Illegal Immigration

[dwmoeller1]

Then you are in favor of unlimited and unrestricted immigration?

What restrictions - if any - would you advocate?

Not allowing entry to those who have been previously convicted of crimes which are felonies under our laws as well.

Some sort of restriction with regards to anyone connected to terrorism.

Those entering must be registered and finger printed, be tested for communicable diseases, be subject to immunization as determined by health officials, and be subject to the same quarantine rules that anyone else entering the country is.

There might be some other minor things I might add, but this gives a good representation of the basic approach.

 

[NiteShift]

Either one agrees with those ideals or one does not. If one does not, then they should be upfront with the real issue they have with illegal immigration - they simply don't want large numbers to come to the US.

Or alternatively, they believe that there are already so many that it will take generations to assimilate those currently in country, and it is time to stem the flow. Do you know of any nation in the world that would allow unlimited numbers of Americans, millions of the poorest Americans, to enter their country with little or no restriction?

Illegal immigration is merely the current form of this, but allowing them to come legally would not the fix problem.

To which I would have to say No Kidding. Allowing them to continue coming at the current levels, even if that were to be legally mandated, would solve nothing. Who has argued for this? The rules are in place for a reason: that being that we wish to allow in the numbers and the skill sets that we need. Just as Canada does and Australia does. It is a matter of controlling our borders and then having some control over who actually enters, not just being able to say that it’s all legal now.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Or alternatively, they believe that there are already so many that it will take generations to assimilate those currently in country, and it is time to stem the flow. Do you know of any nation in the world that would allow unlimited numbers of Americans, millions of the poorest Americans, to enter their country with little or no restriction?

Its not really an "alternately" - its a subset of contra-SoL ideals. Either you seek to welcome the "teeming masses" or you don't.

And the point is not what other countries would do. American ideals are not determined or bounded by what other countries would do.

To which I would have to say No Kidding. Allowing them to continue coming at the current levels, even if that were to be legally mandated, would solve nothing.

Hence why I have been trying to bring out the fact that the illegality of the immigration is not the main point.

Who has argued for this?

When the question is asked "What is the problem with illegal immigration." and the answer comes back "It's illegal!" that implies that it would no longer be a problem if they had come legally. My point is that the central problem with illegal immigration is not that its illegal, but that its a large number of poor immigrants.

The rules are in place for a reason: that being that we wish to allow in the numbers and the skill sets that we need. Just as Canada does and Australia does. It is a matter of controlling our borders and then having some control over who actually enters, not just being able to say that it’s all legal now.

Its not matter of controlling our borders. Extremely few disagree that we should control our borders. Even those who are pro-immigration and all for amnesty still will agree that we need to control our borders. The issue is the sorts of controls we set for our borders - how restrictive our immigration policies should be. The whole "But its illegal." protest is a smoke screen to the real issue if you really believe they shouldn't be allowed to come at all.

But since we seem to agree on the real issue at work in the illegal immigration debate, my job is done. Wouldn't mind starting another thread to discuss immigration policies and the like though.

 

[Melanie]

Not allowing entry to those who have been previously convicted of crimes which are felonies under our laws as well.

Some sort of restriction with regards to anyone connected to terrorism.

Those entering must be registered and finger printed, be tested for communicable diseases, be subject to immunization as determined by health officials, and be subject to the same quarantine rules that anyone else entering the country is.

There might be some other minor things I might add, but this gives a good representation of the basic approach.

I don't know how strict America is but I know you can been TB active and still get through immigration in Australia. I could not believe it, I was seriously peeved because I HAD to get checked for 5 years because of it.

As for terrorist activities you can plead being a victim of culturally insensitve regime and defend your actions as legimate pre-emptive strikes surely

 

[Gold Dragon]

I don't know how strict America is but I know you can been TB active and still get through immigration in Australia. I could not believe it, I was seriously peeved because I HAD to get checked for 5 years because of it.

I just needed to get one chest X-ray, a Mantoux test and a physician assessment to confirm that I did not have TB to get my Australian visa. I'm not sure if they would have rejected the application if I did have TB. I can't see them allowing someone with active TB who isn't under treatment but someone with latent TB should not be a problem.

Did you need to get the Mantoux for 5 years?

I also needed an HIV status because I would be working in hospitals but my wife did not.

 

[targus]

Not allowing entry to those who have been previously convicted of crimes which are felonies under our laws as well.

Some sort of restriction with regards to anyone connected to terrorism.

Those entering must be registered and finger printed, be tested for communicable diseases, be subject to immunization as determined by health officials, and be subject to the same quarantine rules that anyone else entering the country is.

There might be some other minor things I might add, but this gives a good representation of the basic approach.

So as far as you are concerned - any and all persons on the planet should be free to jump on a plane, train, bus, car, or boat - get to the border - show that they are not convicted felons - and be allowed to enter and stay in the U.S. indefinately?

Student VISA, temporary VISA -all that should just go out the window.

Just how many people do you think that the U.S can sustain - medically, food supply, shelter, employment, etc.?

 

[dwmoeller1]

So as far as you are concerned - any and all persons on the planet should be free to jump on a plane, train, bus, car, or boat - get to the border - show that they are not convicted felons - and be allowed to enter and stay in the U.S. indefinately?

Yep. Revert to the ideals which made this a country of immigrants in the first place.

Student VISA, temporary VISA -all that should just go out the window.

Not necessarily. It might be useful to distinguish between short-term and long-term residents.

Just how many people do you think that the U.S can sustain - medically, food supply, shelter, employment, etc.?

Who said anything about the US sustaining anyone? I thought I made clear that a huge piece of this problem is the bloated welfare system we have. Trim the welfare system down to lean bone and the US can sustain an indefinite amount of people. I know of nothing beyond our willingness to work, our value of education and innovation which would limit our population.

 

[NiteShift]

Either you seek to welcome the "teeming masses" or you don't.

Not true. If engineers release water from a reservoir or a dam they do not just open the gate. They allow the required amount of water to flow before closing them again. It is not a binary open/close situation and neither should be immigration.

American ideals are not determined or bounded by what other countries would do.

That may be, but first you would have to show that it is an American ideal to throw common sense out the window.

 

[Salty]

Just how many people do you think that the U.S can sustain - medically, food supply, shelter, employment, etc.?

From a strictly mathematical point of view, here are the facts.
You could put the worlds entire population in the State of Texas, with 1/4 acre per four people. (1/4 acre is a typical home and lot)

 

[targus]

From a strictly mathematical point of view, here are the facts.
You could put the worlds entire population in the State of Texas, with 1/4 acre per four people. (1/4 acre is a typical home and lot)

Sounds like there is plenty of room until you consider things like growing food, sufficient water, a place to work, roads, hosptials, schools, stores, etc.

 

[dwmoeller1]

That may be, but first you would have to show that it is an American ideal to throw common sense out the window.

You would first have to demonstrate that I am suggesting that we throw common sense out the window.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Sounds like there is plenty of room until you consider things like growing food, sufficient water, a place to work, roads, hosptials, schools, stores, etc.

You've got the rest of the US for that stuff

 

[Salty]

Sounds like there is plenty of room until you consider things like growing food, sufficient water, a place to work, roads, hosptials, schools, stores, etc.

True, but there are 49 other States or Commonwealths; not to mention over 100 other countries.
bottom Line - there is no over population of the Earth- some cities may be...

 

[dwmoeller1]

From a strictly mathematical point of view, here are the facts.
You could put the worlds entire population in the State of Texas, with 1/4 acre per four people. (1/4 acre is a typical home and lot)

This doesn't seem to be accurate.

167,672,913 appox. land acres in Texas * 16 people per acre (4 per quarter acre * 4 quarter acres per acre) gives only 2,682,766,608 or 2.7 billion. The current world population is approx 6.7 billion. So at that rate of pop. density, it would take about 2 and half Texases to fit the world population...or just a little more than one Alaska.

Not that it really matters as no one is suggesting fitting the world's population in the USA.

 

[Salty]

This doesn't seem to be accurate.

167,672,913 appox. land acres in Texas * 16 people per acre (4 per quarter acre * 4 quarter acres per acre) gives only 2,682,766,608 or 2.7 billion. The current world population is approx 6.7 billion. So at that rate of pop. density, it would take about 2 and half Texases to fit the world population...or just a little more than one Alaska.

Not that it really matters as no one is suggesting fitting the world's population in the USA.

The way illegals are crossing the border, we might as well as plan for it