What's your stance on immigration?

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

    Nov 16, 2012 5:54 AM GMT
    By immigration, I mean the nearly 12 million of people living undocumented in the country?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2012 6:22 AM GMT
    I have absolutely no problem with undocumented people in America BUT if I did have a problem with it, I'd probably feel the same way Native Americans felt when Europeans invaded/stole this land in the first place icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2012 7:19 PM GMT
    My stance on immigration is that the laws should make it easier for people to obtain citizenship inasmuch as it adheres to demographic trends and population stability figures. But I disagree with just taking 12 million who broke the law and giving them preferential treatment over the hundreds of thousands or millions of people waiting in line to obtain citizenship legally. If we grant pardon to lawbreakers we are only making mockery of our immigration system and setting a precedent of chaos and lawlessness -- a clear message that: you break the law, one day down the line you or your prodigy will be rewarded and get in anyway without due process.

    BlackCat90 saidI have absolutely no problem with undocumented people in America BUT if I did have a problem with it, I'd probably feel the same way Native Americans felt when Europeans invaded/stole this land in the first place icon_lol.gif


    Complete bullshit reasoning only legitimized by racially charged claptrap. Europeans never "stole" anything. If you look at everything from a race blind standpoint it was just another bigger, stronger, more cohesive "tribe" conquering a bunch of disunited tribes that were at war with each other -- many of them all warring against each other. Native Americans had no united infrastructure or government to set up laws, therefore it wasn't "their land". Some tribes wandered from place to place looking for sustenance. Europeans created the infrastructure of a united, cohesive nation with a government and laws. There is no nation or country on earth that was not previously occupied by natives who got displaced by a stronger, more united faction which we now recognize as being associated with that particular group of people.

    The Aztec and Inca empires, conquering and enslaving and subjecting the people around them was absolutely no different from the Europeans conquering and doing the same thing. The only difference is racial, and that isn't a valid distinction at all, unless it's admittedly founded on racial anger and really nothing more.

    Can we point to ANY civilization or nation or empire that did not become what it was because of an immoral or improper or even some times horrible treatment of other peoples? No. Before Europeans arrived in South Africa the African blacks occupying the land had already massacred the aboriginals living there "originally". Just because they may have had racial similarities doesn't make those crimes any less offensive than when the Europeans arrived and subjugated the existing peoples and committed their own atrocities -- the only difference was skin color.

    There's nothing wrong with people having opinions about what race they would like to dominate particular places of the earth, but at least just admit it's based on a paradigm of racial affinity and preference for a particular one and not some morally "excusable exception" or a mythical "legitimate payback" for "previous indignities".
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Nov 16, 2012 8:40 PM GMT
    1)we need to give amnesty for indivduals brought here under the age of 18 who attended school in the US. Those individuals however cannot be allowed to bring in or be a "Anchor baby" for relatives who are illegal. --- We cannot fault minors for being undocumented but cannot reward adults

    2)Undocumented adult individuals that can prove that they for more than 4 years have paid property or other taxes, had car insurance, attended school or had employment , or are domestic partners or married ( to establish they were actually HERE can be eligible for green cards)

    establish a guest worker program. with stiff penalties for employers and "undocumented" that violate the law. If you violate this as a employer you cannot employ guest workers in the future ( 5 year), and undocumented that enter the country for work without authorization also cannot be eligible for guest worker status for 5 years.

    we had amnesty in the 80's, continuing to do this every 20-30 years is not smart. Not having penalties for people who violate the law , is unfair for those who comply with the law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2012 3:55 AM GMT
    mocktwinkles saidMy stance on immigration is that the laws should make it easier for people to obtain citizenship inasmuch as it adheres to demographic trends and population stability figures. But I disagree with just taking 12 million who broke the law and giving them preferential treatment over the hundreds of thousands or millions of people waiting in line to obtain citizenship legally. If we grant pardon to lawbreakers we are only making mockery of our immigration system and setting a precedent of chaos and lawlessness -- a clear message that: you break the law, one day down the line you or your prodigy will be rewarded and get in anyway without due process.

    BlackCat90 saidI have absolutely no problem with undocumented people in America BUT if I did have a problem with it, I'd probably feel the same way Native Americans felt when Europeans invaded/stole this land in the first place icon_lol.gif


    Complete bullshit reasoning only legitimized by racially charged claptrap. Europeans never "stole" anything. If you look at everything from a race blind standpoint it was just another bigger, stronger, more cohesive "tribe" conquering a bunch of disunited tribes that were at war with each other -- many of them all warring against each other. Native Americans had no united infrastructure or government to set up laws, therefore it wasn't "their land". Some tribes wandered from place to place looking for sustenance. Europeans created the infrastructure of a united, cohesive nation with a government and laws. There is no nation or country on earth that was not previously occupied by natives who got displaced by a stronger, more united faction which we now recognize as being associated with that particular group of people.

    The Aztec and Inca empires, conquering and enslaving and subjecting the people around them was absolutely no different from the Europeans conquering and doing the same thing. The only difference is racial, and that isn't a valid distinction at all, unless it's admittedly founded on racial anger and really nothing more.

    Can we point to ANY civilization or nation or empire that did not become what it was because of an immoral or improper or even some times horrible treatment of other peoples? No. Before Europeans arrived in South Africa the African blacks occupying the land had already massacred the aboriginals living there "originally". Just because they may have had racial similarities doesn't make those crimes any less offensive than when the Europeans arrived and subjugated the existing peoples and committed their own atrocities -- the only difference was skin color.

    There's nothing wrong with people having opinions about what race they would like to dominate particular places of the earth, but at least just admit it's based on a paradigm of racial affinity and preference for a particular one and not some morally "excusable exception" or a mythical "legitimate payback" for "previous indignities".


    OH MY GOD!! TfuckinL;DfuckinR!!!
    tumblr_m74mm8pqVA1r91sa1.gif
    It really isn't that serious that you needed to write all of that...
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 17, 2012 5:33 AM GMT
    I support the DREAM Act.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2012 7:11 AM GMT
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/kay-bailey-hutchison-jon-kyl-immigration_n_2146550.html

    What do y'all think about this new proposal??
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Nov 17, 2012 4:59 PM GMT
    Walter92 saidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/kay-bailey-hutchison-jon-kyl-immigration_n_2146550.html

    What do y'all think about this new proposal??


    A good first step but as i listed above you need to address the whole problem at once.

    There has to be a carrot and a stick to make people do the right thing. I think its a given that the children need to have a path to citizenship. The adults however need to show societal integration.

  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Nov 18, 2012 6:48 AM GMT
    musclmed said1)we need to give amnesty for indivduals brought here under the age of 18 who attended school in the US. Those individuals however cannot be allowed to bring in or be a "Anchor baby" for relatives who are illegal. --- We cannot fault minors for being undocumented but cannot reward adults

    2)Undocumented adult individuals that can prove that they for more than 4 years have paid property or other taxes, had car insurance, attended school or had employment , or are domestic partners or married ( to establish they were actually HERE can be eligible for green cards)
    Let's first be concerned about equal rights for gay partner immigration before worrying about helping illegal aliens.
    There should be no "immigration reform," whether the Dream Act or any other, unless it includes the right of gay people to bring their partners into the country, just as straight married folks have the right to bring their spouse into the country. Gay people should not support the Dream Act or immigration reform unless the changes in the law also give equal immigration rights to gays. Both the democrats and the republicans have been talking the need for "immigration reform," which generally means some sort of amnesty for the illegal aliens now in the country. Why should the any gay person be more concerned about the circumstances of illegal aliens than getting equal rights for gay citizens? With a generally anti-gay rights republican Congress, there is no way a separate immigration bill for gay immigration rights would ever pass as a stand alone measure. The only way to secure equal rights for gay partner immigration is to ties the issue to another immigration bill which has wider support, such as the Dream Act or the non-descript "immigration reform." Gays should work against any "immigration reform" measure that does not also provide equal rights for gay partner immigration. Neither the Dream Act nor any other general "immigration reform" bill now would grant equal rights to gays.


  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Nov 18, 2012 7:02 AM GMT
    Suetonius said
    musclmed said1)we need to give amnesty for indivduals brought here under the age of 18 who attended school in the US. Those individuals however cannot be allowed to bring in or be a "Anchor baby" for relatives who are illegal. --- We cannot fault minors for being undocumented but cannot reward adults

    2)Undocumented adult individuals that can prove that they for more than 4 years have paid property or other taxes, had car insurance, attended school or had employment , or are domestic partners or married ( to establish they were actually HERE can be eligible for green cards)
    Let's first be concerned about equal rights for gay partner immigration before worrying about helping illegal aliens.
    There should be no "immigration reform," whether the Dream Act or any other, unless it includes the right of gay people to bring their partners into the country, just as straight married folks have the right to bring their spouse into the country. Gay people should not support the Dream Act or immigration reform unless the changes in the law also give equal immigration rights to gays. Both the democrats and the republicans have been talking the need for "immigration reform," which generally means some sort of amnesty for the illegal aliens now in the country. Why should the any gay person be more concerned about the circumstances of illegal aliens than getting equal rights for gay citizens? With a generally anti-gay rights republican Congress, there is no way a separate immigration bill for gay immigration rights would ever pass as a stand alone measure. The only way to secure equal rights for gay partner immigration is to ties the issue to another immigration bill which has wider support, such as the Dream Act or the non-descript "immigration reform." Gays should work against any "immigration reform" measure that does not also provide equal rights for gay partner immigration. Neither the Dream Act nor any other general "immigration reform" bill now would grant equal rights to gays.




    Well I sort of said that. Marriage doesnt guarantee citizenship. It makes you eligible.

    I have a ? How many Democratic senators or House members are you convinced will prevent a vote on a bipartisan immigration bill?
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Nov 18, 2012 7:21 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    Suetonius said
    musclmed said1)we need to give amnesty for indivduals brought here under the age of 18 who attended school in the US. Those individuals however cannot be allowed to bring in or be a "Anchor baby" for relatives who are illegal. --- We cannot fault minors for being undocumented but cannot reward adults

    2)Undocumented adult individuals that can prove that they for more than 4 years have paid property or other taxes, had car insurance, attended school or had employment , or are domestic partners or married ( to establish they were actually HERE can be eligible for green cards)
    Let's first be concerned about equal rights for gay partner immigration before worrying about helping illegal aliens.
    There should be no "immigration reform," whether the Dream Act or any other, unless it includes the right of gay people to bring their partners into the country, just as straight married folks have the right to bring their spouse into the country. Gay people should not support the Dream Act or immigration reform unless the changes in the law also give equal immigration rights to gays. Both the democrats and the republicans have been talking the need for "immigration reform," which generally means some sort of amnesty for the illegal aliens now in the country. Why should the any gay person be more concerned about the circumstances of illegal aliens than getting equal rights for gay citizens? With a generally anti-gay rights republican Congress, there is no way a separate immigration bill for gay immigration rights would ever pass as a stand alone measure. The only way to secure equal rights for gay partner immigration is to ties the issue to another immigration bill which has wider support, such as the Dream Act or the non-descript "immigration reform." Gays should work against any "immigration reform" measure that does not also provide equal rights for gay partner immigration. Neither the Dream Act nor any other general "immigration reform" bill now would grant equal rights to gays.




    Well I sort of said that. Marriage doesnt guarantee citizenship. It makes you eligible.

    I have a ? How many Democratic senators or House members are you convinced will prevent a vote on a bipartisan immigration bill?
    I haven't a clue. It seems to be a fluid situation, with republican leaders making noises about adopting some sort of immigration bill (which they had not spoken to before recently.), and democrats generally seem to support the idea. As to Marriage and immigration, it does not grant you citizenship, but gives yoiu a green card to start with, if one is not illegally in the country already.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2012 12:58 AM GMT
    @Mocktwinkles, what do you propose to do with the nearly 12 million already here? Let's face it, it's impossible to deport them all, or to promote "Self-Deportation" lol.

    musclemed said1)we need to give amnesty for indivduals brought here under the age of 18 who attended school in the US.


    musclemed, I don't think this is the approach we wanna take. We wanna be able to prove to society that we'll help make this a better nation by putting our degrees to work. We want to EARN a path to citizenship.

    Suetoniues said

    There should be no "immigration reform," whether the Dream Act or any other, unless it includes the right of gay people to bring their partners into the country, just as straight married folks have the right to bring their spouse into the country.


    I do agree with you that a reform should include letting gay people bring their partners into the country. This is, I believe, a strong reason for the gay community and the immigrant community to keep working together for common ground comprehensive immigration reform. Eventually, we want reform. It would not make any sense to advocate for immigration reform piece by piece, don't you think?



  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Nov 19, 2012 2:15 AM GMT
    Walter92 said@Mocktwinkles, what do you propose to do with the nearly 12 million already here? Let's face it, it's impossible to deport them all, or to promote "Self-Deportation" lol.

    musclemed said1)we need to give amnesty for indivduals brought here under the age of 18 who attended school in the US.


    musclemed, I don't think this is the approach we wanna take. We wanna be able to prove to society that we'll help make this a better nation by putting our degrees to work. We want to EARN a path to citizenship.

    Suetoniues said

    There should be no "immigration reform," whether the Dream Act or any other, unless it includes the right of gay people to bring their partners into the country, just as straight married folks have the right to bring their spouse into the country.


    I do agree with you that a reform should include letting gay people bring their partners into the country. This is, I believe, a strong reason for the gay community and the immigrant community to keep working together for common ground comprehensive immigration reform. Eventually, we want reform. It would not make any sense to advocate for immigration reform piece by piece, don't you think?
    Yes it would make more sense to have one reform, except the current advocates of the Dream Act and other "immigration reform" do not include the rights of gays in their proposals. Gay immigration rights are unlikely to pass in this decade in a bill all by itself, which is why it is important that these rights be included in any bill that is considered.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2012 3:53 AM GMT
    mocktwinkles saidMy stance on immigration is that the laws should make it easier for people to obtain citizenship inasmuch as it adheres to demographic trends and population stability figures. But I disagree with just taking 12 million who broke the law and giving them preferential treatment over the hundreds of thousands or millions of people waiting in line to obtain citizenship legally. If we grant pardon to lawbreakers we are only making mockery of our immigration system and setting a precedent of chaos and lawlessness -- a clear message that: you break the law, one day down the line you or your prodigy will be rewarded and get in anyway without due process.

    Wasn't the precedent already set when Reagan granted amnesty the first time?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2012 5:07 AM GMT
    musclmed said1)we need to give amnesty for indivduals brought here under the age of 18 who attended school in the US. Those individuals however cannot be allowed to bring in or be a "Anchor baby" for relatives who are illegal. --- We cannot fault minors for being undocumented but cannot reward adults

    You say no "anchor babies," but what about the kids who are still under 18? Do we still deport their parents, and therefore the kids themselves (defeating such a Dream Act-type of amnesty)? Or would we want to throw them into the foster care system (if there aren't relatives who are legally here and are willing to and can afford to take care of them)? Is separating children from their parents such great thing? And what about the kids when they are 18? Do we expect them to fend for themselves? Yes, they are legally adults, but how many 18 year olds are able to fend for themselves 100% without some form of help from their parents, particularly if they are trying to attend higher education?

    This is the problem already faced by families in which the children are born in the US and are therefore US citizens, but the parents are here illegally. How do we not add to the problem with a Dream Act-type of amnesty like you mention above added to the mix?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2012 12:26 PM GMT
    Bring me more Asians.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2012 12:30 PM GMT
    They won't steal jobs from me so I have no problem with them. They do the work that most Americans refuse to do. Just look at what happened to Alabama after they pretty much pulled over any Hispanic and asked for proof of citizenship. Their farming economy went to crap.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2012 2:09 PM GMT
    I think the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (the Dream Act), is a fairly good bill. Basically, the bill would provide conditional permanent residency to certain illegal and deportable alien students who (i) graduate from U.S. high schools, (ii) who are of good moral character, (iii) arrived in the U.S. legally or illegally as minors; and (iv) have been in the U.S. continuously for at least five years prior to the bill’s enactment. If students were to complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning, they would obtain temporary residency for a six year period. Within the six year period, the student should have received a degree from an institution of higher education in the U.S. or completed at least 2 years in a program for a bachelor’s degree or higher degree in the U.S. OR should have served in the armed services for at least 2 years and if discharged, received an honorable discharge.

    The Dream Act would grant conditional perminent residency to qualified individuals, NOT U.S. citizenship. The path to U.S. citizenship and related administrative requirements would basically remain the same and must be satisfied regardless of how the immigrant received his/her permanent residency status. In other words, the Dream Act does not confer upon undocumented immigrants an expedited path to citizenship.




  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Nov 19, 2012 3:24 PM GMT
    sfbayguy said
    musclmed said1)we need to give amnesty for indivduals brought here under the age of 18 who attended school in the US. Those individuals however cannot be allowed to bring in or be a "Anchor baby" for relatives who are illegal. --- We cannot fault minors for being undocumented but cannot reward adults

    You say no "anchor babies," but what about the kids who are still under 18? Do we still deport their parents, and therefore the kids themselves (defeating such a Dream Act-type of amnesty)? Or would we want to throw them into the foster care system (if there aren't relatives who are legally here and are willing to and can afford to take care of them)? Is separating children from their parents such great thing? And what about the kids when they are 18? Do we expect them to fend for themselves? Yes, they are legally adults, but how many 18 year olds are able to fend for themselves 100% without some form of help from their parents, particularly if they are trying to attend higher education?

    This is the problem already faced by families in which the children are born in the US and are therefore US citizens, but the parents are here illegally. How do we not add to the problem with a Dream Act-type of amnesty like you mention above added to the mix?



    If you go with the premise that children under 18 came under no fault of their own, then essentially rubber stamp the illegal act by giving the same amnesty to the parents this will be a never ending problem.

    In my initial post the parents have their own paths to becoming legal by establishing that they have lived in the country for 4 years. Many "undocumented minors" live with extended nuclear families. 1 minor could anchor 1-2 dozen undocumented adults.

    my post above:
    "2)Undocumented adult individuals that can prove that they for more than 4 years have paid property or other taxes, had car insurance, attended school or had employment , or are domestic partners or married ( to establish they were actually HERE can be eligible for green cards)".

    This would also cover the "18 year old" that need their parents. If said 18 year old was in school, was employed and actually IN THE COUNTRY.

    The "anchor baby" needs to stop. Because what it does is endorse illegal activity. And for those that are transient / back and forth between countries cannot qualify for amnesty.

    What I propose is that most of the people who actually are here would be able to stay. The opportunist illegal that comes and goes and is not integrated into society well just needs to leave.

    I should have added we need to sunset the Anchor baby. If a family has a baby in the US and are not legal residents that baby is not automatically a citizen going forward.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2012 3:32 PM GMT
    They should send the hot guys to me and send all the others back to their native countries. icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2012 12:42 AM GMT
    Suetonius said

    Gay immigration rights are unlikely to pass in this decade in a bill all by itself, which is why it is important that these rights be included in any bill that is considered.


    Suetonius, why not advocate for them as well?? Legislators in Washington will only hear the voices that speak out.

    @sfbayguy, I'm not clear on your stance. I don't think i got your message.

    msuNtx

    They won't steal jobs from me so I have no problem with them.


    To steal jobs from other people has never been a priority for undocumented people. I, personally, want to contribute to my society in Austin when I graduate from college by putting my degree to work. I want to give back and contribute.

    @DOMINUS, nicely put man.







  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Nov 20, 2012 2:55 AM GMT
    Walter92 said
    Suetonius said

    Gay immigration rights are unlikely to pass in this decade in a bill all by itself, which is why it is important that these rights be included in any bill that is considered.


    Suetonius, why not advocate for them as well?? Legislators in Washington will only hear the voices that speak out.

    I and others do, of course, but the usual democratic cabal (DiFi and the west coast liberals) aren't really interested so far (NOT that DiFI is a liberal - she happens to be a Dino) - They are really about getting votes from Latinos. Now that the election is over, they might be less concerned with lining up the Latino vote, and possibly interested in doing something for gays as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2012 4:49 AM GMT
    Suetonius, could you please explain to me what you mentioned in your previous post in simple English?

    I tried to follow it, but I wasn't able to understand a bit. DiFi and Dino??
    I'm not familiar with them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2012 4:54 AM GMT
    Suetonius said
    Walter92 said
    Suetonius said

    Gay immigration rights are unlikely to pass in this decade in a bill all by itself, which is why it is important that these rights be included in any bill that is considered.


    Suetonius, why not advocate for them as well?? Legislators in Washington will only hear the voices that speak out.

    I and others do, of course, but the usual democratic cabal (DiFi and the west coast liberals) aren't really interested ...

    Walter92 saidSuetonius, could you please explain to me what you mentioned in your previous post in simple English?
    He just did.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2012 4:56 AM GMT
    Oddly enough, I find most immigrants to be more "American" than people born and raised in America. Or rather they largely appreciate what this country has offered them because they've had to go through a great ordeal to make it here. I think most Americans take for granted what they have until they lose it all or live in another country themselves.

    You can say that about most immigrant populations across the world, though.