Amnesty for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S.

  • masculumpedes

    Posts: 5549

    Nov 23, 2011 11:58 AM GMT
    USA-1.gif

    Would you be for it...or against it? icon_confused.gif

    As a business owner I can see how it would give a greater human resources base to legally hire from. What are your thoughts, views and opinions? icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 2:18 PM GMT
    Against.

    And they are "illegal immigrants", not simply "undocumented". Undocumented would imply that somehow they are not breaking any law and not yet "recorded" yet as some kind of formality. Also, it is more like 20 million, not 11.

    If we give amnesty to those who have broken the law then it makes our entire immigration system a joke. Why have borders at all? What's to stop the next wave and the next wave? All it will do is show the world that if you break the law by entering the USA illegally that one day you will inevitably be rewarded. It is extremely insulting to those who have gone through the proper channels to obtain citizenship.

    And oh, the last time I checked, we have massive unemployment as it is. Adding 12 or 20 million new people isn't going to improve that. Also, since immigrants from poor countries tend to be poor, it will only widen the perceived "wealth" gap because the income per head will go down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 2:25 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidAgainst.

    And they are "illegal immigrants", not simply "Undocumented". Undocumented would imply that somehow they are not breaking any law and not yet "recorded" yet as some kind of formality. Also, it is more like 20 million, not 11.

    If we give amnesty to those who have broken the law then it makes our entire immigration system a joke. What's to stop the next wave and the next wave? All it will do is show the world that if you break the law by entering the USA illegally that one day you will be rewarded.

    And oh, the last time I checked, we have massive unemployment as it is. Adding 12 or 20 million new people isn't going to improve that. Also, since immigrants from poor countries tend to be poor, it will only widen the perceived "wealth" gap because the income per head will go down.


    The US system of immigration is in its current form also inhumane and horrifyingly slow and bureaucratic. The US should encourage greater immigration or more liberally grant visas for work most Americans just aren't willing to do anyway.

    I agree though granting amnesty sends the wrong message in any country. But there's a lot more than that in the US immigration system that needs to be fixed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 2:27 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    mocktwinkie saidAgainst.

    And they are "illegal immigrants", not simply "Undocumented". Undocumented would imply that somehow they are not breaking any law and not yet "recorded" yet as some kind of formality. Also, it is more like 20 million, not 11.

    If we give amnesty to those who have broken the law then it makes our entire immigration system a joke. What's to stop the next wave and the next wave? All it will do is show the world that if you break the law by entering the USA illegally that one day you will be rewarded.

    And oh, the last time I checked, we have massive unemployment as it is. Adding 12 or 20 million new people isn't going to improve that. Also, since immigrants from poor countries tend to be poor, it will only widen the perceived "wealth" gap because the income per head will go down.


    The US system of immigration is in its current form also inhumane and horrifyingly slow and bureaucratic. The US should encourage greater immigration or more liberally grant visas for work most Americans just aren't willing to do anyway.

    I agree though granting amnesty sends the wrong message in any country. But there's a lot more than that in the US immigration system that needs to be fixed.


    Well, In theory I'd be all for open borders if there were no safety nets, but that's not being realistic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 2:31 PM GMT
    Amnesty has a broad definition that means different things.

    Could mean:

    1) Allow those who have been here more than x years and have not had felony convictions to remain, but not provide a pathway to citizenship. Citizenship pathway would remain in accordance with current quotas in effect, and they could apply via that route, but would not be able to circumvent.

    slight variation:

    2) Allow those who have been here more than x years and have not had felony convictions to remain, provided they do not need public assistance, but not provide a pathway to citizenship. Citizenship pathway would remain in accordance with current quotas in effect, and they could apply via that route, but would not be able to circumvent.

    3) Legalize status and provide a pathway to citizenship, bypassing the current quotas.

    I have supported in the past option 2) which involved a temporary guest worker program that could be renewed annually if no felony convictions and proof of continued employment (otherwise why be here?). I have in the past put together a plan and presented it to several Senators/staffs. I would be open to revisiting quotas, but not to provide a means to essentially bypass the quota concept.

    Strongly oppose 3).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 2:36 PM GMT
    Sweet! This means I don't have to get black-tinted windows just to hang out with my Latino papis. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 2:38 PM GMT
    They should all be deported. They are filling up our prisons, they are getting free health care, and they are going on food stamps. Send them back to Mexico and build a Wall and keep them out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 2:38 PM GMT



    Reagan did it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 2:40 PM GMT
    CHRISTOPHER34 saidThey should all be deported. They are filling up our prisons, they are getting free health care, and they are going on food stamps. Send them back to Mexico and build a Wall and keep them out.


    This mega wall business is not being realistic and it's very expensive. The best way is to enforce the law as is and take away the incentives that drive them here -- jobs. They are just like anyone else, they want a better life and they want to help their family. Problem is, if you take in all of the third world because you want to be "nice" and "compassionate", you end up just creating another third world that's unable to help anyone all over again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 2:44 PM GMT
    You're right, Mock, a huge incentive is jobs.

    Now then, who's giving them jobs?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 2:52 PM GMT
    meninlove saidReagan did it.


    Which is generally the proof that amnesty doesn't work - it acts as an incentive for more illegal immigration.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 2:55 PM GMT
    CHRISTOPHER34 saidThey should all be deported. They are filling up our prisons, they are getting free health care, and they are going on food stamps. Send them back to Mexico and build a Wall and keep them out.

    Problem is it won't happen. All the harsh tone would do is drive the hispanic citizens to the Democrats. Marco Rubio has said same. The thing we really need to hold the line on is the citizenship issue because we don't need millions of new Democrats. Again, it's how you phrase it. You don't need to say "No way, Jose". Instead you say sure, get in line. The quota system will take care of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 2:57 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    CHRISTOPHER34 saidThey should all be deported. They are filling up our prisons, they are getting free health care, and they are going on food stamps. Send them back to Mexico and build a Wall and keep them out.

    Problem is it won't happen. All the harsh tone would do is drive the hispanic citizens to the Democrats. Marco Rubio has said same. The thing we really need to hold the line on is the citizenship issue because we don't need millions of new Democrats. Again, it's how you phrase it. You don't need to say "No way, Jose". Instead you say sure, get in line. The quota system will take care of it.


    That's what's so effed up about the whole thing. Gets me so angry.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 2:59 PM GMT
    lol, you guys FrostedFlakes has already determined that CHRISTOPHER here is a sock account.

    You're speaking with a sock.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 2:59 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove saidReagan did it.


    Which is generally the proof that amnesty doesn't work - it acts as an incentive for more illegal immigration.


    You demonstrate a consistent inability to distinguish opinion and proof.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 3:17 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    socalfitness said
    CHRISTOPHER34 saidThey should all be deported. They are filling up our prisons, they are getting free health care, and they are going on food stamps. Send them back to Mexico and build a Wall and keep them out.

    Problem is it won't happen. All the harsh tone would do is drive the hispanic citizens to the Democrats. Marco Rubio has said same. The thing we really need to hold the line on is the citizenship issue because we don't need millions of new Democrats. Again, it's how you phrase it. You don't need to say "No way, Jose". Instead you say sure, get in line. The quota system will take care of it.

    That's what's so effed up about the whole thing. Gets me so angry.

    We have to be smart about it. Secure the border, enforce laws. Being "humane" to get them out of the shadows, but holding the line on our quota system leading to citizenship is a reasonable thing to do and is politically smart.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 3:25 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove saidReagan did it.


    Which is generally the proof that amnesty doesn't work - it acts as an incentive for more illegal immigration.


    You demonstrate a consistent inability to distinguish opinion and proof.


    Did illegal immigration decline? No, in fact it increased - substantially. The problems associated with immigration didn't go down. You seem to demonstrate a general inability to reason.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 3:51 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    mocktwinkie said
    socalfitness said
    CHRISTOPHER34 saidThey should all be deported. They are filling up our prisons, they are getting free health care, and they are going on food stamps. Send them back to Mexico and build a Wall and keep them out.

    Problem is it won't happen. All the harsh tone would do is drive the hispanic citizens to the Democrats. Marco Rubio has said same. The thing we really need to hold the line on is the citizenship issue because we don't need millions of new Democrats. Again, it's how you phrase it. You don't need to say "No way, Jose". Instead you say sure, get in line. The quota system will take care of it.

    That's what's so effed up about the whole thing. Gets me so angry.

    We have to be smart about it. Secure the border, enforce laws. Being "humane" to get them out of the shadows, but holding the line on our quota system leading to citizenship is a reasonable thing to do and is politically smart.


    What's effed up is that when you are in favor of enforcing the law it gets twisted as some sort of attack on a particular race or kind of people and it's such bullshit.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Nov 23, 2011 4:38 PM GMT
    Why would any gay man support "amnesty" or other special treatment for all the illegal aliens here, when the liberal hypocrites in congress and the White House won't first give equal rights to gay american citizens? When a gay man who is a citizen is not allowed to bring his spouse or partner into the US, as a non-gay could, why the fuck should the gay man care about benefits for illegal aliens? I want equal rights for me first, before giving special rights to illegals.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 4:39 PM GMT
    Suetonius saidWhy would any gay man support "amnesty" or other special treatment for all the illegal aliens here, when the liberal hypocrites in congress and the White House won't first give equal rights to gay american citizens? When a gay man who is a citizen is not allowed to bring his spouse or partner into the US, as a non-gay could, why the fuck should the gay man care about benefits for illegal aliens? I want equal rights for me first, before giving special rights to illegals.


    Makes sense!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 4:48 PM GMT
    This is the major problem w/ NAFTA. It addresses the free exchange of goods, services, and capital, yet totally ignores the 4th pillar of economics: labor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2011 3:21 AM GMT
    socalfitness said2) Allow those who have been here more than x years and have not had felony convictions to remain, provided they do not need public assistance, but not provide a pathway to citizenship. Citizenship pathway would remain in accordance with current quotas in effect, and they could apply via that route, but would not be able to circumvent.)


    I agree with this except they should be able to apply for citizenship after X number of years of being a productive member of society.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2011 4:01 AM GMT
    RIGuy60 said
    socalfitness said2) Allow those who have been here more than x years and have not had felony convictions to remain, provided they do not need public assistance, but not provide a pathway to citizenship. Citizenship pathway would remain in accordance with current quotas in effect, and they could apply via that route, but would not be able to circumvent.)


    I agree with this except they should be able to apply for citizenship after X number of years of being a productive member of society.

    Applying for citizenship is fine as long as the quotas are maintained, i.e. getting to the back of the line.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2011 7:31 AM GMT
    I'm against, i got no problem with someone wanting to come here and actually work for a living, god knows how many Americans feel entitled to things they haven't earned and are really lazy. My beef is how many of these illegal aliens are criminals? Your basically going to be giving murders, rapists, and drug dealers a free pass and the fact that none of them have been paying tax's for as long as they've been here.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 25, 2011 11:55 AM GMT
    Thing is whether you're for it or against it .... it ain't gonna happen

    Because the republican party has scapegoated the immigrants so badly in this country

    See how to play shellgame ....

    They have trashed them so badly in the public media that there is NO WAY in hell that anyone will get elected even TRYING to give them any way of achieving citizenship