Illegal Immigration

Remove all ads!

Guh, because it's all about America's "EVIL" policies on illegal immigration. In most of the world if you are very very lucky you get arrested and then deported; if you aren't so lucky; like in most of south and central continental America, Africa and Asia you get shot and tossed in a ditch; so how is what we're doing worse? Our laws say that if you are born in the USA and there is documented proof then you are a US citizen - that's fine for kids born here but not their parents who were NOT born here. The only other rational option is we kick the whole family out. That's what nearly every other country in the world would do. Illegal Immigration is a crime nearly everywhere including here. We don't need more people who don't respect our laws; we have too many now. Floyd shouldn't have died; but the country-wide rioting and ongoing insanity is significant to just how much disrespect many people have for our laws now. We don't need more people who disrespect our laws.

 

I believe that the parents have the option of taking the kids with them. Or at least they did before Trump and his concentration camps. I haven't followed the policy changes since I was in school in the '90s, but back then a kid born in the USA to foreign nationals is considered have dual-citizenship, and if the parents are deported they can take the kids with them.
They just don't want to do that, they want to make noise about the "evil" USA separating them from their kids. Often they don't think they can provide for the kids or that the kid would be better off in the USA, so they leave them there and then whine about how the USA is so evil for separating them.

Now the illegals that I do sympathize with are what are now called "Dreamers". Young children brought into the USA under the age of 10 who have now grown up in the U.S. and graduated high school but cannot get a job because they don't have a social security card or any identification proving they can legally work in the USA. They can't even go to college as all the college applications I've seen require a social security number or proof of residency including the community college I went to.

 

As far as I know that's true with the dual citizenship. And yes the parents (and others) want the kids to stay here; more; they want to stay themselves for no better reason than they are the parents. Emotionally I can understand the argument; but rationally/legally it's not an argument; if you are not a citizen you are not a citizen and have very few rights. If you are so determined that your kids need YOU to parent them; then take them home with you.

 

My point was the parents chose to be separated from their kids. They could have taken the kids with them when they were kicked out for breaking the law by entering illegally instead of going through customs and immigration.
Thousands of people enter legally all the time. Why should the people who ignore the rules and procedures be given a free pass? Do we want people who think the rules for legally moving to this country don't apply to them?
Why would we expect them to obey any other rules if they think they are so special they don't need to go through the proper channels?

How many other developed countries would put up with people bypassing customs and immigration the way we do?

 

I wasn't disagreeing if it sounded like I was, I was just adding to your statement. And the answer to your question is almost none. I'm not aware of any other country that allows illegal immigration at all. As I think I've mentioned before in many countries outside Europe illegal immigration is answered with the death penalty. If we compare the world over-all our (USA) immigration laws are probably still amongst the easiest to get through. Honestly most of the people who passed the official immigration tests probably know more about how our country is SUPPOSED to work than most of the people who were born here because they are given some basic study materials on our history that most of us do not learn in school. Especially nowadays that all of our Founding Fathers are just more "Old Rich White Men" that modern USA society is being taught are inherently EVIL. They did their very best to create a country that was supposed to be free from the sorts of oppression that were prominent in Europe let alone the rest of the world and they are now decried as perpetrators of evil. Yeah I'll admit that a few of their ideas were indeed wrong. One shouldn't have to be wealthy enough to own land to have the right to vote for instance. "No taxation without representation" was the slogan for the American Revolution but they had no problem with taxing common workers who owned no land and refusing them the vote because they owned no land. THAT was wrong IMHO, but I can understand their reasoning even if I don't agree with it. And also I agree; why do we want new citizens who illegally immigrate and show by this that they don't respect our laws. We don't need more people who disrespect our laws we have plenty here now thank you very much.

 

To graduate from high school in Illinois you have to pass a Constitution test and a test on civics.
On the other hand retention is an issue. It recently came up that I could not recall exactly what a "township" was or did even though I live in Wheeling Township. Also I could not recall why despite being one of (though at the bottom of the list) largest suburbs with over 75,000 people the Village of Arlington Heights was a village and not a town or city.
I probably could have answered those questions 20 years ago. I definitely could have answered them in June of 1996. Could I recall the answers without Googleing it in 2020? The answer is no. Those facts just don't come up in everyday life. The only time I ever see much about Wheeling Township has to do with roads and property tax assessments. I couldn't recall what else they did.

So we do get educated on that, it's just that retention is an issue for stuff we don't use all the time.

 

That all depends on the schools and the time period IMHO. I was born in 1962 so you can build a time frame for my education based on that. I'll honestly say that I don't remember a lot of the history I was taught in school either. I was a kid, it was ancient history to me, and I wasn't sure what the relevance was. I've had to relearn most of the important parts from personal online study usually based on personal interest in my more recent years. Honestly I never cared for politics but everything is political now so I've had to relearn some just to have an idea what's going on. I live in Minnesota. At some point, possibly in the 1980s, Minnesota state laws were passed that turned Federal Highway money over to the Cities to divide up. However the various townships and other suburbs quickly realized that the state laws on how to incorporate into a city were very easy to pass so all the townships incorporated into cities themselves to break up the monopoly on the highway funds. Thus we no longer have any of the smaller village and town designations; everywhere is "The City of ..." So lucky me, at least that is one thing I don't have to worry about anymore. But in the bigger picture the important thing is knowing about our Founding Fathers, and what they did and didn't want from our government. What sorts of problems they'd seen in European governments and how they hoped to avoid them. Most of us have no clue. Many of us don't care that they hoped to protect us from rampant dictatorial government by expecting us to take responsibility for a lot ourselves to protect our freedom. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" and "the Home of the FREE" do not suggest that they wanted an all-powerful government that only answered to itself. But to some extent both of the major American Political parties have forgotten this. All they really care about is that bigger government gives them more power and gives them the excuse to raise taxes to cover it all. Add to this that people have gotten lazy and almost everybody just wants somebody else to take responsibility for them. American's have essentially regressed into the rowdy "I know everything and you know nothing" - until I get into trouble that I don't know how to deal with and then it's time to cry for mommy and daddy teenager personality. At least that's my general impression with most people. Everybody wants to be treated like a responsible adult until they are asked to take responsibility for something. They want the benefits of being an adult without any of the costs. This thing with immigration is a side-effect of that. Everybody wants to believe America is the land of the free ride and they are always looking for some way to get on that free ride without having to pay for it. Hm, I'm rambling I think and I'm wondering how much sense I'm making.

 

The issue with responsibility is a whole other issue. It seems that everywhere I go people with authority consider that only subordinates are supposed to take responsibility (or blame). If you want to be an authority, you need to be able to shift the blame/responsibility for things going bad onto others even if it is your own fault. Never own up to mistakes.
The word doesn't mean what is used to mean. It used to mean a duty to take of people and things. Now "taking responsibility" means taking the blame and punishment for things that go wrong even if it wasn't your fault, especially if it is your superior doing it. Well, that or paying the price.

 

True; and that's part of the problem with the current US government and to some extent business; the ranking members; especially the people we vote for in the government; never take the blame for the things they've done because that might be remembered next election and get them terminated. It used to mean at least in part that you kept your eyes open and if somebody around you needed help you rendered what help you could. For instance if somebody was building their own house their neighbors would help out. People were a community, now we're a collection of fearful strangers who are afraid to get to know the people we live right next to. Afraid to stick our noses in where we might get into trouble so we hide in our own homes and ignore what is going on around us. The only time we stick our noses out is if somebody; usually one of the political parties; tells us to. And a lot of the time they aren't motivated by helping anyone; they are motivated by looking like they are trying to help somebody so we'll believe they care about something other than their cushy job where they really aren't responsible for anything at all.

This is all off-topic mostly of the immigration thing; though I suppose a case could be made for it to be related based on the fact that it's all mostly involving incompetent Professional Politicians trying to tell us that we should care about people who don't really care about our country. I mean I feel for them, the illegal immigrants are usually dealing with corrupt governments that have been bought out by violent criminal elements. But our ancestors fought that battle, the opposition may not have looked the same; but it was still a bunch of politicians that were making dictatorial decisions that harmed us and we had to fight to end it. I think one of our Founding Fathers once said "sometimes a little revolution is a good thing."

I've been seeing more and more homeless people carrying cardboard signs saying "please help me" than ever before the last ten years or so. We Americans have a responsibility to help our own citizens before we need to help anyone else. IMHO that's where our responsibility is; not taking care of people from other countries who don't belong here and don't deserve a free ride on tax dollars.

 

Ok, moving back on topic. On the subject of legal channels, for the people that claim we need the illegals here in our country, why not increase the quotas on legal immigrants instead of pardoning people who came here illegally? Why reward bad behavior? Granting amnesty or opening a path for legal documentation if they get away for a certain period of time just encourages people to break the law instead of going through proper channels.
For that matter, why does it supposedly take years? I know that the path to citizenship takes years due to the Constitution and has since it was written, but just getting a visa to move to the U.S. permanently supposedly takes years.
Why should that be necessary? Why not streamline the process?
If it's a backlog due to manpower, then they need to realign their priorities and hire more clerks to clear the backlog.

I don't see any other country tolerating people entering illegally, why should the U.S.?

Again, the only ones that I do have sympathy for are the ones who were brought here as kids and find themselves unable to work legally in the only country they have known. Those are the only ones I might accept being made legal. However the ones brought here as teenagers I have less sympathy for as they are old enough to know they are breaking the law.

 

I'm not sure I believe anybody should get to skip the normal legal immigration process. Once we start making excuses for one group we have to abandon our immigration process altogether. Personally I think that this is what the politicos want; a bunch of unemployed immigrants that have been promised a free ride if they'll vote for the people making the promises. We are well beyond the point where we need bodies just to have the bodies. I think I proved that with my comment about the unemployed homeless above.

And I agree; I don't know of one single other country that allows illegal immigrants; there is no good reason for us to be different.

I'm not unsympathetic to special cases. But personally for anyone who has grown up here and isn't a citizen, let them take the citizenship test just like any other legal immigrant.

 

You just contradicted yourself with the last paragraph.
Currently, the people you described, called "Dreamers" cannot take the citizenship test. They cannot get naturalized because they were brought into the country as children. Worse, they have no roots or connection to their legal birth country. They might not even speak the language.
Those are the only illegals I'd sympathize with, and want to give them a chance to get naturalized if they have clean records. The ones brought as children under the age of 10 who are now turning 18.

 

What I meant was LET THEM take the test. I don't think I was contradictory though perhaps it might sound that way. I'm more sympathetic for legal American citizens than non-legals also which should be taken into account with that statement. Additionally you can't take that statement alone as it is part and parcel with what I said before. We have to worry about our own unemployed and homeless people before we can worry about people who aren't citizens and may not ever contribute anything. We have an unbelievable national debt we'll probably never be able to pay off and a government that is doing everything it can to destroy every American corporation so that eventually we'll be an entire country of unemployed people who can't pay taxes living in parks inside the cities and anywhere else they can find. I have friends who live in apartment complexes looking over major city parks that are almost completely filled with homeless American citizens right now. THAT should be a priority over people who aren't citizens. If the people you are talking about are under-aged kids it would be sad to kick them out of the country but again they are illegal immigrants even if they didn't know it. I'm sympathetic but I'm also trying to be realistic to what America needs right now.

--

Ok, re-reading your post yes it does sound a bit contradictory; but as I did say I'm not unsympathetic to special cases; it depends on how special the case is. An adult who illegally immigrated here is NOT a special case under any circumstances that I can imagine right now.

 

A person fleeing from ethnic cleansing or other execution for being the wrong type, they stow away on a ship bound for America. They enter illegally and request political asylum.
That's a special case.

Somebody kidnapped and brought into the country illegally is a special case, although they would probably WANT to be deported.

A defector bringing important information to the U.S. government gets special treatment being allowed to immigrate immediately instead of going through normal channels. Think Tom Clancy's early novels "The Hunt for Red October" or "The Cardinal of the Kremlin".

Heck, somebody fleeing for their life because they pissed off a drug cartel or other criminal organization might be a special case.


Somebody leaving a country because their economic prospects are poor due to them being in the wrong caste (and I use the term loosely enough that skin color might be a caste) is NOT a special case.

 

Ok, agreed, some of those are special cases I'd cut slack for. That there might be special cases is why I mentioned it in the first place, and why I left my statement open-ended.

I'm not sure why we are even discussing this; over-all I think we agree on what we think the policy should be; now you are just picking on my wording. IMHO. But there really doesn't seem to be a need for this discussion to continue. We seem to have agreed on nearly all the major points it's just the wording on the minor points where sticking on.

 

Those were legally-allowed immigrants though Taluntain right? Not Illegal Immigrants. Unless I'm mistaken of course.

 

Ok I was unaware of this, I'd only heard of the ones that were being allowed asylum; which basically made those at least legal immigrants.

This isn't something that's being publicized over here.