Should Mexicans Focus on Improving Mexico Instead of Immigrating Illegally?

[Ivan Seeking]

I completely support criminalizing illegals. The first job of any government is to secure the borders. Our government betrays us in the interest of cheap labor for profit.

I have an idea, how about if Mexicans try to fix Mexico instead of coming here illegally and demanding rights.

By the way, illegals don't have any rights.

 

[tuco]

I believe Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners. - http://www.nationalvanguard.org/index.php

We're proud of being white, we want to keep being white," said Lynx. "We want our people to stay white … we don't want to just be, you know, a big muddle. We just want to preserve our race. - http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3765
--

everyone has right to have opinion.

personally, i find it amusing that descendants of immigrants want to criminalize immigrants, who are now called illegal but xyz years ago there was no such a thing, but .. to each his own.

btw illegals have human rights as every other human being.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was talking about constitutional rights and the right to a voice in the US system. And we have never allowed unchecked immigration. My ancestors came here legally.

You are confusing legal immigration with an illegal free-for-all.

 

[tuco]

oh did they? i thought Euros came, killed some natives, fooled others with "firewater", move the rest to reservation and then invented constitutional rights and illegals. but don't mind me, I am never to be taken seriously.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That was before the US even existed as a nation with a Constitution. As for the plight of native Americans, I am the first to agree that they were treated horribly and unjustly. But that doesn't change a thing.

 

[Moonbear]

personally, i find it amusing that descendants of immigrants want to criminalize immigrants, who are now called illegal but xyz years ago there was no such a thing, but .. to each his own.

The issue is not about criminalizing immigrants, it is about criminalizing illegal immigrants, those who snuck across the border without any of the usual process and checks that legal immigrants need to adhere to. Nobody is saying to kick out those who are coming into the country on temporary work visas, or student visas (both of which are non-immigrant visas, because they are temporary), or with an immigrant visa that permits them to establish permanent residency.

I hear the argument, "Well, they pay their taxes..." but I cannot see how that is possible. If they are paying taxes, that means they obtained a social security number, and in order to obtain a social security number, you need to prove your visa status is valid and permits you to work in the U.S., which means you are here legally. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10096.html

If you are here illegally, you aren't going to have a social security number (unless you've committed identity theft and are using someone else's social security number, which is yet another crime...sure, you may be paying your taxes with it, but what other debts and obligations are you accruing in someone else's name?), which means you aren't paying taxes, even if you've found work.

Unfortunately, it seems all too common, even in the media reports of this issue, that the distinction between a legal immigrant or even a legal non-immigrant on temporary visa status is confused for that of illegal immigrants.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, in my particular case, my great-grandfather immigrated here legally from Finland. I am not aware of any Finnish invaders claiming the Americas.

You should see what the illegals have done to my original home in LA. It is like day and night. They have turned the place into a ghetto.

I once has a serious relationship with a Mexican girl who immigrated here legally. She also had a real problem with illegals.

And what of the many criminals who flee Mexico and come here to escape prosecution. Should they also have rights?

 

[tuco]

:)

im stupid but not that stupid guys. unfortunatelly, i do not believe in such a thing as "illegal immigrant" as i believe everyone should be able to travel and work freely.

"while there is a soul in prison I am not free" kinda thing you know ..

as i said everyone is free to have her/his own opinon so i don't get why you seem to have the need to defend your opinion against mine. do you have the need?

i won't argue silly here but i do know the difference between illegal alien, immigrant, nonimmigrant, resident and citizen, quite well.

 

[SOS2008]

Now you know not to get me started on this. Not long ago a program aired, I think on PBS about the history of migrant workers (now referred to as illegal aliens). In those days the borders were controlled with ease. The hiring laws were enforced. The migrant workers were monitored and limited--primarily to agriculture, which is seasonal. During the depression, the flow was shut off, and those who were here illegally were made to leave. Many Americans took agricultural work to get through the hard times. One of my professors said he picked and processed olives as a boy.

Things went from bad to worse when the Smirking Chimp broadcasted the word "amnesty" and millions began to flood across the border beyond control. The religious-right among Hispanics helped him to get reelected. It helped his Big Business buddies too.

With the recession that began in 2001, and the unemployment so high, how can anyone claim Americans don't want to work? I predict that if the minimum wage (which is now equivalent to the minimum wage in 1966 in real dollars) was raised to proper levels, and businesses were forced to pay fair wages (and taxes, benefits, etc.), Americans would be taking these jobs left and right. Construction, hospitality, restaurants--certainly college students or spouses seeking supplemental income. And of course many illegals learn English and move on to even better jobs.

This winter season was the worse for the flu that I've seen in my life time. Most people were sick multiple times. It is believed that it is due to new strains being brought over the border. The gang violence in border states has escalated as well, and some members who have been deported several times (at the tax payer expense) simply return time and again. People say making illegal entry a felony would only increase our prison populations--look at the percentages and see how many illegals are already there.

The protests this last weekend were despicable--many were illegal, some were draped in the Mexican flag. These protests were backed by foreign government, most notably Mexico, which ran adds in U.S. newspapers advocating guest worker programs. You don't really think something like this could be organized among poor uneducated people without powerful backing--maybe certain businesses, maybe even certain Republicans who hope to make this a wedge issue in 2006 the same way as terrorism and same sex marriage has been used in elections before?

I agree that racial conflict needs to be avoided, but Bush is full of s**t stating that millions of unchecked illegals are contributing positively to our economy, and that their insistence on speaking Spanish is not undermining our national identity. Those of us in border states have seen this the longest and the hardest. I know some people who have moved to other states in part to escape the assault. Shrub better tell Fox to get his own house in order, or he's not welcome back either.

We need a wall constructed (adding more border control officers will nickel and dime the system with no real effectiveness). We need to require employers to not only collect ID for the I-9 form, but verify the ID, and then report when the ID is fake--this definitely should be a felony. With a wall we can just buss them to the other side and save on plane tickets or prison.

Look at how many liberals feel as I do. It tells you something. And perhaps it could be an issue to reunite America--Republican and Democratic voters unite! Where are the organizations and backing for us to take the streets? Where?

 

[SOS2008]

:)im stupid but not that stupid guys. unfortunatelly, i do not believe in such a thing as "illegal immigrant" as i believe everyone should be able to travel and work freely.

"while there is a soul in prison I am not free" kinda thing you know ..

as i said everyone is free to have her/his own opinon so i don't get why you seem to have the need to defend your opinion against mine. do you have the need?

i won't argue silly here but i do know the difference between illegal alien, immigrant, nonimmigrant, resident and citizen, quite well.

Riiight. There should be no borders, no walls or fences around yards, no locks on doors, no personal possessions, because it is my 'right' to take what I feel is my share however I choose.

We are not talking about human rights here. In fact, if you want to harp on that you should be against big business and corrupt elites in countries like Mexico who exploit these people for their own gain. It is not the American tax payers who are responsible to rectify the matter by having their standard of living pulled down to the same level as exists in Mexico.

As for my ancestors, they immigrated legally. Look at the old photos from Ellis Island. These people were proud to become American, to learn the language (English), and built this country to the greatness it is today. And don't start up with the Native American Indian spiel either. They along with all the other legal citizens (including Mexicans who lived here and were given automatic citizenship) and naturalized citizens are welcome, and free to pursue the American Dream.

And don't start up with the racism and bigotry, and why we don't have the same concern about our border with Canada. Millions of illegals are flooding across our southern borders, bringing disease, increasing crime, and bankrupting public services, that's why. This is NOT immigration. It is an invasion.

 

[loseyourname]

as i said everyone is free to have her/his own opinon so i don't get why you seem to have the need to defend your opinion against mine. do you have the need?

This is a discussion forum, not an opinion poll. The whole point is to make arguments and defend your position.

 

[Art]

I'd have thought mexicans flooding into California and Texas would be more accurately described as a homecoming rather than an invasion.

 

[BobG]

I hear the argument, "Well, they pay their taxes..." but I cannot see how that is possible. If they are paying taxes, that means they obtained a social security number, and in order to obtain a social security number, you need to prove your visa status is valid and permits you to work in the U.S., which means you are here legally. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10096.html

If you are here illegally, you aren't going to have a social security number (unless you've committed identity theft and are using someone else's social security number, which is yet another crime...sure, you may be paying your taxes with it, but what other debts and obligations are you accruing in someone else's name?), which means you aren't paying taxes, even if you've found work.

Unfortunately, it seems all too common, even in the media reports of this issue, that the distinction between a legal immigrant or even a legal non-immigrant on temporary visa status is confused for that of illegal immigrants.

It is common for a social security number to be used by quite a few people, which can occasionally be a problem for the real person the social security number is issued to. Social Security isn't too aggressive in verifying identities for incoming tax revenues, but the illegal using a purloined social security number is guaranteed to receive nothing in return for the social security taxes subtracted from his/her paycheck (in a way, they're fined right off the bat). The Social Security Administration is also less than helpful in resolving stolen social security numbers.

The real problem is illegal immigration (by the way, most illegal immigrants are those that entered legally, but chose not to leave when their visas expired - illegal border crossings are just a small subclass of illegal immigration). Our country should be able to control its borders (and obviously could to a much larger extent since it has immigration records for most illegal immigrants).

The fact that we've chosen to be pretty lackadaisical in controlling illegal immigration presents a different problem. We can't very well afford to deport them when they're filling an economic niche in the economy. If we do control illegal immigration, then we'll also have to increase legal immigration to compensate for the loss of illegal immigrants.

Here's an interesting article on immigration, over all, even if it is over 10 years old. http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-immig.html#contents

People's opinions on immigration have remained the same regardless of the century or how many immigrants are actually entering the country: "The people who came here in earlier times were good folks, but the people who are coming now are purely scum"

In general, immigrants contribute slightly more economically than they drain via social services. They contribute significantly more if you exclude refugees. People who immigrated at a late age also cost more in welfare, etc - but that's because they didn't have time to accrue any Social Security benefits.

 

[SOS2008]

I'd have thought Mexicans flooding into California and Texas would be more accurately described as a homecoming rather than an invasion.

The Mexicans who were living here at the time of acquisition were allowed to keep their land and were automatically given citizenship. In California, the Mexican population held huge fiesta celebrations. Who's land was taken that needs to be given back? Actually there were Americans who lost land to Mexico, such as my great grandfather. And that goes for Native American Indians too, who likewise enjoy citizenship, and tax exemption for their casinos, ski resorts, etc. as well as subsidies. Everyone needs to join the 21st century and move on.

It is common for a social security number to be used by quite a few people, which can occasionally be a problem for the real person the social security number is issued to. Social Security isn't too aggressive in verifying identities for incoming tax revenues, but the illegal using a purloined social security number is guaranteed to receive nothing in return for the social security taxes subtracted from his/her paycheck (in a way, they're fined right off the bat). The Social Security Administration is also less than helpful in resolving stolen social security numbers.

The real problem is illegal immigration (by the way, most illegal immigrants are those that entered legally, but chose not to leave when their visas expired - illegal border crossings are just a small subclass of illegal immigration). Our country should be able to control its borders (and obviously could to a much larger extent since it has immigration records for most illegal immigrants).

The fact that we've chosen to be pretty lackadaisical in controlling illegal immigration presents a different problem. We can't very well afford to deport them when they're filling an economic niche in the economy. If we do control illegal immigration, then we'll also have to increase legal immigration to compensate for the loss of illegal immigrants.

Here's an interesting article on immigration, over all, even if it is over 10 years old. http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-immig.html#contents

People's opinions on immigration have remained the same regardless of the century or how many immigrants are actually entering the country: "The people who came here in earlier times were good folks, but the people who are coming now are purely scum"

In general, immigrants contribute slightly more economically than they drain via social services. They contribute significantly more if you exclude refugees. People who immigrated at a late age also cost more in welfare, etc - but that's because they didn't have time to accrue any Social Security benefits.

Do any of us know if we'll receive Social Security benefits? In the meantime, the problem is the immense numbers entering in a compressed time frame (millions a year), and the strain it has therefore placed on tax supported services. We can't sustain that kind of volume. You can look at the numbers various ways, but most agree that when it is all tallied up, we are running a deficit.

One area that will likely begin lay-offs is the housing industry (construction). And if we continue buying more and more goods from overseas, including produce (as Bush said while in India, Americans want to eat your mangos), then what niche will be left for these people? Come on, we know Americans would be happy to take many jobs if they are paid fair wages.

Of course we need to continue allowing immigration, it just can't be a friggin' free for all.

 

[moose]

Illegals are quite a problem over here :/ Most people in Airzona agree that it's one of the weakest points of this administration/government...

One thing I hate more than the illegals is that people who do not understand nor speak english get a job before me because of AA. That is a different matter entirely though...

 

[tuco]

This post contained a lewd remark that has been edited out by Tom Mattson.

This is a discussion forum, not an opinion poll. The whole point is to make arguments and defend your position. - loseyourname

dont you say? :)

so what is your point? that i should defend my opinion with arguments? or you were merely answering my rethorical question?

if its the later one, then thank you for explaining it to me the idiot, and if its the former one i will say this. i will not argue silly what are nothing more than biased opinions of seasoned american posters on this board, even if their opinions are supported by quasi-arguments in favour of criminalizing illegal aliens.

what shall i produce here? conclusive proof that everyone should have right to travel, work and settle freely? and what shall i argue here? that illegal aliens are bad for US citizens?

you see, this stuff is matter of opinion or better yet, a matter of system of beliefs. one believes that fairness and equality is "good" and another one believes that maximizing profit is "good". since in open society nobody is in possession of ultimate truth, it then follows, this issue cannot be decided objectively.

sociology or economy are not hard sciencies like math or physics, where there's little room for opinions. sure, most or even vast majority would probably agree that illegal aliens are bad simply because they make americans poorer. and i ask. how do we know that richer but consumer society is "better" than poorer but equal society for example? once there was time when majority thought it was ok to discriminate jews. were they right because they were in majority?

define better? define good? define bad? see what i mean? this stuff nothing like Pythagorean Theorem or speed of light in vacuum.If they are paying taxes, that means they obtained a social security number, and in order to obtain a social security number, you need to prove your visa status is valid and permits you to work in the U.S., which means you are here legally. - Moonbear

i have my SS number in front of me and i have my NYC driving license in front of me at this very moment. i was never nothing more than illegal alien. ;)

Of course we need to continue allowing immigration, it just can't be a friggin' free for all. - SOS2008

perhaps a closer look at Sweden, UK or Ireland would shed little more light on this argument. labour markets of these coutnries opened themselves to workers from new EU member states some time ago, unlike Germany, France or Spain and the rest of old EU members and what happened? nada .. no invasion .. no friggin' all. surprise surprise!

still not an opinion poll? id even say its uneducated opinion poll, but then again, I am an idiot..

 

[loseyourname]

This is a discussion forum, not an opinion poll. The whole point is to make arguments and defend your position. - loseyourname

dont you say? :)

so what is your point? that i should defend my opinion with arguments? or you were merely answering my rethorical question?

if its the later one, then thank you for explaining it to me the idiot, and if its the former one i will say this. i will not argue silly what are nothing more than biased opinions of seasoned american posters on this board, even if their opinions are supported by quasi-arguments in favour of criminalizing illegal aliens.

You asked why people felt the need to defend their opinions. My response is that that's the whole point of a discussion forum. Look through every thread and that's mostly what's going on. If it was just 'state what you believe, then move on,' we'd have quite a lot less going on here.

what shall i produce here? conclusive proof that everyone should have right to travel, work and settle freely? and what shall i argue here? that illegal aliens are bad for US citizens?

You don't need to present conclusive proof. You don't even necessarily need to present any kind of argument. If that's just what you believe, and there is no reasoning process behind it, so be it. But others are generally going to tell you what their reasoning process is, and why they disagree with you. You're going to have to get used to that.

you see, this stuff is matter of opinion or better yet, a matter of system of beliefs. one believes that fairness and equality is "good" and another one believes that maximizing profit is "good". since in open society nobody is in possession of ultimate truth, it then follows, this issue cannot be decided objectively.

Well, there you go, you're making an argument. SOS made much the same argument, that the only reason illegals are allowed to stay as they are, and we mostly look the other way, is that it's good business for certain people. It allows them to maximize profits. On the other hand, she thinks it's unfair that they get a free ride by having access to taxpayer funded services but often don't pay taxes, and they are being treated unequally in the sense that laws which apply to the rest of us legal residents are not being properly enforced on them.

You either agree or disagree with her, and there is some reasoning process behind why you come to either of these conclusions. The kosher next step on a discussion forum is to state why you either agree or disagree, and then we move on, back and forth, until either a resolution of some sort is reached or one or both parties simply give up. Is it pointless? In many cases, maybe it is. In other cases, maybe someone is actually learning something from this, which is the reason the forum exists.

I realize I'm being patronizing, but come on. Who comes to a discussion forum, a political one no less, and complains when people argue for contrary positions?

 

[tuco]

Who comes to a discussion forum, a political one no less, and complains when people argue for contrary positions? - loseyourname

an idiot or a troublemaker or both :)

fair enough.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I hear the argument, "Well, they pay their taxes..." but I cannot see how that is possible. If they are paying taxes, that means they obtained a social security number, and in order to obtain a social security number, you need to prove your visa status is valid and permits you to work in the U.S., which means you are here legally.

BobG already touched on this but here's a bit more...

The immigrants have been able to file since 1996 when the IRS started issuing special tax numbers for people living and working illegally in this country. Experts say the 8 million to 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States contribute untold billions each year in payroll taxes.
__________________________

The taxpayer number is intended only to allow illegal immigrants to pay their taxes. The IRS cannot share the information with other agencies. The Social Security Administration, for example, cannot use the IRS information to help stop fraudulent use of Social Security numbers.

Because the taxpayer numbers cannot be used to get a job, many of the tax returns filed with the numbers come attached with W-2 employer forms showing a fake or fraudulent Social Security number.

Also, the Department of Homeland Security's immigration arm is not allowed access to the numbers to identify undocumented workers and help control illegal immigration.
___________________________

A General Accounting Office report released last month highlighted other weaknesses with the ITINs, which are formatted like a Social Security number: XXX-XX-XXXX. It said an ITIN can be obtained by submitting fake documents through the mail and then used for things that would normally require a Social Security number.

The IRS acknowledges that that the numbers were being used for unintended purposes such as opening bank accounts, applying for driver licenses and renting apartments.

These are excerpts from...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040415/news_1n15taxes.html

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Of course we need to continue allowing immigration, it just can't be a friggin' free for all.

Do you support rounding up families looking for a better life like they're felons and deporting them? Sending them back to the place where they were willing to risk injury and arrest to escape and now have nothing because they have used it all to get here? Same with people who perhaps came here legally but once they had made a life for themselves, had a job paid taxes and kids were in school, they were told their visa won't be renewed?

 

[JamesU]

Illegals are quite a problem over here :/ Most people in Airzona agree that it's one of the weakest points of this administration/government...

I don't see it as a problem. They're very helpful and cheap when doing construction and other things...

 

[russ_watters]

I am stupid but not that stupid guys. unfortunatelly, i do not believe in such a thing as "illegal immigrant" as i believe everyone should be able to travel and work freely.

There's a saying, that whether or not you believe in it, it believes in you.

As Ivan said (I agree with him on this one), immigration to the US has always had limits, and rightly so. I'm not against immigration per se, but too much, too fast can have negative effects.

So given the fact that there are limits and given the fact that no border to any country is completely open (you need a pasport to go pretty much everywhere), that makes being where you aren't supposed to be illegal. Its kinda like tresspassing. And like with tresspassing, illegal immigrants are not some special class that needs to be protected, they are a drain on society that needs to be removed.

Who comes to a discussion forum, a political one no less, and complains when people argue for contrary positions? - loseyourname

an idiot or a troublemaker or both :)

fair enough.

Idiots are permitted here (as long as they are willing to learn), troublemakers are not. Please do not be a troublemaker.

 

[Moonbear]

Thanks Bob G and Statutory Ape for the additional information regarding SS numbers. I wasn't aware of that loophole. (I couldn't get back into this thread yesterday or even onto PF this morning, so I'm just catching back up here.)

BobG, I especially agree with your views that the problem is that the past laws were so lax that people have been able to either enter illegally or remain illegally so long that their country of citizenship is no longer home for them. But, that doesn't make it legal, just unfortunate that they've made risky choices. People are crying it would split up families to return them home...did they not leave their families behind when they came here? Apparently it was okay in one direction, but not the other?

As for the claim the would get nothing back for the taxes paid, I don't agree. Maybe they don't get social security benefits, but who do you think pays when they need medical treatment at the ER and don't have medical insurance or the ability to pay the bills themselves?

If we truly need workers from outside the country to fill positions we can't find Americans to fill, then the solution isn't to allow those who cut in line or got here by breaking the rules to suddenly get a break, the solution is to extend visas and work permits or even permanent immigration status to those who are in line waiting to legally enter.

However, why are we only focusing on the Mexican immigrants? ANY illegal immigrant should be subject to the same laws.

 

[ray b]

I don't see it as a problem. They're very helpful and cheap when doing construction and other things...

intill the hurricane comes and blows the poorly built home to pieces
with no unions there are no training programs so you have unskilled people trying to doing skilled jobs at pay rates that hurt other workers
if you want a 3rd world class home good luck

after ANDREW in 92 you could clearly see the newer homes blew apart while the older union build houses DIDNOT

then there is the other problem, the export of our dollars
many illegals export a big part of their pay back home
this makes the citys poorer as less dollars are spent localy
miami is a very good example of this
we are now the poorest major america city thanks to illegals

we allso have fake doctors killing people and many other problems as part of the massive illegal imigration

DEPORT ALL OF THEM and JAIL THE CORPS leaders who hire them
we should only allow in the very best and brightest

 

[Evo]

I think people don't understand that legal immigration from Mexico has been cut off for some time.

"Citizens of the following countries may not apply for visas. The congressionally mandated Diversity Immigrant Visa Program is administered on an annual basis by the Department of State and conducted under the terms of Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 131 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-649) amended INA 203 to provide for a new class of immigrants known as "diversity immigrants" (DV immigrants). The Act makes available 50,000 permanent resident visas annually to persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States.

The annual DV program makes permanent residence visas available to persons meeting the simple, but strict, eligibility requirements. Applicants for Diversity Visas are chosen by a computer-generated random lottery drawing. The visas, however, are distributed among six geographic regions with a greater number of visas going to regions with lower rates of immigration, and with no visas going to citizens of countries sending more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. in the past five years. Within each region, no one country may receive more than seven percent of the available Diversity Visas in anyone year.

For DV-2007, natives of the following countries are not eligible to apply because they sent a total of more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. in the previous five years:

CANADA, CHINA (mainland-born), COLOMBIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, HAITI, INDIA, JAMAICA, MEXICO, PAKISTAN, PHILIPPINES, POLAND, RUSSIA, SOUTH KOREA, UNITED KINGDOM (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and VIETNAM. Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and Taiwan are eligible.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1318.html

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

we should only allow in the very best and brightest

With that mentality perhaps we should start kicking out citizens that aren't the best and brightest too. It doesn't take the best and brightest to wash dishes and work fields which is exactly the niche in the labour force that illegal immigrants tend to fill.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think people don't understand that legal immigration from Mexico has been cut off for some time.

"Citizens of the following countries may not apply for visas. The congressionally mandated Diversity Immigrant Visa Program is administered on an annual basis by the Department of State and conducted under the terms of Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 131 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-649) amended INA 203 to provide for a new class of immigrants known as "diversity immigrants" (DV immigrants). The Act makes available 50,000 permanent resident visas annually to persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States.

The annual DV program makes permanent residence visas available to persons meeting the simple, but strict, eligibility requirements. Applicants for Diversity Visas are chosen by a computer-generated random lottery drawing. The visas, however, are distributed among six geographic regions with a greater number of visas going to regions with lower rates of immigration, and with no visas going to citizens of countries sending more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. in the past five years. Within each region, no one country may receive more than seven percent of the available Diversity Visas in anyone year.

For DV-2007, natives of the following countries are not eligible to apply because they sent a total of more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. in the previous five years:

CANADA, CHINA (mainland-born), COLOMBIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, HAITI, INDIA, JAMAICA, MEXICO, PAKISTAN, PHILIPPINES, POLAND, RUSSIA, SOUTH KOREA, UNITED KINGDOM (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and VIETNAM. Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and Taiwan are eligible.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1318.html

Interesting. Are you sure that the DVs aren't just a particular group of visas set aside for the purpose of diversification? Maybe this just a particular sections of visas that are set aside for that purpose and do not detract from the number of visas that people from any particular country may receive? I know from some reading that there is a number set for the amount of visas that are supposed to be given specifically to Cubans anually. I would think that this would detract from the point of only giving out DVs. At the same time the US has not been fulfilling its obligation for the number of visas given to Cubans, perhaps this is one reason.

 

[Anttech]

Interesting. Are you sure that the DVs aren't just a particular group of visas set aside for the purpose of diversification?

I would say so, UK citizans are allowed to immigrate to US... In fact anyone can who has enough $$$... If UK citizans arent allowed to immigrate to the US, I would suspect the same would be for US to UK.. However this doesn't seem to be true.

 

[Art]

Interesting. Are you sure that the DVs aren't just a particular group of visas set aside for the purpose of diversification? Maybe this just a particular sections of visas that are set aside for that purpose and do not detract from the number of visas that people from any particular country may receive? I know from some reading that there is a number set for the amount of visas that are supposed to be given specifically to Cubans anually. I would think that this would detract from the point of only giving out DVs. At the same time the US has not been fulfilling its obligation for the number of visas given to Cubans, perhaps this is one reason.

There are several different classes of visa. The DV (green card) type are the best as they give you permanent residency. Apart from the lottery allocation there are other ways of qualifying for a green card such as marriage, relatives, investment, employment, adoption and as a 'special' immigrant e.g. Workers for recognized religious organizations.

There are a wide variety of second tier visas available which allow for temporary residency only. Mexicans can apply for these under the NAFTA agreement but there are strict rules re eligibilty.

 

[Bystander]

"Deine Ausweiss, bitte (or else)."

Wet feet vs. dry feet for Cuban "refugees" --- smuggled Chinese once the railroad boom ended --- if you could get the paperwork to leave elsewhere and get here in the past, or evade it as a stowaway, you were in --- given the common border with Mexico, it's a bigger problem --- Mexico doesn't care if they leave, and the "natural barriers" (deserts & terrain) have been rendered ineffective by motor vehicles.

The "down-easters" might get touchy if the French Canadians run out of moosemeat and start invading Maine, but there wouldn't be near the fuss about the same numbers of Canadians moving south --- INS and the Labor Dept. may be understaffed to handle the employer-employee relations and obligations, or simply not communicating. Much cheaper to "hire" aliens, pay them as "contracted" services, and duck the various workers' comp, social security, and IRS withholding.

Might be a matter as simple as hitting every employer with a tax number for a flat percentage of gross (sorta the way the IRS hits waiters, waitresses, bartenders, busboys and other service categories with a minimum "tip declaration") --- kill the economic advantages of the exploitation.

It's a toughie.

 

[Anttech]

There are a wide variety of second tier visas available which allow for temporary residency only. Mexicans can apply for these under the NAFTA agreement but there are strict rules re eligibilty.

Its interesting that America will allow people from the other side of the world to immigrate easier than someone who lives right next door, very neighbourly

 

[BobG]

Its interesting that America will allow people from the other side of the world to immigrate easier than someone who lives right next door, very neighbourly

There's a reason for that, at least theoretically. The idea is for immigrants to disperse throughout the country and blend into American culture, not for immigrants to create a subculture. In fact, that's one of the fears of Mexican immigration. If they just cross the border and go no further, they form a strong political base and have more effect on US laws and culture.

 

[Dawguard]

There's not much left to say here, since SOS2008 (wow, I never thought I'd agree with you on politics, but now I completely do on this ), Ivan Seeking and the others seemed to have made a very solid case for their positions. Just adressing some of the general problems or questions with the issue:

It is a fallacy that they are good for the economy. Sure they provide cheap labor, but isn't it true we have unemployment amongst citizens? If citizens took these jobs instead of being unemployed or collecting welfare then we could vastly drop our unemployment problem. They don't pay taxes, but they can get free schooling, free healthcare, etc. This sucks a large amount of money from our already messed-up budget, while putting none back in.

There is no inherent right to live in the U.S. We have always had a quota system, and for very good reasons. Do immigration laws need changing? Most certainly, but the answer to the problem is not to blast the door off and let anyone in. What about criminals fleeing from the law in Mexico? We don't want them in our country, but now they can come in almost freely. Another myth is that they all want to come here to work. A good majority of them maybe, but definately not all.

That's just my two incomplete cents. I think others can do a better job of explaining it, but I thought I'd chime in and give them my support.

 

[SOS2008]

Do you support rounding up families looking for a better life like they're felons and deporting them? Sending them back to the place where they were willing to risk injury and arrest to escape and now have nothing because they have used it all to get here? Same with people who perhaps came here legally but once they had made a life for themselves, had a job paid taxes and kids were in school, they were told their visa won't be renewed?

I do not support making illegal entry a felony, but rather treated as any other country does--Yes I support deportation of those who do this. Why should we feel sympathy for those who knowingly take risk of injury to enter a country illegally any more than those who take such risks to break any law, such as trafficking drugs? No one makes them do it--they choose to do it knowing full well the risk. Technology has lessoned the risk (you can be trucked across) and has contributed to the explosion of illegals. The problem is there is not enough deterrence.

However working in the U.S. with fake ID and other fraudulent activity should be a felony.

NIV Fraud
By all accounts — GAO reports, State Department OIG reports, Congressional hearings, anecdotes, and the hard evidence of the presence of 3.2 million NIV overstayers — fraud is rampant in the non-immigrant visa program. Problems include identity fraud, document fraud, counterfeiting, corrupt employees (both American and foreign), and widespread lying and misrepresentation on the part of applicants.

The INA states clearly that visa fraud must not be tolerated: "Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible," and permanently so (Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)). Yet consular officers have few tools at their disposal to help detect and deter fraud.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back103.html

People say it is impossible to enforce anything at this time because of the sheer numbers involved:

Demographers believe that the undocumented population in the United States numbers close to 10 million people, with Mexicans accounting for 55-60 percent of this total.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=205

Hmm... Suppose we put the same kind of effort/funding into this as the NSA Spying program? We should at least be able to track fraudulent Social Security numbers. Also, studies of building a wall along the border show it is feasible and a fraction of the cost for the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

TSA, people come here precisely for purposes of having children who will be granted automatic citizenship--some women barely make it across the border in time to a county hospital. One individual comes here knowing they will be separated from loved ones. When he gets the money he sends for the rest of his family, then other relatives, then neighbors--there is no end. Moonbear has already addressed this issue well.

They are using such arguments for sympathy to get your support, and it works.

Characterizations of the illegal alien range from the sympathetic to the xenophobic. Such characterizations contribute to the confusion about the illegal alien problem. The media usually portrays the plight of the illegal alien in the United States using the historical view of a nation of immigrants. Often, the media resists portraying the illegal alien as anything but the hard working border-crosser that simply wants to feed his family.

...participants in the general environment, such as politicians and religious groups, have a vested interest in not enforcing interior immigration laws. Such groups stand to receive benefits from a larger alien population--one for votes, the other for potential converts. The implied powerlessness may be a strategic attempt to soften the impact of an amnesty program. Skerry compares the two perspectives of the illegal living in the shadows contrasted by those that are more vocal about their plight. In his opinion, the latter is a more accurate characterization. (Skerry, 2001) More recently, advocates compared the plight of illegal aliens to the civil rights movement and organized an immigrant worker’s freedom ride to rally support.

http://www.immigration-usa.com/george_weissinger.html

The "civil rights" argument -- that's just rich isn't it? These people do not have the same rights as legal citizens, nor do Americans when they go abroad. TSA, you and I have had this discussion before. I stand by my position that people are confusing U.S. law on civil rights ("held by individuals and groups derived from the social contract - the common consent of society at large to the rules under which its members live") with International law on human rights ("rights possessed by all human beings derived from nature. These are thus distinct from the rights derived from membership in society derived from a changeable social contract. The "right" to a free education, for example, cannot be a natural right since it depends on contingent factors such as the wealth of a given society.") -- while there are some similarities, these are two different things. - http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/virtual/glossary.htm

So let's get back to the "open border" utopian BS. tuco brought up the comparison about immigration into other countries. Let us not forget recent violence in France from immigrants there. I've brought up the importance of homogeneity and harmony in a "melting pot" society in earlier threads on the topic (and which BobG touched upon above). This is not to say people cannot still enjoy their own ethnic backgrounds, but that they share a common national identity (such as the flag, language, etc.) that the illegals are not embracing. As a result, we are now experiencing new racial tensions.

Those of you from other countries who have no sympathy for the wealthiest country in the world (well for now that is), tell us how the U.S. compares to your country in regard to the number of immigrants allowed in, and strictness of requirements for citizenship. The U.S. is known for accepting immigrants more than any other country. There is no room for criticism on this point.

There's not much left to say here, since SOS2008 (wow, I never thought I'd agree with you on politics, but now I completely do on this )

LOL (We agree on a lot more things than you know).

We agree, but perhaps not always for the same reason. I despise Bush and his catering to Big Business and the religious-right to obtain and retain power, and this is just more of the same. Some Republicans are concerned for reasons of security and feeling a little burned by their earlier leader Ronald Reagan and his disastrous amnesty program--and rightfully so. I've said it before that Bush's broadcast of the word "amnesty" was incredibly irresponsible. Now his base is splitting, so he is taking a harder line, but he still advocates a guest worker program.

As stated earlier, if you look at history you will see what has been successful and what has not. Amnesty of any kind has never worked, and in fact has always resulted in an exponential increase in the flood across the border. The worker visas are no longer limited to migrant workers for seasonal, low-end agricultural work, but for any industry where there are shortages--shortages due to low wages?! Women are still battling unequal pay (which has dropped to 74 cents to a man's dollar), and minorities such as blacks face even stiffer competition for unskilled jobs. I support worker visas, but only if it is very limited, strictly monitored, and fairly granted, for jobs Americans really won't do -- meeting qualifications and no reward for cutting in line.

Otherwise who knows how far reaching these effects will have in the long run. Southpark already did an episode about how the boys lost their jobs mowing the neighbor's lawns to illegal aliens. But seriously, because we pay Jose less than our kid's allowance, our kids aren't learning work ethic and entrepreneurship as children, so are living at home until the age of 28.

I have my own view of what should be done, but no time to submit it as legislation. Long ago I wrote to one of my congressmen, John McCain suggesting payment of back taxes, etc., which I believe are in his proposal. For a side-by-side comparison of current legislation:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...ws+and+visas+granted&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7

In the meantime, if there are any legal Americans who plan to take to the streets, please let me know so I can join in.

 

[Art]

Those of you from other countries who have no sympathy for the wealthiest country in the world (well for now that is), tell us how the U.S. compares to your country in regard to the number of immigrants allowed in, and strictness of requirements for citizenship. The U.S. is known for accepting immigrants more than any other country. There is no room for criticism on this point.

Ireland with a population of 4 million takes in 70,000 legal immigrants a year. The USA with a population of 290 million takes in 700,000 legal immigrants a year.

When compared per capita we (Ireland that is) take in the equivalent of ~4,500,000 immigrants p.a. The only country in europe who takes in more in respect of their population is Luxembourg where 1/3 of the population is now foreign born.

Ireland also has the same problem as all other wealthy countries with regard to illegal immigration. Currently that figure is estimated to be around 16,000 per annum which would equate to ~1,100,000 in the US. As you can see the US are by no means alone with regard to this problem as some here appear to think.

The heavy influx of non-nationals here has given rise to many of the same arguments cited above. Ultimately though these arguments have no merit. For example a very common complaint is that migrant workers who will work for very little adversely affect the indigenous workers pay and conditions. However this is fallacious. It is not a valid argument to justify keeping them out. It is an argument for the gov't to enact legislation to prevent unscrupulous employers from taking advantage of immigration. Thus people's anger should be directed at the gov't, and not at the immigrants, for allowing immigrants to be exploited.