Immigration Laws: Not what they are but what they should be.

[AlbqOwl]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil and on topic and non partisan. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration law in this one.

The following list is intended as a POSSIBLE PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. Overstay a visa or come illegally and be forever banned from the USA. Exceptions can be made of course if the overstay of a visa is unintentional or inadvertent such as somebody is in the hospital or some such. Or a minor child brought by his/her parents. The intention here is to have an effective immigration policy without being unreasonable, overly hard hearted, or cruel.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets to come as permanent immigrants. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration, with possible very narrow exceptions, will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free health care, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which labor intensive proprietors can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home immediately.

10. None of the above. Why is this your choice?

Thoughts?

 

[AlbqOwl]

I have checked all ten poll options as policy I could support. Yes there will need to be allowances for some exceptions in some cases, but overall, if we are to be a country, i.e. a people of a culture, language, borders, we must be able to control who will be here.

 

[Nap]

What they should be was how it used to be, open borders and all who wish to come and live the American dream can. The only issue is in order for that to be sustainable social welfare spending needs to be limited to the disabled and elderly.

Without a drastic reform of our social safety net it should be a merit based system open to anyone that can come here and provide for themelves.

 

[maxparrish]

I would support most/all of the policy proposals, plus a few others: make unlawful presence a criminal violation, mandatory sentences for second offenders, criminal offenses for an employer's knowing employment of illegals, criminal offenses for providing "sanctuary", etc..

Moreover, I would make ALL immigration based on some form of merit: English language proficiency, education, and if the immigrant has a needed skill.

Finally, I would limit legal immigration to 750,000 per year.


Naturally, for at least 5 decades the "no borders" crowd, culling for the world's least skilled and low ability peoples, have prevented such wise policy.


Until such time (which will not be in my lifetime) that native born Americans recognize that social well being and comity will only grow worse with increased immigration - the madness will continue.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

I would rather see more funding go to the immigration courts, more immigration judges installed, more translators hired, and immigration fees drastically lowered. Many people here illegally overstayed and couldn't resolve that in an extremely inefficient system.

Instead of a wall, I would like to see more drones implemented along the border.

Funny enough, not passing a farm bill, and doing away with it altogether will do more to halt illegal immigration than anything. Without that farm bill, our corn farmers can't sell corn for cheaper than what it costs to produce said corn and then sell it on Mexican markets undercutting Mexican farmers and driving said farmers across the border looking for work.

A great many of your suggestions that you support are not meant to curb illegal immigrants, but rather curb immigrants legal ways of coming here. Please be aware this conservative agenda is based in wanting white people to hold onto the majority. It's projected that in a few decades white people will be the minority, and preventing things like chain migration and citizenship by birth is meant to curb that. As both provide legal avenues, you can not claim to only care about people who try and come here illegally. When your trying to make it harder for them to do so legally.

 

[Lutherf]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil and on topic and non partisan. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration law in this one.

The following list is intended as a POSSIBLE PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

I probably should have spent more time reading the descriptions of the options before I answered but, generally speaking:

2. I'm not a fan of a wall. This is more a practical concern than an ideological one. My experience tells me that a physical presence on the border is more practical than a physical barrier. Clear border markings, electronic surveillance, etc. are all helpful tools that will be more effective than a physical wall. This should also be combined with an enhancement to the programs which allow short term work permits. The idea is that if we make it easy for people who don't intend to stay to come here legally then we can safely assume that those coming her illegally are doing so with bad intentions.

3. I totally understand that a 4 or 5 year old doesn't have much choice in whether they come here legally or not. I also understand that it's not easy to get a kid in such a situation naturalized. That being said, we can't be a "drop off" spot for children of parents who are having a difficult time either. This is a difficult situation for all involved and should probably involve significant increases in humanitarian efforts in regions where these kids (and families) are coming from. I'm hard pressed to turn away a legitimate refugee but "legitimate" is the key word and the duration of any stay due to humanitarian needs should be limited.

4. My recommendation would be to deport children with their families. If the child had no choice in coming here illegally they should not be barred from coming again via LAWFUL means.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I probably should have spent more time reading the descriptions of the options before I answered but, generally speaking:

2. I'm not a fan of a wall. This is more a practical concern than an ideological one. My experience tells me that a physical presence on the border is more practical than a physical barrier. Clear border markings, electronic surveillance, etc. are all helpful tools that will be more effective than a physical wall. This should also be combined with an enhancement to the programs which allow short term work permits. The idea is that if we make it easy for people who don't intend to stay to come here legally then we can safely assume that those coming her illegally are doing so with bad intentions.

3. I totally understand that a 4 or 5 year old doesn't have much choice in whether they come here legally or not. I also understand that it's not easy to get a kid in such a situation naturalized. That being said, we can't be a "drop off" spot for children of parents who are having a difficult time either. This is a difficult situation for all involved and should probably involve significant increases in humanitarian efforts in regions where these kids (and families) are coming from. I'm hard pressed to turn away a legitimate refugee but "legitimate" is the key word and the duration of any stay due to humanitarian needs should be limited.

4. My recommendation would be to deport children with their families. If the child had no choice in coming here illegally they should not be barred from coming again via LAWFUL means.

I tend to agree to send the kids home with their families unless they qualify as DACA and are emancipated as adults, can support themselves, and really have no place to return to. Again we do not want to be unreasonable or cruel but you are right. There are billions who would love to move here and we simply cannot take everybody. And we cannot be an example to the world and/or any help to anybody if we so deplete our resources trying that it weakens us and makes us needy as a country. And there are four million plus people currently waiting patiently to be legally admitted work or permanent visas. It seems so unfair to those who respect and follow our laws to allow those who thumbed their noses at our laws go to the head of the line.

 

[maxparrish]

...A great many of your suggestions that you support are not meant to curb illegal immigrants, but rather curb immigrants legal ways of coming here. Please be aware this conservative agenda is based in wanting white people to hold onto the majority. It's projected that in a few decades white people will be the minority, and preventing things like chain migration and citizenship by birth is meant to curb that. As both provide legal avenues, you can not claim to only care about people who try and come here illegally. When your trying to make it harder for them to do so legally.

The "agenda" to curb legal immigration has existed since the mid- 1970s. Such opposition existed long before the demographic changes were taken seriously, and long after the racial demographic changes became inevitable. So while I agree that some of the popular anger over illegal immigration is also fueled by subconscious fears over legal immigration I don't agree that the fear of legal immigration is mostly based in racial fear - its far more nuanced than that.

Simply put, it is fear of losing a prior quality of life - no just materially, but in social relations and lifestyle choices. And for those of us who have experienced those changes they only need to use their eyes and ask the question, is my life better because of massive immigration?

And I can honestly answer no. Other than the proliferation of diverse restaurants since 1970, the changes to California in slightly more than doubling its population (mostly from immigration of the mainly poor in that time period) has turned a one-time middle-class state with a good education system into a class-demographic polarized set of insular communities of economic extremes. Housing is unaffordable, public facilities and roads overcrowded, shrinking water resources and energy increasingly acrimonious, and unless one is well heeled, far less enjoyable.

Finally, anyone who has an open mind has to acknowledge that chain immigration has only made it worse for long-time residents of any race. In crime, poverty, safety, job competition, environmental costs, cost of living - is it any wonder that middle class Californians have abandoned the state in increasing numbers?


Hence, if one favors the native born Americans (of any race) over immigrants then one should support "making it harder" for those don't offer us benefits beyond their own consumption, and cost more than they provide.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

The "agenda" to curb legal immigration has existed since the mid- 1970s. Such opposition existed long before the demographic changes were taken seriously, and long after the racial demographic changes became inevitable. So while I agree that some of the popular anger over illegal immigration is also fueled by subconscious fears over legal immigration I don't agree that the fear of legal immigration is mostly based in racial fear - its far more nuanced than that.

Simply put, it is fear of losing a prior quality of life - no just materially, but in social relations and lifestyle choices. And for those of us who have experienced those changes they only need to use their eyes and ask the question, is my life better because of massive immigration?

And I can honestly answer no. Other than the proliferation of diverse restaurants since 1970, the changes to California in slightly more than doubling its population (mostly from immigration of the mainly poor in that time period) has turned a one-time middle-class state with a good education system into a class-demographic polarized set of insular communities of economic extremes. Housing is unaffordable, public facilities and roads overcrowded, shrinking water resources and energy increasingly acrimonious, and unless one is well heeled, far less enjoyable.

Finally, anyone who has an open mind has to acknowledge that chain immigration has only made it worse for long-time residents of any race. In crime, poverty, safety, job competition, environmental costs, cost of living - is it any wonder that middle class Californians have abandoned the state in increasing numbers?


Hence, if one favors the native born Americans (of any race) over immigrants then one should support "making it harder" for those don't offer us benefits beyond their own consumption, and cost more than they provide.

You will need to prove these claims. And just so you know, I'm looking for more than right wing propaganda sites that editorialize stereotypes into flaws. You're not going to get me or any other rational human to buy into this veiled racism. And no adding (of any race) doesn't get you off the hook. Because it's not any race having their children ripped from their arms right now for legally coming here for asylum. And it's not any race having those children put in concentration camps.

It goes against everything i was taught America stood for. Every single thing. The immigration system is broken, because conservatives broke it. And now they are blaming problems that have nothing to do with a immigration on the system they broke. And scaring everyone into keeping them in office so they can **** us even more. I'm tired of it, and I'm tired of pretending bull**** arguments like this have merit or deserve anything but contempt.

 

[Masterhawk]

Getting into the country legally needs to be made easier. I don't think we would be having as much of a problem with illegal immigration if we didn't put so many roadblocks to getting a work visa or moving in. Maybe you can keep the strenuous process for becoming a citizen but what do we really gain with all of these roadblocks?

 

[slick]

#1, #2 & #6 I can agree with none of the other suggestions suit me!

 

[AlbqOwl]

#1, #2 & #6 I can agree with none of the other suggestions suit me!

But why? You are in favor of giving jobs, free education, etc. etc. etc. to illegals? You like the lottery system for choosing who gets permanent visas? You prefer the current law that anybody born here for whatever reason receives automatic citizenship?

 

[slick]

But why? You are in favor of giving jobs, free education, etc. etc. etc. to illegals? You like the lottery system for choosing who gets permanent visas? You prefer the current law that anybody born here for whatever reason receives automatic citizenship?

I agree with

1.* Overstay a visa or come illegally and be forever banned from the USA.
2.* A border wall will be built.
6.* Chain migration will not be allowed

In other words I don't agree with overstaying a visa & am in favor of building a great southern wall & I want
chain migration terminated.

 

[camlok]

Check all statements that your racist ass can support

Yeeehah, a Trumpian red neck heaven!

 

[maxparrish]

You will need to prove these claims. And just so you know, I'm looking for more than right wing propaganda sites that editorialize stereotypes into flaws. You're not going to get me or any other rational human to buy into this veiled racism. And no adding (of any race) doesn't get you off the hook. Because it's not any race having their children ripped from their arms right now for legally coming here for asylum. And it's not any race having those children put in concentration camps.

And you still need to first prove your own initial claims. Be reminded, you made the unsupported assertions that the predominate reason people oppose illegal immigration is because the "conservative agenda" hopes "white people will hold on the majority" and that those "trying to make it harder" implicitly shows that. (Just because you want to believe it to be true, does not mean that it is true).

For my part, I see it far more nuanced than that. The "evidence" is not only in the these efforts started long before projections of a white minority (e.g. FAIR was founded in 1978), but also in that a good part of the "conservative" agenda has been to push for immigration. It has come from the conservative Chamber of Commerce/Wall Street Journal readers, neo-conservatives, business community and libertarians. And back then, a major element of the "progressive" labor and black oriented Democratic party used to oppose illegal immigration and open borders until its leadership and opinion class decided that the best way to secure power was to import voters. Since then they changed their politics from primarily American working class concerns into the concerns of identity politics ("race, gender, sexual orientation").

There are three bottom lines:

First, the opposition to illegal immigration, as well as legal immigration, has many diverse supporters with varying reasons. On the left, there is Micky Kaus. Among labor economists is the father of immigration economics, Borjas, himself an immigrant. Others are law and order traditionalists, insecure blue collars, many conservatives, white nationalists, and the nearly half of American voters who elected Donald Trump.

Second, many others (including the countries liberals consider far more progressive) make immigration harder for hard-nosed practical reasons. Canada, New Zealand, and Australia want skilled people of ability; as such they have merit based immigration. They all deal with illegals "robustly" (especially the latter two).

Third, you have to show how all this immigration, especially from Mexico and Central America, as improved the quality of life for native born residents. So far, I don't see any evidence of that. I do see plenty of evidence of over-population, job displacement, crime and the like.

It goes against everything i was taught America stood for. Every single thing. The immigration system is broken, because conservatives broke it. And now they are blaming problems that have nothing to do with a immigration on the system they broke. And scaring everyone into keeping them in office so they can **** us even more. I'm tired of it, and I'm tired of pretending bull**** arguments like this have merit or deserve anything but contempt.

It is a shame that the lessons of the 60s have still not taken root in the minds of many; I thought most people knew (by now) that education is a form of enculturation into what people want you to believe, not what you should necessarily believe when you become an adult.

It's called critical thinking...an attribute of mature and thoughtful individuals.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I would rather see more funding go to the immigration courts, more immigration judges installed, more translators hired, and immigration fees drastically lowered. Many people here illegally overstayed and couldn't resolve that in an extremely inefficient system.

Instead of a wall, I would like to see more drones implemented along the border.

Funny enough, not passing a farm bill, and doing away with it altogether will do more to halt illegal immigration than anything. Without that farm bill, our corn farmers can't sell corn for cheaper than what it costs to produce said corn and then sell it on Mexican markets undercutting Mexican farmers and driving said farmers across the border looking for work.

A great many of your suggestions that you support are not meant to curb illegal immigrants, but rather curb immigrants legal ways of coming here. Please be aware this conservative agenda is based in wanting white people to hold onto the majority. It's projected that in a few decades white people will be the minority, and preventing things like chain migration and citizenship by birth is meant to curb that. As both provide legal avenues, you can not claim to only care about people who try and come here illegally. When your trying to make it harder for them to do so legally.

I don't want to make it harder for the people who merit immigration to come here legally. I want to make it much more difficult and undesirable for anybody who wants to be here to come here. I don't think anybody, whether conservative or not, cares what race anybody is. But those who come should be prepared and able to assimilate into a self-sufficient society, should be willing to learn and use English and learn/know American laws, and above all should be willing to relinquish all allegiance to their former country and be a proud American. It is no benefit to America to take in any others.

When the Constitution was ratified there were roughly 4 million Americans here or about the population of Los Angeles.

Population in 1850: about 23 million or a little more than the current population of Florida.

Population in 1950: about 151 million. Large cities were becoming over crowded and more of the nation's resources are routed to them that started the stress and depletion of rural America. The necessity for more restrictive comprehensive laws became necessary.

Population now: about 320 million. At that rate of growth we will be 600 million by 2040 or 2050 with a corresponding increase in need for public resources.

We do ourselves no favors taking in more people who will further stress our available resources. The numbers of those count into the billions and we cannot possibly take in all without making ourselves poorer than the places they come from. Far better to import those immigrants with skills and character that we need, allow temporary work visas just for the times that we need unskilled labor, and keep America strong and able to be an example for others to aspire to and able to help others in times of major crisis.

 

[AlbqOwl]

What they should be was how it used to be, open borders and all who wish to come and live the American dream can. The only issue is in order for that to be sustainable social welfare spending needs to be limited to the disabled and elderly.

Without a drastic reform of our social safety net it should be a merit based system open to anyone that can come here and provide for themelves.

Open borders now contributes to the poorest of the poor and the worst of the worst coming to America. While it is true that crime among legal immigrants is perhaps a bit lower than the general population, it is also true that crime among the illegals, not counting that they are here illegally to begin with, is significantly higher than the rest of the population and illegals comprise a significant percentage of our prison population. Even if a plurality of those are charged with immigration violations, an unacceptable number are also charged with other crimes: burglary, robbery, drug trafficking, rape, murder, etc. The cost to Americans is significant.

Add to that cost signficant strain on the health, social services, and education systems and lowering of opportunity and standard of living for Americans.

Compare that to most developed countries in the world who expect those granted legal residence in their countries to be independently wealthy or have a sponsor who can and will fully support them or they are equipped with knowledge and skills that the country needs and will support themselves.

 

[jamesrage]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil and on topic and non partisan. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration law in this one.

The following list is intended as a POSSIBLE PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. Overstay a visa or come illegally and be forever banned from the USA. Exceptions can be made of course if the overstay of a visa is unintentional or inadvertent such as somebody is in the hospital or some such. Or a minor child brought by his/her parents. The intention here is to have an effective immigration policy without being unreasonable, overly hard hearted, or cruel.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets to come as permanent immigrants. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration, with possible very narrow exceptions, will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free health care, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which labor intensive proprietors can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home immediately.

10. None of the above. Why is this your choice?

Thoughts?

Yes for 1,2,5,6, and 7. However the exception of a minor child should expire after they become a legal adult.At 18 years of age they are responsible for their own legal status.

Illegals should not be allowed to stay here regardless of how old they are and regardless of when they were allegedly brought here.

Work visas should be heavily restricted.Work visas are mainly used to screw American workers. Also countries we have the most illegal immigration problems with should not get any visas until those that are here illegally return back to their countries.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Yes for 1,2,5,6, and 7. However the exception of a minor child should expire after they become a legal adult.At 18 years of age they are responsible for their own legal status.

Illegals should not be allowed to stay here regardless of how old they are and regardless of when they were allegedly brought here.

Work visas should be heavily restricted.Work visas are mainly used to screw American workers. Also countries we have the most illegal immigration problems with should not get any visas until those that are here illegally return back to their countries.

I am honestly conflicted re the DACA people. They had no say when they were brought here as young children and they have no memory of any other country than America. I tend to agree with you that illegal is illegal, but I could easily compromise on the DACA kids being granted legal permanent status if they were brought here before they were say 12 years old for sake of argument and they grew up here. But minor kids who are deported with their parents and/or who voluntarily leave will not have automatic right of return. It would be reasonable to not put them on the forever banned list though as they themselves did not intentionally break our laws.

The illegal parents should leave however, voluntarily or be deported. And if the DACA person at any age voluntarily leaves before applying for and receiving permanent status, they do not have automatic right of return but must go through the legal immigrant application process like everybody else.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Yes for 1,2,5,6, and 7. However the exception of a minor child should expire after they become a legal adult.At 18 years of age they are responsible for their own legal status.

Illegals should not be allowed to stay here regardless of how old they are and regardless of when they were allegedly brought here.

Work visas should be heavily restricted.Work visas are mainly used to screw American workers. Also countries we have the most illegal immigration problems with should not get any visas until those that are here illegally return back to their countries.

Re work visas, I included that provision to address the possibly legitimate argument that 'we need laborers to do the work that Americans won't do.' We could include in that law that the employer must have made every effort to fill temporary positions with permanent residents for the peach harvest or chili pepper harvest or whatever. And if he gets insufficient applications, we can have some kind of service--even private businesses--who will screen and bring in however many temporary workers the farmer or whoever needs. I could see this including:

1. The workers will be issued a temporary work visa that allows him/her so many weeks in the USA.
2. The broker or employer will be required to pay a minimum of minimum wage to these workers and cannot impose unreasonable work requirements on them.
3. The broker or employer will be responsible to see that workers have adequate housing and access to food, emergency medical care, and other necessities while they are here.
4. When the job is completed or time is up, the broker or employer is responsible to make sure the workers go back to their home country.

And there should be longer term work visas when we need somebody with necessary special skills or abilities and for convenience of international companies that have people working back and forth between countries or for touring groups offering concerts and such.

 

[jamesrage]

I am honestly conflicted re the DACA people. They had no say when they were brought here as young children and they have no memory of any other country than America. I tend to agree with you that illegal is illegal, but I could easily compromise on the DACA kids being granted legal permanent status if they were brought here before they were say 12 years old for sake of argument and they grew up here. But minor kids who are deported with their parents and/or who voluntarily leave will not have automatic right of return. It would be reasonable to not put them on the forever banned list though as they themselves did not intentionally break our laws.

The illegal parents should leave however, voluntarily or be deported. And if the DACA person at any age voluntarily leaves before applying for and receiving permanent status, they do not have automatic right of return but must go through the legal immigrant application process like everybody else.

At 18 years of age they are responsible for their own legal status.Granting legal status to these illegals will encourage more illegal immigration. There is no "we swear this is only a one time deal' in politics.

 

[AlbqOwl]

At 18 years of age they are responsible for their own legal status.Granting legal status to these illegals will encourage more illegal immigration. There is no "we swear this is only a one time deal' in politics.

Okay say the 18-year-old was brought here by his parents at age 6. He has grown up here, received his education here, has kept his nose clean, and has minimal memory of his former country and nobody there he knows any more. He may not even be fluent in his native language any more. It is not his fault he is here. He thinks of himself as an American. I'm sorry, but as long as he is willing to support himself and swear allegiance to the U.S.A., I don't have the heart to kick him out. Yes, send the parents home. And he has the choice to leave with them, and if he does, he should lose his DACA status. But if he chooses to stay, I say let him.

 

[jamesrage]

Re work visas, I included that provision to address the possibly legitimate argument that 'we need laborers to do the work that Americans won't do.'.

If Americans aren't doing those jobs its because the employers are not paying enough to attract enough Americans. Americans all across the country do jobs that require a lot of physical labor.Yes I know that pro-illegals in the media occasionally do stories of farmers having a labor shortage. That labor shortage is due to farmers not paying enough to attract Americans.

 

[AlbqOwl]

If Americans aren't doing those jobs its because the employers are not paying enough to attract enough Americans. Americans all across the country do jobs that require a lot of physical labor.Yes I know that pro-illegals in the media occasionally do stories of farmers having a labor shortage. That labor shortage is due to farmers not paying enough to attract Americans.

I really do understand that argument as I have made it. But realistically, in times of full employment, the least desirable jobs can go begging. So long as the law specifies that available Americans must be hired before any labor is imported, I don't have a problem with a fully regulated and monitored work visa program.

 

[jamesrage]

Okay say the person was brought here by his parents at age 6. He has grown up here, received his education here, has kept his nose clean, and has minimal memory of his former country and nobody there he knows any more.

Don't care.At 18 years of age they are responsible for their own legal status. You make exceptions like this then all you are saying is go ahead **** on our immigration laws and national sovereignty and your kid can become legal.

He may not even be fluent in his native language any more.

So you are saying that people not fluent in English and most likely don't know any English at all came into this country illegally and magically stopped speaking their language to each and other and to their children? Bull ****, he is fluent in his native language.

He thinks of himself as an American. I'm sorry, but as long as he is willing to support himself and swear allegiance to the U.S.A., I don't have the heart to kick him out.

I don't care what he thinks of himself or willing to support himself or swear allegiance to the USA. He is here illegally.If he wants to be an American that bad then he can try the legal way just like the 12.6 million green card holders are doing. As far as I know if you join the military they will expedite your legal status and let you become an American.