Immigration: No more Amnesty we need a Wall!

[Captain Adverse]

I was once somewhat more liberal regarding immigration reform. The realities of our economic growth and the dearth of real employment opportunities has changed my mind. I am for more rigid immigration regulations and stricter enforcement of them.

First some facts:

In 1986 there were an estimated 3.2 million illegal immigrants in the USA. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33874.pdf

Our government decided on an appeasement policy and developed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) which provided millions of illegal immigrants with temporary legal status. After a year and a half, they could apply to become legal permanent residents (LPRs), and then citizens five years later; nearly 2.7 million people eventually became LPRs under the bill. By the end of 2009 1.1 million IRCA immigrants had naturalized.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/irca-natz-fs-2009.pdf

Instead of curbing immigration problems, this served as a signal to “come on in” hoping for a repeat of that amnesty process. As of January 2011 there were an estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2011.pdf

Our government is again trying to appease immigrant interests in order to garner votes. But whenever amnesty is used it discourages respect for the law, treats law-breaking aliens better than law-following aliens, and encourages future unlawful immigration into the United States.

I believe we need to start following the example of other industrialized nations. Limit immigration to people who either have necessary skills (MD’s, Scientists, skilled engineers, etc.) or oodles of their own money (minimum $250,000 in cash savings, i.e. 5 years annual salary of $50,000 to cover naturalization period).

We should also tighten up the “birth” and ”marriage” access rules. No longer will having a baby allow the parent’s immigration status. If a couple sneaks into the country and has a baby, then all three are escorted back to their home country and then when the child reaches legal adulthood he can return to the USA with his birth certificate and assume full citizenship.

If an American marries a foreign citizen, then that citizen is still required to complete the normal naturalization process. Their child has citizenship, and in the event of a divorce the non-citizen spouse is ejected and the child can remain with the citizen parent.

Finally, we need to build a wall along all our land borders (Mexico and Canada), then man and maintain it. Not only would it be a good government work project, with tax dollars well spent on American labor, but provide more employment through beefing up our Coast Guard and Border Patrol. It would go a long way towards minimizing illegal immigration, reducing drug smuggling, and reducing terrorist access.

Arguments Pro or Con?

 

[WCH]

So you mean following existing laws and mandates? (except the anchor baby and marriage rules)

You ain't so left leaning anymore.

Pro!

 

[ttwtt78640]

I was once somewhat more liberal regarding immigration reform. The realities of our economic growth and the dearth of real employment opportunities has changed my mind. I am for more rigid immigration regulations and stricter enforcement of them.

First some facts:

In 1986 there were an estimated 3.2 million illegal immigrants in the USA. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33874.pdf

Our government decided on an appeasement policy and developed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) which provided millions of illegal immigrants with temporary legal status. After a year and a half, they could apply to become legal permanent residents (LPRs), and then citizens five years later; nearly 2.7 million people eventually became LPRs under the bill. By the end of 2009 1.1 million IRCA immigrants had naturalized.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/irca-natz-fs-2009.pdf

Instead of curbing immigration problems, this served as a signal to “come on in” hoping for a repeat of that amnesty process. As of January 2011 there were an estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2011.pdf

Our government is again trying to appease immigrant interests in order to garner votes. But whenever amnesty is used it discourages respect for the law, treats law-breaking aliens better than law-following aliens, and encourages future unlawful immigration into the United States.

I believe we need to start following the example of other industrialized nations. Limit immigration to people who either have necessary skills (MD’s, Scientists, skilled engineers, etc.) or oodles of their own money (minimum $250,000 in cash savings, i.e. 5 years annual salary of $50,000 to cover naturalization period).

We should also tighten up the “birth” and ”marriage” access rules. No longer will having a baby allow the parent’s immigration status. If a couple sneaks into the country and has a baby, then all three are escorted back to their home country and then when the child reaches legal adulthood he can return to the USA with his birth certificate and assume full citizenship.

If an American marries a foreign citizen, then that citizen is still required to complete the normal naturalization process. Their child has citizenship, and in the event of a divorce the non-citizen spouse is ejected and the child can remain with the citizen parent.

Finally, we need to build a wall along all our land borders (Mexico and Canada), then man and maintain it. Not only would it be a good government work project, with tax dollars well spent on American labor, but provide more employment through beefing up our Coast Guard and Border Patrol. It would go a long way towards minimizing illegal immigration, reducing drug smuggling, and reducing terrorist access.

Arguments Pro or Con?

Some border security improvements will be cost effective, but the problem is much deeper than that, since border jumpers account for about 60% of illegals, the rest enter legally (students, tourists, shoppers or temporary workers) but overstay their visas. One step in the border security direction could be simply placing more mlitary bases along the borders.

The magnet for illegal immigration is jobs, so that is where immigration law enforcement must be concentrated. We now have 20K border patrol agents yet only 5K ICE agents - that is like expecting the police departments of Boston and Baltimore to cover the entire country. Real enforcement, coupled with real penalties (prison time) for those that hire illegal labor would be my first line of defense. Simply offering bounties for tips leading to arrest/conviction of those using illegal labor would make for an excellent start.

Kicking out U.S. citizens until they are 18 will never, ever fly, but amending the constitution to get rid of birthright citizenship is quite doable. We must remember that the demorats want the votes and the republicants want the cheap labor - so don't expect much action on immigration reform that will not leave both intact; expect amnesty and "guest workers" to be the "compromise".

 

[Captain Adverse]

Some border security improvements will be cost effective, but the problem is much deeper than that, since border jumpers account for about 60% of illegals, the rest enter legally (students, tourists, shoppers or temporary workers) but overstay their visas. One step in the border security direction could be simply placing more mlitary bases along the borders.

The magnet for illegal immigration is jobs, so that is where immigration law enforcement must be concentrated. We now have 20K border patrol agents yet only 5K ICE agents - that is like expecting the police departments of Boston and Baltimore to cover the entire country. Real enforcement, coupled with real penalties (prison time) for those that hire illegal labor would be my first line of defense. Simply offering bounties for tips leading to arrest/conviction of those using illegal labor would make for an excellent start.

Kicking out U.S. citizens until they are 18 will never, ever fly, but amending the constitution to get rid of birthright citizenship is quite doable. We must remember that the demorats want the votes and the republicants want the cheap labor - so don't expect much action on immigration reform that will not leave both intact; expect amnesty and "guest workers" to be the "compromise".

To address the kicking out point first, I disagree. Children born here of alien parents have dual citizenship. They are citizens of the USA by birth (under current law) and citizens of the parent's nation by direct lineage. The same holds true of a child born of American parents in a foreign nation. Since the child is the responsibility of the birth parents their nation should be considered his primary citizenship while he is still a juvenile. It is entirely reasonable to require that all three return to the parent's place of national origin until such time as the child is old enough to determine his choice of citizenship.

If it is protection of an American citizen you are concerned about, then simply instruct the parents to contact the American Embassy or local Consul in their home nation if there is a direct threat to the child, and present proof of the child's citizenship. Then file a request for asylum. If an investigation confirms a true threat exists then they can return under political asylum laws.

Now as to the rest of your post, I agree with much of your position. However I feel that it should be a part of my plan rather than a different option. As we build walls, like the Roman's did for Hadrian's Wall, we build strategically placed forts and outposts to directly support the patrol and defense of the walls.

The construction of these projects will provide long-term employment for hundreds of thousands of American workers; and the hiring of border security agents of all types will also help with employment. Purchase of the materials from American based firms who employ American workers would improve our local and national economies. Corporations who attempt to provide materials made from overseas factories would be denied participation in this project.

We need to stop thinking short-term, and begin to think long-term. Adding any portion of that 11.5 million illegals to our already problematic job market is just insanity. Amnesty just ecourages more illegal immigration.

 

[274ina]

Good but there is NO REASON to allow advanced degrees into USA. We have plenty of our own.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

If you're really that concerned about immigrants taking jobs in a bad economy, supporting more border security would be counterproductive. By far, the largest draw for immigrants is jobs. When they are not available these people have no real incentive to be here, as shown by net migration with Mexico dropping to almost zero during the Recession. When you have a wall and more border security, you might keep some out, but those that do cross, come in legally and overstay their welcome, and have been here for a while have a greater incentive to not leave. They think, "Sure there's little reason to be in the US now, but why go back now when I'll have to deal with all of this extra security when I decide to go back to the States?" When we had a more flexible guest worker program people came and went depending on the job situation in the US. The cyclical unemployment problem with immigration largely solved itself. When border security increased, more illegals decided to stay.

 

[jamesrage]

I was once somewhat more liberal regarding immigration reform. The realities of our economic growth and the dearth of real employment opportunities has changed my mind. I am for more rigid immigration regulations and stricter enforcement of them.

First some facts:

In 1986 there were an estimated 3.2 million illegal immigrants in the USA. [url]http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33874.pdf[/url]

Our government decided on an appeasement policy and developed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) which provided millions of illegal immigrants with temporary legal status. After a year and a half, they could apply to become legal permanent residents (LPRs), and then citizens five years later; nearly 2.7 million people eventually became LPRs under the bill. By the end of 2009 1.1 million IRCA immigrants had naturalized.

[url]http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/irca-natz-fs-2009.pdf[/url]

Instead of curbing immigration problems, this served as a signal to “come on in” hoping for a repeat of that amnesty process. As of January 2011 there were an estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants.   

[url]http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2011.pdf[/url]

Our government is again trying to appease immigrant interests in order to garner votes. [B]But whenever amnesty is used it discourages respect for the law, treats law-breaking aliens better than law-following aliens, and encourages future unlawful immigration into the United States.[/B]

I believe we need to start following the example of other industrialized nations. Limit immigration to people who either have necessary skills (MD’s, Scientists, skilled engineers, etc.) or oodles of their own money (minimum $250,000 in cash savings, i.e. 5 years annual salary of $50,000 to cover naturalization period).

We should also tighten up the “birth” and ”marriage” access rules. No longer will having a baby allow the parent’s immigration status. If a couple sneaks into the country and has a baby, then all three are escorted back to their home country and then when the child reaches legal adulthood he can return to the USA with his birth certificate and assume full citizenship.

If an American marries a foreign citizen, then that citizen is still required to complete the normal naturalization process. Their child has citizenship, and in the event of a divorce the non-citizen spouse is ejected and the child can remain with the citizen parent.

Finally, we need to build a wall along [U]all[/U] our land borders (Mexico and Canada), then man and maintain it. Not only would it be a good government work project, with tax dollars well spent on American labor, but provide more employment through beefing up our Coast Guard and Border Patrol. It would go a long way towards minimizing illegal immigration, reducing drug smuggling, and reducing terrorist access.

Arguments Pro or Con?

I agree. I would also add that we need to enact laws that make it nearly impossible for someone to benefit from being here illegally. After not everybody jumps the fence to get into this country illegally, many simply get a visa in order to deliberately overstay them. I like these following ideas.



1.Crack down on the scum who hire illegals.Treat them no different than we do drug dealers and other criminals who profit from and or use their money for illegal activities.

2. In order to get any ID or driver's license you present a birth certificate( in rare cases a non-availability birth certificate where it has been investigated that the individual was born in the US), green card, or certificate of naturalization and social security card.After that require a state issued ID or driver's license in order to the following-

-enroll yourself into school
-enroll your minor kids into school
-apply for welfare,food stamps,section 8 housing and any other tax payer assistance for yourself and or your children
-get a business license,fishing/hunting permit,building permit, license to practice law, food handlers permit, gun license(in states that require a permit to buy a gun),concealed carry permit(in states that require a license to conceal carry) or any other tax payer funded service
-open a bank account, cash a check, use a credit/debit/pre-paid card, apply for a loan,or wire money.
-rent,borrow,lease or buy property
-rent,borrow,lease or buy a motor vehicle.
-get legal documents for yourself or your children.
-get utilities
​

3.Mandate E-verify for every employer.

4.Repeal part of the immigration and nationality act of 1965 that allows for the chain migration of relatives other than spouse or minor children.This would virtually eliminate anchor babies.







Seeing how many of these people here illegally came her on a visa and let it expire we should also cut off visas to citizens of countries we have the most illegal immigration problems with until those numbers go down.

 

[joko104]

The marriage loophole should be closed. Marrying an American should not convey citizenship.

 

[americanwoman]

To address the kicking out point first, I disagree. Children born here of alien parents have dual citizenship. They are citizens of the USA by birth (under current law) and citizens of the parent's nation by direct lineage. The same holds true of a child born of American parents in a foreign nation.

Actually in Mexico you have dual nationality, no dual citizenship if Mexican parents give birth in another country.

Mexican Dual Citizenship : Mexico Living

 

[Bodi]

Shoot on sight any person illegally crossing the border... no knock warrants to raid all suspected illegal immigrants with immediate deportation. That is a start.

 

[274ina]

walls work.

It would be

501,600 20' wide panels - 60 tons each – 1900miles long
35' high
5' underground

Mass produced in prestressed panels

250,000 Volts wires on top.
(even a wooden ladder would arc and fry them)
With 5 teams working 24/7, to emplace each panel every 10 min, it would take 2 years.



Digging or blowing up would trigger vibration sensors and bring ICE
Quick response teams.


It would employ lots of Americans, we could use old Katrina homes for movable temp housing.

Walls work
E german wall only 5000 people got over in 50+ years.
Palistine wall also works great
USA caught 500,000 last year and many more got passed.

 

[Ray410]

The American people were not allowed to vote on the Mexican colonization and resultant cultural and economic destruction of the United States. Therefore, all that arrived after the limited 1986 amnesty, along with their descendants, need to be relocated back to Mexico. They are not Americans and our tax dollars should not be paying for them. Their seemingly endless problems are Mexico's problem, not ours.

We need all the money they have taken, for our elderly and our own children, not Mexicans.

 

[CalGun]

A wall along the Mexican border could be made affordable by pointing solar panels on it to the southern side. 1900 miles x 5000 plus feet per mile or 2000 panels per mile doubled if we do them stacked would provide the nation more power then several nuclear power plants.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

The American people were not allowed to vote on the Mexican colonization and resultant cultural and economic destruction of the United States. Therefore, all that arrived after the limited 1986 amnesty, along with their descendants, need to be relocated back to Mexico. They are not Americans and our tax dollars should not be paying for them. Their seemingly endless problems are Mexico's problem, not ours.

We need all the money they have taken, for our elderly and our own children, not Mexicans.

Our tax dollars don't really pay for them as it is. Illegals qualify for very few federal programs besides a few targeting childhood nutrition. They also generally pay sales taxes, property taxes, and user fees, all while being disqualified from most benefits. I have said this numerous times: if immigrants withdrawing from welfare is the problem, then why don't we restrict welfare payments to them instead of restricting them?

 

[jamesrage]

Our tax dollars don't really pay for them as it is. Illegals qualify for very few federal programs besides a few targeting childhood nutrition.

I seriously doubt the parent are only using those foodstamps for kids that were born here.

They also generally pay sales taxes, property taxes, and user fees, all while being disqualified from most benefits. I have said this numerous times: if immigrants withdrawing from welfare is the problem, then why don't we restrict welfare payments to them instead of restricting them?

They are here illegally.They shouldn't be allowed to walk freely in and out of a government office period. The idea that they can literally walk into a government a government office to get money from citizens is a slap in the face to citizens.

 

[Perotista]

The marriage loophole should be closed. Marrying an American should not convey citizenship.

It doesn't. While in the military I married a Thai gal. To become an American citizen she had to study and take the test. Then the oath. Just getting married to an American does not convey citizenship, although that will allow the spouse of an American to enter the country legally.

 

[polgara]

It doesn't. While in the military I married a Thai gal. To become an American citizen she had to study and take the test. Then the oath. Just getting married to an American does not convey citizenship, although that will allow the spouse of an American to enter the country legally.

Good for her, Pero! Smart and wise lady! :thumbs:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

 

[Perotista]

Good for her, Pero! Smart and wise lady! :thumbs:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

That she is and a darn good wife and cook to boot.

 

[polgara]

That she is and a darn good wife and cook to boot.

And...she was smart and wise enough to say YES to you when you asked! :thumbs:

 

[Bodi]

A wall with high powered infra-red rifles...

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

I seriously doubt the parent are only using those foodstamps for kids that were born here.

There are different studies about the taxes going toward illegals, but it would be far cheaper for the government to allow these people to come out of hiding and pay back taxes.

They are here illegally.They shouldn't be allowed to walk freely in and out of a government office period. The idea that they can literally walk into a government a government office to get money from citizens is a slap in the face to citizens.

Why is it a slap in the face?

 

[Ray410]

There are different studies about the taxes going toward illegals, but it would be far cheaper for the government to allow these people to come out of hiding and pay back taxes.



Why is it a slap in the face?

What exactly was the benefit to the United States of allowing 40 million Mexicans to move here?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Our tax dollars don't really pay for them as it is. Illegals qualify for very few federal programs besides a few targeting childhood nutrition. They also generally pay sales taxes, property taxes, and user fees, all while being disqualified from most benefits. I have said this numerous times: if immigrants withdrawing from welfare is the problem, then why don't we restrict welfare payments to them instead of restricting them?

You're right that illegals are not a drain on the feds....but they are a drain on state governments. Education, medical and law enforcement are where they drain state governments the most.

 

[Kal'Stang]

There are different studies about the taxes going toward illegals, but it would be far cheaper for the government to allow these people to come out of hiding and pay back taxes.

Cheaper =/= good.

Why is it a slap in the face?

It is definitely a slap in the face for every single person that followed the law and paid their dues to become a citizen.

 

[jamesrage]

There are different studies about the taxes going toward illegals, but it would be far cheaper for the government to allow these people to come out of hiding and pay back taxes.

1.These people are here illegally.So you can't prove how much they owe.
2.These people work in low wage jobs for substandard pay.So they are not going to owe any back federal taxes.
3.By granting amnesty you will be adding 12-20 million to our welfare rolls.
4.Due to due part of the the immigration and nationality act of 1965 that allows for the chain migration of relatives other than spouses and minor children these people will facilitate the immigration of more people.
5.By granting amnesty to these people you will encourage more illegal immigration.

Why is it a slap in the face?

The government is supposed to be discourage illegal immigration and deporting illegals, not encouraging it.