• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Immigrant Families Leave Arizona, Fearing Law

Okay, and I accept that. But that has also been happening for a long time. So, why now? It seems rather odd to me that all of this immigration stuff seemed to pop up when a lot of people were having nationalist fever in this country. Perhaps I'm just paranoid.

I think the problem has just reached a critical mass level, with the escalation of drug-related gang violence, especially in border states. Also, in the past ten years the United States has slipped into being a bilingual nation, which irritates peoples whose forebears came legally, learned the language, and did their best to assimilate.
 
i challenge you to prove your assertion that liberals believe what you just posted. by the way, oh great minded conservative, what does "hypocracy" mean?

The number of people who have claimed that israel is a country filled with illegal immigrant jews from europe that I've dealt with is significant.

These same people are usually the ones defending the right of mexicans to move en masse to the US for jobs. But this is too off-topic to continue in this thread...
 
Last edited:
I guess what I don't understand is why the illegal immigrant issue is a huge deal nowadays. It kind of started during the Bush administration and has been going fairly steady since. Why is illegal immigration suddenly such a huge issue? People have been sneaking across the border for decades. Why is this now a big enough deal to implement laws like these? One would think that there would be far bigger fish to fry, especially in this post-9/11 world. I'm not taking one side of this issue or the other, I'm honestly just curious.

A few things.

One, a post-9/11 does play into it a bit for some. The more people you have in the country illegal, and thus unknown, the more likely that one of them is a person that really shouldn't be here and could prove a danger. This goes more to the notion of "Protect the Border" than it does amnesty or immigration reform, however they have all been essentially lumped together as multiple parts of an over arching problem.

Two, the numbers are expenentially growing. Essentially its reaching a tipping point and now just boiling over. In 1990 there was estimated 3.5 million. That number more than doubled by 2000 with an estimated 8 million. Numbers now put it around 12 million. The numbers are not just getting so much larger that its harder to ignore.

Three, the issue is spreading more. It used to be an issue primarily found around the border states. In the past decade or two more and more states away from the border are feeling the affects. I know personally here in northern VA we have a significant issue with it.

Fourth, the economic problems of the past decade. The economy has hit people hard, first after 9/11 and then more recently. Unemployment goes up, making people look more at jobs that were previously at the very least a possability for a minimum wage employment oppertunity that are now going to people who can be paid less under the table. States are having severe money issues, to the point that they may be giving state employee's IOU's, which makes the economic impact on state services far more prevalent to people then in the past.

Fifth, culture. I think after 9/11 the notion of "America" as a culture and as a form of bond became I think a bit more in vogue and on peoples mind. Many prefer an assimilation than an intigration form of immigration where those coming in embrace the culture rather than hold on fully and completely to the old culture. The very nature of illegal immigration goes against this as they tend to stay far more tied to their racial types once in the country to avoid suspicion or attention. So as the numbers go up you see more and more people who seem to be simply feeding off the country without embracing it. You see more and more business and services in the country catering to them which irritates some. And as that becomes more prevelant in the illegal community it becomes far easier for the non-illegal community to go for more intigration then assimilation and cause a seemingly inflated number.

Sixth, is simply the fact that it became an issue. Once something becomes a national issue then it enters the public consiousness. Those who were previously unaware become more aware. Those that were minorly aware become very aware. That in and of itself keeps it around longer and grows it.

Finally, yes much of the focus when discussing or thinking about illegal immigration is due to hispanics. However there's a distinct reason for that. Numbers put that over 55% of the illegal immigrants in this country are from mexico, and when you add in latin American countries it ups it to over 80%. When you have one general ethnic group representing over 3/4ths of the entire illegal immigration population its only natural that that becomes the face, and the focus of it.

If you sell a product and teens are the primary people that seem to be buying it you don't start marketing it in the middle of 60 minutes and in TIME magazine, because its inefficient. Likewise, when you're dealing with illegal immigration you don't ignore 80% of the problem and say you need to focus as much on the north as the south.
 
Good analysis Zyphin.
 
Seeing they are here illegally everything they use they stole.Jobs, tax payer funded services, school, hospital visits and so on.

That's a fair point. If we are not going to deport them, and I don't think it is realistic to do so, they need to start paying taxes.


When you consider operation wetback and many other accomplishments in the past it is possible to deport every illegal. Deportation is not the only solution nor did I ever claim it was the only solution. The only thing that is not a solution is amnesty or some form of it. Because it encourages more illegal immigration.

What's operation wetback?

I am not suggesting amnesty. I am suggesting changing immigration policy to visa-on-demand and legalizing illegal immigrants.
 
Most immigrants in the past never really assimilated, either. Their cultural marks are still evident in the ethnic neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco etc.

It was usually their bi-cultural children and subsequent grandchildren who really assimilated.

The assumption that immigrants of the bygone era actually assimilated ignores reality. That reality is the existence of neighborhoods with names like "Chinatown", "Little Italy", "Greektown" etc.
 
Okay, and I accept that. But that has also been happening for a long time. So, why now? It seems rather odd to me that all of this immigration stuff seemed to pop up when a lot of people were having nationalist fever in this country. Perhaps I'm just paranoid.


It could be the constant push from the left about amnesty for Illegal Aliens. It could be that the cities and States are out of money to support Illegal Aliens. It could be that people know how truly radical this administration is, and are afraid they will cram "immigration reform" down our throats the way they did "health care reform" that have people up in arms about our Illegal Alien problems....... take your pick.
 
We are not at war with Mexico and have friendly diplomatic relations with them.

Cool....... now we just need to keep all of our "friends" from Mexico on the right side of the border.
 
smoking/injecting up thier noses?


Wow that's hardcore!

Hard to see tracks inside your nose.... at least that's my experience with injecting Marijuana.

Note to those that inject Marijuana….. Remove the seeds first. :mrgreen:
 
The need for that and the regulation of that is, IMO, a State issue, not a federal one.

Control of the border is a National Security issue and therefore a Federal issue. As things stand right now, the Fed is like an old mule..... you have to hit it between the eyes with a 2x4 to get it's attention, the Arizona law is the 2x4.
 
Don't want to get too long into it cause its not really the topic and diverges it a bit but...

"Create a visa-on-demand program at the border." - I actually have no issue with us limiting the amount of people in the country, and thus the amount of immigrants both naturalized and on visa's. Population growth is already rising at a fair tick in the U.S. and inflating it through this I think is likely not good. Contributes greater crowding to our cities and brings down property values not to mention saftey issues. I know myself, and multiple others, in the Northern Va area that turned down houses because you can clearly tell there's a family of 11 or 12 people living next door, likely in and out at all hours of the nights and the majority of which you have absolutely no way to understand.

I'm fine with Visa's being given out for legitimate reasons that are likely to provide contribute in some way, but I do think a limitation on the number is needed. In part it is I reject the notion of people doing "work American's won't do". That's incorrect, its doing work at a far cheaper price...at times at an illegal price...that American's won't do. I don't think an on demand visa is going to stop illegal immigration because you'd still have people coming over so they can work for under minimum wage in perhaps illegal conditions that they couldn't with a Visa.

I do however think we need to improve the Visa process so that we can make it a bit easier and quicker to access it, so the numbers allowed in more accurately reflect the amount of people that would be most beneficial, and stiffer penalties for not adhering to the rules/laws regarding it once you're here.

"Provide instructions to get a green card once here with an on-demand visa" - As above. I think there needs to be limits on immigration. People keep pointing to the countries founding, however to do so is ignorance of the highest order. The years they point to America was expanding, with much space and needing a population boom. This is not the case now as we have a large population, ever shrinking free space, and thus a need to limit how many we willingly add to the population.

"Provide all illegal immigrants with an on-demand visa." - And while I can understand why you do this in your scenario, I would not want it because in a situation where there's no on-demand visa's its rewarding them with seeming no punishment.

"If an illegal immigrant is caught in a felony, make em do the time then deport them" "If a visa holder or green card holder commits a felony, also make em do the time then deport them" - This in part hits an ancillary point to my issue and shows how everythings connected, but our prison system is too nice. I would say this would be fine though

"Legalize drugs" - Unsure how I feel about this one. I'm more in the legalize marijuana and possibly go more for decriminalization the use of most other drugs camp

"Don't worry about the border" - Absolutely not and I reject the emotional ploy with comparing it to a prison, as it is about getting in not getting out. Having secured borders, and knowing who and when what is coming into the country, is a key component in making sure we don't have this situation happen yet again.
 
Control of the border is a National Security issue and therefore a Federal issue.

Not really.

That's just the rationalization used to usurp State authority and increase federal authority.

It's not like a secure border is anything but a pipe dream anyway.
 
Most immigrants in the past never really assimilated, either. Their cultural marks are still evident in the ethnic neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco etc.

It was usually their bi-cultural children and subsequent grandchildren who really assimilated.

The assumption that immigrants of the bygone era actually assimilated ignores reality. That reality is the existence of neighborhoods with names like "Chinatown", "Little Italy", "Greektown" etc.

Very true. I did not say though that past immigrants didn't assimilate, but that simply as more and more immigrants have came in the desire for assimilation over intigration has increased.

This is compounded by the increase of illegals, which by and large generally have less of a grasp for the countries history and heritage and a far worse grasp on the language.

Language is an extremely important barrier for a country and a culture. Legal Immigrants must demonstrate at least a workable level of English based on an oral test and answering variety of questions given in English. This is not the case of Illegals.

The Language barrier has increased drastically as more and more illegals have came into the country.

And while there were the places like little italy and china town, to my understanding many of those places were rather open and inviting to the population to come into them (Though honestly I may be wrong on this). While they kept their culture they did not necessarily essentially form into sub pockets isolated from others which seems to be more common now.

Additionally, and correct me if I am wrong Tuck, but it has always been my understanding that there was generally a notion of patriotism that went through much of the immigration population that came into the country. Not a feeling that somehow they're entitled to be here, but that they were lucky to be in a place of such oppertunity. That they loved the country and while they did keep and honor their past culture they embraced also that this was their home. I don't remember a lot of resturants in the past, or even in modern day DC's china town, with Chinese flags strewn along the wall or hanging outside the shop. I don't know if in Little Italy shop names were written out Italian rather than English.

Perhaps I'm wrong on that, but even if I am it doesn't change the notion that I think that's what many believe...even if it is a romanticized perhaps hollywood version of it...and the prevelance of something so strikingly different from that causes the aggitation.

That said, I know I can go around through Herndon Virginia and see China King (chinese), Spice World (indian), and Mediteranian Breeze (greek) with a mix of customers going in and understandable english being spoken while seeing "la computadora estacion" and "El Supermercado III" with mexican flags hanging from it and not a single white person within site.

Sure, its superficial and its silly, and its mostly just an image thing, but its stuff like that which causes some of the split between what people think of as immigrants and what they think of when they think illegal. When 80% of the illegal immigrant population is hispanic, and when the hispanic culture and locations in the country seem to be the least inviting and the least assimilated, then it raises the dislike for the seeming lack of assimilation in people.
 
Not really.

That's just the rationalization used to usurp State authority and increase federal authority.

BS..... National Security is one of the few things that the Fed is mandated to do Constitutionally.
It's not like a secure border is anything but a pipe dream anyway.

Be real...... if we really wanted to secure our border, we could with modern day technology and small fast reaction forces.
 
BS..... National Security is one of the few things that the Fed is mandated to do Constitutionally.

I never said it wasn't a constitutional mandate. I said securing the border is not a National Security issue. There's a difference.

Which is why I was very clear about the friendly nations aspect of my statements earlier. We do not share any borders with unfriendly nations, thus it's not a national security issue. ;)

Be real...... if we really wanted to secure our border, we could with modern day technology and small fast reaction forces.

We use loads of technology right now in the airports and we used it in the past, pre-9/11. We still let the terrorists in. We even recently gave one citizenship shortly before he attempted to bomb New York.
 
That's a fair point. If we are not going to deport them, and I don't think it is realistic to do so, they need to start paying taxes.

It is realistic to deport them, But deportation is only part of the solution. Other states can enact laws similar to those in Oklahoma and Arizona,create stiffer punishments on the local level for employers who hire illegals such as prison sentences,harsher fines, permanent loss of business license and ability to own and or operate a business and make them subject to the same assetts seizure and forfeiture laws that drug dealers and another criminals are subjected to. .



What's operation wetback?


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback]Operation Wetback - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
The effort began in California and Arizona and coordinated 1075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies, to mount an aggressive crackdown, going as far as police sweeps of Mexican-American neighborhoods and random stops and ID checks of "Mexican-looking" people in a region with many Native Americans and native Hispanics. In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born minor dependent children as is standard international practice. This was although the children were by current legal interpretation of the 14th amendment U.S. citizens. [3] Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 immigrants were caught in the two states. Around 488,000 illegal immigrants are claimed to have left voluntarily for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas on their own.


I am not suggesting amnesty. I am suggesting changing immigration policy to visa-on-demand and legalizing illegal immigrants.


So basically you want to give anyone a pass who asks for one? No criminal background checks, health screenings and etc?
 
Hell as is proven by the AZ bill, we don't have to deport all of them. Many of them will leave on their own!;)

I agree. Make to where illegals can not work and will actually get arrested by the authorities for being here illegally then they will leave on their own. Illegals are not going to stay where they are not welcomed and can not find work.
 
I actually have no issue with us limiting the amount of people in the country, and thus the amount of immigrants both naturalized and on visa's.

I'm fine with Visa's being given out for legitimate reasons that are likely to provide contribute in some way, but I do think a limitation on the number is needed.

I don't think an on demand visa is going to stop illegal immigration because you'd still have people coming over so they can work for under minimum wage in perhaps illegal conditions that they couldn't with a Visa.

The thing is, to me, that with an on-demand visa, anyone who wants to come can. There would be a minimal illegal immigration problem as all would be legal at the border crossings.

With a limitation on the number of visas, like today but perhaps with more slots available, there would still be illegal immigration pressure at the border requiring us to secure it, an impossible task.


The years they point to America was expanding, with much space and needing a population boom. This is not the case now as we have a large population, ever shrinking free space, and thus a need to limit how many we willingly add to the population.

I believe we have plenty of space. We have a low urban density. We need immigrants to pay for entitlements, moreso over the coming decades.


"Don't worry about the border" - Absolutely not and I reject the emotional ploy with comparing it to a prison, as it is about getting in not getting out. Having secured borders, and knowing who and when what is coming into the country, is a key component in making sure we don't have this situation happen yet again.

Comparing it to a prison was not an emotional ploy. To secure the border, a wall, we need security elements and observation elements to keep one population on one side of it. You are correct that this does not keep us in as much as them out, so the analogy may be poor.

As I mentioned above, a restriction on Visas will require securing the border. This is an impossible task. We do not have the money to pay for technology/personnel resources to do this.
 
The thing is, to me, that with an on-demand visa, anyone who wants to come can. There would be a minimal illegal immigration problem as all would be legal at the border crossings.
There are visas on demand, but they're visitation visas and generally expire in 90 days.

With a limitation on the number of visas, like today but perhaps with more slots available, there would still be illegal immigration pressure at the border requiring us to secure it, an impossible task.
Allowing 5 - 6 million to come here per year on visas is more than enough.
 
It is realistic to deport them, But deportation is only part of the solution. Other states can enact laws similar to those in Oklahoma and Arizona,create stiffer punishments on the local level for employers who hire illegals such as prison sentences,harsher fines, permanent loss of business license and ability to own and or operate a business and make them subject to the same assetts seizure and forfeiture laws that drug dealers and another criminals are subjected to. .

I like this better than trying to secure the border. Make them unwelcome.

Operation Wetback - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The effort began in California and Arizona and coordinated 1075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies, to mount an aggressive crackdown, going as far as police sweeps of Mexican-American neighborhoods and random stops and ID checks of "Mexican-looking" people in a region with many Native Americans and native Hispanics. In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born minor dependent children as is standard international practice. This was although the children were by current legal interpretation of the 14th amendment U.S. citizens. [3] Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 immigrants were caught in the two states. Around 488,000 illegal immigrants are claimed to have left voluntarily for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas on their own.

Interesting.



So basically you want to give anyone a pass who asks for one? No criminal background checks, health screenings and etc?

No they would get those checks.
 
The thing is, to me, that with an on-demand visa, anyone who wants to come can. There would be a minimal illegal immigration problem as all would be legal at the border crossings.

I disagree completely that there would be minimal illegal immigration problem. By making them legal suddenly they have to be making minimum wage, have to be in livable working conditions, have to be in reasonable hours of working, have to be taxed, etc. Avoiding the above is part of the reasons for people to come over illegally in the first place or the reasons they're able to get jobs. All you're doing is decreasing, but not extremely minimizing, the number of illegals by doing that OR you have people taking the visa, enjoying the benefits that gives them, while still doing everything else under the table but now without fear of getting kicked out.
 
very simplistic.

Very honest.

no, i don't.

Actually, you do.

i support a one time amnesty in combination with enforcing current laws, to the maximum.

Then you support rewarding people who break the law. Illegals broke the law to come here. Amnesty is a reward. There is no middle ground.

it's too expensive to try to round up all illegals and deport them, why not absorb contributors and banish those without jobs?

More than the billions they cost us every year? Doubtful.

then, make it an offesne that carries automatic jail time for those who hire illegals, and make any aid to illegals impossible to get. then we'd see how many would cross the border.

I'm all for that but that doesn't excuse giving people who break the law a reward of amnesty.

Why do you only want to reward the illegals but punish the people hiring? Why can't we punish both sides that break the law?
 
I disagree completely that there would be minimal illegal immigration problem. By making them legal suddenly they have to be making minimum wage, have to be in livable working conditions, have to be in reasonable hours of working, have to be taxed, etc. Avoiding the above is part of the reasons for people to come over illegally in the first place or the reasons they're able to get jobs. All you're doing is decreasing, but not extremely minimizing, the number of illegals by doing that OR you have people taking the visa, enjoying the benefits that gives them, while still doing everything else under the table but now without fear of getting kicked out.

I see what you mean. I am in favor of penalizing businesses that hire under the table. Don't we have existing laws which cover that on the legal employment side of the house (i.e. not regarding illegals). Those would apply in my scenario. They should be enforced.
 
Back
Top Bottom