From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
Just as the weather is getting warmer this spring, the immigration battle has been heating up...again. I've put some thought into this issue, had some good, and not so good conversations on the topic, and have come away with some ideas.

1st off, it's just plain ridiculous to suggest the deportation on 10's of millions of people. It's not going to happen, it's logistically impossible, and we simply don't have the resources on any level, from law enforcement to actually processing and transporting them back to their country of origin.

There, the President is right. I know that a lot of conservatives are taking this hard-nosed, unwavering "send em back" position. The reasoning commonly associated with this position is that their ancestors came over "legally." And that may be true, if they came thru Ellis Island or a port of entry after a "legal" system was set in place. And if they made it all the way across the ocean without bribing anyone (which we all know was common) to get here.

But regardless, the comparison between the primarily mexican immigrants crashing the border and all of us who came from across the ocean in big, slow and easy to catch boats is simply unfair. I truly believe that when famines and hard times struck other countries, if they could cross the border as easily as the ones coming up from mexico can, they would have too. The quest for a better life is a human trait, it is natural to do whatever you can, keeping the laws of risk and reward in mind to improve one's life. The southern border is pourous, as is the northern one that brings in millions more illegal immigrants from aisa, africa, europe and elsewhere who are swallowing up white collar jobs at reduced wages. If I lived in poverty or just wanted more opportunity, I think i'd do everything I could to get here.

But the right wing will need to back off a little bit if anything is to get done. Because, as mentioned before, it is not possible to deport everyone. So, some will just need to deal with that. On the other hand, border security is where these folks can take solace. If anything is to be done on this issue, it is critical that the border is secure. If not, we have the reagan era fiasco where amnesty was granted and the mexican border remained pourous.

How this will be achieved, is still up for debate. And it seems each plan has it's pro's and cons and none will be foolproof. But I believe if we can find a consensus on a plan to reduce the flow by more than 50 or 60 percent, that would be a good start. But we have to be a little open minded here and realize that whatever the plan is, be it more of a "virtual fence" or an actual one, we need to commit to something, even if it's not exactly what we would do. If we hold the plan accountable, further adjustments and technological developments will lead to greater border security. But we have to start somewhere.

But back to the people who are already here. Yes, we do need a plan to get them "on the books" so to speak. No, amnesty is not gonna fly. And I don't believe what the President has proposed is amnesty. The path to citezenship is earned, and with penalties. Tho I question how all these poor immigrants are gonna pony up these hefty fines and back taxes. Has any thought been given to holding their employers accountable for actually paying their taxes in the 1st place? After all, if the employer never paid the tax in the 1st place, they should be held accountable 1st and foremost. Chronilogically speaking, the employer commited the 1st crime by not withholding and/or paying the tax after the first payday. The employee only broke the law after the next year's filing deadline if they didn't file.

Of course, i'm sure some employers did withold and pay the employees taxes as required by law, and their records will surely show that.

But the fines and taxes aside, the President has proposed a "seniority driven" model for ranking illegal immigrants and varying the options. I submit maybe a better way, and a more conservative friendly way, the model should be more family based than time based. Families with children under 18 living at home should have 1st dibs. And at the front of that line, ones with children who are US citizens, by being born here. That way, we would ensure the 1st people in this line are more than likely the most responible, hardworking and deeply rooted members in the community. These are also the ones requiring more social services, such as schools, hospitals and so forth. At the rear of the line would be the singles, whom would be the easiest to take back.

Of course my plan might lead to a rash of weddings, but so be it. Worse things have happened. It's also better than a rash of fraud and fraudulent documents being used to "prove" being here for a certain timeframe. Of course, if my family-friendly plan were to be implemented, when registering or whatever the process is labeled, the newly documented alien would discose his employers when living here. That will make it extremely easy and feasible to check those tax records.

So, to sum up, my immigration plan would include an immediate strengthening of our border, along with a more family-friendly system of deciding who could be 1st in earning their way to becoming a citizen of this great land. Also, I believe we need to hold all the people who broke the law by taking advantage of cheap labor that could be used and sometimes abused by unscrupulous people and companies accountable. And in the process of bringing the immigrants out of the shadows, they can facilitate it.




Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 17, 2006
Sorry dude but if you think amnesty is "not" going to fly then what's left? Deportation would indeed work just not in a large lump sum. No we do not have the resources to do it all at one time. But then they aren't going to find all the illegals at one time either. So in dribs and drabs back they go. None of them would be able to pay the fines. They don't have that kind of money. But you are 100% correct about the employers. "They" need to be held accountable!
on May 17, 2006
in the president's and other folks plans, i have consistantly seen the path towards legalization include paying some sort of restitution. they also put the immigrants "at the back of the current line" of citizenship, so i guess that would mean a good 5-7 years before citizenship would be granted. i have also seen the requirement of english speaking, which i agree with and should be extended to all immigrants seeking citizen status. i have never seen any abridgement of rights by establishing our language as an official way to clearly communicate ideas.

but anyway,,,these paths to citizenship that some keep dismissing as "amnesty" regardless of the requirements is getting a little tired to the rest of us. the spin is obvious. amnesty is saying "ok,,,you can be a citizen despite coming here illegally" and what has been proposed is saying "you are here...if you can make some restitutions and wait in line while keeping your nose clean, we can work together." this is much different than amnesty. it may still upset you, but it's not synonymous with amnesty. it's more of a "class action plea bargain."



i respectfully disagree with the deportation can work over time stance. i don't think so and history very much backs up any ability of our govt to do that. especially considering all the other expenses that we are and will be dealing with as a nation. any serious money that might be committed towards rounding up mexicans will go away with the next disaster, conflict or crisis.

thank you for your comments:)
(next time you can lose the "dude" crap and the like,,,if you're gonna bother to start a dialogue, it doesn't need to be hindered with disrespectful slang...just mho)
on May 17, 2006
breeders little whip? so , all these people are as you paint them huh? sounds to me like racism is driving your arguement here,,,i've lived in the inner city and the sticks, and good people and lazy ass people are inherent to neither, nor any race or color from what i've seen. some of em may be packed in a lil closer together and easier to spot in the city, but that means nothing. some of the best, hardest working people i've ever known are city dwellers who never struck it rich...that had nothing to do with their respect of the law, love of family or any value i hold dear.

as far as your husband goes, yes the path is long, and he is doing it the right way. and however long it takes him and the rest of the legal immigrants to be citizens, none of the illegals should be eligible till they get their citizenship 1st. i have never suggested otherwise.
on May 17, 2006
.
breeders little whip? so , all these people are as you paint them huh? sounds to me like racism is driving your arguement here,,,


Racism: or racialism is a form of discrimination based on race, especially the belief that one race is superior to another.
Link


I don't see how anything LW said was racist, since she never mentioned any race, so I have to wonder why you would bring it up at all. I didn't know breeder was a race. I don't believe you understand the meaning of racism and so you should educate yourself more on the subject. This was an invalid and unnecessary accusation.
on May 17, 2006
I agree with Dr. Miler.  There is no boat big enough, but the ones you find can be shipped back - after we seal the border.  Not every murderer is caught, but that does not mean we should legalize the practrice.
on May 17, 2006
Dude: in recent years, the term has taken on a colloquial meaning at variance with that: it now means a male friend, comrade, or associate.
.Link

next time you can lose the "dude" crap and the like,,,if you're gonna bother to start a dialogue, it doesn't need to be hindered with disrespectful slang...just mho)


LOL, since when is dude an insult? You definitely have issues. I don't see why you bother posting anything if what ever people say to you will bother you
on May 17, 2006
ok little whip, maybe we're misunderstanding each other...but what i am saying is that the traditional family is one of the cornerstones of what most people believe is kind of a "foundation" to a good and meaningful life. and when deciding who to put at the front of the line, i would rather have the people with kids who were born here living with them who are working (which is another requirement to stay i believe in most scenarios) be at the front of the line than single, unemployed men who hang out on the corner....wouldn't you? i think most people with kids, who bothered to come here are doing so to provide a better life for those kids...i think in giving priority to folks taking care of the kids is a moral way to arrange the line. no scenario is perfect, but i would be bet a better crop of potential workers and citizens would be present in the folks who were working for their children's future rather than themselves.

plus, if the children are in an american school, as much as i don't like them essentially draining some resources out of our system, i find it more cruel to rip a child out of our system and send them back to mexico where they may get no education whatsoever. that to me, is only christian. i think anyone who calls themselves a christian (and i don't know if you do or not) would have to heed Christ's words when he said "that you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me." i think anyone who calls themselves a christian has to agree that taking a child out of a school where that school represents an opportunity for a better life than one awaiting him in the slums of mexico is immoral. i think this is one area where christians can certainly be "above the law" and follow their faith in helping the least of our brothers. and with reform, has mom and dad paying their fair share of school taxes to support that child.
on May 17, 2006
plus, if the children are in an american school, as much as i don't like them essentially draining some resources out of our system, i find it more cruel to rip a child out of our system and send them back to mexico where they may get no education whatsoever. that to me, is only christian. i think anyone who calls themselves a christian (and i don't know if you do or not) would have to heed Christ's words when he said "that you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me." i think anyone who calls themselves a christian has to agree that taking a child out of a school where that school represents an opportunity for a better life than one awaiting him in the slums of mexico is immoral. i think this is one area where christians can certainly be "above the law" and follow their faith in helping the least of our brothers. and with reform, has mom and dad paying their fair share of school taxes to support that child.


And I would say you're wrong. The childrens schooling or lack thereof is "not" the US's problem. Their parents are criminals (illegal border crossing) and the children are here illegally. Since they are "not" US citizens and are here against the law why then do we need to school them?
on May 17, 2006
like i said dr, this is a moral question, not a legal one to me,,,it looks to me like you are hiding behind a statute so you don't have to feel guilty by condemming a child to a life of poverty and ignorance. what do you think Jesus would do?
on May 17, 2006

like i said dr, this is a moral question, not a legal one to me,,,it looks to me like you are hiding behind a statute so you don't have to feel guilty by condemming a child to a life of poverty and ignorance. what do you think Jesus would do?

Who is condeming them?  is every decision a life one?  We make countless ones in our lives, yet we do not condemn anyone with them.  Nor do they.  making a bad decision is not tantamount to a condemnation.  Nor is it a free pass for the criminals and their family.  Sorry this is not black and white like you would want it.  Should we compensate Charles Manson for his 40+ years in prison?  While perhaps a stretch, it is no less viable than your stating we must accomodate the criminal activities of felons.

on May 18, 2006
i said dr, this is a moral question, not a legal one to me,,,it looks to me like you are hiding behind a statute so you don't have to feel guilty by condemming a child to a life of poverty and ignorance. what do you think Jesus would do?


Come back to reality. We have "enough" problems with schooling our own young without adding the illegals children. This is faaaaar from being a moral question like you seem to be trying to make it. "It" is however "directly" a legal one. Their parents do an illegal act against the laws of the US and what do you suggest we do? As a reward for doing that illegal act we give their children free schooling. BAH!
on May 18, 2006
why do you simply ignore what is not convenient for ya'll to swallow. someone explain to me how these children are criminals??? are these children not the definition of "the least of my brothers?" comparing children to a psychopathic killer that needs to be locked up for the protection of society to an innocent child and suggesting they should be dealt with as equals is NONSENSE.

As far as our public schools go,,,yes, some are in shambles...but their parents paying their fair share of tax is a step in the right direction. under our current system, the yget a free ride, being a drain on our resources...only by bringing them out of the shadows do we start to settle that bil. deporting their parents will only ship them off to another relative or friend who may already paying their fair share of tax and will pay no more with the extra obligations of a deported person's child, thus further draining resources. the yare going to school for free now...my plan ends that free ride.

California's recent ruling about failing the final and still graduating is bad law IMHO. but i don't live in california and have nothing to do with it. nor does it have anything to do with immigration law.

telling me to "come back to reality" is quite funny...these kids are in our schools now...there is no "adding of them" unless our borders are secure...but even with a secure border they will still be here, and again, mass deportation is simply impossible. all this high and might y posturing is ridiculous. realistically, we need to get their parents and employers to pay their fair share ....that is reality.

a mass deportation scheme will have as much effectiveness as the "drug war" has had....all bark, no bite...will it make you happy when billions are spent, and the results are minimal or negligible?

and again, enough about making these people out to be ruthless criminals,,,that is hogwash. yes, they came here illegally...to seek a better life..it's only natural. it is ridiculous to compare them to a mass murderer and the like for seeking out food, shelter and work.
on May 18, 2006
where do you base your moral compass? are you christian, jewish, hindu, muslem, mormon? athiest, agnostic, viking? what philosophy teaches "take care of your own 1st?"

your derrogatory slang terms in referring to innocent children ,,,whatever they may be,,,shows your true colors...nuff said.


thank you for your comments:)
on May 19, 2006
your derrogatory slang terms in referring to innocent children ,,,whatever they may be,,,shows your true colors...nuff said.


thank you for your comments:)


innocent children that are here "AGAINST THE LAW"! While the children are not criminals....and I apologize for the way I framed my last post insinuating that they were. Their parents on the other hand ARE criminals. They are not citizens of America, they have NO legal right to even be here. So once again I must ask are we to reward them for breaking the law? It don't work for us. You try breaking the law and see what you get from the justice system. You can claim this to be a moral issue ALL you want. But they are breaking the law. And our own children are already suffering with insufficent schooling. Taking care of your own "should" be first on the list. And just an fyi.....as a self-proclaimed buddhist you really should not try pushing christian values unless you're sure of what you're saying. The christian bible teaches family values and that your family comes before anyone else "except" the Lord your God.


What would be the result of following these instructions? "Your days and the days of your children [will] be many in the land that that Lord swore to give your forefathers, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth" (Deut. 11:21). God himself promised that families who did these things would be blessed, successful, and wise.


Parents, we are to fix God's words on our hearts and minds, and impress them upon our children, as we are told in Deuteronomy 6:7-9. Do we try to impress them with bigger houses, bigger cars, and bigger everything else? What about impressing our children with Scripture, which points to an eternal, infinite, almighty, all-glorious Creator/Redeemer God?

on May 19, 2006
Just because I think we should take care of our own, meaning U.S. citizens or LEGAL immigrants does not automatically make me uncaring or racist. I live In California and have seen our school system go from one of the best in the nation to somewhere in the high 40's out of 50 states. I have seen hospital after hospital close there emergency room and many just close there doors completely due to taking care of Illegals. As whip said the exit exam was trashed because many cannot speak English or do 8th grade math , somehow that became unfair to Illegals immigrants and was trashed completely. I have seen the nation cater to minorities to the point of reverse racism. Many jobs here in California comes with this codicil, "must speak Spanish too".
2 Pages1 2