Why should they have any more repercussions than you, or someone here on a visa? You claim to not see it, but you will. I actually favor a fence in some areas, like Arizona where people cross and end up wandering in the desert until they die of dehydration. I've repeatedly mentioned that I was able to cross into Mexico just a few years ago, and without a passport; I'm glad there were no repercussions once I crossed through customs. I've also pointed out that Naturalization laws were enacted in 1790, before the first congress adjourned. Immigration laws were not passed until the 1880s. They clearly are not intertwined.
They should have more repercussions than I, who was born here and who's parents immigrated legally...because we did go through the proper channels, to become documented, go through the process..not simply hop across a river and blam, I'm entitled to taxpayer money now!
as someone who works on the frontlines of welfare for the medical care Food Stamps, Tanf etc.. the ones who are illegal do NOT get the benefits when they apply for them.. the only benefits that get issued for are the legal citizens/residents.. yet everyone's income is taken into account.. even for those who are illegal. and as Anima has mentioned.. a lot of what you guys are thinking is a myth.
The typical story I hear is these people work their asses off, live in cramped quarters, and send money home to their families in Mexico. There, they would have made $3000/year if they had a top job. It's not at all a surprise that someone with that earning potential would be attracted here to make $6K (~$3/hr) or ideally minimum wage. I don't envy anyone who thinks living off food stamps and welfare is a good living or an attraction to migrating here.
That is the typical story, and typical circumstances for those in their situation... even a lot who are here legally. I just think that people who assume that they get help even when they are illegal are ignorant IMO.. especially when they say crap based on what they hear.
Sweet. If we find an illegal alien, we deport them. I think that's taking good care of them. Are you on crack? You don't see how unfettered immigration is a national security threat and a threat to American citizens seeking jobs within this country? If that's "not in the least" to you, then we have nothing more to discuss. Your position is flat out insane. And you've neglected illegal immigration completely. Again, I'm fine with legal immigration, when the laws to enter the country are followed. Illegals violate those laws. You discussing only legal immigration is a straw man. The issue is illegal immigration. Your pollyannish views on immigrants is fascinating and completely ignores reality. You think that your model would stop illegal immigration? I think opening our borders would make it more likely. More drugs, more prostitution and more unregulated labor. It's not our job to support Mexico and Central America. The best thing we can do is send their citizens back and let them focus on building their economies, not ours. I'd be interested if you can name one country who uses your standard. For the life of me I can't think of one.
It was proven pretty well during the W years that intelligence gathering is how you deal with national security. The 9/11 hijackers came here "legally" on visas, and none of them were mexicans or from south america. If there are actual crimes with victims, the law should step in and do its duty. If we have minimum wage laws, enforce those. The bullshit law that makes people "illegal" puts them in the situation where they can be taken advantage of - those who are taking advantage are the criminals. My stance is consistent. People have always come here for the Liberty we offer. Whether it was the puritans who came here for religious freedom, or the many peoples who came here for the opportunities our land offers or for jobs, or the many people who have come here because the political or economic situation in their home countries sucked (or worse). The only exception is black folks, who were brought here in chains as captive slaves. My model is that the only thing that makes any immigration "illegal" has been both arbitrary and prejudicial, and came about during a time that was our worst when it comes to race relations. That'd be a couple of decades after those slaves were freed and resentment toward them and other people of color was the highest, when we slaughtered the indians, when we banned immigration of Chinese people because their skin wasn't white enough. I've already pointed out to you how there are millions of what you'd call "illegal" immigrants from Iraq living in Syria, so there's at least one country.
So, your position is because terrorist came in through visas, we may as well open up our borders to unfettered access? That's like saying, I just had a heart attack, so I think I'll go order a double cheeseburger and fries. I didn't say it wasn't consistent, I said it was crazy. Pointing out history is a red herring. Standards change as technology and threats do. Your position is that we're a big blue marble and my position is that the current setup works fine, other than the laws aren't being enforced enough. We're going to have to agree to disagree. I believe jobs in America should be for Americans first, just like jobs in Canada and Mexico are for Canadians and Mexicans first. Our unemployment rate is high enough already. You wish to export even more capital from this country? To me, that's an insane proposition. And is it Syria's policy that they have a free, open and unfettered border with Iraq, or is it just that's how it works in practice? I doubt it's the former.
I love reading comments from people who are so pro republican or democrat, they can't think for themselves. Or the people that think one person is responsible for any decision made by the government.
