improve the living conditions south of the border to eliminate the need for Mexicans to jump the border into the US.

ITT: Discuss your own ideas for the best method of immigration reform and how you would like to see them applied.

It's really important that we don't grant illegals that are already here amnesty. For one thing, that would just be a greater incentive for more to move to the US. But more importantly they are our source of cheap, under the table, labor which helps to make goods more competiively priced.

[QUOTE]However, another militaristic conflict between the United States and Mexico, while seemingly unrealistic, has been long coming. I personally think that we should go all in with our plans for increased border aggression and if they want to fight back, then so be it. It would be beneficial to our economy and, if a territorial dispute were added to the conflict, we could greatly improve the living conditions south of the border to eliminate the need for Mexicans to jump the border into the US.[/QUOTE]

I think it would be a lot harder to do that than it looks. We'd need a helluva lot more troops, and a lot more money to back up this plan. So maybe it should wait a little while. We've seen how hard it is to rebuild Iraq--it will be really hard to build Mexico (if thats what youre suggesting, im not sure).

I don't understand why we would want to annex or rebuild Mexico or whatever. What do they have that we want? It would really be a waste of money and supplies etc. It's like picking on the weak corrupt neighbor just for the hell of it. Which usually I wouldnt object to too much except that theres really no clearcut benefit for us.

[QUOTE=lfantwister]It's really important that we don't grant illegals that are already here amnesty. For one thing, that would just be a greater incentive for more to move to the US. But more importantly they are our source of cheap, under the table, labor which helps to make goods more competiively priced.[/quote]

Then we need economic reform as well. It's disheartening to think that the crutch of our economy is illegal immigrant labor.

[quote]I think it would be a lot harder to do that than it looks. We'd need a helluva lot more troops, and a lot more money to back up this plan. So maybe it should wait a little while. We've seen how hard it is to rebuild Iraq--it will be really hard to build Mexico (if thats what youre suggesting, im not sure).[/quote]

I'm suggesting more of a renovation than a rebuilding. The Mexican president doesn't give two s[size=2]hit[/size]s about his own country and that's the core of the reason for illegal immigration's very existence. A militaristic conflict would force him to unite his willingly divided country and, in the aftermath, maintain the unity to prevent future aggression.

[quote]I don't understand why we would want to annex or rebuild Mexico or whatever. What do they have that we want? It would really be a waste of money and supplies etc. It's like picking on the weak corrupt neighbor just for the hell of it. Which usually I wouldnt object to too much except that theres really no clearcut benefit for us.[/QUOTE]

The benefit is the fact that by seperating ourselves from this dependency on foreign labor, we'd shift towards a more independent economy. Also, not to stereotype, but it would have a major impact on the level of gang related violence in latino weighted communities.

A river of gasoline on fire. Then people like me that live an hour and a half from the border can go down and have a pic-nic and watch all the Mexicans try to jump through it.

O, and I'm down with the military conflict idea. Also, I'm tired of people saying "Immigrant Rights" and stuff, when they fail to realizse that THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS. THEY ARE NOT TAX PAYING CITIZENS THEREFORE THEIR VOICE HAS NO SWAY IN OUR COUNCIL.

[QUOTE=The Real El Capitano]A river of gasoline on fire. Then people like me that live an hour and a half from the border can go down and have a pic-nic and watch all the Mexicans try to jump through it.

O, and I'm down with the military conflict idea. Also, I'm tired of people saying "Immigrant Rights" and stuff, when they fail to realizse that THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS. THEY ARE NOT TAX PAYING CITIZENS THEREFORE THEIR VOICE HAS NO SWAY IN OUR COUNCIL.[/QUOTE]

People have rights simply by virtue of being people.

[QUOTE=The Real El Capitano] THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS. THEY ARE NOT TAX PAYING CITIZENS THEREFORE THEIR VOICE HAS NO SWAY IN OUR COUNCIL.[/QUOTE]

If you really think that they pay no taxes than you are one of the more idiotic posters around, and that's saying something.

[QUOTE=Danish]People have rights simply by virtue of being people.[/QUOTE]

US constitutional rights are reserved for legal US citizens.

[QUOTE=Iscariot]US constitutional rights are reserved for legal US citizens.[/QUOTE]

UN Charter of Human Rights.

[QUOTE=Spat Out Plath]You need welfare reform, not immigration reform.[/QUOTE]

We need America reform.

[quote=Danish]UN Charter of Human Rights.[/quote]

Territorial jurisdiction.

That's true, but immigration is certainly not near the top of that reform list.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Yeah right.

These words are what makes America great. I should say, these words made America great. Now?

I suppose one could blame the falsehoods surrounding the "American Dream" for what they now deem a problem. It's not immigration. It's the bureacracy surrounding it. All of a sudden what's good for the Goose is no longer good for the Gander.

Americans are the world's dregs turned into greedy monsters who would choose isolationism over creating the world our forefathers dreamed of. Even that's a lie. We are the poor tired huddlesd masses.. We've always been. My grandparents struggled with citizenship same as anyone. I stand by the sides of those immigrants who are now being scorn for trying to find a better life.

Rant maybe. I don't have answers. It makes me sick though.

America's always had problems, even in its inception. Of course, they didn't show through as much in the beginning because the founding fathers were more passionate abou their principles, but they've always been there. We've never been an even near-perfect country.

Just in response to the contrast in immigration views over time.

[QUOTE=DBoon's Ghost]"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Yeah right.

These words are what makes America great. I should say, these words made America great. Now?

I suppose one could blame the falsehoods surrounding the "American Dream" for what they now deem a problem. It's not immigration. It's the bureacracy surrounding it. All of a sudden what's good for the Goose is no longer good for the Gander.

Americans are the world's dregs turned into greedy monsters who would choose isolationism over creating the world our forefathers dreamed of. Even that's a lie. We are the poor tired huddlesd masses.. We've always been. My grandparents struggled with citizenship same as anyone. I stand by the sides of those immigrants who are now being scorn for trying to find a better life.

Rant maybe. I don't have answers. It makes me sick though.[/QUOTE]

There is a big, BIG difference between legal immigrants and freeloaders. Your grandparents didn't come to this country with the idea that they would sneak in, have a few kids and then stay for the long haul without ever earning their citizenship. Those Mexicans that come to the US illegally aren't making a better life for themselves. They're sticking to low-income, Mexican communities, they aren't learning how to speak English and they're leeching off the welfare system to survive. They aren't going out and even attempting to earn their citizenship and then when they're told to go home, they throw a temper tantrum. Defend them all you want, but your views are a little convoluted on this issue.

[QUOTE=Iscariot]Territorial jurisdiction.[/QUOTE]

I realize that the UN doesn't have the ability to enforce, well, anything.

I was responding to a post where the poster implied that illegal immigrants are unworthy of the rights that official citizens enjoy. What I was getting at is that rights are more than what was written on a piece of paper 200 years ago. The spirit of human rights theory is that all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, political stripe, gender, and sexual orientation, are people who deserve basic rights simply by virtue of being people, not necessarily citizens. Perhaps it doesn't work like that in reality, but it ought to. The concept of universal human rights should be brought into the discourse on immigration, but it doesn't. The media is very quick to paint illegal immigrants as "the other", something less than an "American."

[QUOTE=Danish]I realize that the UN doesn't have the ability to enforce, well, anything.

I was responding to a post where the poster implied that illegal immigrants are unworthy of the rights that official citizens enjoy. What I was getting at is that rights are more than what was written on a piece of paper 200 years ago. The spirit of human rights theory is that all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, political stripe, gender, and sexual orientation, are people who deserve basic rights simply by virtue of being people, not necessarily citizens. Perhaps it doesn't work like that in reality, but it ought to. The concept of universal human rights should be brought into the discourse on immigration, but it doesn't. The media is very quick to paint illegal immigrants as "the other", something less than an "American."[/QUOTE]
I agree with this to some extent.

Why should Americans have any more given rights than the rest of the world? They are no better or worse as people.

[QUOTE=Iscariot]There is a big, BIG difference between legal immigrants and freeloaders. Your grandparents didn't come to this country with the idea that they would sneak in, have a few kids and then stay for the long haul without ever earning their citizenship. Those Mexicans that come to the US illegally aren't making a better life for themselves. They're sticking to low-income, Mexican communities, they aren't learning how to speak English and they're leeching off the welfare system to survive. They aren't going out and even attempting to earn their citizenship and then when they're told to go home, they throw a temper tantrum. Defend them all you want, but your views are a little convoluted on this issue.[/QUOTE]

[b]PROVE IT[/b], ethnocentrist!

[QUOTE=Danish]I realize that the UN doesn't have the ability to enforce, well, anything.

I was responding to a post where the poster implied that illegal immigrants are unworthy of the rights that official citizens enjoy. What I was getting at is that rights are more than what was written on a piece of paper 200 years ago. The spirit of human rights theory is that all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, political stripe, gender, and sexual orientation, are people who deserve basic rights simply by virtue of being people, not necessarily citizens. Perhaps it doesn't work like that in reality, but it ought to. The concept of universal human rights should be brought into the discourse on immigration, but it doesn't. The media is very quick to paint illegal immigrants as "the other", something less than an "American."[/QUOTE]

I won't disagree with you on the topic of that being a good idea in theory, but when you throw in economics, crime, distribution of labor, etc.. it can never be applied.

[quote=Danish]ethnocentrist![/quote]

Where in my entire discussion have I shown any ethnocentricism? I don't have any problem with Mexicans if they're legal and willing to integrate to the country they chose to move to.

[QUOTE=SubtleDagger]I agree with this to some extent.

Why should Americans have any more given rights than the rest of the world? They are no better or worse as people.[/QUOTE]

We're not better than islamic extemists???

[QUOTE=DBoon's Ghost]"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Yeah right.

These words are what makes America great. I should say, these words made America great. Now?

I suppose one could blame the falsehoods surrounding the "American Dream" for what they now deem a problem. It's not immigration. It's the bureacracy surrounding it. All of a sudden what's good for the Goose is no longer good for the Gander.

Americans are the world's dregs turned into greedy monsters who would choose isolationism over creating the world our forefathers dreamed of. Even that's a lie. We are the poor tired huddlesd masses.. We've always been. My grandparents struggled with citizenship same as anyone. I stand by the sides of those immigrants who are now being scorn for trying to find a better life.

Rant maybe. I don't have answers. It makes me sick though.[/QUOTE]

I think the moons ARE aligned with Venus, because, believe it or not, I couldn't agree with you more.

I'd just like to add that immigrants' struggles are workers' struggles.

[QUOTE=The Peaceful Warrior]We're not better than islamic extemists???[/QUOTE]
No, we just disagree.

It's that type of thinking that leads to ignorance.

[QUOTE=Iscariot]I won't disagree with you on the topic of that being a good idea in theory, but when you throw in economics, crime, distribution of labor, etc.. it can never be applied.[/QUOTE]

Of course not! Capitalism gives no room for any considerations other than growing profits and maintaining power structures. Instead of solidarity with your fellow workers that happen to be Mexican in origin, you're in favour of making their extremely difficult lives even harder. Have you ever asked yourself why?

If we actually cared about the well-being of humanity, immigration wouldn't even be an issue.

[QUOTE=SubtleDagger]No, we just disagree.

It's that type of thinking that leads to ignorance.[/QUOTE]

But would'nt you say that anyone whose objective revolves around the extermination of others' free will is say, less?

[QUOTE=Steve Buscemi]But would'nt you say that anyone whose objective revolves around the extermination of others' free will is say, less?[/QUOTE]
Less what?

I don't understand what you're asking.

[QUOTE=SubtleDagger]Less what?

I don't understand what you're asking.[/QUOTE]

He's asking if you honestly believe that someone in say, the US or the UK (just examples) is equal to a member of a totalitarian extremist organization who's only goal is to eradicate the 'infidels' at any cost.

[QUOTE=Iscariot]He's asking if you honestly believe that someone in say, the US or the UK (just examples) is equal to a member of a totalitarian extremist organization who's only goal is to eradicate the 'infidels' at any cost.[/QUOTE]

Or that if someone with opposing views to the 'cities on the hills" are worse people because they don't agree with us.


I seriously find it to be a conflicting question.

[QUOTE=Iscariot]He's asking if you honestly believe that someone in say, the US or the UK (just examples) is equal to a member of a totalitarian extremist organization who's only goal is to eradicate the 'infidels' at any cost.[/QUOTE]

I think you need to take a course in International Relations.

[QUOTE=Otherside]Or that if someone with opposing views to the 'cities on the hills" are worse people because they don't agree with us.


I seriously find it to be a conflicting question.[/QUOTE]

So do I, actually.

[quote=Danish]I think you need to take a course in International Relations.[/quote]

I think you need to take a course in reality.

[QUOTE=SubtleDagger][B]Less[/B] what?

I don't understand what you're asking.[/QUOTE]

Undeserving of equal rights.

No not until they've done some kind of crime. They can think whatever they want, and it's none of our business tbqh.

[QUOTE=Iscariot]He's asking if you honestly believe that someone in say, the US or the UK (just examples) is equal to a member of a totalitarian extremist organization who's only goal is to eradicate the 'infidels' at any cost.[/QUOTE]
In essence, yes. As I said, both groups have conflicting interests, but both at least deserve the simplest of human rights in my opinion. Regardless of their beliefs they are still the same as human beings.

I am for the most part a pacifist though; I believe in self-defense to some extent, but this is all my perspective here.

[QUOTE=Iscariot]I think you need to take a course in reality.[/QUOTE]

Actually, your choice in words is funny, because I was thinking you could probably use to learn about realist theory in IR, a theory which in many regards I consider correct.

It was driven by that comment you made about the "infidels". Do you really think that anti-Americanism in West Asia arose out of thin air? Some blind hatred for democracy?

[QUOTE]Instead of solidarity with your fellow workers that happen to be Mexican in origin, you're in favour of making their extremely difficult lives even harder.[/QUOTE]Why, may I ask?
[QUOTE]It was driven by that comment you made about the "infidels". Do you really think that anti-Americanism in West Asia arose out of thin air? Some blind hatred for democracy?[/QUOTE]Carry on. What did it rise out of?

[QUOTE=Danish]Actually, your choice in words is funny, because I was thinking you could probably use to learn about realist theory in IR, a theory which in many regards I consider correct.

It was driven by that comment you made about the "infidels". Do you really think that anti-Americanism in West Asia arose out of thin air? Some blind hatred for democracy?[/QUOTE]
That's what I'm talking about. To consider a person who disagrees with your way of life a lesser individual is ignorance. Plain and simple.

[QUOTE=nowhesingsnowhesobs]Why, may I ask?
Carry on. What did it rise out of?[/QUOTE]

First of all, your post makes [i]no[/i] sense.

Second, I wasn't talking to you.

[QUOTE=Iscariot]There is a big, BIG difference between legal immigrants and freeloaders. Your grandparents didn't come to this country with the idea that they would sneak in, have a few kids and then stay for the long haul without ever earning their citizenship. Those Mexicans that come to the US illegally aren't making a better life for themselves. They're sticking to low-income, Mexican communities, they aren't learning how to speak English and they're leeching off the welfare system to survive. They aren't going out and even attempting to earn their citizenship and then when they're told to go home, they throw a temper tantrum. Defend them all you want, but your views are a little convoluted on this issue.[/QUOTE]

Immigrants become freeloaders due to the system surrounding it. It's become a bureacratic problem as I stated, and has more to do with our government's desire to make it next to impossible for these people to become citizens, hiding behind some insane set of anti-terrorist laws. If welfare wasn't so easy to be manipulated, it wouldn't be.

Also, you should know that American caucasions still make up the majority of welfare recipients in this country, not illegal immigrants. They have no other choice. Their country sucks, so they come here. Just like we did. I lived in NYC for more than 30 years and I still work here. I know NYC is among the worst places in the country for stuff like this. Sure it happens. But it happens moreso with our own citizens abuse of welfare then immigrants.

[quote=Danish]It was driven by that comment you made about the "infidels". Do you really think that anti-Americanism in West Asia arose out of thin air? Some blind hatred for democracy?[/quote]

[quote=nowhesingsnowhesobs]Carry on. What did it rise out of?[/quote]

...

[QUOTE=SubtleDagger]In essence, yes. As I said, both groups have conflicting interests, but both at least deserve the simplest of human rights in my opinion. Regardless of their beliefs they are still the same as human beings.

I am for the most part a pacifist though; I believe in self-defense to some extent, but this is all my perspective here.[/QUOTE]

I'm a fan of action, and I think that 1984-ish fears and forewarnings are a little romantic.

[QUOTE=Med57]EDIT: Gah, sorry Jared for the total derail. :-/ If you want I can move most of the posts out of this thread and start a new one or something.[/QUOTE]

That would be very cool of you, my friend.

[B]:cool:-Med[/B]

[QUOTE=nowhesingsnowhesobs]Carry on. What did it rise out of?[/QUOTE]
Many aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

- Blind support for Israel
- Support for regimes seen as oppressive and tyrannical (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan are examples)

- The US have a broad history of meddling in the politcal affairs of democratically elected countries. It is a fact that many coup d'État were planned by Americans (through the CIA) on democratically elected leaders to ensure its own interests. South America was particularly targetted by this. Guatemala, Honduras, Chile - there were also allegations that the CIA was implied in coups in Brazil and Argentina - as well as Operation Condor.

-America's treatment and use of international institutions such as the United Nations and World Trade Organization is often seen as self-serving and hypocritical in other countries, with reason.
- America's veto power in the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly been used to prevent censure of Israel, thereby angering Arab countries and those supporting them in the Israel-Arab conflict.

- US unilateralism, or "going its own way" on issues varying from the International Criminal Court to the Kyoto Protocol (see below) is also a cause of criticism.

- Some also complain about the fact that America has used the veto power in the United Nations Security Council more often than any other country, but considers it an offensive move when their allies use the veto against an American proposition.

-The continuing embargo against Cuba is seen by a broad range of people as vindictive - and hypocritical in the face of mainland China retaining "most favored nation" trading status.

-The US government annually certifies whether other countries cooperate in its War On Drugs; countries which are judged uncooperative are sanctioned economically and diplomatically. This annual review is seen as offensive by many foreign countries, most notably by Mexico.

- Many criticize the United States for boycotting the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Small Arms Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the anti-personnel landmine banning Ottawa Treaty. It is also known to hold the world's largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to continue development of new types of weapons although, along with many other powers, it campaigns against attempts to build weapons of mass destruction by countries such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea while ignoring similar alleged programs by Israel.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_U.S._foreign_policy"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_U.S._foreign_policy[/URL]

The United States are often labelled as imperialist - such a claim cannot be refuted. No matter how you present it, America has, and still shows, blatant disregard for democracy if it comes in conflict with its own interests, effectively ignoring basic human rights such as people's right to self-determination. To say that America defends freedom and peace is incredibly hypocritical and naive. American serves its own interest EXTREMELY well. Kudos to them for this. The arrogance and hegemonic attitude of the American empire is, however, also a negation of many foreign people's sovereignty and rights, but such a fact does not reach the ears of political leaders, let alone Republicans.

This is what anti-americanism rose out of.

[QUOTE]US constitutional rights are reserved for legal US citizens.[/QUOTE]
actually not.