Let's Have A Debate On Our Illegal Immigration Problem.

[mwfsu84]

Listening to a conservative radio talk show today, I heard the host bash Bush and the GOP on their lax immigration policies. He stated that this issue threatened to tear the GOP apart. And he isn't the first person to make that prediction.

I'm a staunch Republican who would hate to see such a dire prediction come true. I also admit in many ways I share Bush's views on the subject. Since he has done a poor job defending his views, I'd like to explain my own. Let's have a discussion and see if we can find some common ground. Or perhaps I am misinformed on the subject, in which case, I'd appreciate your input. I'd like to find some common ground...because I don't want this issue to destroy the conservative movement. Only civil responses, please. I didn't come here to fight.

I've always believed that America should be open to anyone who wants to work hard, live in peace. And the vast majority of immigrants who cross our southern border fit that description. I know several small business owners who hire them - both legally, by the way. They say they can't find Americans do the jobs they hire immigrants for. And these owners are extremely pleased with the immigrants' work ethic. They bust their tails and never complain.

Hispanic immigrants, for the most part, place a high value on their families. That's why many of them come here. A high percentage of them are practicing Catholics.

In my view, these are not the kind of people we should be turning away.

As I understand it, those who oppose illegal immigration do so for the following reasons:

1. It's in violation of the law.

2. Illegal immigrants use up services they don't pay for - schools, health care, etc.

3. Open borders leave us vulnerable to terrorists.

4. Many immigrants are violent criminals.

There is some validity to all of these arguments. Here are my responses.

1. Most of the immigrants here are in violation of the law. But like Prohibition in the 1920's, or the 55 mile an hour speed limit, it's a law that can't be effectively enforced.

We share an 1800 mile border with Mexico. What kind of barrier - physical or human - would possibly suffice to seal us off?

2. It's true that many Hispanics use services they didn't pay for. And I would hold their employers accountable for that. Employers should be the ones to report immigrants, taking out taxes from their payrolls. If not, the government should shut those businesses down, or fine them severely.

3. Open borders leave us vulnerable to terrorism. While I agree with this to an extent, I'd be more worried of terrorists crossing our border with Canada...a much longer border than the one with Mexico, by the way.

As I see it, there are two ways we can fight terrorists. We can seal off our borders, which is a defensive move. Or we can go on the offenisve, as we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq right now. But we can't do both. Doing both would be cost prohibitive.

I would suggest the reason we haven't suffered a major terrorists attack in this country in over four years - despite our open borders - is because our strategy of going on the offensive is working.

4. Many illegal immigrants are violent criminals. I have no doubt this is true, but I'd like to know what the percentage is. As I said before, I believe the vast majority of individuals don't fit this description.

Hispanics are already the largest minority in America. Who they vote for in the future will determine which party stays in power.

[mthom]

Its so heart warming to hear how these hispanic immigrants are so disgusted by the idea of becoming an American.

[spintreebob]

I'm in the insurance industry. The insurance companies were overly generous. I had many conversations with insurance adjusters, roofing company owners (some of whom are immigrants), salesmen (many of whom are immigrants) foremen and workers (most of whom are immigrants, virtually all Hispanic). I had conversations in both English and Spanish. I had conversations with other residents both in and not in the insurance or construction trades.

The number of houses re-roofed was many. The pressure was on to get them all re-roofed in a short period of time, which drove up the labor price ... supply and demand. Of course, they were not all re-roofed in a short period of time. Some insurance claims were settled promptly and some weren't. That had more to do with getting the paperwork correct than with whether the roof was actually damaged or not. Some insurance companies had the attitude that som many roofs were damaged, why go to the expense of having an adjuster look at it. Just give a standard price for each of the 3 roof sizes in the largest of the subdivisions and rubber stamp every claim.

(The insurance claims were for hail damage to cars also. Some insurance companies paid damage to 100% of cars addressed in the hail area without asking if the cars were at the work location at the time of the hail storm and not damaged by the hail, which 75% of the cars were. Thus the rest of you insurance premium payers paid for hail damage to cars that weren't in the hail storm and weren't fixed. But those who collected on such claims aren't complaining.)