Immigration reform ideas.

[Duel of Fates]

Oh oh. Someone just got done watching Bill Maher.

[WD-40]

As I am writing this, I'm pretty livid, so please understand that my derisiveness is directed at what you are saying, not you as a person. I thank you for your service as a veteran and can only hope that you didn't mean what you wrote above.

Pepsi, I meant every single letter, word and syllable. What's the point of writing it if I didn't mean it?? That being said, you coulda saved a lot of time by simply only stating that you 'watch Stephen Colbert', and that would have been enough. ^^(Bill Maher too I suppose, as he is an angry liberal 24/7)^^

I have to admit, your attacks on my views are pretty petty, weak nit-picky and without much substance about what is happening in the here and now. At least Mandalore Wiki-ed better comebacks. But you're a known Liberal, which explains a lot, but also just admitted you're 'Angry' (Liberal), so your mental handicap goes up exponentially in that regard. I'm not attacking you personally, just the stupid Liberal things you said.

Btw, I appreciate the 'Service' gratitude. Perhaps you'd like to 'serve'? Might make you start becoming disgusted with Liberal theology and appreciate what sacrifice to protect our laws and way of life truly means.

[Mandalore]

You know you done goofed when you compare Pew Research to Wiki'd answers. I apologize for using cold hard statistics WD, I know you don't like those. :)

On a side note, nationalism does some funny stuff to the brain.

Also, Pepsi, that NY Times article you linked seems a little off. They state that it's a problem that most people view the Civil War as a result of a division over federal vs state powers instead of slavery. Unless I'm reading that incorrectly.

On a side note...should anyone be born with citizenship? I'd love to see a system where you have to earn it regardless of where you were born.

And for the record...choosing what laws you want to obey and which ones you don't in order to improve society has been called civil disobedience. It's pretty much one of the best things about our country. Not saying immigrants are immigrating to prove a point in that regard...but that they are proving a point by doing it in any case.

[WD-40]

And for the record...choosing what laws you want to obey and which ones you don't in order to improve society has been called civil disobedience. It's pretty much one of the best things about our country. Not saying immigrants are immigrating to prove a point in that regard...but that they are proving a point by doing it in any case.

'Civil disobedience' is a good argument, as the American Colony's were all about just that under British Rule leading to the Revolution and the creation of the Constitution for the USA. And the Constitution allows some freedom to assemble and speak out against laws. However, it does not give way to 'breaking' the Law, especially by non-US Citizens. Laws are created by 'representatives' of The People and signed by the President as I'm sure you know. But then we have a President in office now who is consistently bypassing Laws by Executive Orders which is illegal, as he does not go thru Congress (The People), violating what the Constitution was meant to prevent...by separating the 'Power' into 3 separate branches of Government.

Since the President can continually get away with violating the Law with no respect for what the People's Representatives want, then why should I, you or anyone else obey? I and others do to have faith and respect for our Constitution and Laws to hold this Democracy together. Without that belief and dedication, our Country will fail and lawlessness will reign. Can't cherry pick this.

If people don't like a Law, then by God, campaign the Representatives and the President to repeal it! That's a good form of Civil Disobedience, and it works. They want all the illegals to have Amnesty, then change the Law. But don't end run it because it's easier to ignore it with some Executive Order. Obama wants his victories and his party's votes, but he also doesn't want to have to work for it through Legislation and effort. If the Representatives do or don't agree with enough votes to change the Law, then The People have spoken. As anal as you think I am about Amnesty, this process is something I can and have to accept. Try again later if needed, vote new Reps in, whatever. But due process should be followed so no one can argue about the legality of this er or any other.

[(SWGO)Kren]

Border patrol and security improves immensely because the average illegal immigrant no longer is "hopping the border" but legally registering. This allows the border security to really do their job when it comes to those exact things you said Duel. To give a domestic example, how much more able would the Police be able to do their job if they didn't have to write speeding tickets all day long? Not only does this present a higher level of efficiency on the front lines, it would also greatly reduce the bureaucratic stress of those agencies as those responsibilities are transported to other areas of government.

I would be more than welcome to respond to rational arguments bounded by statistics, Duel and WD. I apologize for name calling WD. I have a tendency to think the worst of you since in all honesty I think you're a bit of a [quack]. I get the feeling that the reverse is also true, so i'm not too worried about it. Not only that but your original posts did smack very much of racism. Can I get a neutral third party to way in on that, just in case I was wrong? (Kren would be the only one described as such in the last few posts, I think). I would also like someone to provide some cons of illegal immigrants being legalized and a return to our old way of immigration laws (pretty much free borders) that is backed up by statistics and scholarly studies.

Have immigrants broken the law? Yes. Have the majority of their reasons been good ones? Ones that every single person can understand? Yes. If you were living in a [poo] hole country and the opportunity to move to America presented itself, I doubt you'd be concerning yourself with immigration law in that case.

Firstly statistics from your own Government:

http://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states-1
http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_ill_pe_2012_2.pdf
http://www.dhs.gov/publication/immigration-enforcement-actions-2012
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21729.pdf

Some of the above links are a few years old but it will give you an idea regarding a number of the concerns raised in this thread. A number of these statistics can be viewed as common sense even by anyone from another country (i.e. me!) and certainly not unexpected in relation to the findings.

2009 Stats

How many unauthorized immigrants are in the United States?
According to Pew Hispanic Center estimates, there were 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in March 2009. The size of the unauthorized population appears to have declined since 2007.

How has illegal immigration responded to the economic crisis in the United States?
Research in the United States and other countries indicates that, along with temporary migrant workers, flows of unauthorized immigrants are most closely linked to the economy and thus the ones most likely to fall in poor economic times.

How many apprehensions were there in 2009?
There were over half a million apprehensions in 2009.The overwhelming majority, 97 percent, were along the Southwest border.
The 2009 figure is the lowest since 1972, when 505,949 unauthorized immigrants were apprehended.

How much does the government spend on immigration control and enforcement?
Funding for the Border Patrol, at the time part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Department of Justice, increased 519 percent between 1986 and 2002, from $268 million to $1.6 billion.

How many Border Patrol agents are there?
The number of Border Patrol agents doubled from approximately 9,000 in 2001 to 19,726 in 2008. In 2009, the number of Border Patrol agents increased to 20,163.

How many immigrants naturalized in 2009?
The number of naturalizations reached an all-time record high in 2008 (1,046,539) before falling by 28.9 percent in 2009. However, compared to 2007, the number of naturalizations in 2009 increased by 12.6 percent.
The high number of naturalizations in 2008 can be explained at least in part by the presidential elections, which immigrant advocacy groups used in their ongoing campaigns to promote naturalization, and by the 80.0 percent increase in naturalization fees (from $330 to $595) scheduled for the end of July 2007 and announced in January 2007.

2012 Stats

In summary, an estimated 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in January 2012 compared to 11.5 million in January 2011. These results suggest little to no change in the unauthorized immigrant population from 2011 to 2012. Of all unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in 2012, 42 percent entered in 2000 or later.

It is unlikely that the unauthorized immigrant population has increased since 2007 given relatively high U.S. unemployment, improved economic conditions in Mexico, record low numbers of apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants at U.S. borders, and greater levels of border enforcement.

An estimated 8.9 million (78 percent) of the total 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in 2012 were from North America, including Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America (see Figure 2). The next leading regions of origin were Asia (1.3 million) and South America (0.7 million).
Mexico continued to be the leading source country of unauthorized immigration to the United States. There were 6.7 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico in 2012, representing 59 percent of the unauthorized population.

Mexican nationals accounted for 70 percent of all aliens apprehended in 2012.

Returns. In 2012, 229,968 aliens were returned to their home countries without an order of removal, a decline of 29 percent from 2011 and the lowest number since 1969 (see Table 9). 2012 was the eighth consecutive year in which returns declined. The decrease between 2011 and 2012 is partly due to changes in the issuance of administra-tive returns by Border Patrol. Sixty-nine percent of returns in 2012 involved Mexican or Canadian aliens, down from 72 percent in 2011.

The length of the U.S.-Mexican border is estimated at 1,933 miles.

Anyway I am not going to extract everything from these links, you guys will need to take a read.

For me in the UK unauthorised immigration and the open borders is a constant issue however the following points highlight areas which are concerning and I am sure is the same in the US:

* The amount of unauthorised immigrants who are in the UK.
* Population increase due to immigrants (authorised/unauthorised). For authorised housing, benefits, education, jobs are all a factor.
* Immigrants who are here legally but are claiming benefits (health, housing, social security, tax credits) as is a drain on the economy.
* Deportation issues, i.e. the cost of deportation for unauthorised immigrants.
* The cost of detention facilities for unauthorised immigrants.
* Border security costs.
* The influx of immigrants from Europe into the UK.
* The cost of reforming immigration laws.
* The length of time to reform laws.

I am not oppossed to immigration however to be successful it has to be balanced otherwise there is significant impact upon the economy and the population irrespective of the country. A way to influence an existing Governments view upon immigration and to get them to focus is for individuals to vote for the party which will move towards change, this subsequently alters the balance of power across the country and forces current Governments to review their policies or face the prospect of losing out at the next general election (UK). This is now begining to happen over here with the UKIP party making significant progress and taking seats (local and Euro) from the main parties (Conservatives and labour).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2639106/New-crackdown-limit-EU-migrants-access-benefits-Ministers-plan-try-win-dissatisfied-voters-Ukip.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2638960/Will-earth-Ukip-confident-triggering-political-earthquake-winning-European-elections-tonight.html

The danger with any view on immigration is to let the far right into the equation as they spew hate towards other races and you can see such parties emerging in Europe now such as the national front and neo-nazis movements gaining foot holds. They are attempting to deceive through their nationalistic approach and we all are well aware of what happened in WW2. Their approach is via insidous methods but discrimination towards others is their goal so be aware once the door has been opened for such groups they can gain significant numbers very quickly.

If you have balanced immigration this does not have a counter productive impact upon that country, the difficultly is actually getting to this stage as it takes effort, resources, border security, money and law reformations which unfortunately does not happen overnight.

In my opinion you guys should be generating momentum and at local and state level, approach your local reprensatives and get more people involved in making the changes. The more focus and individuals you have the more opportunity to make changes. If however the efforts are done in isolated pockets or there is not much interest then you need to then consider is immigration really a priority for the American population, only time will tell.

On a lighter note you guys (and the French) did this to the British to form the USA so it's not beyond reach to make radical changes and look what has been achieved since the split so reforming such a thing as immigration should certainly be within reach. If there is a will to do this it can be achieved however failing that you can always come back to the dark side, back to the Empire, you'd be welcome!

All joking aside I hope the above helps and good luck guys as I know how contentious the immigration issue is.

Kren.

[Duel of Fates]

The danger with any view on immigration is to let the far right into the equation as they spew hate towards other races and you can see such parties emerging in Europe now such as the national front and neo-nazis movements gaining foot holds. They are attempting to deceive through their nationalistic approach and we all are well aware of what happened in WW2. Their approach is via insidous methods but discrimination towards others is their goal so be aware once the door has been opened for such groups they can gain significant numbers very quickly.
Unfortunately over the years, the political spectrum has shifted to the Left more and more over the last couple of generations. Instead of being conservative, now people are being labeled Far Right, when in fact that is not the case. And your assumption that all Right leaning conservatives are lumped into the category of racist or neo-Nazi is a disservice. I am not picking a fight with you Kren, I am merely pointing out the dangers of lumping everyone who has conservative values as race hating bigots. I consider myself a conservative through and through, but now morons like Mandy and Pepsi will take that and brand me a racist. Even though I am not, nor are a majority of the current mislabeled "Far Right".

If you have balanced immigration this does not have a counter productive impact upon that country, the difficultly is actually getting to this stage as it takes effort, resources, border security, money and law reformations which unfortunately does not happen overnight.
But it would help if the Office of the President, along with the heads of Congress had the common sense and backbones.

In my opinion you guys should be generating momentum and at local and state level, approach your local reprensatives and get more people involved in making the changes. The more focus and individuals you have the more opportunity to make changes. If however the efforts are done in isolated pockets or there is not much interest then you need to then consider is immigration really a priority for the American population, only time will tell.
I totally agree. Unfortunately every time our local leaders and state leaders try to fix anything, we have the Federal government come in and tell us no. The Dept. of Justice, being used by the current administration, comes in and challenges the state and local governments saying that either they are unconstitutional, or that the Federal Government has sole jurisdiction for policies on border states. It is very difficult to get a cohesive movement going in government, but it becomes a hundred times harder to get anything done when the Federal Government interference gums up the works.

On a lighter note you guys (and the French) did this to the British to form the USA so it's not beyond reach to make radical changes and look what has been achieved since the split so reforming such a thing as immigration should certainly be within reach. If there is a will to do this it can be achieved however failing that you can always come back to the dark side, back to the Empire, you'd be welcome!
Again, it is not radical if you want to enforce the laws already on the books. It is not radical to expect elected government officials to uphold the wishes of the people. Nor is it radical to expect that the President to not exceed his powers, and actually uphold and defend the Constitution by enforcing all the laws, not just the ones he likes.

All joking aside I hope the above helps and good luck guys as I know how contentious the immigration issue is.

Thanx Kren, I appreciated the effort and the statistics. Now I am going to go get a coffee and finish waking up.

Kren.

[Darth Crater]

Unfortunately over the years, the political spectrum has shifted to the Left more and more over the last couple of generations.

Obama is farther right than Reagan was. Reagan wanted amnesty for illegal immigrants. Obama doesn't. Reagan raised taxes more than Obama has. Reagan was more in favor of gun control than Obama is.

[Duel of Fates]

Unfortunately over the years, the political spectrum has shifted to the Left more and more over the last couple of generations.

Obama is farther right than Reagan was. Reagan wanted amnesty for illegal immigrants. Obama doesn't. Reagan raised taxes more than Obama has. Reagan was more in favor of gun control than Obama is.

I just spit my coffee all over the kitchen table. That is by far the stupidest and most uninformed observation I have ever had the misfortune to read. If you really believe that, you are completely off your nut. Come on Crater, there is nothing Right when you look at Obama. He is by far the most far Left progressive liberal ever since Wilson or Roosevelt. Possibly the most radical left president in history. And you are comparing him to one of the most conservative presidents in history? You are basing this ignorant and clearly false conclusion based on political compromises of thirty plus years ago? Thought you were better than that.

Now that I finished my coffee, realize you probably were making a joke.

[Darth Crater]

I just spit my coffee all over the kitchen table. That is by far the stupidest and most uninformed observation I have ever had the misfortune to read. If you really believe that, you are completely off your nut. Come on Crater, there is nothing Right when you look at Obama. He is by far the most far Left progressive liberal ever since Wilson or Roosevelt. Possibly the most radical left president in history. And you are comparing him to one of the most conservative presidents in history? You are basing this ignorant and clearly false conclusion based on political compromises of thirty plus years ago? Thought you were better than that.

I was completely serious. Further examples. During the 2012 debates, Obama and Romney were indistinguishable on foreign policy. Obama literally took his healthcare plan from Romney's Massachusetts and from the Heritage Foundation. Obama does not dispute the idea of cutting government spending, but merely which programs it should come from.

Reagan's support for the Brady Bill was not a "political compromise." Nor was his support for amnesty, which he argued for in a 1984 debate with Mondale and put into action in a bill in 1986.

Please provide evidence for your claim that Obama might be the "most radical left president in history."

[(SWGO)Kren]

Unfortunately over the years, the political spectrum has shifted to the Left more and more over the last couple of generations. Instead of being conservative, now people are being labeled Far Right, when in fact that is not the case. And your assumption that all Right leaning conservatives are lumped into the category of racist or neo-Nazi is a disservice. I am not picking a fight with you Kren, I am merely pointing out the dangers of lumping everyone who has conservative values as race hating bigots. I consider myself a conservative through and through, but now morons like Mandy and Pepsi will take that and brand me a racist. Even though I am not, nor are a majority of the current mislabeled "Far Right". ]

No I understand where you are coming from however I have met quite a number of people with extreme views who do support these movements. When I say right I mean the far right and their skin headed fascists who hate other races with a passion. The 2 primary ones over here are the BNP and the EDL and they aren't pleasant by any means I can assume you. I've seen their rally's and encountered some of their members in the past.

Some of the recent elections within Europe:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05 ... 91873.html

There are parties who far right views are not bordering on the extreme views of some of the parties mentioned and those contained in the link I was not trying to lump everyone into that category, apologies if this came through like that.

But it would help if the Office of the President, along with the heads of Congress had the common sense and backbones.

In my opinion you guys should be generating momentum and at local and state level, approach your local representatives and get more people involved in making the changes. The more focus and individuals you have the more opportunity to make changes. If however the efforts are done in isolated pockets or there is not much interest then you need to then consider is immigration really a priority for the American population, only time will tell.

I totally agree. Unfortunately every time our local leaders and state leaders try to fix anything, we have the Federal government come in and tell us no. The Dept. of Justice, being used by the current administration, comes in and challenges the state and local governments saying that either they are unconstitutional, or that the Federal Government has sole jurisdiction for policies on border states. It is very difficult to get a cohesive movement going in government, but it becomes a hundred times harder to get anything done when the Federal Government interference gums up the works.

Your political structure is different from ours because yours is federal republic and that the authority is divided into three tiers of national, state and local government whilst at the national level the government is split into three autonomous branches being legislative, executive and judicial so the difficulties associated with it can be quite daunting. The UK political system can be seen as similar but it is also quite different in many ways which I'll not bore you with the details but suffice to say it does not work as a good as it should but then again unfortunately this can be said for many Governments across the globe.

On a lighter note you guys (and the French) did this to the British to form the USA so it's not beyond reach to make radical changes and look what has been achieved since the split so reforming such a thing as immigration should certainly be within reach. If there is a will to do this it can be achieved however failing that you can always come back to the dark side, back to the Empire, you'd be welcome!

Again, it is not radical if you want to enforce the laws already on the books. It is not radical to expect elected government officials to uphold the wishes of the people. Nor is it radical to expect that the President to not exceed his powers, and actually uphold and defend the Constitution by enforcing all the laws, not just the ones he likes.

No I meant radical in terms of what happened to form your country. It is not radical to expect elected officials in our case our MP's to hold meetings, collate findings and then take this to parliament. Our problem is that even though it can be taken to parliament and debated that does not mean it will change. In my opinion if our representatives whom we elect and the Government are not acting upon the views of the people it is a very dire time indeed. I think we are now at a point where UK politics is undergoing some changes that is forcing the larger parties to re-think their objectives or face the prospect of them losing power or having to share it with a party which they never considered in the past. This shift is starting to drive change and I hope that over the next four years the UK will be stronger politically and economically for this.

Thanx Kren, I appreciated the effort and the statistics. Now I am going to go get a coffee and finish waking up.

No problem Duel, it's not an easy thing wading through the information so good luck with it. I've been working since 7am this morning and just finished at 6pm, been a long day however I cannot say it's been that bad or taxing based upon incentives awarded for me working upon this public holiday (bank holiday).

Kren.