Common sense immigration reform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The senate passed reform in 2013. We should revive that.

Reagan gave an amnesty in '86. We forgave people for their illegal entering and said no more. How'd that work out? There's a reason Trump's militancy on this issue resonates with many Americans on illegal immigration. Fool me once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

No you don't. You allow people to immigrate because they have sponsorable family here, because they have a sponsorable job, or because (in very few cases) because they deserve asylum. Humanity is shared by everyone on the planet but the majority will never be allowed to immigrate. Please don't perpetuate the lies that immigration has anything to do with humanity or with whatever myth is carved into Lady Liberty. And to the degree that people are chosen to immigrate based on certain criteria, making income one of these criteria is perfectly reasonable.

There is def humanity in immigration. And "Myth" carved in Statue of Liberty?

Sorry, your way of thinking is immoral not reasonable.

NP. There is humanity regardless of immigration policy and status. Some people choose to access and respect that humanity.

Anyways, we can still help humanity and not let every person who wants to come in.

Agree.

Approximately 150 million people want to immigrate to the US. We could let them all come. Assuming it would improve their lives or make them happier at the very least.
That would be humane.
But, we can’t accept all of that in 2019, or from 2019-2029, or at all. It would actually decrease their opportunity and humanity to allow that.

Who decides how many we can take in? Where’s the line?

Oh...yes..the government has decided that. And we do let people immigrate.

[Anonymous]

Sadly, the Democrats have made a hard left under Obama and is now of the thought that only certain laws and only laws they agree with should be enforced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, the Democrats have made a hard left under Obama and is now of the thought that only certain laws and only laws they agree with should be enforced.

ha.. that could be said of the current crop of Rs and Trump.

There have been many attempts to reform immigration laws. Some of have had bipartisan support, ie McCain and Bush. Hardlines on both sides just can't come to an agreement, and that's how you get the f*d up immigration situation we have now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

No you don't. You allow people to immigrate because they have sponsorable family here, because they have a sponsorable job, or because (in very few cases) because they deserve asylum. Humanity is shared by everyone on the planet but the majority will never be allowed to immigrate. Please don't perpetuate the lies that immigration has anything to do with humanity or with whatever myth is carved into Lady Liberty. And to the degree that people are chosen to immigrate based on certain criteria, making income one of these criteria is perfectly reasonable.

There is def humanity in immigration. And "Myth" carved in Statue of Liberty?

Sorry, your way of thinking is immoral not reasonable.

298 years after the first English colony, Roanoke Island, was established in the current US…

276 years after the first permanent English settlement in the current US…

107 years after the Declaration of Independence was written…

100 years after we won our independence from the United Kingdom…

95 years after the US Constitution was ratified…

88 years after the Naturalization Act of 1795 (‘naturalization is reserved for free white persons) was passed…

3 years after the 1880 Census found the US to have a population of over 50 million…

And 1 year after the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act (passed in the House by a margin of 5.5 to 1, and US law for 61 years)…

…Emma Lazarus comes along to tell us what the United States is *really* about. Thank God we had her instead of 298 years of law and history to draw from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

No you don't. You allow people to immigrate because they have sponsorable family here, because they have a sponsorable job, or because (in very few cases) because they deserve asylum. Humanity is shared by everyone on the planet but the majority will never be allowed to immigrate. Please don't perpetuate the lies that immigration has anything to do with humanity or with whatever myth is carved into Lady Liberty. And to the degree that people are chosen to immigrate based on certain criteria, making income one of these criteria is perfectly reasonable.

There is def humanity in immigration. And "Myth" carved in Statue of Liberty?

Sorry, your way of thinking is immoral not reasonable.

What? My way of thinking mirrors what your laws say. Yes, the words carved into the Statue of Liberty are a myth. There is currently no provision to immigrate to the U.S. just because you're poor and downtrodden. There just isn't. Sorry you don't like the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Agree.
No access to public goods unless child is legal status, permanent.
No citizenship by birth for kids of illegals or tourists.or may be any foreigner- they can all apply for greencard or residency status.
Fine on illegal employee and employer
No drivers licenses or IDs for non permanent residents
Tax or fee on cash remittances sent abroad.

So you think children of students, guest workers or employees of international organizations should not be able to attend public schools? Just making sure I understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agree.
No access to public goods unless child is legal status, permanent.
No citizenship by birth for kids of illegals or tourists.or may be any foreigner- they can all apply for greencard or residency status.
Fine on illegal employee and employer
No drivers licenses or IDs for non permanent residents
Tax or fee on cash remittances sent abroad.

So you think children of students, guest workers or employees of international organizations should not be able to attend public schools? Just making sure I understand.

NP. I am not necessarily agreeing with the PP, but I think it's pretty clear that children of students (on a valid student visa), guest workers here legally, and employees of international organizations are here legally - children presumably have the status of their parents. People unable (or unwilling) to make common-sense distinctions like this are the reason we can't even have a conversation about immigration reform.

I think that allowing children of undocumented immigrants into public schools is putting an enormous strain on school systems (see MCPS) that they cannot and were not designed to handle, and I don't love that we are paying for ESOL, FARMS, etc. for children who aren't citizens or who aren't entitled to be in the country. But they're children who didn't have a choice to come here. It's pretty unconscionable to argue that they shouldn't be in school - what else should they be doing, once they're here? And if they aren't in school, that's going to create more issues - gang violence, another generation of a completely uneducated underclass, possibly illiterate adults, etc. What do we do about that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

No you don't. You allow people to immigrate because they have sponsorable family here, because they have a sponsorable job, or because (in very few cases) because they deserve asylum. Humanity is shared by everyone on the planet but the majority will never be allowed to immigrate. Please don't perpetuate the lies that immigration has anything to do with humanity or with whatever myth is carved into Lady Liberty. And to the degree that people are chosen to immigrate based on certain criteria, making income one of these criteria is perfectly reasonable.

There is def humanity in immigration. And "Myth" carved in Statue of Liberty?

Sorry, your way of thinking is immoral not reasonable.

NP. There is humanity regardless of immigration policy and status. Some people choose to access and respect that humanity.

Anyways, we can still help humanity and not let every person who wants to come in.

Agree.

Approximately 150 million people want to immigrate to the US. We could let them all come. Assuming it would improve their lives or make them happier at the very least.
That would be humane.
But, we can’t accept all of that in 2019, or from 2019-2029, or at all. It would actually decrease their opportunity and humanity to allow that.

Who decides how many we can take in? Where’s the line?

Oh...yes..the government has decided that. And we do let people immigrate.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe in a "virtual" wall: You should be unable to participate in our economy if you are not here legally. But that would mean increased scrutiny of employers - and people who use occasional help for cash. Given what we should be able to do with technology, I'm baffled.

I don't understand why this is hard since I have to I-9 every single person hired in my company.

Similarly, how can anyone rent a house, open a bank account, get a credit card, drivers license, etc. etc. if they are here illegally. I don't understand it.

I agree with all the things you said, but those illegal immigrants bring kids, and that's a problem

I’m thinking of home too. However, we have a virtual wall, or we don’t. Or option c: we allow under 18 (16? I don’t know) to benefit regardless of status.

So there you go. We still have an R house, senate, and president. They can do this anytime they wish.

Yup. Put up or shut up.

republicans will never do immigration reform - who would they get to work on their family farms at slave wages?

Do democrats support having an immigrant underclass?

Both parties are to blame here.

Unfortunate congress is the only place that can get this done. So they can take the suggestions above and do it, or not say a word about negative impact of illegal immigration again.

It took us smarties a week on dcum to come up with the answer.

Set up everify and make it strict. This would enable restriction AND help with an asylum process for Dreamers and for those we want to keep to help our economic needs.

Congress, will you make this a priority in January?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The senate passed reform in 2013. We should revive that.

Reagan gave an amnesty in '86. We forgave people for their illegal entering and said no more. How'd that work out? There's a reason Trump's militancy on this issue resonates with many Americans on illegal immigration. Fool me once.

Democrats should have been ahead of this issue. But they are in bed with Silicon Valley and zuckerberg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agree.
No access to public goods unless child is legal status, permanent.
No citizenship by birth for kids of illegals or tourists.or may be any foreigner- they can all apply for greencard or residency status.
Fine on illegal employee and employer
No drivers licenses or IDs for non permanent residents
Tax or fee on cash remittances sent abroad.

So you think children of students, guest workers or employees of international organizations should not be able to attend public schools? Just making sure I understand.

NP. I am not necessarily agreeing with the PP, but I think it's pretty clear that children of students (on a valid student visa), guest workers here legally, and employees of international organizations are here legally - children presumably have the status of their parents. People unable (or unwilling) to make common-sense distinctions like this are the reason we can't even have a conversation about immigration reform.

I think that allowing children of undocumented immigrants into public schools is putting an enormous strain on school systems (see MCPS) that they cannot and were not designed to handle, and I don't love that we are paying for ESOL, FARMS, etc. for children who aren't citizens or who aren't entitled to be in the country. But they're children who didn't have a choice to come here. It's pretty unconscionable to argue that they shouldn't be in school - what else should they be doing, once they're here? And if they aren't in school, that's going to create more issues - gang violence, another generation of a completely uneducated underclass, possibly illiterate adults, etc. What do we do about that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The senate passed reform in 2013. We should revive that.

Reagan gave an amnesty in '86. We forgave people for their illegal entering and said no more. How'd that work out? There's a reason Trump's militancy on this issue resonates with many Americans on illegal immigration. Fool me once.

Democrats should have been ahead of this issue. But they are in bed with Silicon Valley and zuckerberg

IMO what Trump proposed earlier in the year made a lot of sense and was much better than the alternative (nothing), yet neither Dems nor the media gave him a chance.

[Anonymous]

I think that allowing children of undocumented immigrants into public schools is putting an enormous strain on school systems (see MCPS) that they cannot and were not designed to handle, and I don't love that we are paying for ESOL, FARMS, etc. for children who aren't citizens or who aren't entitled to be in the country. But they're children who didn't have a choice to come here. It's pretty unconscionable to argue that they shouldn't be in school - what else should they be doing, once they're here? And if they aren't in school, that's going to create more issues - gang violence, another generation of a completely uneducated underclass, possibly illiterate adults, etc. What do we do about that?

And, this is the dilemma. (And, it is the law, as well, that we must (and I agree should) educate the kids.)

Unfortunately, our area is especially taxed by this. (FCPS certainly is.) Some of the people in other areas have no clue of how many undocumented, very poor kids are being poured into some school systems.

As for Pelosi and others saying that there are better ways to secure the border--what are they?

Technology may be useful--but it cannot prevent people from crossing. It may find them, but it cannot stop them--I guess, unless we use tear gas or worse. So, then BP finds them, takes them to a judge and they get a notice to appear which is ignored. If they come with a child, they get a free pass.

Read the WAPO article today. Smugglers are dropping hundreds off at a very remote outpost and the Dems are condemning our BP for not being prepared with medical help in the middle of the night when the outpost is supposed to be closed. I'm guessing there are many places in North Dakota where American citizens are 90 minutes away from medical care, too.

Does anyone else have trouble with the fact that smugglers are making money by recruiting people to ask for asylum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agree.
No access to public goods unless child is legal status, permanent.
No citizenship by birth for kids of illegals or tourists.or may be any foreigner- they can all apply for greencard or residency status.
Fine on illegal employee and employer
No drivers licenses or IDs for non permanent residents
Tax or fee on cash remittances sent abroad.

So you think children of students, guest workers or employees of international organizations should not be able to attend public schools? Just making sure I understand.

What’s to understand?
Seasonal Temp workers living in worker camps’ don’t bring their kids for USA school.
7 yr Phd aren’t on 12 month cultural or short term visas.
2+ year consulate or World Bank worker don’t pay taxes here nor bring families unless a longer appointment and visa.