How diffrent will it be from what George Bush wanted when he was first elected?
What would the egregious ramifications be?
What would the egregious ramifications be?
To quote JD Hayworth, "The idea that this plan would be onerous for illegals is insulting, especially to legal immigrants who have patiently gone through the laborious process of lawfully coming into this country."
What made this country great was not strict control of immigration or closed borders. What made this country great were open borders and freedom of opportunity. We harm ourselves if we turn our back on that in the name of a security we can never genuinely have.
So with all due respect to Congressman Hayworth, the idea that we need a laborious and onerous process to control immigration to this country is an insult to those who are trying to come here now and to those who have come before us. And, if I may speak idealistically, it is an insult to the very foundation of this country, a foundation both of people coming here to this land to make a better life and the principals of liberty.
They are right about step One, which is close the border as much as possible, as soon as possible.
Or in other words , if this is causeing such problems , why can't conditions in Mexico , China or wherever improve enough to staunch the flow?
The two primary ones would be a reduction of trade barriers (including subsidies) and recognition of property rights.
One way to resolve border issues and the immigration problems that follow that is to move the borders.
There is a move afoot to take NAFTA a couple steps further, in effect making North America another European Union with a common currency and quite possibly common laws, including property. The big three countries have been having talks since 2004 and i would include the central american countries.
They are right about step One, which is close the border as much as possible, as soon as possible.
I'm curious as to exactly what you think that would achieve.
====================================================================
(Well, Duh!)
Every country has a right and a need to control immigration. I am not against people coming here, but those who come, should be people that are actually needed, not fugitives from justice, not vagrants and beggars, not people with contagious diseases. Perhaps not people with congenital deformities, either.
Or in other words , if this is causeing such problems , why can't conditions in Mexico , China or wherever improve enough to staunch the flow?
Excellent question. The answer is they can improve, but multiple things need to happen for that to occur. The two primary ones would be a reduction of trade barriers (including subsidies) and recognition of property rights. The former we can do something about, at least for ourselves. The latter is a more difficult matter requiring change with in the governments and political structures of other countries. However, I think America, both in business and in government, could campaign and even put some pressure on other countries to begin to recognize property rights. If we did those things, I think we would see conditions in Mexico and other countries begin to improve to the point that immigration to this country would become much less of an economic issue. But then, of course, people would complain because international companies would make use of workers in those other countries, the way they do in places like India and Taiwan, but that is another issue.
When a doctor seeks to cure a patient, the first thing he tries to do is to eliminate the cause of the malady. First, you kill the bacteria, so the malady will not get worse.
If 13,000,000 illegals are a problem, then 16,000,000 or 20,000,000 will be a bigger problem. An ever-growing number of illegals is an ever-growing problem. As I said, Duh!
Every country has a right and a need to control immigration.
I am not against people coming here, but those who come, should be people that are actually needed, not fugitives from justice, not vagrants and beggars, not people with contagious diseases. Perhaps not people with congenital deformities, either.
Is this a matter of government action or a matter of public understanding of the situation?
Is this a matter of government action or a matter of public understanding of the situation?
Both.
My great-grandparents immigrated to this country without a laborious process other than essentially checking in at the door. And not so long before that there were effectively no regulations about immigrating to the U.S.A. And I think what is insulting is that people who are so desperate to make a better life here that they are willing to risk their very lives to get here and willing to risk jailtime just to get work with crappy pay because it's better than what they had, are to be despised and thrown out of this country....So with all due respect to Congressman Hayworth, the idea that we need a laborious and onerous process to control immigration to this country is an insult to those who are trying to come here now and to those who have come before us. And, if I may speak idealistically, it is an insult to the very foundation of this country, a foundation both of people coming here to this land to make a better life and the principals of liberty.
What made this country great was not strict control of immigration or closed borders. What made this country great were open borders and freedom of opportunity. We harm ourselves if we turn our back on that in the name of a security we can never genuinely have..
And with all due respect to you and your immigrant grandparents Prince, is that it's insulting to those who HAVE gone thru the "onerous process", jumped thru all the hoops, travrsed all the bureaucracy, and then be told "oooh, if you had simply just broken our laws, we'll taken much better care of you".
I know you hate hearing it, but our resources are finite. I can vouch for that, from a health care perspective. And advocating such an open border policy you seem to weild, will give exactly the ammunition that the left needs to bring about Univiersal Health Care, as our Hospitals & ER's get completely overwhelmed, if they haven't already.
No, what made this country great has nothing to do with borders. What made this country great were immigrants that came to this country
What made this country great were immigrants that came to this country to be Americans 1st & foremost, while still honoring the cultures they came from.
We harm ourselves by advocating complete diversity to the point that "America" no longer exists.
Then don't tell them that. Tell them we're sorry they had to be put through such a ridiculous set of hoops and that we hope to change that so no one else will have to suffer through that nonsense ever again.
That seems like a weak argument to me. We try to stop one bad thing by perpetrating something just as bad if not worse? That doesn't seem like the right solution to me. My dislike of the idea of government funded universal health care is not so great as to overwhelm my dislike of our immigration situation.
They did not come to be Americans. .......
This is the most ridiculous of all the complaints that are made about immigrants and diversity. Of course the America of today will eventually no longer exist. Just like the America of 1776 no longer exists, and the America of 1860 no longer exists, and the America of 1941 no longer exists. Not all the change has been positive or for the best, but we are still here nonetheless, are we not? .
<-----------------------whooooooosh-----------------------------------------
That was the point of my comments on diversity apparently flying right over your head.
Why is keeping undesirables out of the US a bad idea?
There are tests and cures for many of these diseases. At the very least, we should cure them before they come into the US and infect us.
Your clever concept leads me to believe that you have removed the doors to your house and allow everyone that wants to sleep in your bed and eat your food to pop right on in and snooze and snack at will, even the ones that will leave bedbugs and lice behind and will spit on your food.
The people of the US, through their laws and their Border Patrol and Immigration Service should have absolute control over every person who comes into this country.
period.
On the contrary, I got the point of your comments. Diversity for the sake of diversity is bad. But no one was advocating diversity for the sake of diversity. So that whoosh sound was more likely your point as plummeted to the ground like a rock.
Why is keeping undesirables out of the US a bad idea?
Because they're coming in anyway, and will regardless. It's like outlawing guns to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It's ineffective and only hurts people who don't need to be kept out.
There are tests and cures for many of these diseases. At the very least, we should cure them before they come into the US and infect us.
Why can't we just let them come to the U.S. and be cured? Anyway, I must have missed the story about the great TB epidemic started by Mexican immigrants. Perhaps you can point that one out to me.
Your clever concept leads me to believe that you have removed the doors to your house and allow everyone that wants to sleep in your bed and eat your food to pop right on in and snooze and snack at will, even the ones that will leave bedbugs and lice behind and will spit on your food.
If you don't know the difference between a nation's borders and a private residence, I doubt my explaining it to you would do any good.
The people of the US, through their laws and their Border Patrol and Immigration Service should have absolute control over every person who comes into this country.
period.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Absolute control is not possible. But you go ahead and petition the government to give you a list of all potential immigrants so you can mark down who you find acceptable or not. The real problem here is that we don't need absolute control over the U.S. national border any more than New York or Texas needs absolute control over their state borders. In point of fact, we should reduce the restrictions on immigration to the level of restrictions we have for interstate travel, which is to say, next to none. Or do you think people should be made to wait months, if not years, to move from one state to another so that each state can attempt absolute control over who comes into the state? Maybe you think your city should start working on absolute control over who comes into your city. Shouldn't you and the citizens of your city have, though your city government, absolute control over who comes into your city? Don't you want the diseased and the criminals kept out of your city? Why not just require every person in the country have to have specific papers from the government to prove they have permission to travel more than four or five miles from where they live? That would keep the undesirables out of your neighborhood. Or would it?
In all those instances, a constant remained, those that came to America, largely came to become Americans.
The USA is kinda like a gated community , just one more hurdle for the burgulars doesn't end burgulary , but haveing fewer burgularys is worth something.
Imagine now that the USA unilaterally stops enforceing its border, why would anyone less socialist than a Zapatista stay south of the border?
In all those instances, a constant remained, those that came to America, largely came to become Americans.
Actually, yeah, I got that too. And it is a nice bit of propaganda, but I don't believe it for a second and don't know why I should. So far I see nothing at all that supports your absurd notion that "We harm ourselves by advocating complete diversity to the point that 'America' no longer exists." .
...you put the word America in quotes, but what does that mean? Please explain exactly what it is we are in danger of losing if we have too much diversity
I suppose you would like to replace the border guards with guys that just count 'em as they come in, hunh, Sirs?
Boy, it must be nice to sit there and pretty much refute anything that doesn't agree with you as being propoganda or "weak arguement".
Because obviously if it were valid commentary or a strong arguement, you'd actually have to deal with the ramifications of continuing to advocate your open border position.
So much the better when we can simply claim how bogus my position is, thus be able to ram rod an open border agenda minus its overt consequences.
As i already said, my point regarding diversity just keeps flying right overhead, and news flash, it has nothing to do with "too much". Not sure how many more times I need to repeat myself, before it becomes apparent that you just either won't get it, or refuse to get it.
And it appears you've already classified everything I've said as either weak or propoganda.
I suppose you would like to replace the border guards with guys that just count 'em as they come in, hunh, Sirs?
Step one to resolving the immigration problem is for the government to get as good a control of the border as possible. They are nowhere near this now.
Perhaps making it really hard to get across the border would result in only the smartest getting intpo the country. Maybe we should install mazes, and only allow those who can solve them to enter.
Boy, it must be nice to sit there and pretty much refute anything that doesn't agree with you as being propoganda or "weak arguement".
Perhaps. But that isn't the problem. The problem is, all you've given me is weak arguments and propaganda. And if that is all you give me, that is what I'm going to call it.
You said, "those that came to America, largely came to become Americans." Is there any evidence of this? Do we have thousands of letters to folks back in the old country by immigrants saying "I came to America to be American"? From what I've read about the issue, people came to make a better life for themselves, not because they had a yen on to become Americans.
Well so far, your position is weak at best. Close the borders because immigrants will ruin Medicare and they're not coming to be Americans. Yes, I admit the influx of immigrants may do bad things to the rigid socialist side of our medical industry. Why is that a bad thing? And I'm not trying to deny the consequences of an open border policy. I'm just not buying this whole "end of society as we know it" fear jive. Our society will adapt, and I know no reason to believe it will not.
As i already said, my point regarding diversity just keeps flying right overhead, and news flash, it has nothing to do with "too much". Not sure how many more times I need to repeat myself, before it becomes apparent that you just either won't get it, or refuse to get it.
Well then perhaps you ought to explain your point, because quite frankly, if your point was not that we have to worry about too much diversity, as in "complete diversity to the point that 'America' no longer exists" then what the bloody blue blazes are you talking about?
I am really starting to get sick of you saying A and then insisting your point was not A but something else. And then when I ask you explain what your point is, you either say A again or you talk in exasperated tones about how I'm just not getting it. I'm not a stupid guy. I'm reasonably intelligent. I have a reasonable grasp of the workings of the English language. And from here, you keep saying A and then insisting you mean something that is not A.
And it appears you've already classified everything I've said as either weak or propoganda.
No, just the parts that are weak or come across as propaganda. I can be persuaded.
We have no polls, or a laundry list of letters. We simply have multidues of immigrants, who I've witnessed both on TV, the radio, and in person, who have referenced how great it was to come to america, to be American, to be part of this country as americans. Not at the expense of their culture & heritage, simply that their background added to the meltiing pot of america. I can't count how many LEGAL immigrants who came to america from Spain, Poland, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Russia, India, Iraq, on & on & on & on, who referenced how great it was to come to america to better themselves, AS AMERICANS
Partially because I'm not trying to frame it is a "complete end of society". Only a near complete end to american society.
Welcome to the People's Republic of America, government to the rescue as one after another health related industry collapses. You want open borders, then look forward to Universal Healthcare to go along with an upgraded Universal Prescription drug plan, courtesy of the Dem legislature & President Hillary. And it'll happen because the huge influx of new low income voters, streaming across the border, will vote for it.
1 last time. It does require you grasp the the term "priority"
- Immigrant comes to America
- Immigrant comes to America legally
- Immigrant comes to America legally looking to embrace america as their new home, their new country, their new loyalty
- Immigrant maintains every bit of culture and diversity they came to america with. It saturates their home, it permeates their language and actions
- Immigrant maintains every bit of their diversity, though america is still their primary embrace, their primary loyalty. It takes priority. It does NOT substitute for it
And I'm getting sick of telling you A, repeatedly, but you keep insisting I'm saying B, despite how many times I have to repeat A. You do that every fricken time we debate immigration.
Yet I strongly believe you've allowed your devote position on open borders to be seen in such a tunnel vision view, that regardless of the absolute VALID repercussions that would occur, you must deem any and all as "weak arguements", "propoganda", thus you don't have to deal with them, and simply keep claiming "The problem is, all you've given me is weak arguments and propaganda. And if that is all you give me, that is what I'm going to call it." Right?
I'm still waiting for an argument against open borders that presents something about which I should actually be concerned.
I've heard and read quite a bit about this "invasion" of "illegals." Interestingly, NAFTA was supposed to have opened the border in a similar manner to Schengen in Europe. Why don't we honor that?
See, I don't think this would be a problem if it were a group of Irish, Canadian, Australian, or as the British say any of the "white dominions" who wished to reside in the United States. But it isn't. These are Spanish speaking, dark-skinned, primarily Catholic, Mexicans whose culture is completely different from most in the United States. Hence - "they'll destroy our society."
Of course they won't destroy our society. I've talked to a number of folks that come to our Spanish Mass and they are wonderful, caring people. If anything it will enrich our society and culture if we go ahead and start granting citizenship to those that have lived here for a long time and give them a reasonable path to citzenship (not ridiculous paths like seventeen to twenty-five years).
See, I don't think this would be a problem if it were a group of Irish, Canadian, Australian, or as the British say any of the "white dominions" who wished to reside in the United States. But it isn't. These are Spanish speaking, dark-skinned, primarily Catholic, Mexicans whose culture is completely different from most in the United States. Hence - "they'll destroy our society."
I am perfectly willing to address the consequences of open borders. I'm just not afraid of all the usual consequences used as arguments against open borders.....
So the reason to close the borders is to stop the liberals from pushing us into socialism? .
Would I accept government funded universal health care and a more socialist government to continue my support of open borders? From my perspective it's not about accepting socialism. It's about not accepting punishing people whose only real fault is wanting to come here to work and to create a better life for themselves.
So the reason to close the borders is to stop the liberals from pushing us into socialism? A more wrong-headed approach to the situation I could not imagine. This conversation has officially gone into bizarro land. Would I accept government funded universal health care and a more socialist government to continue my support of open borders? From my perspective it's not about accepting socialism. It's about not accepting punishing people whose only real fault is wanting to come here to work and to create a better life for themselves. That is simply wrong, even if you are wanting to save America from socialism. If you're concerned about the socialism, attack the socialism, not the immigrants.
No, please pay attention......to stop the collapse of our current healthcare system.
If one leads to the other, then it's apparent that you are willing to accept it, though probably not like it. Which is fine, just be honest.
And 1 LAST time, don't even try to claim I'm against immigrants who simply "want to come here to work and to create a better life for themselves." Never have, never will. So no, I'm not attacking or "punishing" those that want to come here, only those that chose to do it illegally
No, please pay attention......to stop the collapse of our current healthcare system.
Then what was that second paragraph about? You were talking about "ever increasing taxation" and "bigger Government intrusion and entitlements" as a result of the immigrants voting for it all. Was that not about socialism? Or was I not supposed to pay attention to that part?
I am being honest. You're trying to make this about me being willing to accept socialism, ahem, excuse me, the collapse of our current health care system, when in fact it is not about that at all.
I'm just not willing to blame the immigrants for something that is not their fault.
Yes, you are choosing to punish them by supporting needlessly burdensome immigration law that prevents them from being able to simply come here to work and create a better life for themselves. Many of those people find risking death easier than our immigration law. And of course you are against immigrants who simply want to come here to work and create a better life for themselves because you are against simply letting them do that.
You support instead a bureaucratic labyrinth of nearly mythic proportions that is intended precisely to prevent immigrants from simply coming here to work, et cetera. I don't see how you could be considered not against it when you clearly oppose it.
Couldn't be more wrong. If anything, it's much more as to their economic state (or plight) than the color of their skin
No, please pay attention......to stop the collapse of our current healthcare system.
Actually this would be as much a threat to socialism as to any oter system , suppose we were to spend some of the billions we are presently spending on keeping Mexicans south of our border and buy them plane tickets to Sweden instead?
Using Sirs figure of 12 million, that would be 4%. Well, guess what Plane? As of 2004, roughly 12% of Sweden's population is foreign born.
If Finland were in such bad shape that as large a purportional group couldn't earn a liveing without leaveing , would you think that somethinf was wrong with Finland?
Of course, you are leaving out the portion of the US population that is here legally and are foreign born. According to the US Census, roughly 34 million people are here legally and are foreign born. So, the total is 34+12 or about 46 million. This gives a percentage of foreign born in the US of roughly 15.3%. So, we're already higher than Sweden.
Hey, one of those is me!
Moreover, those 12 million are far from accepted.
Actually this would be as much a threat to socialism as to any oter system , suppose we were to spend some of the billions we are presently spending on keeping Mexicans south of our border and buy them plane tickets to Sweden instead?
Again, the point Sirs made specifically is that the health care system is about to implode.
Plane then made the following statement:QuoteActually this would be as much a threat to socialism as to any oter system , suppose we were to spend some of the billions we are presently spending on keeping Mexicans south of our border and buy them plane tickets to Sweden instead?
To which I used percentages (to be fair to the fact that Sweden does not have 300 million people) to make the point that they do a rather decent job with what they have. Note that as members of the European Union, their borders (and thus healthcare system) are more open.
I'm not really sure what your point is with bringing up Terra or an extra million immigrants (note that Sirs claims that 12 million is a "conservative estimate" as well). In fact, I can't see that you have a point at all.
In fact, I can't see that you have a point at all.
QuoteCouldn't be more wrong. If anything, it's much more as to their economic state (or plight) than the color of their skin
So it is purely class distaste on your part?
Did you miss the part I put 1st?
The following paragraph simply stems from the original problem(s). But obviously they're issues you simply want to turn a blind eye, yet claim that's my big beef.
Again, I say A, but Prince insists I say B
I'm just not willing to blame the immigrants for something that is not their fault.
Who said it was their fault entirely?
You're saying that have no impact what-so-ever??
And let's keep this focused......we're referring to illegal immigrants, not just immigrants
No, I'm choosing to best protect both our finite resources, our Healthcare system, our national security, & yet still allow for orderly LEGAL immigration to this country, so that they may work and create a better life for themselves.
Traditionally, that's called following the American dream.
No one's being "prevented" from coming in,
the borders haven't been closed, so cease with the hyperbole, por fa vor. If I simply wanted to (as you claim) be against immigrants, I'd be advocating complete border closure, no one gets in, all applications to be torn up, tough luck, go peddle your wares in your own country. Oh yea, mass round-ups. Strangely, I'm not doing that, despite how often you keep implying I am. More of that A/B thing again
You support instead a bureaucratic labyrinth of nearly mythic proportions that is intended precisely to prevent immigrants from simply coming here to work, et cetera. I don't see how you could be considered not against it when you clearly oppose it.
"it" being IILEGAL Immigration.
And so we endeth the debate, as I'm no longer willing to entertain your version of what my position actually is.
Sirs, you said it was because of their economic state. You typed it. Not me.
But fine, let's discuss national security and health care concerns. What are your concerns with national security per the Mexican border and health care per the Mexican border?
My concerns regarding national security of ANY border are specific to that being the conduits by which terrorists & their supporters are apt to use not just for themselves, but in the potential of bringing WMD of some sort. The more open the border is, the much greater potential for such ingress to occur, and not be caught. Thus the greater potential for such terrorist activity (such as another 911) or even possible WMD use. Thus the greater possibility in the death of innocent men, women & children
My concerns with Health Care per ANY border have already been copiously referenced. Our services are finite. Our Health Care system is already extremely overburdened, overworked, and over bureaucracized. The more open the border, especially to low income individuals from ANYWHERE, places even greater strain on those very Health Care centers, Urgent Care Centers, Trauma Centers, and ER's already stretched to their limits.
First, you can admit that the 9/11 terrorists were here legally, correct? In fact, they really did nothing exceptionally illegal until they hijacked those planes, correct?
Also, there has never been WMD smuggled over the border, correct?
Did the 9/11 commission ask for any more border security with Mexico?
If these individuals, who are working, were given health insurance as a benefit to their work - would that ease the burden on the health care system?
Again, can you answer the question without conditionals first? As it is they must go to the ER.