Eisenhower solved illegal immigration

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Eisenhower solved illegal immigration

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Well, it could also be argued that they were moved by the Holy Ghost to do it in order to provide a place where the fulness of the gospel could be restored...

But then, there are many who will use a similar argument to state that those who come here illegally are be moved upon by the Spirit so that they can have access to the funlness of the gospel...

(oh dang I hate when I start playing the Ray roll...

)

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Oh, don't think I'm all uppity about obeying the laws of the land, no siree joe-bob.

See, what confuses me the most I suppose, is the Brethren's attitude on it, which was brought up, ironically enough, by Lundie.

Methinks big things are going on here...

But y'know. I'm a sucker for a good conspiracy.

arbilad · Head Chef

Finally, before we go universally applying "obey the laws of the land," we should remember that none of us would be here if the founders of our nation had followed that mantra. They disobeyed to the point of treason and war.

The quote Coco referenced referred to the good laws of the land. The founders were rebelling because of bad laws. But you do have a point, Roper; if they make a law tomorrow that we can't pray, I'm not going to follow it, nor do I think the Lord would require us to.
I'm all for looking at mitigating circumstances. Our law even allows for that somewhat. If you can demonstrate that you were persecuted or afraid for your life in your homeland, for instance, you can apply for asylum.
But a blanket amnesty is not looking at individual circumstance. It is a reward for widespread disregard of the law. We cannot remain a nation of laws if we continue to disregard entire portions of the legal code. Besides, it didn't work when Reagan did it - we still have the problem of illegal immigration with us today.
Heck, I'd even be for a judge deciding for mercy instead of justice in a case where the illegal immigrant flagrantly violated immigration law, but now was trying to make amends as best he could, live the law, stay off welfare, etc. That's fine for individual cases where the judge feels that it's justified. But not for whole groups of people.
That's another thing that stinks about this whole issue; we actually do enforce our immigration laws, but only for certain groups of people. We do deport people, but usually we don't deport hispanics.

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

There is a legal way to immigrate so frankly, this argument is moot. Why should they jump ahead of someone else who played by the rules? Illegals are called illegals, well....ummm....because they are here illegally. Go to Mexico as an illegal and find out what happens.

Frankly, there is no need for immigration, with the exception of certain circumstances such as marriage or a special skill, it is not really needed. Put welfare people to work picking crops, use chain gangs to do it and pay them something from it to go to guards and prisons and upkeep. There are ways but our politicians are too gutless to do anything.

I love the generosity with other people's money. I am in CA quite frequently, try getting into a hospital ER and see how it is. It costs people billions in tax dollars that illegals do not pay and can never add value back to. Maybe it gets better for them here, but nothing changes where they come from and the problem will continue. Solve the problem at its source, solve the cause, not the symptoms.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Roper wrote:

Finally, before we go universally applying "obey the laws of the land," we should remember that none of us would be here if the founders of our nation had followed that mantra. They disobeyed to the point of treason and war.

I know this is picky and a slight derail, but I have a problem with this idea.

The colonists did not start the war. It was the British who sent soldiers to enforce their will on Massachusetts. It was the British who sent soldiers to seize the arms of the local militia in Concord. Nobody knows who fired that first shot at Lexington Green, but it would never have happened if the Redcoats hadn't been there in the first place.

And although the charge of treason is reasonable, and I am certain was the view of King George III and parliament, the Founders felt that they were acting within their rights as English subjects, and they also felt that King George had abused his position and usurped many of their liberties. Read the Declaration of Independence for the reasoning and the list of offenses. The Founders were following the long tradition of limited monarchy and individual rights that dated back to earlier Anglo-Saxon times through the English Civil War, the Magna Carta, etc.

Ok, derail over....

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

-- Edited by rayb at 09:33, 2007-06-22

arbilad · Head Chef

Edited because Ray was nice enough to edit his post.

-- Edited by arbilad at 09:50, 2007-06-22

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

There. Arbi. I've censored my true feelings about what motivates this discussion. I apologize to those who are genuinely motivated by the Love of Christ and are confused by demogogues.

You can go back to your status quo now... and get nothing done on immigration.

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 09:35, 2007-06-22

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Ray, I appreciate that you removed your remarks, but it saddens me that you think that those who are in favor of stricter immigration enforcement are governed by baser motives.

American Citizenship is a privelege. Should everyone who wants to attend the Temple? Or should we just not pay attention when people crash through the recommend desk?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Coco, am I missing something, because I don't see lundbaek as having commented in this thread...

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Yep. Sucks to be me. Maybe someday you'll prove your deep abiding love for the Mexican people to me... In fact, you should reframe this whole discussion, "Illegal Immigrants: Just go home, because we love you."

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

So, what do you think of this then, people?

California Councilwoman Faces Deportation for Voting When Not a U.S. Citizen

Right? Wrong? Would she like some cheese with that whine?

My question is if one knew they came here to the country as a child, how could they not make sure they had all the papers and documents to assure they were a naturalized citizen? I mean, even we native born citizens have to provide papers and documentation at certain times of life in order to gain access to things... wedding license, driver's license, social security number, public school enrollment, etc. It just goes to show how porous the border has been and lax the security has been if she and her parents never had to prove citizenship to cross it back from Canada or Mexico.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

This is only an issue because libs and conservatives refuse to compromise and create ANY solution whatsoever...

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Why should there be a compromise when laws on the books have been ignored for decades? Enforcement of laws now is not repressive. It is pragmatic.

p.s. off topic... I just learned this from a brother in my ward... liberals in our political environment should be called progressives... the term liberal as used by the political left is not what the term liberal actually means. Liberal is what folks like the founding fathers were called, as it is derived from old French liberal "befitting free men, noble, generous" and then in the early days of the nation, from a purely political stance meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy". But, the left has co-opted the term to mean more of "favorable to government action to effect social change" which is the opposite of being "free men... freedom and democracy". I guess a number of so-called conservative elected officials would also need to be classified as progressives too, just of a different flavor.

What we need is less liberals and less conservatives and far, far less progressives. We need pragmatic elected officials.

arbilad · Head Chef

True. I believe that we should start with enforcing the laws we have on our books. We should conduct more raids of employers who employ illegal aliens. We should be smarter with our patrol of the border. If people fire at border guards from across the border, let them fire back. Actually check ID for stuff like voting or registering for social security.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat Herder wrote:
What we need is less liberals and less conservatives and far, far less progressives. We need pragmatic elected officials.

Huh

I like having elected officials who are visionaries and idealists. We need far more Libertarians in office

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I'm glad I'm not married to you guys... if I had to live the absolutes you insiste upon, refusing any sort of compromise... compromise IS pragmatism.

Even God brings about change for good, little by little... line upon line...

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 12:11, 2007-06-25

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

"In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock!" - Thomas Jefferson

It seems we often confuse the two--compromising when we shouldn't and being stubborn over things that are really issues of partisan politics--style if you will. Of course, everyone wants to reframe their pet issue into a matter of principle to justify their own obstinance.

eta: The older I get, the fewer issues I find based on real principle. Maybe it's still that spirit of rebellion against my parents. The older they got, the more "set in their ways" they became over a great many issues.

-- Edited by Roper at 12:40, 2007-06-25

arbilad · Head Chef

Very true, Roper; anything that you feel strongly about seems to you (using the general "you", and not talking specifically about Roper) to be a matter of real principle. But on those issues which are really about true principle, you should be like a rock.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Sure, compromise is pragmatic.

But, creating a whole new set of laws to replace a set of laws that are only unenforceable due to lack of commitment is not a compromise. That is where so many people feel it boils down to nothing more than defacto amnesty. Where is the promise that lawmakers will have commitment to enforcement of the new laws? It is non-existant. It is all rhetoric about how they and their brilliant ideas have "solved" the problem.

Compromise would be to enforce the current law while having ample utility available for the exceptions so that everyone is just not put on a bus back to the border with an official "See ya, wouldn't want to be ya!"

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

The fact that they're willing to revisit it, though, shows at least more commitment than they had... they're politicians. they want credit for fixing the problem. So why not just let them have the credit, and this time really fix the problem, rather than arguing over what should have been, but wasn't, isn't and won't be?

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 14:07, 2007-06-25

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Frankly, if the government is unwilling to enforce the laws they already have then I have zero confidence that something would change should a new set of laws be passed. I think this is really why conservatives are so against this latest round of immigration reform. Many think that the amnesty will be the only thing actually to come to fruition while all the security, enforcement, and border protection will be ignored, gutted, underfunded, etc. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice.....

arbilad · Head Chef

Not only can we not trust them to enforce new laws, but the enforcement provisions are actually pretty weak, and in some cases, more lax than what we have now. For instance, a law was passed allowing the US to build a 700 mile border fence. The new law would replace that with only a 200 mile border fence. So it would actually be less secure than what we have now. Let's hire the border guards already allowed for by law. Let's build the fence already allowed for by law. Let's change policies that prevent border guards from doing their job. Make other changes to stop the high turnover rate amongst border guards. That would go a long way towards solving the problem.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat Herder wrote:
But, creating a whole new set of laws to replace a set of laws that are only unenforceable due to lack of commitment is not a compromise.

Prohibition?

That's just one example. We have many laws we don't enforce. But if enforcement is the defining issue, then we need laws that the majority can get on board with enforcing. Why should I expect a nation to be suddenly willing to enforce laws that we haven't for decades? Changing the law is a perfectly acceptable solution in a democracy.

-- Edited by Roper at 14:46, 2007-06-25

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Probably because most of the public are sick and tired of the song and dance of letting the politicians play their games, create new laws, pat themselves on the back, and then nothing improves because no one has the stomach to actually follow through. It is kind of like a "we don't trust you to do the job anymore, government" due to the fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me... We as a public have been duped on this issue more than once.

And the only reason they are willing to revisit it is because: A. Someone at the political party strategy level figured that this would be a grand issue to use as some sort of competitive advantage; and maybe to a small degree B. Enough bottom up pressure has been made by various states and cities to national politicians and elected officials that they feel obligated to give it at least lip service.

Right, wrong, indifferent, not much is going to change at the end of the day at the fundamental, pragmatic level -- even with the so-called compromises, new policies, new laws, etc.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat Herder wrote:
Right, wrong, indifferent, not much is going to change at the end of the day at the fundamental, pragmatic level -- even with the so-called compromises, new policies, new laws, etc.

Which is okay with me. With one exception: If undocumented workers pay taxes, that information shouldn't be used to ferret them out to arrest, incarcerate, and deport them. That bit of honesty should be rewarded with a chance for citizenship.

arbilad · Head Chef

Roper wrote:

Cat Herder wrote:
But, creating a whole new set of laws to replace a set of laws that are only unenforceable due to lack of commitment is not a compromise.
Prohibition?

That's just one example. We have many laws we don't enforce. But if enforcement is the defining issue, then we need laws that the majority can get on board with enforcing. Why should I expect a nation to be suddenly willing to enforce laws that we haven't for decades? Changing the law is a perfectly acceptable solution in a democracy.

-- Edited by Roper at 14:46, 2007-06-25

The law should only be changed if the new version will be followed. There is no indication whatsoever that the enforcement provisions of the bill should be followed.

BTW, did you know that the church was against the repeal of prohibition? They actually actively worked against the repeal. And, if I remember correctly, it was the state of Utah that was the deciding vote to repeal prohibition.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

arbilad wrote:
BTW, did you know that the church was against the repeal of prohibition? They actually actively worked against the repeal. And, if I remember correctly, it was the state of Utah that was the deciding vote to repeal prohibition.

I remember learning that. I wonder why Utah, which was majority LDS, decided to repeal?

From a purely economic standpoint: If we tallied all of the costs--money, lost time, medical attention, abuse, broken homes, etc.--incurred by alcohol, I think we could draw the conclusion that repealling prohibition was the worst financial decision this country has ever made. I suspect the cost of the war in Iraq is a fraction of a percentage.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Well, even if Utah had not voted to repeal, it still would have passed... Ohio and Pennsylvania were #37 and #38 respectively...

Of course, if we had never had prohibition, we would also have never had the legacy of having G-men and Elliott Ness, or the St. Valentine's massacre or Al Capone. And we probably would never have been blessed with the great national leadership of the Kennedy dynasty since Joe Kennedy made his fortune as a rum runner...

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

btw, Lundie talked about that on a totally different thread... don't have the slightest idea where to find it, but it was some sort of leadership meeting attended by associates of his and I think Elder Eyring was presiding...

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

So you don't trust the government, big whoop. Find a solution that doesn't involve the government, cuz even if you got all your wishes fulfilled, it wouldn't fix the fact that government is by its very nature untrustworthy.

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Immigration Bill Advances in Senate

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., an architect of the measure, sounded a similar tone. "

This may not be perfect, but it is the best opportunity we have to do something significant and substantial, and I believe that the bill is good," he said.
So, do you really believe that this is the best opportunity to do something significant and substantial?

Let's take a look at another article that just hit the news...
Senate Votes to Continue Work on Immigration Reform Compromise

This visa grants instant probationary legal status to any illegal immigrant living or working in America now.

Opponents consider the Z-visa the equivalent of granting instant amnesty because they assert it will be very hard for the federal government to deport anyone in possession of legal status.

I think this explains a lot better as to why so many people do not buy this as an actual compromise, but rather a meaningless replacement of a system that is already not enforced with the super duper bonus of amnesty for all, or even in the revised version, minors... With that loop hole, I can just see it... if you cross the border illegally and "prove" you are under 18, then you get a z-visa automatically and don't have to risk deportation...

See, ultimately it doesn't boil down to whether or not we are showing charity to our brothers and sisters or not. It is ultimately about the legal precedent and the future problems this proposed bill create outweighing the scope of the problems that are addressed (and not even guaranteed to solve) by the bill.

edited to correct formatting errors that occured when posted

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 11:33, 2007-06-26

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

It's a decent compromise... but hey, if you're having trouble with it, I suggest you try reading this...

http://www.wikihow.com/Roll-Your-%22R%22s

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 13:58, 2007-06-26

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

The specific trill consonant you need to master depends on the language you are learning. Trills are common in many world languages from those widely spoken to obscure dialects. Trills are present in Dutch, German, Spanish, Thai, Russian, Italian, Armenian, French, Slovenian, Faroese, Finnish, Norwegian and Polish, to name just a few. In each language different kinds of trills are made with different parts of the mouth. For example, in German the rolled R sounds is actually an Uvular trill, produced deeper in the throat.
I'll stick with what is tried and true in my language mastery, thank you. smile

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

So, what do y'all think of this?

Home Depot seeks relief from day-labor rules

It appears that there are a number of municipalities that not only do and encourage things counter to the intent of immigration law, but work to subvert it AND force local business entities to foot the bill for it directly on threat of losing permits and permissions to operate in the municipality...

In other news...

Michigan Family Looks to Congress to Fight Deportation Order After Being in U.S. For 18 Years

Guess what folks, they ain't hispanic... I feel for them, but at the same time, the story is kind of silent as to whether they did due dilligence in following up in a timely fashion on their side...

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Senate Blocks Immigration Bill

Now we shall see what the fallout of this is, right, wrong, or indifferent. At least the bulk of the citizenry will not feel like they were railroaded into a new set of laws they were not comfortable with.

arbilad · Head Chef

When I called Senator Salazar's DC number to express my opposition to the bill, all circuits were busy. When I called his local number to express my opinion, no one was answering the phones and his voicemail box was full, so I had to leave a message in the receptionist's voicemail box. It seems that enough people felt strongly about this to flood his office with calls.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Ok, now on to enforcing the laws on the books. Betcha this becomes a big issue in next year's election.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I'm extremely disappointed with the republicans and for the Americans who I think fell prey to corporate demogogues who simply don't want anything to change, because it creates a permanent underclass in society, corporate slavery.

Hooray for all who support the enslavement of others and using the excuse of the law to hide behind the status quo... the pharisees would be so proud.

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 19:49, 2007-06-28

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

It is the proponents of this recent bill which want to create a permanent underclass of "guest-workers", cheap labor for Big Business. It was the corporate, Rockefeller Republican types who were pushing for this measure, as well as the Dems with their visions of lots of uneducated and lower-class voters.

Which demagogues are you listening to?

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

"excuse of the law" Ray?

You never responded to my temple recommend analogy. The next time a non-recommend holder wants to go in the temple, should we just wave aside that little detail? Do rules and laws and standards mean something or not?

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

The Instapundit gives Congress some good advice:

My advice for next time:

(1) Make the process open, transparent, and timely, with hearings, drafts on the Internet, and no last-minute bills that no one has read;

(2) Earn people's trust, don't demand it, and treat enforcement like it matters;

(3) Respect people who follow the law, and make legal immigration easier, cheaper, and simpler, rather than the Kafkaesque nightmare it is now;

(4) Don't feel you have to be "comprehensive" -- address the problems you can deal with first. The trust needed to deal with other problems will come later, after you've shown some success and some good faith.

arbilad · Head Chef

Yeah, Ray, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding you. This bill would have guaranteed continued illegal immigration, thus creating a permanent underclass. If we enforced the border and let in only those who went through the process, they'd have a better chance at avoiding becoming the underclass. This bill was a travesty of human injustice. It would have guaranteed that we had a permanent american peasant class. Enforcing our borders and existing laws would be more merciful than forcing them into poverty.
We need to have laws. What's next, not prosecuting theft if the thief is poor? I applaud those senators who showed the wisdom and bravery to stand up to this attack on our sovereignty and human goodness.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

arbilad wrote:
I applaud those senators who showed the wisdom and bravery to stand up to this attack on our sovereignty and human goodness.

That's rich--coming from a government that destroyed how many nations in the name of manifest destiny? Sometimes I shake my head in disbelief at our epidemic hypocricy on this issue.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

The bill would have funded the fence. Bolstered the Border guard and given those who are illegal and come clean, a chance to be legitimate members of society.

YOU HAVE NOTHING NOW.

No compromise. No solutions. Only more of the same... Your solution is to do nothing and so we all have more illegal immigration.

--Ray

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

When the government shows that it is willing to enforce the laws we have now, and to enforce the border, then I will believe that it is acting in good faith. The bill as written did not give us anything either. Why should I believe that they are going to enforce the border as stated in this bill when they don't do it now?

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

And at least now the existing illegals are still that--illegal. They have not been granted amnesty, which would have only encourage much more illegal immigration.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Roper, are you suggesting we should just allow ourselves to be overrun, our culture and demography changed, because our ancestors did it to the native americans?

arbilad · Head Chef

The bill would have funded the fence. Bolstered the Border guard
Would those things have happened if this bill was passed? It's more likely that it will be revealed that Teddy Roosevelt is still alive and answering phones for amazon.com. We already have a fence authorized and funded, of 700 miles in length. This bill would have reduced that to 200. We already have funding and authorization for 2000 additional border guards, but we only hired 700. That is, we have a lot of protective measures which simply aren't being used. There is also a plethora of useless limitations on the border guard. For instance, there are many areas designated as environmentally sensitive where they can't go, so the illegals cross through those areas in droves. Surely it would cause less environmental damage to patrol those areas and keep the daily thousands from crossing.
The reason why we have a porous border is not that we don't have sufficient laws to protect it. It's that our leadership doesn't want a closed border.