Compromsie Solution for Illegal Immigrants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How's this:

Step 1: All criminal aliens in jail are deported. (We have a space crisis in America's prisons, so why are we wasting resources on criminals who shouldn't be here in the first place?)

Step 2: ANYONE associated with MS-13 is also deported.

Step 3: Anyone who has not completed high school and is 21+ is also deported. They are drains on our society.

Step 4: Fortify the border so that no additional illegal immigrants come in (and particularly to keep the newly deported criminal aliens from crossing bwck over).

In return, ALL remaining illegal immigrants will be granted permanent resident status, with a card that allows them to be legally employed and pay income taxes. There will be no voting privileges, but they are free to come out of the shadows.

A few questions.

--who determines using what criteria that there is an "association" with MS-13?

--on what basis do you conclude that not having completed high school is a drain on society?

Answers:

- Congress can create a law defining MS-13 gang association. And let's err on the side of caution - even MS-13 tattoos should be enlighten of kick them out.
- High school dropouts are more likely to commit crime, be impoverished, and collect welfare benefits.

NP.

What about former gang members who are tattooed but have left the gang?

HS dropouts may also be more likely to fill "safety-net"-type jobs that American citizens don't seem to want: low-wage, seasonal, hourly. If they are working in a job and contributing, does their HS resume matter?

Unfortunately, some "good" illegal aliens* may be caught up in this, but remember - they shouldn't have been here in the first place - and it's more important to Americans' interests that we err on the more aggressive side and get the "loser" types out. What's happening is that liberals are more concerned about the interests' of illegal aliens than the good of American society, and we see that in their efforts to "protect" the illegals. Enough is enough.

*I've gone back to using the term illegal alien, which is technically correct, because liberals are conflating illegal with legal immigrants and failing to distinguish between the two in discussions. We solve this by getting the technically erroneous word "immigrant" out of discussion involving people who crossed the border illegally.

You are a frightening and hideous human being! They’re people...with families who are desperately looking for a better life. America’s drug appetite has destroyed their country.

I never said they weren't human beings. Just like a liberal to start slinging insults when someone disagrees with their stance on illegal aliens.

And just because they want better for their family doesn't entitle them to break our laws in coming to this country. (Although I see you blamed America for their problems. Just like a liberal to cast America as the "bad" one.)

Meanwhile, lets deport the descendants of the Irish, Germans, and Italians who entered illegally or stayed illegally.

[Anonymous]

That's like saying, we have a problem with theft, so let's just put the stuff people steal on the town square. We'll still be out of something, but at least it won't be stealing. There ARE other solutions - like stronger locks. Or stricter punishments for stealing. Just because someone is fine with legal immigration doesn't mean they will be fine with unlimited numbers of legal immigrants. Countries have the right to decide who they do and do not let in, and how many.

You can solve the jobs issue with automation or increased wages. Otherwise it sounds like you're saying dirty and cheap jobs are ok for immigrants but not for Americans.

On the country of immigrants fairy tale, every time I hear it, I can't stop laughing. This is like a Cinderella legend that wouldn't die. This "ethos" of yours has zero reflection in your laws. Zero. America may have been a country of immigrants once but it is no longer that, and repeating it ad nauseam does not make it true. Your laws do not welcome "the poor and the downtrodden" at all. I challenge you to point me to a section of the Immigration Act that makes someone eligible for immigration just by virtue of them being poor. You have limited admission for asylees and refugees, and these require that your life - not your livelihood - must be in danger. Economic hardship is NOT considered sufficient grounds for immigration. You have very limited merit-based immigration, defined narrowly as an employer willing to sponsor someone, or someone with "extraordinary ability', which, by definition, is not common. The fact of the matter is that outside of family connection, there are very few legal grounds for immigrating. Please understand that I don't say this by way of criticism, I say this by way of accurately describing facts and laws.

What grounds are there for saying "America is a country of immigrants?" It hasn't been for quite some time, and its laws reflect this. Only in movies and stories. Your culture may not have moved from that "cornerstone ethos" but your laws have left it in the dust a long time ago.


Unless this P is of Native American heritage, we are all immigrants.

U.S. historical populations
Country Immigrants before 1790 Population 1790[20]

Africa[21]
360,000 757,000
England* 230,000 2,100,000
Ulster Scotch-Irish* 135,000 300,000
Germany[22]
103,000 270,000
Scotland*
48,500 150,000
Ireland* 8,000 (Incl. in Scot-Irish)
Netherlands 6,000 100,000
Wales*
4,000 10,000
France 3,000 15,000
Jewish[23]
1,000 2,000
Sweden 1,000 6,000
Other[24]
50,000 200,000
________________________________________
British total 425,500 2,560,000
Total[25]
950,000 3,900,000

Population and Foreign Born 1790 to 1849
Census Population, Immigrants per Decade
Census Population Immigrants1 Foreign Born %
________________________________________
1790 3,918,000 60,000
1800 5,236,000 60,000
1810 7,036,000 60,000
1820 10,086,000 60,000
1830 12,785,000 143,000 200,000 2 1.6%
1840 17,018,000 599,000 800,000 2 4.7%
1850 23,054,000 1,713,000 2,244,000 9.7%
1. The total number immigrating in each decade from 1790 to 1820 are estimates.
2. The number of foreign born in 1830 and 1840 decades are extrapolations.

Total Foreign Born 108* 2,244 6,679 10,341 14,204 10,347 9,619 14,079 19,763 31,100
% Foreign Born 0.8%* 9.7% 13.3% 13.6% 11.6% 5.8% 4.7% 6.2% 7.9% 11.1%
Native Born 12,677 20,947 43,476 65,653 108,571 168,978 193,591 212,466 228,946 250,321
% Native Born 99.2% 90.3% 86.7% 86.4% 88.4% 94.2% 95.3% 94% 92.1% 88.9%
Total Population 12,785 23,191 50,155 75,994 122,775 179,325 203,210 226,545 248,709 281,421
1830 1850 1880 1900 1930 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status Fiscal Years 1820 to 2010[57]
Year Year Year
1820 8,385 1885 395,346 1950 249,187
1825 10,199 1890 455,302 1955 237,790
1830 23,322 1895 258,536 1960 265,398
1835 45,374 1900 448,572 1965 296,697
1840 84,066 1905 1,026,499 1970 373,326
1845 114,371 1910 1,041,570 1975 385,378
1850 369,980 1915 326,700 1980 524,295
1855 200,877 1920 430,001 1985 568,149
1860 153,640 1925 294,314 1990 1,535,872
1865 248,120 1930 241,700 1995 720,177
1870 387,203 1935 34,956 2000 841,002
1875 227,498 1940 70,756 2005 1,122,257
1880 457,257 1945 38,119 2010 1,042,62

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These sound good. Be sure to add in:

-No welfare dependence in any form. Or risk of becoming dependent if “legalized”

-Repeal the 14th

-slow down even legal immigration for the time being, in order to better integrate those already here. End this politically correct multiculturalism bs. It’s not normal and never going to work. You want to come here? Fine. Assimilate and don’t expect hand outs.

How about this for a compromise -- we'll repeal 14th if we also repeal 2nd.

Not the OP, but I'd do it in a second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is a decent plan overall and most reasonable democrats and republicans could agree to it. Get rid of the gang affiliated and criminals, grant a one time, permanent legal status for the rest (with no way to convert to citizenship later), and fortify the border. I still don’t agree with the border wall because it has “expensive government boondoggle waste of taxpayer money” written all over it though, but there are different ways of border protection. The permanent legal status would be given ONE TIME ONLY to illegal immigrants who are already in the country as of a certain date. All later arrivals would be subject to deportation.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is a decent plan overall and most reasonable democrats and republicans could agree to it. Get rid of the gang affiliated and criminals, grant a one time, permanent legal status for the rest (with no way to convert to citizenship later), and fortify the border. I still don’t agree with the border wall because it has “expensive government boondoggle waste of taxpayer money” written all over it though, but there are different ways of border protection. The permanent legal status would be given ONE TIME ONLY to illegal immigrants who are already in the country as of a certain date. All later arrivals would be subject to deportation.

I could go for that, but with one additional caveat: Illegals who are eventually converted to citizenship have a "restricted" citizenship: no votes, and no taxpayer entitlement programs. Yes, it's a secondary form of citizenship, but if they want "full cititzenship," they have to go back and do it the right way - like so many millions of others have done. Otherwise, it's a real slap in the face to immigrants who obeyed our laws.

Rather than call this citizenship, though, I'd prefer to just call it permanent legal residence.

I completely agree with this.

[Anonymous]

I'm amazed that, with the exception of one typical liberal, no one on this thread has started in with the "RACIST!" insults. This is actually a productive and interesting thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm amazed that, with the exception of one typical liberal, no one on this thread has started in with the "RACIST!" insults. This is actually a productive and interesting thread.

I mean we mostly agree on the main parts. I think if you took OP’s plan and presented it to the American public, probably 75% would agree or mostly agree with it, with the opposition probably being equally split between anti-immigrants and those who want legal status extended to more people or who want eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need to repeal the 14th amendment. It's simply being misapplied.

", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"

Why is the comma in front of the and important? The meaning doesn't seem to change to me.

Not PP but with the commas it can be interpreted as the people in the bolded clause being different people as "all persons born or naturalized" because the commas create separate clauses. Meaning you could interpret it as 2 groups being granted the rights vis a vis being 'citizens' -- people are born or naturalized citizens, and those who reside here and are subject to the laws here.

"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside."

If a war breaks out and I walk up to you and say you are hereby drafted... and you state "No, I'm not a U.S. citizen", then you are in the wrong jurisdiction. Get out.



That's what that means.