Obamanation Re-election MegaThread

[Jenksismyhero]

The problem is that the legal way to do it has become so unnecessarily convoluted that it prevents most people from legal immigration.

You see people forget that back in the late 19th and early 20th century, all you had to do was get off a boat, and you were allowed to legally immigrate here. You didnt have to get on a waiting list, hope your number was pulled etc.

 

Im not the child of an immigrant, I am 3rd generation. But if it wasnt for the American immigration policies of those eras, its likely that I would not exist, as a good part of my family would have been killed in World War II. People forget that during the 1930s the US created laws that were anti-capitalism and isolationism/protectonism ruled the day.

 

If the law itself is unjust, then those who break the law are not criminals. If it is against the law for a black man to drink water from a white water fountain, we do not consider the man who breaks that law a criminal or deserving of punishment, we consider that individual a freedom fighter.

 

Just like immigrants today, who fight for the freedom to immigrate to the best country in the world. We do not have the right to deny other people the ability to come to the US for a better life. Every human deserves the chance to live in the US if they want to.

 

And to answer the question, yes we accept everyone who wants to come here who is not a criminal or does not have a disease.

 

It is just as simple as that, the only reason most of us are here, is because those who came before, were generous enough to give our families a chance. Its just hypocrisy.

 

People also forget that back in those days you weren't guaranteed any assistance from the government. It wasn't expected that you could come here with your 4 kids and demand free healthcare, education and financial assistance. Now that is the expectation. Come here, work, send all of your money back home and live off the system.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Let me give a counterexample...why is it so important that we "look forward" or whatever, rather than going back and prosecuting the entire financial industry?

 

There are 50 million or so latinos living in this country and somewhere between 10-20 million illegal immigrants (obviously not all of them come from latin america, but good enough to first order). That means if you know 10 families with latino heritage, one of your neighbors is probably illegal. Or at the very least, was illegal at some point. Or your kid's friend is. Or you have a cousin who got deported. Or 5% of your kids school class, and your kid comes home asking if he or she is going to be deported.

And on top of that, you pile on laws like Arizona and Alabama, racial profiling laws, or whatever the Proposition in California 2 decades ago was, where the state lumps everyone with non-white heritage in together and targets them for added searches and police harassment (and that's exactly what those laws are designed to do), and now you've put a target on the back of the whole community.

 

This whole argument is a bunch of BS. Create a new information line on a drivers' license that states the status of your citizenship and this whole problem would be resolved. Make it a mandate for anyone that gets pulled over to offer that proof.

[Balta1701]

This whole argument is a bunch of BS. Create a new information line on a drivers' license that states the status of your citizenship and this whole problem would be resolved. Make it a mandate for anyone that gets pulled over to offer that proof.

Wait, allowing illegal immigrants to get drivers' licenses isn't going to bring about the end of humanity?

[Jenksismyhero]

Wait, allowing illegal immigrants to get drivers' licenses isn't going to bring about the end of humanity?

 

No, they wouldn't be allowed to, because getting a drivers license or state ID should include your citizenship status (which would therefor require proof of your citizenship status). Illegals wouldn't be able to get that without providing false documents.

[Balta1701]

No, they wouldn't be allowed to, because getting a drivers license or state ID should include your citizenship status (which would therefor require proof of your citizenship status). Illegals wouldn't be able to get that without providing false documents.

So, exactly the effective scenario we have now.

[Jenksismyhero]

So, exactly the effective scenario we have now.

 

Except that in Illinois you can get a driver's license with a canceled check and a school transcript. Nothing about citizenship is required.

 

www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_x173.pdf

Edited June 18, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Except that in Illinois you can get a driver's license with a canceled check and a school transcript. Nothing about citizenship is required.

 

www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_x173.pdf

Do you know why some states would do that? Because adding immigration checks to drivers licenses has the unfortunate side effect of making sure that any illegal immigrants who happen to be in that state also go without drivers permits and without car insurance, leading to many more uninsured motorist claims that the rest of the population has to pay for, higher insurance rates, and very angry insurance company lobbyists.

 

This problem does not go away until you deal with it at the national level and acknowledge the demand for these people and the fact that they're already here. Plenty of states say that you can't get a license without an immigration status check. It does nothing.

[Jenksismyhero]

Do you know why some states would do that? Because adding immigration checks to drivers licenses has the unfortunate side effect of making sure that any illegal immigrants who happen to be in that state also go without drivers permits and without car insurance, leading to many more uninsured motorist claims that the rest of the population has to pay for, higher insurance rates, and very angry insurance company lobbyists.

 

This problem does not go away until you deal with it at the national level and acknowledge the demand for these people and the fact that they're already here. Plenty of states say that you can't get a license without an immigration status check. It does nothing.

 

You're right, and dealing with it nationally is making deportation a strict penalty for willfully violating the law. Not this bulls*** amnesty crap Obama is trying to pull.

[Soxbadger]

People also forget that back in those days you weren't guaranteed any assistance from the government. It wasn't expected that you could come here with your 4 kids and demand free healthcare, education and financial assistance. Now that is the expectation. Come here, work, send all of your money back home and live off the system.

 

 

I think you are confusing illegal immigrants and legal immigrants.

 

If you are an illegal immigrant, you dont have to pay taxes thus you get FREE assistance.

 

If you are a legal immigrant, you have to pay income tax thus you get the SAME assistance as every other American.

 

So it seems that you would agree every immigrant should be "legal" therefore we can tax them and make sure they are not getting "free" benefits.

 

I also dont think this is the expectation, and I would think many immigrants would gladly give up 1-5 years of assistance to be granted legal immigration.

 

Because this isnt about money, its about keeping unwanted people out.

[StrangeSox]

Undocumented immigrants pay plenty of taxes, especially if they're using a fake SSN and not being paid in cash.

[Soxbadger]

Undocumented immigrants pay plenty of taxes, especially if they're using a fake SSN and not being paid in cash.

 

What point are you trying to make?

 

That illegal immigrants are good?

[cabiness42]

Undocumented immigrants pay plenty of taxes, especially if they're using a fake SSN and not being paid in cash.

 

I'd love to see some kind of breakdown of the percentage of illegal immigrants who use fake SSNs and thus pay taxes, compared to those who just get paid under the table.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think you are confusing illegal immigrants and legal immigrants.

 

If you are an illegal immigrant, you dont have to pay taxes thus you get FREE assistance.

 

If you are a legal immigrant, you have to pay income tax thus you get the SAME assistance as every other American.

 

So it seems that you would agree every immigrant should be "legal" therefore we can tax them and make sure they are not getting "free" benefits.

 

I also dont think this is the expectation, and I would think many immigrants would gladly give up 1-5 years of assistance to be granted legal immigration.

 

Because this isnt about money, its about keeping unwanted people out.

 

What are you talking about? I'm not confusing anything. If you immigrate to this country, you should do so through the proper legal channels and you should be paying your fair share just like everyone else. That's my point. Of course every immigrant should be legal, that's the whole point.

[Soxbadger]

What are you talking about? I'm not confusing anything. If you immigrate to this country, you should do so through the proper legal channels and you should be paying your fair share just like everyone else. That's my point. Of course every immigrant should be legal, that's the whole point.

 

Just in case you forgot what you said:

 

It wasn't expected that you could come here with your 4 kids and demand free healthcare, education and financial assistance.

 

You said it was different in the 20th century because today they get more "free benefits". I disagree with your conclusion, legal immigrants do not get free benefits, therefore there should not be a convoluted nonsensical process to becoming a legal immigrant, that entices people to bypass it and become illegal immigrants.

 

It should be the way it was in the late 19th and early 20th century, before 1930 when the US started to enact isolationism/protectionism laws.

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Quin]

Because this isnt about money, its about keeping unwanted people out.

 

Bingo.

 

What are you talking about? I'm not confusing anything. If you immigrate to this country, you should do so through the proper legal channels and you should be paying your fair share just like everyone else. That's my point. Of course every immigrant should be legal, that's the whole point.

 

The problem is the legal channels are a convoluted mess that a person can be on a waiting list for a decade before they can become a citizen.

[StrangeSox]

I'd love to see some kind of breakdown of the percentage of illegal immigrants who use fake SSNs and thus pay taxes, compared to those who just get paid under the table.

 

SSN's would result in paying federal income taxes. Everyone pays all sorts of taxes, regardless of their income sources, whenever they buy food, gas, clothes, etc., when they pay their property taxes (or rent), when they register their vehicles, when they drive on tollways, etc.

[StrangeSox]

What point are you trying to make?

 

That illegal immigrants are good?

 

Immigrants are good, but my point was that saying they don't pay taxes is false. It's along the same line as the "poor don't pay any taxes!" slight-of-hand that conflates FICA with all taxes.

[StrangeSox]

The problem is the legal channels are a convoluted mess that a person can be on a waiting list for a decade before they can become a citizen.

 

Yeah, our system is broken right now. Plus, this whole thing is about people who were brought to this country by their parents.

 

does is make sense to deport a 25 year old college graduate who's lived in this country for 24 1/2 years?

[Quin]

Yeah, our system is broken right now. Plus, this whole thing is about people who were brought to this country by their parents.

 

does is make sense to deport a 25 year old college graduate who's lived in this country for 24 1/2 years?

 

Clearly it does. They aren't American.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Quinarvy

[Jenksismyhero]

Just in case you forgot what you said:

 

 

 

You said it was different in the 20th century because today they get more "free benefits". I disagree with your conclusion, legal immigrants do not get free benefits, therefore there should not be a convoluted nonsensical process to becoming a legal immigrant, that entices people to bypass it and become illegal immigrants.

 

It should be the way it was in the late 19th and early 20th century, before 1930 when the US started to enact isolationism/protectionism laws.

 

.... come on dude. Obviously we're talking about ILLEGAL immigration here. My point was that back in the day we had an open door policy because the government wasn't adding those people onto the government payroll. The entire political and economic structure is different so it's useless to use immigration policies 100 years ago as a comparison. You're right, if everyone were immigrating legally than it should be an open door policy, but that is not reality.

[Jenksismyhero]

Bingo.

 

 

 

The problem is the legal channels are a convoluted mess that a person can be on a waiting list for a decade before they can become a citizen.

 

I agree, and that should be the first problem corrected. Amnesty, however, is not the answer since in 10 years we'll have the same problem.

[southsider2k5]

I agree, and that should be the first problem corrected. Amnesty, however, is not the answer since in 10 years we'll have the same problem.

 

And history has borne exactly that out...

[Soxbadger]

.... come on dude. Obviously we're talking about ILLEGAL immigration here. My point was that back in the day we had an open door policy because the government wasn't adding those people onto the government payroll. The entire political and economic structure is different so it's useless to use immigration policies 100 years ago as a comparison. You're right, if everyone were immigrating legally than it should be an open door policy, but that is not reality.

 

Legal immigration and illegal immigration are inherently tied. I would guess most immigrants would prefer to live here legally, not illegally.

 

As for "govt wasnt adding those people to the payroll", sure they were. What you are actually arguing is that in the early 20th century there werent as many benefits, therefore adding more people to the payroll wasnt as costly.

 

May or may not be true, but lets just for the sake of argument say that it is true, that todays society spends more per citizen than in the beginning of the 20th century.

 

This is simply an economic issue, and I dont really believe that more legal immigrants would somehow disrupt benefits (I believe more legal immigrants will result in a net increase of tax revenue), but even if it would, you could easily create rules where immigrants do not get full benefits to start, that they have to work X amount of years before the benefits vest. Thus you could have immigrants paying into social security and not even having a promise that they would get a return.

 

Both citizens and immigrants would win in this scenario. Immigrants get to legally live in the US, citizens get someone paying into the benefit pool who has no right to disbursement.

 

I dont think anyone needs it to be equal from day 1, I think most people just want an opportunity.

[Jenksismyhero]

Legal immigration and illegal immigration are inherently tied. I would guess most immigrants would prefer to live here legally, not illegally.

 

As for "govt wasnt adding those people to the payroll", sure they were. What you are actually arguing is that in the early 20th century there werent as many benefits, therefore adding more people to the payroll wasnt as costly.

 

May or may not be true, but lets just for the sake of argument say that it is true, that todays society spends more per citizen than in the beginning of the 20th century.

 

This is simply an economic issue, and I dont really believe that more legal immigrants would somehow disrupt benefits (I believe more legal immigrants will result in a net increase of tax revenue), but even if it would, you could easily create rules where immigrants do not get full benefits to start, that they have to work X amount of years before the benefits vest. Thus you could have immigrants paying into social security and not even having a promise that they would get a return.

 

Both citizens and immigrants would win in this scenario. Immigrants get to legally live in the US, citizens get someone paying into the benefit pool who has no right to disbursement.

 

I dont think anyone needs it to be equal from day 1, I think most people just want an opportunity.

 

Then do it. There's nothing stopping them. "Well officer, I mean I wanted to follow the speed limit, but it's so much faster to get to my destination going 150mph than 65mph..." Oh, ok. That's acceptable!

 

And yes, I'm arguing there were not as many benefits because people didn't EXPECT those benefits like they do today. That fundamentally changes the entire argument. And of course we're ignoring the main reason we had such an open door policy - a vast wild west that needed to be populated.

 

And again, no one is claiming that LEGAL immigration is a bad thing, so i'm not sure why you keep saying what the benefits of LEGAL immigration are. I agree with you. What I don't agree with is just unilaterally declaring illegal aliens legal. That's condoning legal behavior. That's giving a big stink finger to everyone else who did things the right way and worked hard to get here. Alphadog made a good point about that that no one has addressed yet.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Then do it. There's nothing stopping them. "Well officer, I mean I wanted to follow the speed limit, but it's so much faster to get to my destination going 150mph than 65mph..." Oh, ok. That's acceptable!

 

And yes, I'm arguing there were not as many benefits because people didn't EXPECT those benefits like they do today. That fundamentally changes the entire argument. And of course we're ignoring the main reason we had such an open door policy - a vast wild west that needed to be populated.

 

And again, no one is claiming that LEGAL immigration is a bad thing, so i'm not sure why you keep saying what the benefits of LEGAL immigration are. I agree with you. What I don't agree with is just unilaterally declaring illegal aliens legal. That's condoning legal behavior. That's giving a big stink finger to everyone else who did things the right way and worked hard to get here. Alphadog made a good point about that that no one has addressed yet.

The real problem of course is that there IS no good answer that will satisfy you, because the only answer that will satisfy you is "They're all illegal and therefore they all must be deported". Anything other than that, any policy which remotely acknowledges that we already have 10 million people sitting here in this country is an amnesty and that isn't an option because amnesty is evil. Whether it's paying a fine, filling out an application, etc., any policy which acknowledges that there are 10 million+ people already here and gives any advantage to those 10 million people is an amnesty under your definition of amnesty.

 

You cannot simply pass policy and pretend that there aren't 12-20 million illegal immigrants already in this country. We're spending $20 billion a year now on the Southern border, and despite that, it's taken >8% unemployment to get immigration to settle mostly at that level. Deportations are at record highs, and that hasn't made a dent, and no one is out there praising the President for how much he's ramped up deportation enforcement, because none of it makes a dent. If you try to write a policy which requires all 10 million of them to leave, they're just...not going to leave, and you will continue to have the same problem.

 

If you're going to continue demanding that there be a solution that doesn't acknowledge that overly strict limits to immigration have created a problem on the scale of 10 million+ people, then there can be no solution.