Rights for Illegal Immigrants

[PianoManGidley]

Okay...this is something that has been bugging me ever since it came up--WHY are people supporting rights for ILLEGAL immigrants here in the US, and bashing legislative measures that punish businesses for hiring illegal immigrants?

Imagine you're back at school (if you've already left school, that is), and you're taking a test in class. You catch your friend sitting next to you trying to look on your test--obviously trying to cheat. Now, we ALL know that cheating is against the rules, and carries with it serious consequences, but nevertheless, you decide to help your friend by scooting your paper closer to the edge of your desk towards him, angling it a bit so he can read it better...and then the teacher catches you both and you both get punished. Would you honestly say that you were NOT in the wrong for KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY helping someone break the rules?!

So how is this all that different when we're talking about people who shouldn't even legally BE here in the US?!?! I know that legal immigration here is tough, and I personally think all the bureaucratic BS and red tape needs to be cut back and seriously revised so that it's easier to get into this country legally...but until then, WHY are people so supportive of PEOPLE BREAKING THE LAW?!?!?!

[sv800]

That's funny you mention, I remember a couple (Americans) who went illegal at my country, worse they faked their passports entries, so they couldn't left the country for a while with no money on. So, a friend offered a free stay at his hotel. Think about it, doesn't matter which country you are conditions for immigrants are the same. I guess going through well fare organizations is not illegal.

[Brutha]

bashing legislative measures that punish businesses for hiring illegal immigrants?

There is nothing like cheap labour.

There is no political possibility of letting more people into the country because of xenophobia but those people are still needed to do work for loans that no American would accept.
It is just easier to do nothing about it besides the symbolic gesture of "securing the border" and stay away from reforming a broken system.

[Jennihul]

Originally Posted by PianoManGidley

Okay...this is something that has been bugging me ever since it came up--WHY are people supporting rights for ILLEGAL immigrants here in the US, and bashing legislative measures that punish businesses for hiring illegal immigrants?

Imagine you're back at school (if you've already left school, that is), and you're taking a test in class. You catch your friend sitting next to you trying to look on your test--obviously trying to cheat. Now, we ALL know that cheating is against the rules, and carries with it serious consequences, but nevertheless, you decide to help your friend by scooting your paper closer to the edge of your desk towards him, angling it a bit so he can read it better...and then the teacher catches you both and you both get punished. Would you honestly say that you were NOT in the wrong for KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY helping someone break the rules?!

So how is this all that different when we're talking about people who shouldn't even legally BE here in the US?!?! I know that legal immigration here is tough, and I personally think all the bureaucratic BS and red tape needs to be cut back and seriously revised so that it's easier to get into this country legally...but until then, WHY are people so supportive of PEOPLE BREAKING THE LAW?!?!?!

it may seem that simple on a simple level but they are here because, believe it or not, no one wants the crap jobs they do...and do well.

Our national economy supports the need for laborers like this. These aren't just unscrupulous business people trying to get cheap labor. These are desperate business owners trying to get ANY labor.

I live in North Carolina which has one of the highest rates of illegal immigrants in the US. We have farms that no one will work on. Jobs that no one will do. Farmers that are bankrupt paying the even low wages they pay their illegals.

Our unemployment rate in Raleigh is one of the lowest in the country. There are no people here desperate for work. Fifteen years ago and back, during the summer, kids/teens worked farms around here pulling tobacco and other crops until it was time for school to start. (Why do you think the average school year starts in the fall and ends in the summer?) But there are no kids working fields here anymore. They refuse to even work at McDonald's!

Affluence has a price. Everyone wants to be successful and well-educated and have lots of leisure time. But someone still has to do the dirty work. There is no one left here.

Whereever you see many illegals in the US you are looking at the effects of affluence, of shifting economy and mostly you are looking at a vacuum that needed filling. Not so much evil law breakers bent on getting cheap labor.

Jennifer

[zeezil]

Illegal immigration...it's mainly about these things:

An endless supply of cheap labor from Latin America and a goal to integrate these workers completely into our country to totally destroy our native and legal workforce. By making us totally powerless through enfranchisement of third world masses, a whole new uneducated population is created that can be led to keep particular political groups and politicians on top. Political power and cheap labor for business are the real reasons immigration rights groups are opposed to immigration law enforcement and successful immigration enforcement programs. We are looking at a radical shift in politics and an upheaval in American demographics resulting in the disenfranchisement of most current native American citizens and legal immigrants that have achieved citizenship.

There are no borders in the global economy of seeking out the cheapest labor possible. There is no allegiance to America by the merchants of destruction who seek out every dollar for their pocket at the expense of the American taxpayer and worker who bear the burden of these uneducated, mostly illiterate, transplants.

Thomas Jefferson saw it coming over 200 years ago when he said: “Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.”

[zeezil]

Claim: “Illegal immigrants are being denied their civil rights”

False: Civil rights pertain ONLY to citizens. The Merriam-Webster online Dictionary defines civil-rights as: “The nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially: the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress.” If one is not a citizen of the country, civil rights do not apply.

[zeezil]

First, let us remember the "illegal" part of being an illegal immigrant. Most Americans don't seem to have problems with legal immigration, however it only seems fair to question the value of any additions to our country who already show no regard for it's laws upon arrival.

Second, it seems far too easily forgotten that one must be an U.S. citizen in order to warrant the rights afforded to a citizen. That should be the end of discussion.

Third, legal immigrants working alongside native born citizens have made this country what it is. We have thrived on the contributions of immigrants and will usually need them, though to varying degrees, throughout most sectors of our economy. The problem is that we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to those who enter illegally, ignore our laws and seek to subvert our culture and national values. We welcome those who follow the rules, learn the English language, and respect our sovereignty. As illegal immigrants, it is not only offensive but also ridiculous to ask for rights, which they have not earned.

Let's secure our borders by building the fence so we have an effective and controlled immigration system at the same time as we enforce our currently existing immigration laws. During this interval we encourage illegals to depart (attrition through enforcement). Once our borders are secured and we have a grip on a functional system of immigration, we move against those illegals that have refused to leave. We should never ever grant amnesty.

We tried 'comprehensive immigration reform' in 1986. We gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens in exchange for the government promising to secure the borders, conduct workplace enforcement and enforce immigration law. It didn't work because the government lied and did nothing other than process the amnesty paperwork. Due to that folly, we now have 20 Million or more illegal aliens here demanding amnesty. Don't you think it is far beyond time that we engage in Comprehensive Immigration ENFORCEMENT rather than Comprehensive Immigration Reform?

[zeezil]

After careful review, anyone with a even a modicum of logic can come to no other conclusion: illegal immigration must be halted, illegal immigrants here now must be deported and legal immigration needs decreased from the approx. 2 million allowed in per year currently.

Please review the following report on the FISCAL COST OF IMMIGRATION by economist Edwin Rubenstein just released this past week:
http://www.esrresearch.com/Rubensteinreport.pdf

A partial summary of the report:

The impact on 15 Federal Departments surveyed was: $346 billion in fiscal related costs in FY 2007.

Each immigrant cost taxpayers more than $9,000 per year.

An immigrant household (2 adults, 2 children) cost taxpayers $36,000 per year.

Legal immigrants were not separated out from illegal immigrants for the fiscal impact study, but if they had been, the fiscal cost per ILLEGAL immigrant would be even more shocking than the figures quoted above.

The most extensive and authoritative study, prior to economist Edwin Rubenstein's "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration" (April 2008) , is the National Research Council (NRC)’s The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (1997).

The NRC staff analyzed federal, state, and local government expenditures on programs such as Medicaid, AFDC (now TANF), and SSI, as well as the cost of educating immigrants’ foreign- and native-born children.

NRC found that the average immigrant household receives $13,326 in federal annual expenditures and pays $10,664 in federal taxes—that is, they generate a fiscal deficit of $2,682 (1996 dollars)per household.

In 2007 dollars this is a deficit of $3,408 per immigrant household.

With 9 million households currently headed by immigrants, more than $30 billion ($3,408 x 9 million) of the federal deficit represents money transferred from native taxpayers to immigrants.

Our national immigration policies have to work for the United States. While improving the plight of the world’s poor is a laudable goal, the finite resources we have available to fulfill that goal would be swamped if there wasn’t some orderly and manageable system in place to limit entry into the United States to what this nation can actually support. The more illegal aliens that are permitted to subvert the immigration system, the fewer immigrants we can accommodate who might actually produce a positive benefit for our country.

The more we become a nation of illegal immigrants, the deeper we fall into anarchy.

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by zeezil

First, let us remember the "illegal" part of being an illegal immigrant. Most Americans don't seem to have problems with legal immigration, however it only seems fair to question the value of any additions to our country who already show no regard for it's laws upon arrival.

Second, it seems far too easily forgotten that one must be an U.S. citizen in order to warrant the rights afforded to a citizen. That should be the end of discussion.

This is PRECISELY the point I was trying to make! Thank you!

[blackisgray]

First let me note that most of the people in this country are immigrants except Native Americans and African-Americans who came to this country through the slave trade.

This whole elitist mentality pertaining the rights of being a citizen is ridiculous. They are HUMAN and should be given rights as such. EVERY human being should be allowed to go wherever they please. EVERY human being should be able to get free medical care, education, and a place to live. Obviously this isn't the case and cannot be sustained in a society with a gap between those who work with their minds and those who work with their hands. Those separations, in end, need to be abolished. It's not that immigrants can't work with their minds, they just aren't given the chance to when working the hardest in this country.

And before we pretend to be a "humanitarian" country, let's look at why they're here. With globalization programs like NAFTA and CAFTA, many Latin Americans are losing their jobs in their own countries. This is because the US and other imperialist countries are going into Mexico, Central America, etc. and taking over the economy--much of which is agriculture. So many people are forced to come here because the jobs in their area have been taken.

A few months ago, I went to an immigrant community a few hours outside of where I live. They were mostly Mexican immigrants who had lost their jobs in Mexico, where they worked in farms: coffee, strawberry farms, etc. because American companies were taking a lot of the land. Now they're here and have worse living conditions and work longer days...but they have to be here because this is the country that is taking their jobs.

And they're not taking over our economy. They're working the jobs that most Americans refuse to take. And YES our culture is changing. But is that a bad thing? What is this culture anyway? An individualist culture that thrives on consumerism and xenophobia. And it's not through colonialism, like the way this place changed with the first wave of immigrants, ie: the people making these horrible, racist laws.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by blackisgray

First let me note that most of the people in this country are immigrants except Native Americans and African-Americans who came to this country through the slave trade.

This whole elitist mentality pertaining the rights of being a citizen is ridiculous. They are HUMAN and should be given rights as such. EVERY human being should be allowed to go wherever they please.

If you went to Mexico illegally and was pulled over by the police I'd like to hear you tell them the same thing. That you are HUMAN and that no HUMAN is illegal and should be allowed to go wherever they please.

Then as they hauled you off you could call them racist too...

I am not against basic caring even of illegal immigrants but you take it too far. Your irrationality doesn't help your cause.

Furthermore, if you look at history over the past 5,000 years and not just the last 300 years you would know that conquest and slavery is not limited to any particular group.

I have a feeling you've probably never been out of the country...

[Brutha]

Let's secure our borders by building the fence so we have an effective and controlled immigration system at the same time as we enforce our currently existing immigration laws.

It's not clear that higher border security has reduced the number of illegal immigrants anywhere.
If there is an economic need smugglers will get a way around it.
If you really want to do something about the topic it would be most effictive to punish the employers to give no one an incentive to migrate illegaly into the US.

[blackisgray]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

If you went to Mexico illegally and was pulled over by the police I'd like to hear you tell them the same thing. That you are HUMAN and that no HUMAN is illegal and should be allowed to go wherever they please.

Then as they hauled you off you could call them racist too...

I am not against basic caring even of illegal immigrants but you take it too far. Your irrationality doesn't help your cause.

Furthermore, if you look at history over the past 5,000 years and not just the last 300 years you would know that conquest and slavery is not limited to any particular group.

I have a feeling you've probably never been out of the country...

I'm not saying that the Mexican government does any different, but I am here in the US and can try and change the way we treat human beings here. And it's short-sighted to say that I haven't looked at the entire span of humanity. I was simply stating that African Americans are not immigrants.

By the way, I have left the country---but that's not the point.

[Marco Polo]

Originally Posted by blackisgray

First let me note that most of the people in this country are immigrants except Native Americans and African-Americans who came to this country through the slave trade.

This whole elitist mentality pertaining the rights of being a citizen is ridiculous. They are HUMAN and should be given rights as such. EVERY human being should be allowed to go wherever they please. EVERY human being should be able to get free medical care, education, and a place to live. Obviously this isn't the case and cannot be sustained in a society with a gap between those who work with their minds and those who work with their hands. Those separations, in end, need to be abolished. It's not that immigrants can't work with their minds, they just aren't given the chance to when working the hardest in this country.

And before we pretend to be a "humanitarian" country, let's look at why they're here. With globalization programs like NAFTA and CAFTA, many Latin Americans are losing their jobs in their own countries. This is because the US and other imperialist countries are going into Mexico, Central America, etc. and taking over the economy--much of which is agriculture. So many people are forced to come here because the jobs in their area have been taken.

A few months ago, I went to an immigrant community a few hours outside of where I live. They were mostly Mexican immigrants who had lost their jobs in Mexico, where they worked in farms: coffee, strawberry farms, etc. because American companies were taking a lot of the land. Now they're here and have worse living conditions and work longer days...but they have to be here because this is the country that is taking their jobs.

And they're not taking over our economy. They're working the jobs that most Americans refuse to take. And YES our culture is changing. But is that a bad thing? What is this culture anyway? An individualist culture that thrives on consumerism and xenophobia. And it's not through colonialism, like the way this place changed with the first wave of immigrants, ie: the people making these horrible, racist laws.

Summary of your arguments:
-anyone who can physically get to America, should be a citizen (which is fine)
-Americans are imperialist
-and bigoted
-and horrible racists
-in fact American culture is a selfish, bigoted, postmodern cesspool of imperialist racists
-lets destroy it

OK, culture is always changing. So what? Change is not a virtue in and of itself. There is good change and there is bad change. Why don't you consider improving your culture instead of annihilating it. Also, stop calling people who oppose unleashed immigration racist. Would you like me to call you a excruciatingly naive scumbag, or a moralizing Liberal Fascist, for favoring amnesty? How about we keep ad hominems out of it.

Originally Posted by Brutha

It's not clear that higher border security has reduced the number of illegal immigrants anywhere.
If there is an economic need smugglers will get a way around it.
If you really want to do something about the topic it would be most effictive to punish the employers to give no one an incentive to migrate illegaly into the US.

This is very true. Although a properly enforced border does also make good practical sense.

Also, there needs to be an effective way of handling the people already in the country. Essentially they must be dealt with on an individual basis - it's not like you could kick them all out collectively. Aside from the moral problem with that, it could seriously pull the plug on the economy, which is faltering enough as it is.

[ogrekilleat]

Second, it seems far too easily forgotten that one must be an U.S. citizen in order to warrant the rights afforded to a citizen. That should be the end of discussion.

Why should that be the end of the discussion? Once it was generally accepted that one should be a white and male in order to "warrant the rights afforded to a citizen". Should that have been the end of the discussion?

One thing that is far too easily forgotten is that governments don't confer rights, they only take them away.

Why have we let the governments take away our rights to go where we want in search of better opportunities? The governments don't own the world. We let them govern because we derive benefit from the protection and the services they provide--so why should we stand for these excessive restrictions on our movements?

EVERY human being should be allowed to go wherever they please.

Right on!

[Brutha]

Morgan Spurlock, on his show "30 Days," had a man live with a family of illegal immigrants. The family name was changed to protect them, but their faces were not blurred out or anything--was Morgan Spurlock and everyone else associated with that show arrested since they were knowingly associating with illegal immigrants and not reporting them?

He's a journalist. When journalists research something they are supposed to protect their sources, otherwise our view of reality would be more narrow because people wouldn't share that much knowledge with journalists.

This is very true. Although a properly enforced border does also make good practical sense.

I don't think that it is realitstic to expect to be able to secure the border fully.

Most of the talk about border security is just an excuse to appear like one does something about the problem without harming anyone and having to make unpopular politic decisions.

One thing that is far too easily forgotten is that governments don't confer rights, they only take them away.

While governments don't confer natural rights (or if you believe in God godgiven rights) they do confer legal rights.

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by Brutha

He's a journalist. When journalists research something they are supposed to protect their sources, otherwise our view of reality would be more narrow because people wouldn't share that much knowledge with journalists.

He's still protecting someone who broke the law. It'd be no different than if he interviewed and showed someone who had murdered someone and was still free while the police were still looking for him, and all he (the journalist) did was change the murderer's last name for the show.

[Brutha]

He's still protecting someone who broke the law. It'd be no different than if he interviewed and showed someone who had murdered someone and was still free while the police were still looking for him, and all he (the journalist) did was change the murderer's last name for the show.

1) Murder is a different crime in which a human being was harmed, which give you other obligation than a crime like tax fraud or illegal immigration. If your friend cheats the IRS you don't have to call the police either.
2) Even when someone got murdered protecting sources of journalists should be more important because it's vital to a free press, if the journalist choices to do so.
Do you think that a pastor should be required to report a murder?
Do you think that a lawyer should be required to report a murder?
3) If you start with requiring journalists to report crime, a whistleblower is often a criminal because he gives out secret information and he has taken an oath to keep them secret.

[Marco Polo]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't think that it is realitstic to expect to be able to secure the border fully.

Most of the talk about border security is just an excuse to appear like one does something about the problem without harming anyone and having to make unpopular politic decisions.

OK, but it's not really about making the border totally inpermeable. That's like saying "we can't eliminate crime completely, therefore it's unrealistic to improve the police force". Don't you agree that improved border security would reduce the number of illegals?

Or do you think border security is good enough at the status quo?

[ogrekilleat]

While governments don't confer natural rights (or if you believe in God godgiven rights) they do confer legal rights.

They confer legal rights only be denying the natural rights of others. For example, we all have a natural right to be on this piece of ground--but they confer the legal right to be here on citizens by denying the natural right of non-citizens to be here.

[blackisgray]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

Summary of your arguments:
-anyone who can physically get to America, should be a citizen (which is fine)
-Americans are imperialist
-and bigoted
-and horrible racists
-in fact American culture is a selfish, bigoted, postmodern cesspool of imperialist racists
-lets destroy it

OK, culture is always changing. So what? Change is not a virtue in and of itself. There is good change and there is bad change. Why don't you consider improving your culture instead of annihilating it. Also, stop calling people who oppose unleashed immigration racist. Would you like me to call you a excruciatingly naive scumbag, or a moralizing Liberal Fascist, for favoring amnesty? How about we keep ad hominems out of it.

This is very true. Although a properly enforced border does also make good practical sense.

Also, there needs to be an effective way of handling the people already in the country. Essentially they must be dealt with on an individual basis - it's not like you could kick them all out collectively. Aside from the moral problem with that, it could seriously pull the plug on the economy, which is faltering enough as it is.

I didn't say Americans are racist and bigoted...I said the laws qualifying people as unworthy of human rights are racist. I said the attitude of nationalist xenophobia is racist.

[YourSelf]

I'm not from the US, but also in Europe we have many illegal immigrants, so I can speak of the issue a bit.

I myself am from a family of legal immigrants and while I think I am quite "integrated" in my society, I have experienced the dark sides of intrahuman violence and prejudice as well.

The problem in the EU is that human rights are overstressed in a way that illegal immigrants come and ruin their host countries without being punished harshly enough.

If you read the newspaper, most crimes are done by illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants even train their children to steal rich people on the road because they know the children won't be punished - no: they will be taken to youth communities where they will get a much better life.

So, while the crime rates increase, the effective co-operation between people of different cultures degenerates: The Native Europeans start hating the New Europeans, too, since it's difficult for them to distinguish the legal from the illegal immigrants at first sight.

While I'm not directly aware of it personally, I think that many of my friends who are legal immigrants and are conducting a proper life (are educated at university and are serving the country they have immigrated to) are also the targets of the subtle discrimination that results from the problems caused by illegal immigrants.
For example, I have several friends from Romania. Some of them are in high professional positions and some are even studying with me at my university. But why do they get discriminated sometimes? Because their fellow people who entered the country illegaly are creating a totally distorted image of them.

I think that every human being should enjoy basic rights, but tighter control should be exercised to prevent criminals from profiting of the loopholes created by fragile law enforcement.

That way, you separate the "good" immigrants from the "bad" ones.
And then there will [hopefully] be more co-operation and less xenophobia/discrimination.

The second point I would like to address is that without a more efficient bureaucracy, illegal immigrants will tend to stack up in ghettos. Ghettos are the worst enemy of intercultural learning, and the best place to breed hatred between people.

With regards to culture and diversity...
My view is that e.g. if I enter a country as a Muslim and I freely interact with friends who are atheists, none of us looses our personal individual integrity: I could teach them about how to prepare some tasty Arabic food, and they can teach me how come religion brainwashes people.
The outcome of our reciprocal learning and teaching would be that all of us become happy atheists who know how to prepare Arabic food.
This is obviously an over-simplified example, but what I mean is that if we really want to uphold our personal, individual integrity, we cannot deny the fact that in each culture there are pro's and con's - and that we can all enjoy life by collecting the pro's from all cultures and rejecting the con's.
It's like when two professionals meet and exchange their experiences with different professional standards. An honest exchange of information would lead to the convergence of standards.

[Marco Polo]

YourSelf, I also happen to live in Europe, and in my view immigration is a more complex issue here than in America. Adopting the American identity is easy, especially after the 2nd or 3rd generation. In Europe it's the opposite - for each generation, ethnic groups are becoming more polarized (at least psychologically). There is an American dream for everyone to be chased. There is no Dutch or Italian dream.

I agree that we have much to learn from each other. Secular Europe could learn from Islam the importance of spirituality and strong brotherhood (i.e. the concept behind the Ummah). In turn, like you say, us native Europeans could help them moderate their religious extremism. In a perfect world, there could be a good exchange.

However... I don't like to say this, because I'd love for everyone to be friends, but I'm not so optimistic about Europe's future. The sort of fatalism and lack of cultural confidence from the native Europeans, mixed with the militant attitude of immigrant youth, is a very bad sign for the continent. I have hope that we can fix it somehow, in the future. We can't create Nirvana perhaps, but we can try to soften the blow a bit. Because something has to change if we want to avert disaster.