Imigration

[Thorne]

Can't speak for Americans and Mexicans, but over here, it is frequently pointed out to the anti-immigration lobby that for all the "burden" they place on us, we still benefit economically (not to mention socially and culturally) from immigration.

While there will always be a subset of people who are against anyone different, the main problem as Americans see it is illegal immigrants, those entering without passports or visas, who create phony ID's (or steal other people's ID's) in order to get jobs, who benefit from social services designed to help legal immigrants and citizens and who don't pay taxes. Personally, I regard these kinds of immigrants, whether they be black, white, Hispanic, Canadian, British, French or any other group, as criminals who should be arrested and deported.

We frequently hear that, They're taking our jobs, claiming social benefits and having babies for free on the NHS!!! What this really means is that immigrants are doing work we are too "good" for, are sometimes given enough money for food, clothes and sanitary towels, and have been royally screwed by the people already living here before they try to send them back home.

So by keeping the illegals out we are actually protecting them from the unscrupulous parasites who prey upon them! Another reason to obey the laws!

I don't know whether it's true of other cultures, but Anglo-Saxons seem to have such a self-regard that they see it as noble to keep themselves pure and separate from other peoples regardless of how it muddles their thinking and distorts their behaviour.

From my admittedly limited experience, every race and/or culture generates their fair share of bigots. It's a universal condition which can only slowly be overcome by education.

Surely it can't possibly be the same in that huge melting-pot of humanity called the USA

Absolutely NOT! As long as you're a white Christian, anyway.

(Do I detect a hint of the kettle calling the melting pot black? )

[MMI]

While there will always be a subset of people who are against anyone different, the main problem as Americans see it is illegal immigrants, those entering without passports or visas, who create phony ID's (or steal other people's ID's) in order to get jobs, who benefit from social services designed to help legal immigrants and citizens and who don't pay taxes. Personally, I regard these kinds of immigrants, whether they be black, white, Hispanic, Canadian, British, French or any other group, as criminals who should be arrested and deported.

I was including "illegals" as net providers of benefits ... some are undoubtedly criminals - traffikers, thieves, killers, rapists and so on, others are poor, desperate people looking for a safer, better life. And I suspect that, even among the "illegals" they are the greater part.

So by keeping the illegals out we are actually protecting them from the unscrupulous parasites who prey upon them! Another reason to obey the laws!

That is EXACTLY the kind of thinking I deplore

(Do I detect a hint of the kettle calling the melting pot black? )

Very astute ... or perhaps, "Hey, you look just like me."

[Thorne]

I was including "illegals" as net providers of benefits ... some are undoubtedly criminals

Since they are breaking the law simply by crossing the borders, they are all criminals. Admittedly, they are not all violent criminals, but they are criminals just the same. The person who steals your car when you are away from it is no less a criminal than the person who carjacks you at gunpoint. And while I can sympathize with the person who will steal food to feed his family, his acts lose some of their nobility when you see someone else's children starving because their bread was stolen.

That is EXACTLY the kind of thinking I deplore

Obviously my facetious font did not translate into the Queen's English.

[denuseri]

Surely it can't possibly be the same in that huge melting-pot of humanity called the USA

Well...truth be told...the fruit doesnt fall all that far from the tree ya know.

lol...welcome back MMI I missed you so very much luv!

[denuseri]

Here is something a friend sent me the other day about it:





I'm Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070 which
I voted for and was just signed by Governor Jan Brewer.
Rancher Rob Krantz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month
ago. I participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the border
violence, here is just some of the highlights from those who testified.

The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border
have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the
daily invasion of humans who cross their property . One Rancher
testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch
vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting
down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found
17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles.

Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch
in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front,
1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the
drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are
violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the
only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug trains.

One man told of two illegal's who came upon his property one shot in the
back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to
carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during
the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they
can't leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.

The border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away
with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not
allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run around
chasing them, if they get their hands on them then they can take them
back across the border.

Federal prisons have over 35% illegal's and 20% of Arizona prisons are
filled with illegal's. In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement
that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.

The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried
about. The ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people
coming they are not just those who are looking for work and a better life.

The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the
border states . We have been over run and once they are here we have the
burden of funding state services that they use. Education cost have been
over a billion dollars. The healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our
State is broke, $3.5 billion deficit and we have many serious decisions
to make. One is that we do not have the money to care for any who are
not here legally. It has to stop.
The border can be secured. We have the technology we have the ability to
stop this invasion. We must know who is coming and they must come in an
organized manner legally so that we can assimilate them into our
population and protect the sovereignty of our country. We are a nation
of laws. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect
the integrity of our country and the government which we live under.

I would give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not
do this until the Border is secure. It will do no good to forgive them
because thousands will come behind them and we will be over run to the
point that there will no longer be the United States of America but a
North American Union of open borders. I ask you what form of government
will we live under? How long will it be before we will be just like
Mexico , Canada or any of the other Central American or South American
countries? We have already lost our language, everything must be printed
in Spanish also. We have already lost our history it is no longer taught
in our schools. And we have lost our borders.

The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do. It is not going to
set up a Nazi Germany . Are you kidding. The ACLU and the leftist courts
will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was
an effort to try and stop illegal's from setting up businesses, and
employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to local
law enforcement when there is probable cause like a traffic stop to
determine if they are here legally. Federal law is very clear if you are
here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is
the law. In Arizona all you need to show you are a legal citizen is a
driver license, MVD identification card, Native American Card, or a
Military ID. This is what you need to vote, get a hunting license, etc..
So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is going to be stopped
walking down the street etc... The Socialist who are in power in DC are
angry because we dare try and do something and that something the
Socialist wants us to do is just let them come. They want the
"Transformation" to continue.

Maybe it is too late to save America . Maybe we are not worthy of
freedom anymore. But as an elected official I must try to do what I can
to protect our Constitutional Republic . Living in America is not a
right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is
a responsibility and it comes by respecting and upholding the
Constitution the law of our land which says what you must do to be a
citizen of this country. Freedom is not free.

[Lion]

Send all illegal aliens (above 18) to prison for a month. Then send them back to whatever country they came from.

It's harsh, but you have to figure out ways to protect your own country from people who do not respect the system to apply legally. As an immigrant to Canada, I hate hearing about stories of people cheating the system and living here. I feel for those who want to live a better life, but I think a country's first responsibility is it's citizens.

That being said, the people who did come to US legally will be affected by this law, and for this reason, I don't suport it. I do hope that this will shine a light on the whole matter and something is done about it. I get the frustration that residents of Arizona and other Southern states have when they hear about budget deficits and then see a bunch of people who run as soon as they hear/see the cops.

[DuncanONeil]

"I think its more about how the Police can stop someone and ask for said immigration card."
Not quite! It is about taking action to do what the Feds seem to be incapable, or unwilling to of accomplishing.

I think its more about how the Police can stop someone and ask for said immigration card.
We had something like this in Wisconsin several yrs ago, Afro Americans were complaining about being racially profiled by the police, Turned out that they were being pulled over for legal reasons, the case was dismissed.

I think Arizonia should be allowed to enforce this law for a Year and see what the results are. Something does have to be done, our border is a joke, and population density can get nasty.

[DuncanONeil]

The number was set either by Congress or the INS. Who knows why they decide the things they do??

Here is part of the detail; "proposed by United States Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by United States Senator Philip Hart of Michigan ..., and heavily supported by United States Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts - all Democrats.[1]

An annual limitation of 300,000 visas was established for immigrants, including 170,000 from Eastern Hemisphere countries, with no more than 20,000 per country. By 1968, the annual limitation from the Western Hemisphere was set at 120,000 immigrants, with visas available on a first-come, first-served basis. However, the number of family reunification visas was unlimited. While as of 2010 there are no quotas for immigrant spouses of US citizens, quotas for other types of relatives of US citizens have since been instituted."

Duncan, you are quite educated and informed and I feel honored to be bested by you in debate, Sir.



It seems so simple, yet I'm sure it isn't. I am completely ignorant of who sets these quotas and how they are determined, and why the number 300,000 is chosen, for example.

[DuncanONeil]

Apparently you have taken the position of Holder & Napalitono. You have no need to actually read the law.

AZ SB1070 Sec 11 C. "This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens."

So it is clear that the state is implementing Federal law in the enactment of this law. Some 70% of which is directed at employers.

Yes they have, they just passed their own "Imigration Law" that among otherthings alllows THEIR Law Enforment to question ANYONE who ppears suspecious or Illegal, that is what the clamore is all about, and based on what you posted regarding FEderal Law, that is why thier State Law wil be Rules Uncontitutionmal, they as a State can not set their own Immigarion Laws, which is precisley what they just did, their New State Law Violates this Article 8

[DuncanONeil]

Yes they have, they just passed their own "Imigration Law" that among otherthings alllows THEIR Law Enforment to question ANYONE who ppears suspecious or Illegal, that is what the clamore is all about, and based on what you posted regarding FEderal Law, that is why thier State Law wil be Rules Uncontitutionmal, they as a State can not set their own Immigarion Laws, which is precisley what they just did, their New State Law Violates this Article 8

Now I have proof positive you have not read the law as the aforementioned "Article 8" is in fact a quote from AZ SB 1070!

"this" Article 8 is the Arizona statutes covering the "Enforcement of Immigration Laws," so to state that their new state law violates it when it is in fact adding this article to Title 11, Chapter 7 of the Arizona Revised Statutes makes your statement completely meaningless in that you are saying a law is violating itself.

Aside from the fact that you claim Arizona law will be ruled unconstitutional by violating itself, which is technically, if not logically, impossible. The further text quoted from that article under section B stated that the Federal government is the one doing the verification of the person's immigration status, and all references to immigration status and terms, specifically refer to various sections under 8 United States Code to determine their meaning and what is being enforced. So they cannot be violating Federal laws based on the fact that they are referring to those laws for what it is they are to be enforcing.

If you insist that this new immigration law allows their law enforcement agents to question anyone who appears suspicious or illegal, I challenge you to find where in SB1070 it even makes use of the word "question" and define what these "other things" among which their law enforcement officers are allowed to do.

[DuncanONeil]

Some people here seem to have the same problem as Holder, Napalitano, and the President.
So I will save you some effort. All you have to do is read this, easier than health care, I promise!
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Interesting questions. It seems like there should be a level headed evaluation of the law before jumping to conclusions about what it represents.

The law has been condemned by the current federal administration so they must have a good idea about the content of the law, Right? Not according to this article:

Holder is criticized for comments on Ariz. immigration law, which he hasn't read - By Jerry Markon

FTA:
... and these are the people we rely on to run our country.

[DuncanONeil]

I was including "illegals" as net providers of benefits ... some are undoubtedly criminals - traffikers, thieves, killers, rapists and so on, others are poor, desperate people looking for a safer, better life. And I suspect that, even among the "illegals" they are the greater part.

Some are criminals?? What part of the term illegals eludes you? That in and of itself makes you criminal!

That is EXACTLY the kind of thinking I deplore

You mean the kind of think that protects others from parasites. Like the coyotes that charge exorbitant fees to move them across the border, maybe, and treat them as less than human. After all, what are coyotes? Aren't they SCAVENGERS?

[DuncanONeil]

"the people who did come to US legally will be affected by this law" Please explain how this is so??

Send all illegal aliens (above 18) to prison for a month. Then send them back to whatever country they came from.

It's harsh, but you have to figure out ways to protect your own country from people who do not respect the system to apply legally. As an immigrant to Canada, I hate hearing about stories of people cheating the system and living here. I feel for those who want to live a better life, but I think a country's first responsibility is it's citizens.

That being said, the people who did come to US legally will be affected by this law, and for this reason, I don't suport it. I do hope that this will shine a light on the whole matter and something is done about it. I get the frustration that residents of Arizona and other Southern states have when they hear about budget deficits and then see a bunch of people who run as soon as they hear/see the cops.

[MMI]

I can make a difference between vile thugs who extort, abuse, steal, rape or murder and impoverished individuals who are god-fearing, moral and for the most part, law-abiding. I would send the former back to the pits they crawled out of, but I would welcome the latter with open arms. They have, after all, done nothing more than intrude upon land that does not belong to them. And they offer more than they will take.

In England and Wales, trespass is not a crime, for very good reasons. Unfortunately for these people, trespassing beyond a national border is.

So you can pull me up for making a false distiction between "illegal" and "criminal" but, in fact, there is one.

As for imprisoning the illegal aliens, we bang them up for months, not just one, and we keep their kids in gaol too. And we're not above separating mother from child, even to the exgtent of deporting one, but not the other. It doesn't work, so forget it.

[leo9]

Can't speak for Americans and Mexicans, but over here, it is frequently pointed out to the anti-immigration lobby that for all the "burden" they place on us, we still benefit economically (not to mention socially and culturally) from immigration.

We frequently hear that, They're taking our jobs, claiming social benefits and having babies for free on the NHS!!! What this really means is that immigrants are doing work we are too "good" for, are sometimes given enough money for food, clothes and sanitary towels, and have been royally screwed by the people already living here before they try to send them back home.

And that's besides the highly trained (at some poorer country's expense) doctors and other experts who keep the NHS going so we don't have to spend money training them.

And, of course, plenty of what such ranters think of as "immigrants" are actually third generation citizens. Eric Pickles was a hard-right Conservative, but when his party started to talk about "sending the Asians back where they came from" he brought them down to earth by pointing out that in his constituency, you could send most of them back where they came from with a bus ticket.

[Thorne]

I can make a difference between vile thugs who extort, abuse, steal, rape or murder and impoverished individuals who are god-fearing, moral and for the most part, law-abiding. I would send the former back to the pits they crawled out of, but I would welcome the latter with open arms.

And of course you can tell just by looking at them, right? Something in their eyes, perhaps?

They have, after all, done nothing more than intrude upon land that does not belong to them. And they offer more than they will take.

They have illegally crossed an international border. That's against the law anywhere in the world. And they take more than they can repay. Many, perhaps most, send funds out of the country for their families, an admirable thing perhaps, but still an additional drain on the economy. They don't pay taxes, yet they consume resources intended for citizens.

In England and Wales, trespass is not a crime, for very good reasons. Unfortunately for these people, trespassing beyond a national border is.

It's a crime everywhere! Try crossing into Russia, or Iran, or China without a visa or passport. See what it will get you.

So you can pull me up for making a false distiction between "illegal" and "criminal" but, in fact, there is one.

Sorry, but there really isn't. There may be varying degrees of criminal behavior, but it's criminal nonetheless.

As for imprisoning the illegal aliens, we bang them up for months, not just one, and we keep their kids in gaol too. And we're not above separating mother from child, even to the exgtent of deporting one, but not the other. It doesn't work, so forget it.

I see no reason for doing something like that. You just spend more money keeping them in prison, feeding them and their families, providing them medical care. Just send the whole family packing.

I just don't understand why people don't see the problem. Would you be okay with your neighbors just walking into your home and helping themselves to your food and property, sleeping in your beds, taking your money and sending it to their relatives next door? That's what this is about, isn't it? Regardless of their reasons, regardless of their problems, they are stealing from the citizens of this, and your, country. Why should we not do all in our power to stop them?

[Jennifer Williams]

I just don't understand why people don't see the problem. Would you be okay with your neighbors just walking into your home and helping themselves to your food and property, sleeping in your beds, taking your money and sending it to their relatives next door? That's what this is about, isn't it? Regardless of their reasons, regardless of their problems, they are stealing from the citizens of this, and your, country. Why should we not do all in our power to stop them?

What if they had first been knocking for quite a few years begging for a bite to eat and a drink of water and your response was to pull the shade down in their face? Do you think that makes them less hungry or less desperate?

Do you know how long it can take to wait for a proper visa? What if you were about to die while waiting? What if your children were about to die while waiting, and you knew there was food enough in that house for all, the people inside and also yourselves?

I can tell you they wouldn't be trespassing inside your house if you welcomed them in, what a funny idea. And no, they aren't "stealing" the bread, most of them work their asses off for it. And though you would be correct to say that it is wrong for them not to pay their taxes, they still worked for the money they earned so it's not "stealing".

And though yes, there are people starving here in America, that is a distribution problem; we have enough to go around, we have plenty enough to feed ourselves and plenty extra besides, so don't try to claim that what "illegals" are taking means that an American won't have enough. Yes they will; we are the richest country in the world, and our unwillingness to share doesn't make it right.

[Thorne]

What if they had first been knocking for quite a few years begging for a bite to eat and a drink of water and your response was to pull the shade down in their face? Do you think that makes them less hungry or less desperate?

Does that make what they are doing any more legal? I don't see their leaders starving. Why don't they get it from them? Or replace them.

I can tell you they wouldn't be trespassing inside your house if you welcomed them in, what a funny idea.

We do welcome some 300,000+ every year. My own great-grandparents were immigrants, who came here legally and worked their butts off to make a better life for their children.

And no, they aren't "stealing" the bread, most of them work their asses off for it. And though you would be correct to say that it is wrong for them not to pay their taxes, they still worked for the money they earned so it's not "stealing".

And though yes, there are people starving here in America, that is a distribution problem; we have enough to go around, we have plenty enough to feed ourselves and plenty extra besides, so don't try to claim that what "illegals" are taking means that an American won't have enough. Yes they will; we are the richest country in the world, and our unwillingness to share doesn't make it right.

What they are "stealing" are the medical and social services which my taxes are helping to pay for. My medical bills go up to cover the costs of treating indigents and illegals. My health insurance costs go up for the same reason. My taxes go up as well. And everything that once made this country great is declining, crumbling, turning to crap, because we are spending so much money on people who don't do their share.

You want to let illegals into the country? Fine. But don't force me to pay for their health care. Don't force me to pay for their children's educations. Don't force me to provide them with free meals. Don't force me to place notices in every language because they aren't interested in learning mine. And if it makes you happy to have illegals swarming across the border, I suggest that YOU go down and live along that border. You can welcome them with open arms. Just make sure you wear your flak jacket.

[Jennifer Williams]

Does that make what they are doing any more legal? I don't see their leaders starving. Why don't they get it from them? Or replace them.

I guess for me "legality" isn't as important as "humanity". Labeling a person a "criminal" doesn't take away the fact that they are still human, and still deserve human rights. Why, once they step across that line, does it irk you so to help them if they need it? Are they not people like the rest of us?

Take a look at your taxes. Do you know where they go, what they pay for? If we "eliminated" every last illegal person, do you think they would go down? By how much? Enough to make our indifference towards the suffering of others worth it?

Not for me.

To me, all people are worth the same. If I saw a person, say, who was hit by a car dying in the road, I would call an ambulance for them. I wouldn't care if they had the right papers.

So to me, when they take those taxes out of my paycheck, it's the same exact thing: I'm helping somebody, somewhere, who needs it more than I do. Could be an elderly American in a nursing home. Could be a hard-working construction worker who's on unemployment; it could be an illegal immigrant who's life could be saved by a bottle of antibiotics.

It doesn't matter who it is because they're all human and they all deserve it. I'm sorry but the "I don't like paying taxes" argument doesn't justify phrases like "send them back" "kick them out". They are us; and one is not more important than the other; neither does one deserve better than the other.

And everything that once made this country great is declining, crumbling, turning to crap,

I would have to disagree; I think this country is great, and is constantly improving all the time.

[Thorne]

I guess for me "legality" isn't as important as "humanity". Labeling a person a "criminal" doesn't take away the fact that they are still human, and still deserve human rights.

I never said they didn't deserve human rights. Only that they don't deserve the rights of a citizen, until they become one. A citizen who breaks the law will go to jail, regardless of his motives. Why should a non-citizen be treated differently?

Why, once they step across that line, does it irk you so to help them if they need it? Are they not people like the rest of us?

No, they are not! They are illegal aliens, not citizens of the United States! I don't care what color they are. I don't care what their religion is. I don't care which country they come from. They are breaking the law! That's all I care about!

Take a look at your taxes. Do you know where they go, what they pay for? If we "eliminated" every last illegal person, do you think they would go down? By how much? Enough to make our indifference towards the suffering of others worth it?

I know that every dollar we spend easing the suffering of non-citizens is one dollar we cannot spend easing the suffering of our own citizens.

To me, all people are worth the same. If I saw a person, say, who was hit by a car dying in the road, I would call an ambulance for them. I wouldn't care if they had the right papers.

Agreed. First you treat them. THEN you figure out how they're going to pay for it. For my part, once they are well enough, you send them back home to their own country and send that country the bill. Let them figure out how to collect.

It doesn't matter who it is because they're all human and they all deserve it.

Maybe they do deserve it. That doesn't mean that I deserve the hardship that comes with paying for it. Forced charity isn't charity. It's blackmail.

I'm sorry but the "I don't like paying taxes" argument doesn't justify phrases like "send them back" "kick them out".

I never said one word about not paying taxes. My concern is for how that tax money is used. I don't like the idea of using it to benefit criminals. Whether they are illegal aliens or politicians or big business.

They are us; and one is not more important than the other; neither does one deserve better than the other.

They are criminals! Yes, they are poor. Yes, they are sick. Yes, their country is broken. Maybe the solution is to annex Mexico and integrate it into the US. Then the problem is solved. Or maybe instead of flocking to this country they should take back their own from their corrupt politicians and leave us alone to take back ours from our corrupt politicians!

[MMI]

LOL - I've missed arguing with you, Thorne

And of course you can tell just by looking at them, right? Something in their eyes, perhaps?

Yes, I can tell. Not from the look in their eyes, but from their actions. The first group commit crimes of a heinous nature, the second group break the law out of necessity - a law which says, they're of less value than the rest of us are.

They have illegally crossed an international border.
That's against the law anywhere in the world.

Agreed ... but a bad law.

And they take more than they can repay. Many, perhaps most, send funds out of the country for their families, an admirable thing perhaps, but still an additional drain on the economy. They don't pay taxes, yet they consume resources intended for citizens.

First point is false. On balance they contribute more than they take (in UK anyway - and we're more generous than you).

I would venture to suggest that the amount of money leaving the UK to go to foreign families is far less than the money that leaves UK to supplement the coffers of the Coca-Cola Company or McDonalds or General Motors, etc. So what's your point here?

We alll know the wealthy don't pay taxes while the poor do. But that aside, the people employing these illegals are also avoiding taxes and other duties while they manufacture cheap goods in illlegal sweat shops that you and I glady pay for in preference to the pricey but legitimate goods that would be the alternative. You just close your mind to the fact that goods are made illegally.

And they only consume what they can buy from the pittance they get from their Masters (the slavery metaphor is not accidental): they can't get state support - they're illegal, they'd be declaring their presence!

It's a crime everywhere! Try crossing into Russia, or Iran, or China without a visa or passport. See what it will get you.

I concur absolutely. See comment above

Sorry, but there really isn't. There may be varying degrees of criminal behavior, but it's criminal nonetheless.

A crime is a crime, absolutely, but a tort isn't. Trespass, which is what I was comparing illegally entering a nation with, is a tort in England.

I see no reason for doing something like that. You just spend more money keeping them in prison, feeding them and their families, providing them medical care. Just send the whole family packing.

The reason is to make sure that no-one is denied a right to stay if they have one. But the way they are treated borders on inhumane.

I just don't understand why people don't see the problem. Would you be okay with your neighbors just walking into your home and helping themselves to your food and property, sleeping in your beds, taking your money and sending it to their relatives next door? That's what this is about, isn't it? Regardless of their reasons, regardless of their problems, they are stealing from the citizens of this, and your, country. Why should we not do all in our power to stop them?

I don't understand why you see it as a problem. Illegal aliens do not, as a rule, walk inot people's houses and take over - it would attract far too much attention. They don't take my money unless I give it to them to buy something they have had to make illegally, so that makes me complicit. That's not stealing. As every American can see, it's free enterprise. And as for "stealing" your country ... don't start me off on that ...

[Thorne]

LOL - I've missed arguing with you, Thorne

I've missed you, too!

Yes, I can tell. Not from the look in their eyes, but from their actions. The first group commit crimes of a heinous nature, the second group break the law out of necessity - a law which says, they're of less value than the rest of us are.

No, the law says they cannot enter the country without due process, which I consider a just law. It says nothing about their value, only about their rights. And ours.

Agreed ... but a bad law.

A matter of opinion.

First point is false. On balance they contribute more than they take (in UK anyway - and we're more generous than you).

I'd love to see you prove that. I'm not just talking about money, or food, either. I'm talking about services, medical care, all the benefits citizens gain by paying taxes, which the illegals gain without paying.

I would venture to suggest that the amount of money leaving the UK to go to foreign families is far less than the money that leaves UK to supplement the coffers of the Coca-Cola Company or McDonalds or General Motors, etc. So what's your point here?

But Coca-Cola, McDonalds and General Motors pay taxes on the money before it is sent! They pay wages to their employees, who also pay taxes.

We alll know the wealthy don't pay taxes while the poor do.

No, that's what some people want us to think. They may not pay what you consider their fair share, but they do pay taxes, or they go to prison. (cf. Bernie Madoff, or Al Capone.)

But that aside, the people employing these illegals are also avoiding taxes and other duties while they manufacture cheap goods in illlegal sweat shops that you and I glady pay for in preference to the pricey but legitimate goods that would be the alternative. You just close your mind to the fact that goods are made illegally.

No, I don't ignore that. I have stated, repeatedly, that the best way to stop the flow of illegals is to crack down on those who hire them. And I mean crack down with a vengeance! Long prison times and very steep fines. That should be the first step in any attempt to control illegals.

And they only consume what they can buy from the pittance they get from their Masters (the slavery metaphor is not accidental): they can't get state support - they're illegal, they'd be declaring their presence!

I'm not talking about food or goods, here. I'm talking about services. At least in the US the illegals routinely receive medical and social services which are supposed to benefit legal residents. As I stated earlier, every dollar spent to benefit an illegal alien is a dollar unavailable to help a citizen.

A crime is a crime, absolutely, but a tort isn't. Trespass, which is what I was comparing illegally entering a nation with, is a tort in England.

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that crossing an international border without proper authorization can be equated with simple trespass.

But the way they are treated borders on inhumane.

I agree, there is no justification for that. They should be treated humanely, but that does not mean that their crimes should be ignored.

I don't understand why you see it as a problem. Illegal aliens do not, as a rule, walk inot people's houses and take over - it would attract far too much attention. They don't take my money unless I give it to them to buy something they have had to make illegally, so that makes me complicit. That's not stealing. As every American can see, it's free enterprise.

I would suggest that you also go and live along the US/Mexican border and see just what the illegals are doing. It's my understanding that people there are afraid to go out at night for fear of being attacked by mobs of illegals, and they cannot leave their homes unattended because they will be ransacked and/or burned if they do.

You may also want to take a look at this.

And as for "stealing" your country ... don't start me off on that ...

I said nothing about stealing my country. I said they were stealing from the citizens of our countries.

[MMI]

No, the law says they cannot enter the country without due process, which I consider a just law. It says nothing about their value, only about their rights. And ours.

A matter of opinion .. oh, you're just about to say that!

A matter of opinion.

yup ... I prefer mine

I'd love to see you prove that. I'm not just talking about money, or food, either. I'm talking about services, medical care, all the benefits citizens gain by paying taxes, which the illegals gain without paying.

I can't - I'm repeating what I have been informed by people who do know. The Independent, for example, tells us that if the illegals were able to pay taxes (and they would if they were allowed to work legally) we would be £1bn better off http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...uk-472164.html. That's a significant sum, even if it's an American billion.

Furthermore, if we deported them, it would cost us £4.7 bn while leaving them where they are gets the nasty, filthy jobs done cheap and still provides a £6bn boost to the economy (I suppose that includes the £1bn quoted above). A net profit of £1.3bn.

As for the benefits paid for by tax payers, they are not obtainable without proof of elegibility ... at least not here. So illegals can't claim them and the suggestion that they are stealing such benefits from honest tax-payers is just a low lie.

If we choose to give them help, that's an entirely different matter.

But Coca-Cola, McDonalds and General Motors pay taxes on the money before it is sent! They pay wages to their employees, who also pay taxes.

True, but my point is, the amount of money sent home by the illegals - who are barely paid enough to keep their own body and soul together - is a tiny amount by comparison. It simply doesn't matter.

No, that's what some people want us to think. They may not pay what you consider their fair share, but they do pay taxes, or they go to prison. (cf. Bernie Madoff, or Al Capone.)

Madoff didn't go to gaol for tax evasion. And wasn't it he who said his secretary paid more tax than he did?

You're right about the wealthy not paying their fair share, and the country can only tolerate it because the poor pay more.

No, I don't ignore that. I have stated, repeatedly, that the best way to stop the flow of illegals is to crack down on those who hire them. And I mean crack down with a vengeance! Long prison times and very steep fines. That should be the first step in any attempt to control illegals.

If you're determined to deprive your nation of the benefits it could gain, I agree that this would be the way to start. But if you let them work legally, the slave drivers would not be able to exploit them.

I'm not talking about food or goods, here. I'm talking about services. At least in the US the illegals routinely receive medical and social services which are supposed to benefit legal residents. As I stated earlier, every dollar spent to benefit an illegal alien is a dollar unavailable to help a citizen.

They are cured of their ills and given vast amounts of dole before being allowed to melt back into obscurity to continue sucking off the state and conducting their nefarious practices, are they? It must suck to be an honest tax-payer over there.

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that crossing an international border without proper authorization can be equated with simple trespass.

LAW.COM (an American site) defines illegal alien as "an alien (non-citizen) who has entered the United States without government permission or stayed beyond the termination date of a visa".

It defines trespass as "entering another person's property without permission of the owner or his/her agent and without lawf ul authority ..." Can you see the similarity?

"... and causing any damage, no matter how slight." Most illegals don't cause any damage to America, in fact, as argued above, they provide a benefit.

It goes on, "[Trespass] is a civil wrong (tort) ..." Just like English law - not a crime.

I agree, there is no justification for that. They should be treated humanely, but that does not mean that their crimes should be ignored.

What crimes? Those inmates might have a legal right to stay ... they just look like people we don't want in this country.

If it is decided they have no right to stay, they will go.

I would suggest that you also go and live along the US/Mexican border and see just what the illegals are doing. It's my understanding that people there are afraid to go out at night for fear of being attacked by mobs of illegals, and they cannot leave their homes unattended because they will be ransacked and/or burned if they do.

You may also want to take a look at this.

We have rubbish dumps and illegal tippers too.

I happen to live in Leicester, which is destined to become the first city in the UK where the white population will be a minority by 2012. I am quite relaxed about this, and I can assure you that the streets of Leicester are safer than those of Manchester, Birmingham, Nottingham or Glasgow (to name 4 cities at random)

[Jennifer Williams]

As I stated earlier, every dollar spent to benefit an illegal alien is a dollar unavailable to help a citizen.

The above statement is to me re-phrased:

As I stated earlier, every dollar spent to benefit a [human being] is a dollar unavailable to help [another human being].

I know it's a pity there aren't enough dollars to go around to help everyone who needs it, but why should we make distinctions that say one deserves it more than the other?

Based on who pays taxes? Because I've worked my share of off-the-books jobs in my lifetime, so count me out, then.

Based on where I was born? I didn't choose where I was born; neither did you. Neither did anyone; so it's not justification to say who deserves more than who.

My own great-grandparents were immigrants, who came here legally and worked their butts off to make a better life for their children.

How lucky and blessed your great-grandparents were, that their visas came in time. Does that make you better than their neighbors, whos visas did not come?

Did you family have a plan B in case the visas did not come?

Yes, they are poor. Yes, they are sick. Yes, their country is broken.

Not sure where you live, but on the front door of my country we hung up a sign that says:

"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-tost to me,/I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" (by Emma Lazarus, part of the poem engraved inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty).

Her poem does not add at the end "If you have the right documents."

Maybe the solution is to annex Mexico and integrate it into the US. Then the problem is solved.

How is that? Only something like 60% of illegal immigrants are from Mexico, so annexing Mexico doesn't solve the problem. Unless of course, you're only trying to keep out Mexican illegal immigrants, and illegal immigrants from Cuba or Europe or Asia are alright.

[Jennifer Williams]

Profiling? We are all profiled in one way or another. There is plenty about life that isn't fair. What isn't fair is that i am paying for babies to be born in hospitals so that the mothers can stay here (anchor babies). i am paying to feed and clothe and house some of these people who didn't give enough of a crap to go through the steps it takes to be here legally. They aren't paying anything. THAT is damn sure not fair!

You know there is another term for those "anchor babies" (babies born in the United States)- it' s called American.

Whether or not you like their parents, those babies are as American as you or I, so yes, you are paying for Americans to be born in American hospitals. So sorry about that. And that baby deserves all the same care that any other American baby deserves; regardless of the reasons behind why they were born, or who their parents are.

Then after they're born and they go to school they're still American, even if they don't speak English. That is what they are. American. Even if their parents are "illegals", any child born here belongs here. So yes, we'll feed and clothe them if their parents won't. We shouldn't have to; their parents should be able to support them, but if we kick their parents out and make them orphans...well, then we have to feed and clothe them. Because they are our own.

And if you're born in America and therefore are American, you deserve to go to school, just like any other American born in America, regardless of your parentage.

Perhaps it would do us better to make it so that people could find a better way to stay here than to create a life they can't support.

[leo9]

I guess for me "legality" isn't as important as "humanity". Labeling a person a "criminal" doesn't take away the fact that they are still human, and still deserve human rights. Why, once they step across that line, does it irk you so to help them if they need it? Are they not people like the rest of us?

And now we come down to one of the fundamental lines that divide people's basic philosophies of life.

If you answer "yes" - yes, all people deserve the same basic rights regardless of who they are or what they may have done - you are on one side of the line. (Hi!) If you answer "no" - no, some people don't deserve the basic rights I consider an absolute right for me and mine, because they're the wrong sort of people - you're on the other. It doesn't matter whether you define their wrongness as being black, gay, Muslim, terrorist-suspect, illegal-immigrant or whatever. It's the belief that human rights only apply to the right sort of humans that determines where you are going to stand on every important issue.

Believing that human rights are absolute doesn't make you a liberal pushover, though you will of course be accused of it. You can be as aggressive as anyone in defending your own rights: you just recognise the challenges in doing so without violating others'.

Classing your enemies as unpeople makes everything simpler, which is one reason it's so popular. But we all know where it leads in the end.

[Thorne]

And now we come down to one of the fundamental lines that divide people's basic philosophies of life.

Believing that human rights are absolute doesn't make you a liberal pushover, though you will of course be accused of it. You can be as aggressive as anyone in defending your own rights: you just recognise the challenges in doing so without violating others'.

Classing your enemies as unpeople makes everything simpler, which is one reason it's so popular. But we all know where it leads in the end.

I suppose most of those who would place themselves in the 'Yes' group would classify me as being in the 'No' group, but it isn't that simple at all. I'm not advocating denying anyone their basic human rights. But my interpretation of those rights may be quite different from yours. I don't claim that my human rights are any better than someone else's human rights, either.

However, as a US citizen I have certain rights guaranteed to me under the Constitution which are not necessarily guaranteed to non-citizens. And those rights come with certain responsibilities. Allowing those same rights to non-citizens without insisting on them accepting the responsibilities that come with them cheapens those rights.

Most rational people, I think, would agree that criminals, defined as those who break the law, lose some of those rights by doing so. As a citizen, I have the right to apply for a driver's license, and once receiving one I have the right to drive my vehicle on public roads. If I commit a crime, such as driving to fast or driving while intoxicated, I could have that right revoked. I could have my freedom restricted, at least temporarily. And no one would complain about my being profiled or mistreated because of who I am. After all, I've committed a crime!

So why is it that when someone crosses the border illegally they are considered, by some, to have more rights than I have? How can anyone claim I am profiling if I send someone back for breaking the law? Aren't they subject to the same restrictions and laws as everyone else? Their color, language or homeland are not the issue! Their human rights are not the issue! The issue is that they are breaking the law! Therefore they are subject to the penalties for breaking that law, which can involve incarceration and deportation. That's not profiling.

If an illegal alien were to drive a car without a valid license, and he were to kill an innocent pedestrian, would you consider it wrong for the police to arrest him? Would they be wrong to hold him in jail? Would it be profiling to try him in a court of law for his crime? And if convicted, would we be violating his rights by sending him to prison? I think few would answer 'Yes' to any of these questions. Yet some of you seem to believe it's a violation of his rights to ask for his ID after he's struck and killed that person.

Believe me, nothing would please me more than for the entire world to be united under one flag, one government, one economy, so we could all travel anywhere we wished without worrying about borders. All people would be equal, there would be no hoarding of resources, and peace would reign over the Earth. I think it would be wonderful if we could all live together without laws to restrict our freedoms. But right here, right now, the world doesn't work that way. And allowing criminals to get away with their crimes just because you feel sorry for them isn't going to make the world a better place. Quite the opposite, I'm afraid.

[MMI]

Who is Jennifer Williams? I think I've fallen in love with her.

[MMI]

Well said and eloquently expressed, Thorne.

I don't buy a word of it.

Illegal imigrants do not have the same rights that you have. They can't do a legitimate job, they can't get a driver's licence, they can't get an education, they can't get medical aid or food stamps, because, if they apply for them, they get noticed, rounded up, processed through a gaol and deported to their homeland ... where they might starve, or be tortured or killed by their government.

Everything they do, they do illegally. If American air is for the esclusive use of US taxpayers and their dependants, then these immigrants would break the law by breathing. But they have to breathe - they have no choice.

Many of them have little or no choice when they leave their country, so why should it matter to them that they step beyond some badly policed fences marking the US border? What harm do they do? You brand them as "criminals": men, women, children alike just because their presence offends you. How many were criminals in their home nations.

The US constitution might consider aliens to be unworthy, but it wsas itself drafted by people committing a much more serious criminal act ... and you idolise them.

[Thorne]

Well said and eloquently expressed, Thorne.

I don't buy a word of it.

You don't have to, my friend. I dispense it for free. If you are paying for it then someone is ripping you off.

Illegal imigrants do not have the same rights that you have. They can't do a legitimate job, they can't get a driver's licence, they can't get an education, they can't get medical aid or food stamps, because, if they apply for them, they get noticed, rounded up, processed through a gaol and deported to their homeland ...

Not in the US. While they may not be able to get a driver's license, their children can be sent to schools, and they are eligible for both free breakfasts and lunches. They get medical aid simply by showing up in a clinic or emergency room. I don't know about food stamps, off hand, but there are other social services that they can apply for without having their names turned over to the INS. Unless I have been badly misinformed, there are some places where it is illegal to turn them over to the Feds unless they actually violate a law. (Other than being illegal in the first place, that is.)

Many of them have little or no choice when they leave their country, so why should it matter to them that they step beyond some badly policed fences marking the US border? What harm do they do? You brand them as "criminals": men, women, children alike just because their presence offends you. How many were criminals in their home nations.

Yes, some are branded as criminals in their home countries, and there are laws here to protect such refugees. Cubans, in particular, are generally protected from deportation, provided they can safely reach the US. Other nationalities can also apply for refugee status, which is different than immigration. If there is a recognized threat of persecution for those being sent back, they will not be.

The US constitution might consider aliens to be unworthy, but it wsas itself drafted by people committing a much more serious criminal act ... and you idolise them.

Still trying to get the colonies back, are you? Just remember, while the rebellion was a criminal act in England, the cause was just. Obviously. Because they won. Twice.

You know what they say: Those fighting for me are freedom fighters, those fighting against me are terrorists.