• 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!

Does America Need A New 21st Century Immigration Policy?

Would you consider the new immigration standards suggested in the OP?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 69.2%
  • No

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • Maybe, if it was less extreme

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • Total voters
    13

Empirica

~Transcend~
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
4,682
Reaction score
1,905
Location
Lost at sea~
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Immigration in the 21st century:

I know this will shock and offend many of you but I'm asking if you will take the time to contemplate what I am saying with an open mind and weigh it against the consequencies of the present course of our nation and where it is taking us.

Immigration in the 21st century has become more complex than anytime during the 19th or 20th centuries, including during the two world wars. Besides being outdated, these old policies are a threat to freedom, the economy, public safety, US sovereignty, the American way of life and western civilization in general.

Besides the obvious dangers of WMDs and the negative light the US is now viewed in by many around the world, there are some other very real social factors we should take into consideration.

When The Declaration of Independence was ratified there was less than a billion people in the world. As of 10/30/2011 the world population hit the 7 billion mark and is snowballing.

To secure our way of life for the sake of our future generations, each of us must determine whether our priorities are owed to ourselves and our families or to international humanitarian and egalitarian duties.

The majority of new immigrants are fleeing poverty and considered a minority once in America. Their first election will expose them to a political party that makes promises to provide free services in exchange for their vote.

As the government provides more and more services it becomes neccessary to confiscate more and more of the peoples earnings and assets. This is called socialism. This is the future of our present immigration policy.

Taking into consideration the dangers ahead, which we are beginning to see the first signs of in the european nations, should the United States continue with it's outdated immigration standards and policies and non-existant border security?

Is it time we show the world that the US will no longer tolerate those who violate our laws by crossing our borders illegally or overstaying a temporary visa and then expecting and even demanding to be granted amnesty and citizinship?

Is it time that we begin scrutinizing more closely those who apply for citizenship by new updated standards to ensure we only get the best and the brightest and the healthiest, who will be an asset rather than a burden on our resources?

When determining who should be eligible for US citizenship should we consider factoring in such things such as; nation of origin/birth? race? religion? age? disabilities/physical and mental?

Should a new immigration slogan be adopted that reads:
Give us your just of heart and moral by nature, who are healthy of mind and body and of sufficient intelligence to learn and to cope in the 21st century, who will teach their children to be good people and patriotic Americans, who will love and honor and be responsible for their family's welfare, who will obey our laws and defend our constitution and way of life against all enemies, who will never endeavor to destroy what millions have sweated and bled and died to create but will honor their sacrifice by preserving their creation with their own sweat and blood and life if neccessary, who wish to be an American because they believe it is the greatest nation on earth and will show allegence to no other flag, and above all will recognize that to become an American Citizen is the greatest honor on earth and bestowed only on the deserving.
 
Last edited:
I agree we need new immigration policies and we need to put OUR OWN FIRST..but its not going to happen...the democrats want illegals for votes..and the GOP wants them for dirt cheap labor that dilutes the cost of labor for them through out the country...the only way to force the change is if enough of the mass's let them know in no uncertain terms weve had enough of thier chit
 
As long as the welfare state still lives, immigration laws must be thoroughly enforced. We can discuss the issue again once it's gone.
 
I think the country should get into the habit of actually enforcing the laws it already has. Then we can talk about changing the laws.
 
Gosh, when I first saw the thread title, I thought.. huh? um, you can't keep time from happening. Actually, neither party has developed a policy for effectively dealing with immigration. They were both too leary of offending the huge Latino vote in the past.

Besides, isn't the problem the illegals, not those who legally apply for immigration? Won't big fines for the companies who employ illegals get rid of a lot of the problem?
 
Last edited:
New Zealand has a pretty good immigration policy to build on.
Some thoughts for a new policy,
- must show proof of self reliance, (i.e, employment, savings, etc).
- higher eduction in needed fields
- improve migrant farm worker program
- harsher penalties for illegal entry or overstaying visa
- harsher penalties for companies that hire illegal immigration

Today, immigration into the US needs to be based on what our economy needs/support, what skills we need for our future (doctors, engineers, high tech, etc.), and what our natural resources can sustain.
Current situation is a joke.
 
Drones with Hellfire missiles at the border, is the only thing the Mexican government understands. You'll have a kneejerk reaction, but frankly I'm tired of our people getting shot at. As far as I'm concern, the Mexican government doesn't feel enough fear of the US. It'll be about right, whenever they think of us they quiver a little.
 
Drones with Hellfire missiles at the border, is the only thing the Mexican government understands. You'll have a kneejerk reaction, but frankly I'm tired of our people getting shot at. As far as I'm concern, the Mexican government doesn't feel enough fear of the US. It'll be about right, whenever they think of us they quiver a little.

So you're basically going flat out pro-fascism?
 
New Zealand has a pretty good immigration policy to build on.
Some thoughts for a new policy,
- must show proof of self reliance, (i.e, employment, savings, etc).
- higher eduction in needed fields
- improve migrant farm worker program
- harsher penalties for illegal entry or overstaying visa
- harsher penalties for companies that hire illegal immigration

Today, immigration into the US needs to be based on what our economy needs/support, what skills we need for our future (doctors, engineers, high tech, etc.), and what our natural resources can sustain.
Current situation is a joke.

I more or less agree. Although I think the current situation isn't that different than what you describe. The main difference is that we don't have an effective guest worker program. We most definitely do require proof of self reliance, give massive priority to education, and are cracking down far more aggressively on employers than ever before. The number of undocumented immigrants in the US has been falling for 3 years in a row and we've been deporting more people per year under Obama than under any previous president. So, I think you've got the right idea, but I think we're closer to success than you might think.
 
So you're basically going flat out pro-fascism?
Don't be silly. Use of force at the border isn't fascism. It's called reaching an understanding and the correct level of respect.
 
if America needs a new immigration policy, he should give up accepting the green card applications..
 
I more or less agree. Although I think the current situation isn't that different than what you describe. The main difference is that we don't have an effective guest worker program. We most definitely do require proof of self reliance, give massive priority to education, and are cracking down far more aggressively on employers than ever before. The number of undocumented immigrants in the US has been falling for 3 years in a row and we've been deporting more people per year under Obama than under any previous president. So, I think you've got the right idea, but I think we're closer to success than you might think.

Come live in AZ for awhile. You would realize we are not. I hope you are not trying to tell me of the illegal aliens in the US are highly educated. There is a big difference in legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.
Also, explain why Obama won't work more closely with States that have issues with immigration, rather than taking them to court? With States passing their own illegal immigration laws, the feds admitting they don't have enough resources, you would think they would welcome State resources in assisting. Yes, I know of ICE and agreememts the Feds can enter into with the States if they choose.
 
Come live in AZ for awhile. You would realize we are not.

I live in California man. One of two states that can totally tell AZ what's what about illegal immigration. :) TX is the other one.

CA has around 2.5 million undocumented immigrants, AZ has 375 thousand. That is 5.8% of AZ's population, and 6.9% of CA's.

Illegal Immigration in the U.S.: State-by-State Totals - Graphic - Pew Hispanic Center

I hope you are not trying to tell me of the illegal aliens in the US are highly educated. There is a big difference in legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.

Well a policy requiring education levels for immigrants would only pertain to legal immigrants, so I'm assuming that is what you were talking about with that part, right?

Also, explain why Obama won't work more closely with States that have issues with immigration, rather than taking them to court? With States passing their own illegal immigration laws, the feds admitting they don't have enough resources, you would think they would welcome State resources in assisting. Yes, I know of ICE and agreememts the Feds can enter into with the States if they choose.

Yeah, that's right about ICE. They are actually working extensively with the states. AZ is actually the only state that they have ever refused to work with. They did empower Sheriff Arpaio to enforce immigration law under ICE authority for a while, but he badly abused the power with over the top racial profiling, and they had to strip him of that power. They had no choice. The constitution doesn't permit that kind of thing.

As for why they are taking states to court for trying to pass their own immigration laws, that is pretty straight forward. Immigration policy is federal. That principle is enshrined in the constitution. States can't just take over whatever areas of the law they want from the federal government just because they disagree with the policy or whatever. The president swears an oath to protect the constitution, and in my opinion anyways, if he just let immigration policy collapse into a mess of 50 different state policies, that would be a total failure to uphold that oath.
 
Don't be silly. Use of force at the border isn't fascism. It's called reaching an understanding and the correct level of respect.

You're talking about killing men, women and children of a different ethnic background than you because they don't have their papers in order... Uh, yeah, that's fascism. If even that isn't fascism, what the heck would be?
 
I live in California man. One of two states that can totally tell AZ what's what about illegal immigration. :) TX is the other one.

CA has around 2.5 million undocumented immigrants, AZ has 375 thousand. That is 5.8% of AZ's population, and 6.9% of CA's.

Illegal Immigration in the U.S.: State-by-State Totals - Graphic - Pew Hispanic Center



Well a policy requiring education levels for immigrants would only pertain to legal immigrants, so I'm assuming that is what you were talking about with that part, right?



Yeah, that's right about ICE. They are actually working extensively with the states. AZ is actually the only state that they have ever refused to work with. They did empower Sheriff Arpaio to enforce immigration law under ICE authority for a while, but he badly abused the power with over the top racial profiling, and they had to strip him of that power. They had no choice. The constitution doesn't permit that kind of thing.

As for why they are taking states to court for trying to pass their own immigration laws, that is pretty straight forward. Immigration policy is federal. That principle is enshrined in the constitution. States can't just take over whatever areas of the law they want from the federal government just because they disagree with the policy or whatever. The president swears an oath to protect the constitution, and in my opinion anyways, if he just let immigration policy collapse into a mess of 50 different state policies, that would be a total failure to uphold that oath.

Yet the State passed laws mirror federal law, and does nothing to set new policy in regards to immigration. Nothing in the Constitution states who can enforce, it states who can set., and why does CA have so many illegal aliens, too many sanctuary cities maybe?
 
Yet the State passed laws mirror federal law, and does nothing to set new policy in regards to immigration.

No, that's not true. In fact, that's exactly the analysis the court went through- going provision by provision and determining whether it differed from the federal policy. Most of it does. For example, it makes it illegal to apply for a job without having legal permission to work, where federal law only makes it illegal to hire somebody who doesn't have legal permission to work. It lowered the bar for when local cops can arrest someone for suspicion that they are not here legally. Etc.

and why does CA have so many illegal aliens, too many sanctuary cities maybe?

Because it's a huge state with a large hispanic population immediately adjacent to some of the most populated parts of Mexico.

AZ actually has four sanctuary cities- Chandler, Mesa, Phoenix and Tucson.
 
No, that's not true. In fact, that's exactly the analysis the court went through- going provision by provision and determining whether it differed from the federal policy. Most of it does. For example, it makes it illegal to apply for a job without having legal permission to work, where federal law only makes it illegal to hire somebody who doesn't have legal permission to work. It lowered the bar for when local cops can arrest someone for suspicion that they are not here legally. Etc.



Because it's a huge state with a large hispanic population immediately adjacent to some of the most populated parts of Mexico.

AZ actually has four sanctuary cities- Chandler, Mesa, Phoenix and Tucson.

Yes and the courts stuck down the provision in Alabama which requires legal immigrants to carry their greencard. Guess what , federal law requires that. I now have an opinion that some courts rulings are political.

Yes I know that AZ has some sanctuary cities. Doesn't help with illegal immigration does it?
 
Immigration in the 21st century:

I know this will shock and offend many of you but I'm asking if you will take the time to contemplate what I am saying with an open mind and weigh it against the consequencies of the present course of our nation and where it is taking us.

Immigration in the 21st century has become more complex than anytime during the 19th or 20th centuries, including during the two world wars. Besides being outdated, these old policies are a threat to freedom, the economy, public safety, US sovereignty, the American way of life and western civilization in general.

Besides the obvious dangers of WMDs and the negative light the US is now viewed in by many around the world, there are some other very real social factors we should take into consideration.

When The Declaration of Independence was ratified there was less than a billion people in the world. As of 10/30/2011 the world population hit the 7 billion mark and is snowballing.

To secure our way of life for the sake of our future generations, each of us must determine whether our priorities are owed to ourselves and our families or to international humanitarian and egalitarian duties.

The majority of new immigrants are fleeing poverty and considered a minority once in America. Their first election will expose them to a political party that makes promises to provide free services in exchange for their vote.

As the government provides more and more services it becomes neccessary to confiscate more and more of the peoples earnings and assets. This is called socialism. This is the future of our present immigration policy.

Taking into consideration the dangers ahead, which we are beginning to see the first signs of in the european nations, should the United States continue with it's outdated immigration standards and policies and non-existant border security?

Is it time we show the world that the US will no longer tolerate those who violate our laws by crossing our borders illegally or overstaying a temporary visa and then expecting and even demanding to be granted amnesty and citizinship?

Is it time that we begin scrutinizing more closely those who apply for citizenship by new updated standards to ensure we only get the best and the brightest and the healthiest, who will be an asset rather than a burden on our resources?

When determining who should be eligible for US citizenship should we consider factoring in such things such as; nation of origin/birth? race? religion? age? disabilities/physical and mental?

Should a new immigration slogan be adopted that reads:

Yes, we indeed do need a new 21st century immigration policy.

We need one that makes it easier for immigrant migrant workers to come over and do the jobs that natives refuse to do.
 
Yes and the courts stuck down the provision in Alabama which requires legal immigrants to carry their greencard. Guess what , federal law requires that. I now have an opinion that some courts rulings are political.

I don't know as much about the Alabama case. Let me read the opinion and get back to you.

Yes I know that AZ has some sanctuary cities. Doesn't help with illegal immigration does it?

Depends what you mean by "help with illegal immigration". It certainly improves the quality of life of the people in the city. You don't have undocumented immigrant communities that are afraid to go to the police to report crime because they might get deported in sanctuary cities, for example, but that's a huge problem in many places that haven't adopted those kinds of policies.
 
There was a link to the US Immigration site in a thread here recently that showed we receive 141 LEGAL immigrants an HOUR in the US. We don't need a new immigration policy. We need enforcement of existing policy and rules.
 
Yes, we indeed do need a new 21st century immigration policy.

We need one that makes it easier for immigrant migrant workers to come over and do the jobs that natives refuse to do.
Sure...and we need to stop paying unemployment and social services for those Americans that refuse to do those jobs.
 
Sure...and we need to stop paying unemployment and social services for those Americans that refuse to do those jobs.

Sure...and we need to ensure that they get jobs that pay to a level of their education and gives them a livable wage so they don't have to get everything via debt.
 
Sure...and we need to ensure that they get jobs that pay to a level of their education and gives them a livable wage so they don't have to get everything via debt.
Oh... but you are fine with bringing in slave labor??? Geezus, man...the duplicity some folks display on the whole immigration/social services thing...anything and everything to shoehorn things into your ideology.

Hey brown people...you get to clean our **** for **** wages...howz that make you feel?
 
Yes and the courts stuck down the provision in Alabama which requires legal immigrants to carry their greencard. Guess what , federal law requires that.

Oh, ok. I looked it up. They didn't strike anything down. The court just issued an injunction so that they can't start enforcing it until the question of whether it is constitutional is sorted out in court. So we don't have a decision on the merits, so I can't say what, if anything, they will actually strike down or why.

What I do know is that the provision in that law that requires schools to report parents and students that don't have residency paperwork to the state is a non-starter. The Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that the constitution does not permit states to deny education to children because of the immigration status of their parents, and that provision is a blatant attempt to get around that. That part will certainly be struck down. The part about being required to carry your greencard, I would guess it will depend on the details. If Alabama is making it more onerous or a more serious offense or changing how it can be enforced or something, it'll be struck down. If it really does just exactly parallel the federal law, then it won't.

I now have an opinion that some courts rulings are political.

The significant majority of federal judges are conservative appointees, so if there is political bias, it's going the opposite way from what you think.
 
Oh... but you are fine with bringing in slave labor??? Geezus, man...the duplicity some folks display on the whole immigration/social services thing...anything and everything to shoehorn things into your ideology.

Hey brown people...you get to clean our **** for **** wages...howz that make you feel?

No, not at all.

You see, the immigrant migrant workers make a ****load of money doing it.

Yes, it's not a whole lot of money compared to our standards of living. However, to them, they can save the money and live pretty well when they take that money back to wherever they're from. This is because of the different exchange rates between the US and the countries that those migrant workers come from.

So while a US citizen can't live on those wages year-round here in the US, a migrant worker can work 6 months and take that money and live pretty well for the next 6 months he spends at his homeland.
 
Back
Top Bottom