Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?[W:54]

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

Hatuey said:

I wouldn't put stock in source. Look at this claim:

Click to expand...

Actually the Center for Immigration Studies has posted many a study that has been pro-illegal alien just as much as they have posted antil-illegal alien studies. They're one of the very few non-partisan groups that I have seen.

Hatuey said:

There are about 1,500,000 kids in Arizona (US census). That would mean that according to that source anywhere from 60% to 70% of Arizona's kids would be victims of identity theft. All that ID theft an no action by either the state or federal government?

Click to expand...

This surprises you how? The Federal government has proven time again that they won't actually enforce illegal alien laws. And identity theft and fraud are considered federal crimes and as such States cannot investigate them without the consent of the Feds.

Hatuey said:

Now read this one:



And then read this one:



The E-Verify program was created BY the DHS AND the IRS, so they are basically stating that even though they are pushing employers to sign up for a program created by the IRS, the IRS isn't doing enough to stop illegal immigration! Well, what exactly is the IRS supposed to do? Send armed law enforcement agents to employers who won't comply with the law? Create a report button a-la-debate politics? Then the nonstop calls of Big Brother from Libertarians would never stop. In short, it's damned if you do for the IRS, damned if you don't. If they create a system that essentially made it impossible to hire illegal immigrants, they'd be forced to

1) Make E-Verify mandatory for all employers, which would raise the cost of hiring itself -and would be attacked by small business owners and Democrats.
2) Send employees to check on ALL businesses (remember, most illegal immigrants work for small business owners) and require even more funding than today. This sounds great until you remember that the GOP wants to gut the IRS and in some cases even shut it down.
3) Consolidate 3 agencies into one: ICE, IRS and SSA and create a single agency with the power to tax, deal with immigration and SS. That would make the heads of most 17 year old Libertarians explode. As much as I like it, it's still unfeasible.

So... what is the IRS supposed to do according to the CIS?

Click to expand...

1: It wouldn't raise employer cost if they made the e-verify system freely available. As a taxpayer I have no problem with that. IMO the only ones that would are those that are pro-illegals.
2: That wouldn't be the purview of the IRS, it'd be in the purview of ICE.
3: No need to do this. But co-operation among agencies would most certainly help. There is no reason why the IRS could not report situations of identical SSN's being used to the proper authorities, such as the FBI who upon further review could report the problem to ICE if an illegal alien was found to be using identity theft instead of a citizen. Personally I can't understand why federal agencies cannot co-operate with each other in order to reduce crime. Be it illegal immigration or any other type of crime.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

APACHERAT said:

Actually there's been SEVEN AMNESTIES, The Simpmson-Messoli Act aka the first amnesty of rewarding law breakers in 1986. And SIX more amnesties snuck through Congress during the Clinton administration.

Obama's amnesties aren't amnesties because only Congress can pass an immigration amnesty and Congress is the only branch of government that can write immigration laws or policies and under the oath that a President took, by law he's required to enforce those laws passed by Congress or step down and let some one who's competent to enforce the laws of the land.

Since the passing of the Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), 6 million illegal aliens have received amnesty in the United States. The IRCA Amnesty was supposed to "wipe the slate clean" and instead it's lead to the current situation of 12-20 million illegal aliens living in the country.



https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/seven-amnesties-passed-congress.html

Click to expand...

St. Ronald Reagan said:

I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.

Click to expand...

God bless his alzheimer's.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

Redress said:

No, that is only true if you strictly support your premise. If people do not support your premise but support immigration reform, they are not supporting illegal immigration. That is simply your spin.

Click to expand...

If they support amnesty, which I have yet to find one single "immigration reform" that doesn't support amnesty in some form or another, then they are pro-illegal immigration as it has been shown twice now that amnesty just encourages more illegal immigration. Whether they admit that or not is the only difference. In the end amnesty of any sort just encourages illegal immigration.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

APACHERAT said:

Actually there's been SEVEN AMNESTIES, The Simpmson-Messoli Act aka the first amnesty of rewarding law breakers in 1986. And SIX more amnesties snuck through Congress during the Clinton administration.

Obama's amnesties aren't amnesties because only Congress can pass an immigration amnesty and Congress is the only branch of government that can write immigration laws or policies and under the oath that a President took, by law he's required to enforce those laws passed by Congress or step down and let some one who's competent to enforce the laws of the land.

Since the passing of the Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), 6 million illegal aliens have received amnesty in the United States. The IRCA Amnesty was supposed to "wipe the slate clean" and instead it's lead to the current situation of 12-20 million illegal aliens living in the country.



https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/seven-amnesties-passed-congress.html

Click to expand...

Ok, seven, didn't know about those others. Either way, even you apparently agree that it has led to increased illegal immigration.

As for Obama's EO amnesty...

1: Obama has shown several times that he doesn't care about enforcing the laws he doesn't like and will often act regardless of the law.
2: Obama's EO is, at its essence, an amnesty. Whether its officially declared so by Congress or not, that is what his EO boils down to.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

herenow1 said:

More immigrant kids arrive in Arizona

"The federal government on Friday began sending hundreds of unaccompanied children caught crossing the border illegally in Texas to a holding center in Nogales, Ariz., further straining relations with Gov. Jan Brewer, who was already angry over the recent release of hundreds of undocumented families at bus stations in Phoenix and Tucson."

Click to expand...

Once I hear people complain about illegal Canadians as an excuse to build a fence on the border, I'll change my position.

People hate Mexicans. It has little to do with immigration and everything to do with immigration from Mexicans.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

vasuderatorrent said:

Once I hear people complain about illegal Canadians as an excuse to build a fence on the border, I'll change my position.

People hate Mexicans. It has little to do with immigration and everything to do with immigration from Mexicans.

Click to expand...

:roll: Guess you answered the OP's poll.

1: The majority of illegal immigration in this country comes from the US/Mexico border. Not through Canada.

2: Illegal immigration encompasses far more than just Mexicans. It includes ALL races across ALL countries. The Mexican border is where the majority of them come through. Why not focus on the area where the majority comes from? When illegal aliens start to primarily come from Canada then we can focus on that. Until then we need to focus on where the majority is coming from. Which is the US/Mexico border.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

Hatuey said:

God bless his alzheimer's.

Click to expand...

Reagan Would Not Repeat Amnesty Mistake

>" Edwin Meese, who was Reagan’s first presidential counselor and then attorney general, addresses immigration.

What would Ronald Reagan do? I can’t tell you how many times I have been asked that question, on virtually every issue imaginable.

As much as we all want clarity and certainty, I usually refrain from specific answers. That’s because it is very difficult to directly translate particular political decisions to another context, in another time. The better way to answer the question—and the way President Reagan himself would approach such questions—is to understand Reagan’s principles and how they should apply in today’s politics, and review past decisions and consider what lessons they have for us.

Immigration is one area where Reagan’s principles can guide us, and the lessons are instructive.

I was attorney general two decades ago during the debate over what became the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. President Reagan, acting on the recommendation of a bipartisan task force, supported a comprehensive approach to the problem of illegal immigration, including adjusting the status of what was then a relatively small population. Since the Immigration and Naturalization Service was then in the Department of Justice, I had the responsibility for directing the implementation of that plan.

President Reagan set out to correct the loss of control at our borders. Border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened—in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.

He also agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status of immigrants—even if they had entered illegally—who were law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in the United States. Illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship. It wasn’t automatic. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because these are pretty much the same provisions included in the Comprehensive Reform Act of 2006, which its supporters claim is not amnesty. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and the recent Senate legislation both include an amnesty. The difference is that President Reagan called it for what it was.

Lesson of 1986

The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty did not solve the problem. There was extensive document fraud, and the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued unabated, forming the nucleus of today’s large population of illegal aliens.

So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal.

What would President Reagan do? For one thing, he would not repeat the mistakes of the past, including those of his own administration. He knew that secure borders are vital, and would now insist on meeting that priority first. He would seek to strengthen the enforcement of existing immigration laws. He would employ new tools—like biometric technology for identification, and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor the border—that make enforcement and verification less onerous and more effective..."<

Continue -> Reagan Would Not Repeat Amnesty Mistake | Human Events

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

vasuderatorrent said:

Once I hear people complain about illegal Canadians as an excuse to build a fence on the border, I'll change my position.

People hate Mexicans. It has little to do with immigration and everything to do with immigration from Mexicans.

Click to expand...

Even Mexicans hate being Mexicans. As a nation, Mexico has an inferiority complex and probably explains why Mexico has always been a basket case and will always be.

They'll try to run away from their problems instead of facing their problems and fixing them.
But they run towards El Norte and they bring their problems with them including their corrupt politics.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

I don't automatically think they're racist although I think it's hard to argue that there are some people out there that don't support immigration purely on racist reasons. But the majority have legitimate reasons to oppose it.

Personally, I don't really think any type of immigration should be illegal. Labeling a person illegal because they don't have a piece of paper permitting them to cross an arbitrary line in the dirt is just loony and frankly wrong. If you come here looking for work, feel free. It's called a market, and you'd be surprised how many free market advocates oppose immigration because it will "steal jobs." You don't have a right to be employed. If you want a job, you have to work for it. You have to make yourself valuable to potential employers. Besides, if you can't compete with a first generation immigrant that can barely speak English, perhaps you need to take a long hard look at the real problem. The only issue I foresee is our current welfare state, and if we nip that in the bud we should be fine.

Oh and some food for thought, border security can almost always be turned around. One day, when we're not paying attention, border security could easily be used to keep citizens from leaving. Perhaps that's a bit far-fetched now, but from a historical perspective it's not as loony of an idea as you might like to think.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

Glen Contrarian said:

One doesn't have be racist to be against illegal immigration...but

Click to expand...

but.... nobody is advocating building a wall on the Canadian border to protect us from terrorist.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

APACHERAT said:

Even Mexicans hate being Mexicans. As a nation, Mexico has an inferiority complex and probably explains why Mexico has always been a basket case and will always be.

They'll try to run away from their problems instead of facing their problems and fixing them.
But they run towards El Norte and they bring their problems with them including their corrupt politics.

Click to expand...

and we send a army of troops after a man after they commitied a cross border raid, and violate a sovereign countries rights.

see Pancho Villa and the Pershing expedition of 1916

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

APACHERAT said:

Reagan Would Not Repeat Amnesty Mistake

>" Edwin Meese, who was Reagan’s first presidential counselor and then attorney general, addresses immigration.

What would Ronald Reagan do? I can’t tell you how many times I have been asked that question, on virtually every issue imaginable.

As much as we all want clarity and certainty, I usually refrain from specific answers. That’s because it is very difficult to directly translate particular political decisions to another context, in another time. The better way to answer the question—and the way President Reagan himself would approach such questions—is to understand Reagan’s principles and how they should apply in today’s politics, and review past decisions and consider what lessons they have for us.

Immigration is one area where Reagan’s principles can guide us, and the lessons are instructive.

I was attorney general two decades ago during the debate over what became the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. President Reagan, acting on the recommendation of a bipartisan task force, supported a comprehensive approach to the problem of illegal immigration, including adjusting the status of what was then a relatively small population. Since the Immigration and Naturalization Service was then in the Department of Justice, I had the responsibility for directing the implementation of that plan.

President Reagan set out to correct the loss of control at our borders. Border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened—in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.

He also agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status of immigrants—even if they had entered illegally—who were law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in the United States. Illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship. It wasn’t automatic. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because these are pretty much the same provisions included in the Comprehensive Reform Act of 2006, which its supporters claim is not amnesty. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and the recent Senate legislation both include an amnesty. The difference is that President Reagan called it for what it was.

Lesson of 1986

The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty did not solve the problem. There was extensive document fraud, and the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued unabated, forming the nucleus of today’s large population of illegal aliens.

So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal.

What would President Reagan do? For one thing, he would not repeat the mistakes of the past, including those of his own administration. He knew that secure borders are vital, and would now insist on meeting that priority first. He would seek to strengthen the enforcement of existing immigration laws. He would employ new tools—like biometric technology for identification, and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor the border—that make enforcement and verification less onerous and more effective..."<

Continue -> Reagan Would Not Repeat Amnesty Mistake | Human Events

Click to expand...

So, this guy has a crystal ball and spoke to Reagan from the grave.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

Hatuey said:

So, this guy has a crystal ball and spoke to Reagan from the grave.

Click to expand...

Zombie Reagan becomes more of a reality every day.

The right wing's fetishization of Ronald Reagan keeps getting more ridiculous.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

Kal'Stang said:

Ok, seven, didn't know about those others. Either way, even you apparently agree that it has led to increased illegal immigration.

As for Obama's EO amnesty...

1: Obama has shown several times that he doesn't care about enforcing the laws he doesn't like and will often act regardless of the law.
2: Obama's EO is, at its essence, an amnesty. Whether its officially declared so by Congress or not, that is what his EO boils down to.

Click to expand...

Obama should be tried for the laws he has already violated. The list is long.

Impeach then have him stand trial.

Those who harbour and defend Obama should also be indicted for crimes.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

APACHERAT said:

Obama should be tried for the laws he has already violated. The list is long.

Impeach then have him stand trial.

Those who harbour and defend Obama should also be indicted for crimes.

Click to expand...

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

Hatuey said:

So, this guy has a crystal ball and spoke to Reagan from the grave.

Click to expand...

All you have to do is take a trip to Simi Valley but I would first suggest reading the "Reagan Diaries."

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

Glen Contrarian said:

One doesn't have be racist to be against illegal immigration...but many (or perhaps most) who are the most vocal against illegal immigration are racist at least to some extent.

That said, illegal immigration is illegal...but there's only one way to fix it - and that's not with a wall or cracking down on employers or lining the border with armed troops or forcing illegal immigrants (and especially their children) to hide in the shadows all their lives. The ONLY way to stop illegal immigration is to somehow make Mexico's economy successful (and safe) to the point to where the people no longer feel the need to come here to feed their families. Otherwise, they will always find a way here, wall or no wall. The proof lay in the fact that during the Great Recession and the two years or so afterwards, we had zero net illegal immigration - just as many were going home as were coming here.

That's the only way. Period.

Do that, and there will be no need to build a taxpayer-funded wall or line the border with taxpayer-funded troops or both. But what is to be done with the ones that are already here, who are living peaceful and productive lives, who ARE paying taxes and are NOT presenting a danger to society? Give them a pathway to citizenship. Tearing families apart is not the American way.

Build up Mexico's economy to where the people no longer feel the need to flee - that's the only way to fix illegal immigration. Period.

Click to expand...

Why is it our responsibility to build up Mexico's economy?

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

Kobie said:

View attachment 67167730

Click to expand...

This should be Kobie's avatar.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

Kobie said:

Zombie Reagan becomes more of a reality every day.

The right wing's fetishization of Ronald Reagan keeps getting more ridiculous.

Click to expand...

It's part of the Zombie Founding Father's idea the right wing has... they honestly think they can extrapolate thoughts from the 18th century and apply them to 21st century issues. Only in communist countries have I seen anything similar. When I was in Cuba, I found that the most nationalists of Cubans had an unhealthy obsession with those they considered "national heroes". They attributed all this weird **** to their FFs and basically omitted/ignored/rejected any facts about their lives which may contradict the party line. The GOP does the same thing. For example:

The FFs believed in freedom!
Ignore: A large percentage of them owned slaves.

The FFs wouldn't have approved of agencies to deal with the environment/scientific research!
Ignore: Not one of them had the slightest idea of how the natural world works in comparison to today's scientists.

The FFs wouldn't have stood for drug legislation!
Ignore: They didn't have to deal with drugs that could kill millions a year.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

AlbqOwl said:

Why is it our responsibility to build up Mexico's economy?

Click to expand...

It actually makes sense from a geopolitical, economical and even cultural perspective to help neighboring countries be as successful as us. Why is it illegal immigration is only a problem for rich countries? I'd be far more in favor of helping build up Mexico's economy than I am in favor of propping up China's.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

Hatuey said:

It actually makes sense from a geopolitical, economical and even cultural perspective to help neighboring countries be as successful as us. Why is it illegal immigration is only a problem for rich countries? I'd be far more in favor of helping build up Mexico's economy than I am in favor of propping up China's.

Click to expand...

I find it ironic that in one post you mention things about ignoring certain things when you ignore something here. As I have already stated in a previous post in this thread it is not possible ecnomically or otherwise to help other countries to be economically feasible. The only way to stop or significantly reduce illegal immigration is if we did what you are suggesting for ALL 3rd world countries. That simply is not possible. For many reasons.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

Kal'Stang said:

If they support amnesty, which I have yet to find one single "immigration reform" that doesn't support amnesty in some form or another, then they are pro-illegal immigration as it has been shown twice now that amnesty just encourages more illegal immigration. Whether they admit that or not is the only difference. In the end amnesty of any sort just encourages illegal immigration.

Click to expand...

"amnesty" covers a lot of ground. For example, I support some form of the DREAM act(though with higher standards, 4 years military or 4 year degree), but that is my sole concession to "amnesty". I strongly beleive that if you enter our country illegally you should be removed as soon as caught, and that enforcement should start with employers who hire illegal immigrants. However, I also understand that our current immigration and border policy is not working, as evidenced by the millions of people in this country illegally, so strongly support some type of immigration reform. So tell me, do I support illegal immigrants and illegal immigration?

Trying to simplify complex issues down to simple sound bites so that you can easily dismiss those who might disagree with you is not really a strong way to argue your case.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

Redress said:

"amnesty" covers a lot of ground. For example, I support some form of the DREAM act(though with higher standards, 4 years military or 4 year degree), but that is my sole concession to "amnesty". I strongly beleive that if you enter our country illegally you should be removed as soon as caught, and that enforcement should start with employers who hire illegal immigrants. However, I also understand that our current immigration and border policy is not working, as evidenced by the millions of people in this country illegally, so strongly support some type of immigration reform. So tell me, do I support illegal immigrants and illegal immigration?

Trying to simplify complex issues down to simple sound bites so that you can easily dismiss those who might disagree with you is not really a strong way to argue your case.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Dream Act is in support of pro-illegals.

I fully admit that my stance is rigid. But that is only due to 2 things. 1: Our governments proven stance of not enforcing our laws on illegal immigration to their fullest extent, despite multiple promises of "going to if you just allow this....". 2: The proven fact that even the littlest bit of amnesty (such as BO's EO for young illegals) has just made the situation worse.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

APACHERAT said:

These aren't my kids.
These aren't Americas kids.
These kids aren't my problem or should they become America's problem.

These kids aren't good for America.

The Obama administration is openly violating the law.
Catch and release is against the law.

Click to expand...

none of that changes the fact that your earlier post sounded really really racist.

Re: Why am I insensitive or racist if I find this wrong?

Kal'Stang said:

Yes, the Dream Act is in support of pro-illegals.

I fully admit that my stance is rigid. But that is only due to 2 things. 1: Our governments proven stance of not enforcing our laws on illegal immigration to their fullest extent, despite multiple promises of "going to if you just allow this....". 2: The proven fact that even the littlest bit of amnesty (such as BO's EO for young illegals) has just made the situation worse.

Click to expand...

So it is in support of pro-illegal aliens, because you say it is, and any one who disagrees with you is pro-illegal immigrations, whether they are or not. Well done! Reminds me of when I was told I was not patriotic because I opposed the second Iraq war, and has about as much sense to it.