StrikeS2ks views on illegal immigration (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Frankly yes. I believe that the majority of the American public, including yourself, is unreasonable about this issue.

So we should leave our borders wide open and at the same time give amnesty to the 15 million already here? You think that's reasonable?

That's not what I wrote. In fact, it's the opposite of what I wrote. I did not call for open borders, nor did I call for amnesty. Please read it again.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Frankly yes. I believe that the majority of the American public, including yourself, is unreasonable about this issue.

So we should leave our borders wide open and at the same time give amnesty to the 15 million already here? You think that's reasonable?

That's not what I wrote. In fact, it's the opposite of what I wrote. I did not call for open borders, nor did I call for amnesty. Please read it again.

You said the only practical way to gain control is to simply give all the illegals documents. That's what we call amnesty. And since you didn't say one word about doing anything about the border one can only assume that you're ok with it being wide open as it is now.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Oh and, tim, regarding this tidbit:

Finally, I'm not in favor of amnesty. I believe that every illegal immigrant should be sentenced to a misdemeanor and then be fined $5,000.00 for breaking our laws by entering the country. I think this is a reasonable punishment, and they are not excused for their crime. Once they pay the fine, they can be issued a green card. Further, I believe that we should have tight control over our borders, but that at the same time our immigration should be increased to include anyone who is healthy, not suspected of being a terrorist, and not a violent criminal. Just as it was before 1928.

Let's get control of the borders first. Then we can talk about all the rest. As I said before.

 

[timschochet]

Frankly yes. I believe that the majority of the American public, including yourself, is unreasonable about this issue.

So we should leave our borders wide open and at the same time give amnesty to the 15 million already here? You think that's reasonable?

That's not what I wrote. In fact, it's the opposite of what I wrote. I did not call for open borders, nor did I call for amnesty. Please read it again.

You said the only practical way to gain control is to simply give all the illegals documents. That's what we call amnesty. And since you didn't say one word about doing anything about the border one can only assume that you're ok with it being wide open as it is now.

1. They should be given documents AFTER they pay a fine for their crime. That is not amnesty. I believe in the rule of law. Illegal immigrants broke the law coming here and they should have to pay a price for doing so.2. I want to tighten the borders and at the same time expand our immigration policy to include anyone who wants to come who is not a criminal, terrorist, or health risk. But I don't want people crossing the border illegally. That is dangerous for us and for them. Tight borders, open immigration (with the exceptions I listed.)

 

[StrikeS2k]

1. They should be given documents AFTER they pay a fine for their crime. That is not amnesty. I believe in the rule of law. Illegal immigrants broke the law coming here and they should have to pay a price for doing so.2. I want to tighten the borders and at the same time expand our immigration policy to include anyone who wants to come who is not a criminal, terrorist, or health risk. But I don't want people crossing the border illegally. That is dangerous for us and for them. Tight borders, open immigration (with the exceptions I listed.)

1) What about those that choose not to pay the fine?2) Yeah, let's tighten the borders first, umkay? Then we can talk about other changes to immigration policy.

 

[Kubes]

I think these points can be combined.

 

[timschochet]

1. They should be given documents AFTER they pay a fine for their crime. That is not amnesty. I believe in the rule of law. Illegal immigrants broke the law coming here and they should have to pay a price for doing so.2. I want to tighten the borders and at the same time expand our immigration policy to include anyone who wants to come who is not a criminal, terrorist, or health risk. But I don't want people crossing the border illegally. That is dangerous for us and for them. Tight borders, open immigration (with the exceptions I listed.)

1) What about those that choose not to pay the fine?2) Yeah, let's tighten the borders first, umkay? Then we can talk about other changes to immigration policy.

1. Hopefully not many of them would refuse. But if they do, and we find them, deport them. I don't want anyone here who doesn't want to be here, or who desires to stay a criminal. Kick them out.2. Unless the other points are agreed to, tightening the border to the extent that it would truly deter illegal immigration would be a detriment to this country and therefore I am opposed. While the laws are what they are, we need illegal immigration.

 

[The Commish]

2) There are a lot of illegals in prison. People such as Tim pretend that the only law these people break is walking across the border to "make a better life for them self" but they do commit other crimes. Yes, it's not all of them but it's not an insignificant percent either.

I've already addressed the cost of incarceration in the border states, and I've conceded that it, along with education and health care, are the three major drains on the state governments. The next question, based on Strike's assertion here, is whether or not illegal immigrants, measured as a group, are more likely or less likely to commit felonies than citizens or those with documents. I would like to point out here that almost all of the "evidence" that those who complain the most about illegal immigrants give on this issue is highly anecdotal in nature: a terrible murder or multiple murders or other violent crimes is presented, and then we learn that the perpetrator of these crimes is an illegal immigrant. From this incident or incidents, we are supposed to make the assumption that illegals tend to be violent criminals; unfortunately, a lot of people do make this assumption.

Actually, the truth is almost exactly the opposite: According to Time Magazine http://www.time.com/...2007474,00.html the safest, lowest crime rates in America are almost all in border states, where the illegal immigration problem is the greatest. This includes Arizona, where Jan Brewer used the notion of illegal crime as a justification for 1070. The conclusion to this fact is rather easy to draw: most illegals, fearful of being deported and working incredibly long hours, are actually MORE law-abiding than regular citizens, not less so. Yes, there are exceptions to this, and that's all we ever hear about. But exceptions don't represent the majority.

I can't tell if this thread is shtick or not. I'm hoping it is, but my gut tells me it's not. I have a question....why are you looking at America's Illegal Immigration issue and only using the border states? That makes no sense.

The complaints about the high costs of illegal immigration generally involve the border states. However, the benefits of illegal immigration involve the entire country. I was referring to the border states in response to some of the various issues that Strike raised in connection with the costs of illegal immigration.

So to be clear. You look at the border states when looking at the negatives and the whole country for the positives. Got it. It's bizarre, but I understand. NC and SC are NOT border states and we are impacted greatly by illegals.

 

[RCon]

So then tell me why something like this isn't reasonable:

For existing illegal immigrants: legalization (not citizenship, but legalization) with the following benefits and restrictions

* Background checks for security purposes

* Live, work, travel to/from the US all legal

* Work must be according to the rules of this country/state (e.g. abide by minimum wage laws, Medicare, income taxes, etc.). Excluded from paying into SS, since they also wouldn't receive SS benefits later.

* Income tax cannot be "negative" (i.e. if credits/deductions put them below zero on income tax owed, they receive nothing from the government)

* Must abide by all laws of state such as auto insurance, health insurance mandates, etc.

* Must pay for schooling for children, perhaps an amount such as $3000/year/child (that is significantly less than the government spends per child), plus additional for special needs care

* Must pay for medical services received. Perhaps instead they are mandated to obtain comprehensive health insurance.

* Must pay additional $1500/year per person for 10 years (or perhaps $1000/year for 15 years), after which time they are eligible for citizenship, assuming all other requirements are met

* Conviction of any crime in the 10 (or 15) years leads to automatic deportation

* Illegals caught in the country not abiding by the rules above would be automatically deported, and their home country billed for our costs in capturing/deporting (by billed, I suppose the best we could do would be to subtract the amount from any aid we send that country)

This would be combined with MUCH stricter punishments on businesses that knowingly hire illegals, along the lines of $50K per employee. The only way for a business to claim that it didn't know an employee was illegal would be if the business submitted the employee's paperwork (e.g. SSN or new guest worker equivalent) to the federal government and the feds cleared the employee as a legit worker.

 

[Plorfu]

3. I agree we should have more control over this problem. People like Strike however, reject every reasonable attempt to gain control.

This is flat out untrue. ONCE we have dealt with the larger problem I'm not opposed to some type of guest worker program if it is needed. But, I will not even discuss it until we've dealt with the issue of not having control of our border and having 15 million illegals in the country. We got duped once before. You've even acknowledged on numerous occasions that this is a reasonable stance considering what happened in 1986.

From your perspective, it is a reasonable response. From my perspective it is not, because I don't find any of your solutions for "control" to be practicable. IMO, the only practical way to gain control over the problem is a giving documents to the undocumented, and you're opposed to that.

You should start a poll thread.

WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS????

 

[StrikeS2k]

3. I agree we should have more control over this problem. People like Strike however, reject every reasonable attempt to gain control.

This is flat out untrue. ONCE we have dealt with the larger problem I'm not opposed to some type of guest worker program if it is needed. But, I will not even discuss it until we've dealt with the issue of not having control of our border and having 15 million illegals in the country. We got duped once before. You've even acknowledged on numerous occasions that this is a reasonable stance considering what happened in 1986.

From your perspective, it is a reasonable response. From my perspective it is not, because I don't find any of your solutions for "control" to be practicable. IMO, the only practical way to gain control over the problem is a giving documents to the undocumented, and you're opposed to that.

You should start a poll thread.

WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS????

I wanted to see the replies if he actually did it?

 

[timschochet]

So then tell me why something like this isn't reasonable:For existing illegal immigrants: legalization (not citizenship, but legalization) with the following benefits and restrictions* Background checks for security purposes* Live, work, travel to/from the US all legal* Work must be according to the rules of this country/state (e.g. abide by minimum wage laws, Medicare, income taxes, etc.). Excluded from paying into SS, since they also wouldn't receive SS benefits later.* Income tax cannot be "negative" (i.e. if credits/deductions put them below zero on income tax owed, they receive nothing from the government)* Must abide by all laws of state such as auto insurance, health insurance mandates, etc.* Must pay for schooling for children, perhaps an amount such as $3000/year/child (that is significantly less than the government spends per child), plus additional for special needs care* Must pay for medical services received. Perhaps instead they are mandated to obtain comprehensive health insurance.* Must pay additional $1500/year per person for 10 years (or perhaps $1000/year for 15 years), after which time they are eligible for citizenship, assuming all other requirements are met* Conviction of any crime in the 10 (or 15) years leads to automatic deportation* Illegals caught in the country not abiding by the rules above would be automatically deported, and their home country billed for our costs in capturing/deporting (by billed, I suppose the best we could do would be to subtract the amount from any aid we send that country)This would be combined with MUCH stricter punishments on businesses that knowingly hire illegals, along the lines of $50K per employee. The only way for a business to claim that it didn't know an employee was illegal would be if the business submitted the employee's paperwork (e.g. SSN or new guest worker equivalent) to the federal government and the feds cleared the employee as a legit worker.

I might change a few points here and there, but yes, this is absolutely the framework for a reasonable compromise. Unfortunately, I fear you would receive opposition from each side, especially those who oppose ANY form of amnesty. But I think you're being as reasonable as you can here. I wish you were a politician.

 

[JHuber77]

For some reason I think the only reason why Tim started this thread was to get to 50,000 posts today....

Only a couple hundred left!!!

 

[glumpy]

So then tell me why something like this isn't reasonable:For existing illegal immigrants: legalization (not citizenship, but legalization) with the following benefits and restrictions* Background checks for security purposes* Live, work, travel to/from the US all legal* Work must be according to the rules of this country/state (e.g. abide by minimum wage laws, Medicare, income taxes, etc.). Excluded from paying into SS, since they also wouldn't receive SS benefits later.* Income tax cannot be "negative" (i.e. if credits/deductions put them below zero on income tax owed, they receive nothing from the government)* Must abide by all laws of state such as auto insurance, health insurance mandates, etc.* Must pay for schooling for children, perhaps an amount such as $3000/year/child (that is significantly less than the government spends per child), plus additional for special needs care* Must pay for medical services received. Perhaps instead they are mandated to obtain comprehensive health insurance.* Must pay additional $1500/year per person for 10 years (or perhaps $1000/year for 15 years), after which time they are eligible for citizenship, assuming all other requirements are met* Conviction of any crime in the 10 (or 15) years leads to automatic deportation* Illegals caught in the country not abiding by the rules above would be automatically deported, and their home country billed for our costs in capturing/deporting (by billed, I suppose the best we could do would be to subtract the amount from any aid we send that country)This would be combined with MUCH stricter punishments on businesses that knowingly hire illegals, along the lines of $50K per employee. The only way for a business to claim that it didn't know an employee was illegal would be if the business submitted the employee's paperwork (e.g. SSN or new guest worker equivalent) to the federal government and the feds cleared the employee as a legit worker.

I might change a few points here and there, but yes, this is absolutely the framework for a reasonable compromise. Unfortunately, I fear you would receive opposition from each side, especially those who oppose ANY form of amnesty. But I think you're being as reasonable as you can here. I wish you were a politician.

Problem imo is that politicians don't win votes for being reasonable--they lose votes for not being dogmatic.

 

[RCon]

So then tell me why something like this isn't reasonable:

For existing illegal immigrants: legalization (not citizenship, but legalization) with the following benefits and restrictions

* Background checks for security purposes

* Live, work, travel to/from the US all legal

* Work must be according to the rules of this country/state (e.g. abide by minimum wage laws, Medicare, income taxes, etc.). Excluded from paying into SS, since they also wouldn't receive SS benefits later.

* Income tax cannot be "negative" (i.e. if credits/deductions put them below zero on income tax owed, they receive nothing from the government)

* Must abide by all laws of state such as auto insurance, health insurance mandates, etc.

* Must pay for schooling for children, perhaps an amount such as $3000/year/child (that is significantly less than the government spends per child), plus additional for special needs care

* Must pay for medical services received. Perhaps instead they are mandated to obtain comprehensive health insurance.

* Must pay additional $1500/year per person for 10 years (or perhaps $1000/year for 15 years), after which time they are eligible for citizenship, assuming all other requirements are met

* Conviction of any crime in the 10 (or 15) years leads to automatic deportation

* Illegals caught in the country not abiding by the rules above would be automatically deported, and their home country billed for our costs in capturing/deporting (by billed, I suppose the best we could do would be to subtract the amount from any aid we send that country)

This would be combined with MUCH stricter punishments on businesses that knowingly hire illegals, along the lines of $50K per employee. The only way for a business to claim that it didn't know an employee was illegal would be if the business submitted the employee's paperwork (e.g. SSN or new guest worker equivalent) to the federal government and the feds cleared the employee as a legit worker.

I might change a few points here and there, but yes, this is absolutely the framework for a reasonable compromise. Unfortunately, I fear you would receive opposition from each side, especially those who oppose ANY form of amnesty. But I think you're being as reasonable as you can here. I wish you were a politician.

I've tried, locally. But I honestly don't much care for the local parties in my town, whose backing I would need. The ones who run the show tend to be the most extreme on each side, and reasonable debate tends to get short shrift.

 

[17seconds]

Come on now, you guys, is this all your have? Diarrhea? Intellectual jerk-off? Where's my recipes?

Yep, that's all I got.

 

[John Bender]

Back in 2009, StrikeS2k, in one of our many discussions about illegal immigration, wrote a long analysis that represented his views on the issue. I promised to respond, and failed to do so. I honestly can't remember now my reasons for not responding. But he's bugged me about it ever since. I couldn't find the post in question, but when Rich Conway asked him to produce it in another thread, Strike was kind enough to do so. That allows me to post his views here, and respond in detail. I think we can all agree that the issue of illegal immigration is as vital now as it was in 2009; it's not going away.

The next post will contain Strike's views in detail, and then I will respond.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If you admit that the analysis on the total net economic effect can't be performed accurately, how can you so confidently state that illegal immigration is a net positive?

The cost effect on the three most impacted border states is the element that can't be performed accurately. But I hold that this is overwhelmed in any case by the positive effect on the United States as a whole.

I suspect the opposite is true, and that illegal immigration is a significant net drain. I also admit that any such analysis is, by necessity, biased because it must decide what to count and what not to count.

I think that it is pretty obvious from looking at the competing studies that the real answer is that "illegals" are a wash. The problem is that those who benefit the most from their presence are not the same as those who pay the costs.

 

[Borat]

In my next post, I'm going to use the "lmao" smiley to express how funny & ridiculous I think this thread is.

 

[Borat]

 

[Joe T]

um, why not just use the thread where this was already being discussed

 

[timschochet]

This is a good thread. I'm proud to have started it. I have started many threads on this same issue, and will likely start many more.

 

[tom22406]

I have started many threads on this same issue, and will likely start many more.

I don't believe you