Posted on 08/22/2002 7:04:53 AM PDT by Sabertooth
This is a vanity post, let's get that straight from the start.
Perhaps the most vain aspect of it is the conceit that it might stay on topic, but I'm going to give it a whirl.
One of the more contentious species of threads encountered on Free Republic are those dealing with the subject of America's immigration policy, particularly with regard to the Illegal Aliens currently in our country. According a range of reasonable sources, the estimates of their numbers here currently here range from six to thirteen million. Whatever the actual count, there are quite a few people now in violation of American immigration law.
One subtopic that inevitably arises is the question of Amnesty:
Should all or some portion of the Illegal Aliens be granted an Amnesty and be thereby allowed to change their status and acquire legal residence in the United States?
That's the question I'd like to put forward to the members of Free Republic.
Almost as inevitably on threads dealing with this subject, flame wars erupt. It's not my purpose to instigate another round of that, they're rather predictable. So I'd like to ask that your comments, if you're inclined to share them, focus on the big picture of American immigration policy, with particular attention to the subject of Amnesty. I'm not interested in the stock and gratuitous divisiveness of race-baiting or referring to the President as "Jorge," or anything of that nature from any quarter. It achieves nothing, it's sulphurous methane heat with no light shed.
I'd also like to avoid ad hominem ambushes. I'm genuinely interested in learning the collective feelings of Free Republic members on this subject. If you're gonna post, I'd like to ask that you ante up with your opinion on the question at hand before engaging the discussion with others. No taking potshots from the obscurity of the sidelines. I'll post my opinion below at #1.
Fair enough?
So, once again, here's the question:
Should all or some portion of the Illegal Aliens be granted an Amnesty and be thereby allowed to change their status and acquire legal residence in the United States?
I like that analogy - I've gotta remember that one!
I agree. That was a very apt analogy. I'm wonder what laws I can break and get amnestied for later if I get caught.
he,he,he...Barnacle you know me too well for that.
Years ago, a kid broke into the home of a Gary cop. The cop - resourceful as he was - quietly went behind the kid and blocked the door behind him, then turned on the light, pointing a .357 at the kid.
The kid, in his infinite wisdom, lunged at the cop. The cop opened fire.
Needless to say, the kid survived - he was so doped up on PCP at the time, that the drugs actually saved his life. But using your example, the cop should have said, "Oh, hello. Here's a broom. Start sweeping over there."
NooooOOOOOO!!
Let's see. Breaking and entering. Illegal entry. Both sound pretty much the same to me.
And the commensurate penalties: If I catch him in the house, a dozen or so good clocks with my Louisville Slugger, or Glock, which ever is in arm's reach. Deportation. They both sound good to me.
In either event, you are dealing with two simple concepts: Crime and Punishment.
Oh, and I'll be damned if I tell this guy that it's OK to stay, only to have him use my phone to call his brothers, cousins, parents, grandparents, and good ol' Uncle Raoul to tell them to come on across the border to join him!
Single females, 18 to 40?
At the moment, "Did not state."
Even if I think I know what someone might answer, I'm only recording the incontrovertible replies. However, if you want to "change status," I'm offering that option for a limited time.
There may be background checks.
Torie, are expecting me to believe you know Diddle E. Squat?
Posted by pulaskibush to Sabertooth On News/Activism Aug 23 0:28 AM #429 of 897
For a few. Those with family, no crime, working, etc. They would have to go before a judge or jury and explain their case. They would still have to pay back whatever welfare/schooling/education/etc. they had recieved in the form of fines and could not become citizens until doing so. In a since, they would be on parol. And just like parol, if they skipped town, committed crime, etc. they pay. Instead of jail, they go south. Any stuff they have here is auctioned off by the government or given to charities. Of course we need the military to stop the further illegal immigration and the native countries can pay for some of the expenses. Legal immigrants wouldn't have to argue their case or pay fines, so it's still better to come here legally.
It's the best idea I can come up with.
Ok that's a fair statement. I can't find fault anywhere with that.
I believe that assimilation is the key to a successful immigration policy. American culture shares many common roots with the Judaeo-Christian, Greco-Roman culture of Europe. People of those cultures are going to be more easily assimilated than people from other cultures, with many graduations along the scale. Europeans tend to be Caucasian, but there are plenty of exceptions. A Black Englishman is going to assimilate more easily than a White Albanian, or a someone from Tokyo more quickly than a tribesman from the highlands of Borneo.
We're on the same page where with some differences. I agree with most of what you're saying. I myself think we have most in common with Canada and Mexico, as they both exist as satellite economies of our own. Both of them stand as soveriegn nations, only because we're here to scare away the baddies. I've been through most of Europe, and I think the average Mexican is far more easily assimilated than your average Frenchman or Belgian.
In other words, unlike other nations, I don't think a Mexican can truly put Mexico above America. America's interests are Mexico's interests. Mexico can neither rise nor fall without America first rising or following. It's a complete dependancy.
In the past year I've also come to the conclusion that one particular culture, Islam, is intrinsically hostile to ours, and that America ought to adopt a policy of studied wariness to immigration from Moslem nations.
Agreed. Islam is a threat to capitalism and democracy in any form be it a parlimentary system, a republic, or a pure democracy. Islam only recognizes Islamic law, and a man can't serve two masters. You can't embrace our system, and the Islamic system. One has to give.
I also agree with you about a colorblind system. I myself would welcome an immigration policy that examined the wealth, education, occupation, and list of other pertinent factors over ethnicity.
Call it PC, call it what you will, but I instinctively balk when the immigration threads turns into what I percieve as racism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.