Illegal Immigration -- Disturbing Site

[Guest Cephas]

Have you looked over naturalization laws? If you are a poor person from Mexico, you will never become a citizen:

Hmmmm......... Anyone wanting to be a Naturalized Citizen would be living AND working in the US and therefore, would be making enough money to learn English, take Government classes, etc, UNLESS they are here illegally and working under the table for unscrupulous employers who are underpaying, manipulating, keeping them from learning, etc. Your argument does not apply. Legal Immigrants, even from Mexico, CAN and DO have the ability to fulfill the legal Naturalization laws.

As for violating the laws, because they are poor and underpriviliged? Maybe we should just invade ALL the poor countries of this world and annex them, thereby giving EVERYONE citizenship and solving all THEIR problems!!! Violating Immigration laws is NOT the same as violating laws that are against the laws of God. That Principal applies to laws forcing you to Kill when you know God forbids it, Steal, etc. Poverty exists worldwide, and is growing in our Country too. If you really chose to do something, help them get better living conditions at home. Give up some of YOUR hard earned pay to help them, but don't encourage people to continue breaking laws at the expense of THEIR neighbors. R. Reagan gave Amnesty to 4.4 Million "Undocumented" workers in his time. There are now over 11 million more of them, 5 Million plus alone since George took office. How many NEXT time and where does it end? It's NOT a racist thing, it's a moral issue.

Conservatives stand against Abortion and Gay Rights (I do too, don't misunderstand, I'm NOT a liberal, nor am I a Conservative, BOTH have poor vision and outlooks), but can easily support CHEAP 'undocumented' labor to further large corporate (and small business) profit margins at the expense of working and poor Citizens. There has already been issues of "undocumented" workers working at SECURE installations in the Gulf Coast, while unemployed residents there went without jobs (in fact, also documented accounts of people being required to train their own replacements ON THOSE SITES AND with the BLESSING of George's Executive Orders)

[ted]

One should not forget that Hispanics are not the ONLY 'Undocumented' workers in this country. It seems to be a natural assumption, but there are more "Undocumented" workers from other countries. As I recall the numbers, Mexicans only make up about 45% of the total. There are about as many from Canada, and then of course the Asians, Arabs, Europeans, etc............

Bingo, and right on target.

Hispanics seem to be in the crosshairs because it's the hot topic of the day, but the concern for undocumanted workers, illegal aliens, or whatever label we want to place on these people, goes much deeper than the thousands of Mexicans that breach the border each year.

Our goal should be to get a handle on all people that try to come in illegally. It should apply evenly to all persons, regrdless of their race, color, religion, or nationality.

It's not about immigration, it's about illegal immigration, or, the effort to bypass the effort to control who has access to our nation.

I'm not against people that want to come to our country and make a better life for themselves and their families. In fact, it make perfect sense to want to better one's life. The problem is that we must have some sort of control on who comes in, and that effort is being bypassed.

Just as we ask people to knock before they come into our house, we should also ask that the same respect applies on a national level. Without that level of control, we lose.

It doesn't matter where a person is from. If he or she is willing to put forth the effort to make this a better country, I'm all for it.

But, that's not always the case, is it? No, there are some that want to come in and do a little damage, so we must have control measures in place to combat that.

There's not a whole lot of countries in the world that are willing to go light on people that cross their borders illegally. Why should we be expected to be any different? They have measures in place for the same reasons we should: because it makes sense to know who is coming in and why. It's not that hard of a concept to understand, is it?

The idea is simple: Let us know who you are, let us know why you are here, and give us some sort of an idea of how to get in touch with you and where you plan to stay while you are working toward citizenship in case there's any problem.

In trade for that, we'll set you up with some sort of job, give you a foothold legally, and help you on your path to freedom. We'll set you up with some sort of basic education in english, teach you our basic concept of state, local, and national laws, and offer you a way to speed up your goal of citizenship by serving honorably in one of our fine uniformed services, if you so desire to, that is. If not, we can try to get you some other form of job training or basic education (such as a GED) so that you can begin to make your difference in life.

Of course, you shouldn't expect special services not afforded our own citizens, right? I mean, that just wouldn't be right, would it? Everyone who is able should try and make their lives better as best as they can, and sometimes, that just means simple hard work while trying to bring yourselves up through the system of society.

It would be nice if Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson came to my aid everytime I lost a job or got picked on, but we have to look at things with some sort of reality in tact, right?

If you don't agree to these simple, basic premises, then I'm sorry. You can pack your bag and try to enter another country by slipping through the wire, or landing on their shores in the dead of night and see how that idea smokes in your pipe. We don't need the hassle right now.

We're kinda busy at the moment as a nation, and we'd appreciate it if you would kindly knock on someone else's door if you want to play games.

Give us the common courtesy of letting us know you are coming and we'll roll out the welcome mat. First impressions are hard to shake, especially when the first impression we have of you is that you have no problem breaking our basic laws of national security by hopping the border unannounced.

That said, we should be looking at ways in which to speed up the process of letting them in, too.

The ones that do it legally, that is.

Peace,

t.

[apothanein kerdos]

Anyone wanting to be a Naturalized Citizen would be living AND working in the US and therefore, would be making enough money to learn English, take Government classes, etc, UNLESS they are here illegally and working under the table for unscrupulous employers who are underpaying, manipulating, keeping them from learning, etc. Your argument does not apply. Legal Immigrants, even from Mexico, CAN and DO have the ability to fulfill the legal Naturalization laws.

Re-read what you just said. Not only is it construct in a poor manner making it difficult to understand, once one grasps the "logic" shown here we see nothing of value. How can a poor immigrant come over to the US and get a job unless they are here illegally? How can they afford the paperwork to get a work visa unless they have a job secured here? The simple answer is that they cannot do such a thing.

As for violating the laws, because they are poor and underpriviliged? Maybe we should just invade ALL the poor countries of this world and annex them, thereby giving EVERYONE citizenship and solving all THEIR problems!!!

Annexation and immigration are two different things. If we annexed them we would have to solve for a corrupt government. If we allow them to immigrate then they come into an already stable situation. I have no problem with getting rid of caps and letting people immigrate over here at will (via a background check of course).

Violating Immigration laws is NOT the same as violating laws that are against the laws of God. That Principal applies to laws forcing you to Kill when you know God forbids it, Steal, etc. Poverty exists worldwide, and is growing in our Country too. If you really chose to do something, help them get better living conditions at home.

This is picking and choosing. Like I said, poverty is addressed in over 2,300 verses in the Bible...yet you think it is somehow less important than murder or stealing? Under your logic, once again, Martin Luther King Jr, those in the underground railroad, native americans who refused to move off their land, etc are all guilty of breaking God's laws. Are you even looking at your logic?

R. Reagan gave Amnesty to 4.4 Million "Undocumented" workers in his time. There are now over 11 million more of them, 5 Million plus alone since George took office. How many NEXT time and where does it end? It's NOT a racist thing, it's a moral issue.

So what? So 11 million people have come over looking for a better life. Why is that wrong? Also, how is racism and morality seperate issues? This does boil down to racism and not a single person on this entire board has been able to refute that. Not a single one.

What you're asserting is that if a small child who was starving and neglected broke into your house late a night and raided your fridge and instead of helping him or finding someone to help, you try to prosecute him for tresspassing. People care more about their own "rights" and personal property than they do about human needs. Now you tell me, where in the Bible will you find a passage that says we are to worry about our own nation first and the needs of humans second. Show me where it says to neglect the poor and the hungry if they have trespassed into your nation illegally. You show me that, and if you can't, then get out of this discussion because you are not going to prove a darn thing other than you don't look to the Bible before forming a political opinion.

[ted]

So what? So 11 million people have come over looking for a better life. Why is that wrong?

Hey, AK. How's it going, man?

The only real problem I see with the fact that 11 million more people have come into the country, whether they be legal or otherwise, is the fact that our rescources as a nation are not limitless.

The land is only so big, and our rescources are only so abundant.

Without some sort of control, it may end up becoming too much of a drain on our system. I think we can help a great many people out there, but there's no way to help them all with US citizenship.

Sometimes, people just have to realize that we can't make everyone's dream come true.

If we try too hard, we may just end up in no better shape than the countries that they are leaving to get here.

You can only get so much out of a garden before you have to let the soil rest. Otherwise, it simply becomes just another dead stretch of dirt.

So, a well regulated set of control measures must be in place to help out the one's we can. The problem up to this point is that we only have a weak set of measures in place, and they haven't been well regulated in years.

Not only is it a case of national security, but there are other issues to be dealt with, as well. One of which is to make sure that we do not become drained to such a degree that we are unable to sustain ourselves as a nation.

It's not impossible to reach a point to where it's regulated in terms of numbers, and we can do it in such a way that ensures that we are able to take care of our citizens, no matter how long they have lived here.

That may just mean that we cannot accept everyone that wants to come here. I'm sorry, but some people are just going to figure out how to make a living in their own country.

It's just that simple.

Have a great day!

t.

[apothanein kerdos]

Finally, a well thought out reply. Thank you Ted.

The only real problem I see with the fact that 11 million more people have come into the country, whether they be legal or otherwise, is the fact that our rescources as a nation are not limitless.

The land is only so big, and our rescources are only so abundant.

Without some sort of control, it may end up becoming too much of a drain on our system. I think we can help a great many people out there, but there's no way to help them all with US citizenship.

The problem is, as we are seeing, our current system doesn't solve for that. In fact, it hurts the problem. Let's assume (just throwing out a random number) that 40% of illegal immigrants come over here and avoid citizenship so they don't have to pay taxes. If we create an "open border" policy that requires a background check and then a process of learning English and US history (paid for by the US Government....if they become citizens they'll be paying it back with taxes), but take away the payments and caps....the problem woudl solve itself. Those that wanted an honest job and honest living over here could still come, thus putting money into the tax system and helping to solve potential over population problems and importing of resources. Likewise, those that did not could be rounded up in an easier manner and sent back. Make sense?

Sometimes, people just have to realize that we can't make everyone's dream come true.

If we try too hard, we may just end up in no better shape than the countries that they are leaving to get here.

You can only get so much out of a garden before you have to let the soil rest. Otherwise, it simply becomes just another dead stretch of dirt.

It's true we can't grant everyone's dreams. Even if we make it easier, it is still not overly possible. A person who could thrive in America may not be able to come over because they committed a crime long ago. Though they have repented, I still agree they should not come over because they do have a criminal record. At the same time, we should make it easier than it is and give them a fair shot. Afterall, this is more people being put into our workforce, which in turn will help our economy.

You bring up some excellent points in the rest of your post. Unfortunately there is no pure system, that's simply how it will always be. At the same time, if we put caps on then it only hurts those that need to come over here the most. We should try to preserve America, but let's be honest...no nation lasts forever. Honestly, America as we know it probably only has about fifty years left, and that's from internal corruption, not external or immigration.

[ted]

The problem is, as we are seeing, our current system doesn't solve for that. In fact, it hurts the problem. Let's assume (just throwing out a random number) that 40% of illegal immigrants come over here and avoid citizenship so they don't have to pay taxes. If we create an "open border" policy that requires a background check and then a process of learning English and US history (paid for by the US Government....if they become citizens they'll be paying it back with taxes), but take away the payments and caps....the problem woudl solve itself. Those that wanted an honest job and honest living over here could still come, thus putting money into the tax system and helping to solve potential over population problems and importing of resources. Likewise, those that did not could be rounded up in an easier manner and sent back. Make sense?

Makes sense, pretty much. Before we go any further, I think it's appropriate for us to understand that:

1. No matter how much we cover, we're all going to miss something which could be covered. The situation is simply too big.

2. We will never be able to please everyone with our responses. There are going to be points of disagreement, and there will be time where we simply cannot come up with all of the answers to the problem.

Other than these two points, let's go solve the problem!

When dealing with the problem of illegal immigration, I see several areas which need addressing.

We ourselves are partly to blame for the problem in the first place over the past few hundred years. We were the ones that called upon the world to give us their sick, tired, and hungry so that we could populate a young nation with able-bodied, hard working men and women that we hoped would contribute to our society. We continued to invite them (us) in to spite leaders of oppressive communist nations, as well. Castro showed us a chink in the armor when he emptied his prisons and sent us his criminals. For the first time, we began to see that there were ways in which our invitation to the world could come back to bite us on the hand.

Of course, this is a highly abbreviated history lesson, but it sets up a few things to consider concerning the future of our national immigration policies.

We now have to adjust accordingly to continue to allow a flow of people desiring citizenship.

Some of these adjustments include considerations for security and the growing possibility of over populating the nation. We still have millions of unpopulated miles of wilderness in the country, but if we don't get a handle on things now to produce a workable solution to the problem, things could get way out of control within just a few generations.

Now, that said, no problem solves itself with just a few tweaks in a few laws or policies. I like the idea of a guest worker program that give us a chance to check out people as they are given a chance to live in the country as they continue on the path toward citizenship. The ones selected need to be documented, tracked, and periodically checked to ensure that they have not slipped below the radar. National security demands this in this day in age. I don't feel, however, that the time required to wait to prove one's self has to come close, or surpass, the double digit mark in years. Four years should be more than enough to decide if someone has played by the rules, shown that they have the nation's best interest at heart, and be able to learn basic, workable english, among other simple things. After four years, we should be able to know whether or not someone should stay or not. I propose that these four years begin with intense scrutiny of the applicant, and, through a merit program, can be stepped down appropriately over the years until they reach a point where they are almost left to themselves toward the end of the program. Once they graduate and are citizens, the program ends and they are afforded every right and privilage of any other naturally born citizen.

What I propose is a system similar to a probation of sorts. Not to associate these people with criminals, of course, but some sort of system to keep track of an immigrant's progress throughout their quest for citizenship. It shouldn't be too hard to manage, and we can do it without making them feel like they are on parole, too.

Keeping track of them also will help to collect taxes, as well. I also am in favor of a lower tax rate for these people to help them initially. It gets them used to paying taxes, and can increase over the same four years in increments until they reach a point where they are paying the equivillent as everyone else. It's another way in which we could ensure that people will remain true to their commitments and do things legally, as well. If they are willing to pay a fair share of their taxes, surely they will get used to the idea of obeying other laws, as well.

Maybe.

Hopefully, anyway.

It's true we can't grant everyone's dreams. Even if we make it easier, it is still not overly possible. A person who could thrive in America may not be able to come over because they committed a crime long ago. Though they have repented, I still agree they should not come over because they do have a criminal record. At the same time, we should make it easier than it is and give them a fair shot. Afterall, this is more people being put into our workforce, which in turn will help our economy.

You bring up a good point about past criminal behavior.

Personally, we can evaluate each applicant and see where they stand. Some people are simply bad people. They have records because they have earned them. Others have records because they were young and dumb, and later changed their ways. Still others have records because they were seen as politically undesireable in their home country.

So, we can, through initial interviews and increased scrutiny at the beginning of their processing, attempt to evaluate applicants with prior criminal records. I don't think that needs to be an immediate disqualifying factor, but it is something that's going to need a little more scrutiny during their process.

On the other hand, we should not show much leniency to people that do not want to follow the process. A person that doesn't want to play ny the rules during their process isn't one to be allowed to stay. There will be hundreds of thousands of people in line willing to take their place, and they should not be held up for an idiot.

I propose a strict hard line when it comes to people that want to play games with the system.

Mess up, and you are out. Consider yourself disqualified and try your luck somewhere else.

You bring up some excellent points in the rest of your post. Unfortunately there is no pure system, that's simply how it will always be. At the same time, if we put caps on then it only hurts those that need to come over here the most. We should try to preserve America, but let's be honest...no nation lasts forever. Honestly, America as we know it probably only has about fifty years left, and that's from internal corruption, not external or immigration.

I agree that there is no pure system as long as it's left to man. We'll mess it up everytime, and this will be no different. But, we have to try something other than what we currently have.

We have to gain control of the borders initially to stem the flow, and we then have to put a system in place that encourages good people to want to play by the rules, and weed out the ones permanently that don't. It's time.

Personally, I think we have been running on chaos for so long, that we will be around for a long, long, time. We have been running on internal corruption almost from the birth of the nation, that we know of no other way to do it. Can we be reformed? Well, there's the challenge, isn't it?

Remember to vote, stay in the Word, and pray dearly. God will see to our futures if we allow Him. If not, He'll simply just see to our future anyway.

In short:

1. Gain immediate control of all borders and shores. We can't afford to care about hurt feelings at this point.

2. Design and implement a system that works, and is fair to both the immigrant and our natural born citizens. I don't know all the answers, but at this point, we have to do something else but what we have been doing.

3. Ensure that people know that we are not playing around. If they mess up, then say good bye. Others want the shot.

4. We have to invest in a system that teaches new applicants the basics of our laws and the importance of learning our most common, if not official language: English.

It doesn't have to be proper english, but enough to get by and to excel to the point of productivity. A kind of Koine Greek, if you will. A learning of an english that can help them get by. Heck, most of our own citizens do not speak proper english in everyday usage anyway, why should we push it on the immigrants?

Ok, I'm off to bed. Have a good night.

t.

[Guest Cephas]

{quote}quote name='apothanein kerdos' post='545605' date='Apr 17 2006, 05:32 PM']

Anyone wanting to be a Naturalized Citizen would be living AND working in the US and therefore, would be making enough money to learn English, take Government classes, etc, UNLESS they are here illegally and working under the table for unscrupulous employers who are underpaying, manipulating, keeping them from learning, etc. Your argument does not apply. Legal Immigrants, even from Mexico, CAN and DO have the ability to fulfill the legal Naturalization laws.

Re-read what you just said. Not only is it construct in a poor manner making it difficult to understand, once one grasps the "logic" shown here we see nothing of value. How can a poor immigrant come over to the US and get a job unless they are here illegally? How can they afford the paperwork to get a work visa unless they have a job secured here? The simple answer is that they cannot do such a thing.

Edited April 18, 2006 by Cephas

[apothanein kerdos]

Ted ~

1. No matter how much we cover, we're all going to miss something which could be covered. The situation is simply too big.

2. We will never be able to please everyone with our responses. There are going to be points of disagreement, and there will be time where we simply cannot come up with all of the answers to the problem.

Agreed. There are going to be flaws no matter what. You have aptly pointed out the flaws in what I believe to be the best solution and no matter how hard I try, I will NEVER find a solution that doesn't have flaws. That pretty much goes for anything in this world.

When dealing with the problem of illegal immigration, I see several areas which need addressing.

We ourselves are partly to blame for the problem in the first place over the past few hundred years. We were the ones that called upon the world to give us their sick, tired, and hungry so that we could populate a young nation with able-bodied, hard working men and women that we hoped would contribute to our society. We continued to invite them (us) in to spite leaders of oppressive communist nations, as well. Castro showed us a chink in the armor when he emptied his prisons and sent us his criminals. For the first time, we began to see that there were ways in which our invitation to the world could come back to bite us on the hand.

Of course, this is a highly abbreviated history lesson, but it sets up a few things to consider concerning the future of our national immigration policies.

We now have to adjust accordingly to continue to allow a flow of people desiring citizenship.

Some of these adjustments include considerations for security and the growing possibility of over populating the nation. We still have millions of unpopulated miles of wilderness in the country, but if we don't get a handle on things now to produce a workable solution to the problem, things could get way out of control within just a few generations.

To deal with overpopulation first -

No matter what, if we eradicate all immigration into this country and only allow one child per couple, we're going to suffer the consequences of over population. It is a global problem (with excpetion to Europe and Africa which are actually decreasing in their numbers...God has a way of taking care of overpopulation...) that is killing the global economy. Why has gas increased? Aside from selfish CEO's of oil companies, there is legitimacy in the fact that China is booming...all one billion of them. They are using oil, natural resources, etc to support their economy and population. No matter what, we are going to feel the ripple effects of this.

The thing is, in the US, the more we grow, the more jobs we are going to create. If you add fifty families to a community, that's fifty houses that are going to need to be built, fifty more people for the farmers to feed, etc. To handle this, more people are hired and therefore jobs are increased. Certainly at some point this fails, but I happen to believe that God takes care of over population before it becomes a problem. For instance, Europe was becomming over populated in certain areas in the middle ages and soon had the black death to deal with. Everytime a human population center gets too big, death visits it in either disease or war. The reason being is that, with so many humans, it is impossible to combat disease, and if you do, there are so many opinions flying around that a war is liable to break out.

Now, dealing with "unwanteds." That's why I think a background check, similar to the one you mention later in your post, would be most beneficial. It won't catch every criminal, and it might turn away those that are truly innocent, but I think it's the best we can do.

Now, that said, no problem solves itself with just a few tweaks in a few laws or policies. I like the idea of a guest worker program that give us a chance to check out people as they are given a chance to live in the country as they continue on the path toward citizenship. The ones selected need to be documented, tracked, and periodically checked to ensure that they have not slipped below the radar. National security demands this in this day in age. I don't feel, however, that the time required to wait to prove one's self has to come close, or surpass, the double digit mark in years. Four years should be more than enough to decide if someone has played by the rules, shown that they have the nation's best interest at heart, and be able to learn basic, workable english, among other simple things. After four years, we should be able to know whether or not someone should stay or not. I propose that these four years begin with intense scrutiny of the applicant, and, through a merit program, can be stepped down appropriately over the years until they reach a point where they are almost left to themselves toward the end of the program. Once they graduate and are citizens, the program ends and they are afforded every right and privilage of any other naturally born citizen.

What I propose is a system similar to a probation of sorts. Not to associate these people with criminals, of course, but some sort of system to keep track of an immigrant's progress throughout their quest for citizenship. It shouldn't be too hard to manage, and we can do it without making them feel like they are on parole, too.

Keeping track of them also will help to collect taxes, as well. I also am in favor of a lower tax rate for these people to help them initially. It gets them used to paying taxes, and can increase over the same four years in increments until they reach a point where they are paying the equivillent as everyone else. It's another way in which we could ensure that people will remain true to their commitments and do things legally, as well. If they are willing to pay a fair share of their taxes, surely they will get used to the idea of obeying other laws, as well.

I like that idea. The problems/questions I would have though:

* How do they initially get over here to get into the guest worker program? Do they just go to their local US Embassy, do they have to pay for documentation, etc? In other words, what is their financial responsibility in this?

* How do they learn English? Not all communities have free English courses, and not all immigrants can afford English classes. Therefore, how would they pay for it?

* Are they allowed to bring their families over during this time? If so, what happens if the couple has a baby born? If not, how do we justify seperating the family?

You bring up a good point about past criminal behavior.

Personally, we can evaluate each applicant and see where they stand. Some people are simply bad people. They have records because they have earned them. Others have records because they were young and dumb, and later changed their ways. Still others have records because they were seen as politically undesireable in their home country.

So, we can, through initial interviews and increased scrutiny at the beginning of their processing, attempt to evaluate applicants with prior criminal records. I don't think that needs to be an immediate disqualifying factor, but it is something that's going to need a little more scrutiny during their process.

On the other hand, we should not show much leniency to people that do not want to follow the process. A person that doesn't want to play ny the rules during their process isn't one to be allowed to stay. There will be hundreds of thousands of people in line willing to take their place, and they should not be held up for an idiot.

I propose a strict hard line when it comes to people that want to play games with the system.

Mess up, and you are out. Consider yourself disqualified and try your luck somewhere else.

That's fair enough, I could live with that system. The reason I wanted to disqualify all criminal activity, no matter how old, is that some crimes are just too bad to let people in. Likewise, the system you're proposing almost isn't feesible. Assume we have five million applicatns in one year...how do we evaluate that on a case by case basis? Even if only 50,000 have criminal records, it's going to be difficult to look these over.

1. Gain immediate control of all borders and shores. We can't afford to care about hurt feelings at this point.

And I'm not disagreeing on that at all. I actually do support a wall on both borders so long as we make it easier for people to immigrate to the US legally.

2. Design and implement a system that works, and is fair to both the immigrant and our natural born citizens. I don't know all the answers, but at this point, we have to do something else but what we have been doing.

3. Ensure that people know that we are not playing around. If they mess up, then say good bye. Others want the shot.

4. We have to invest in a system that teaches new applicants the basics of our laws and the importance of learning our most common, if not official language: English.

It doesn't have to be proper english, but enough to get by and to excel to the point of productivity. A kind of Koine Greek, if you will. A learning of an english that can help them get by. Heck, most of our own citizens do not speak proper english in everyday usage anyway, why should we push it on the immigrants?

I really agree with this, especially the last point. Immigrants learning English actually are benefited in that they can get an education, higher paying job, etc with ease.

Cephas,

Ok Re-read. becoming Naturalized and legally immigrating are two separate and distinct issues. Becoming Naturalized happens AFTER legally immigrating, so your argument about Naturalization of poor Mexicans is not valid. They have to gain immigrant status first, and that is done under different rules.

I'm saying that the naturalization process cannot begin because poor people cannot afford to come over to the US to begin with (legally). In other words, it still costs money to immigrate here, you almost have to have a job promised and your employer helping you out, and you have to pay money for documents. You also have to already understand English to some degree. This makes it impossible for third world immigrants to come over here legally.

No, I think Poverty is more important, but it's not a matter of breaking laws. Poverty exists in this country too, what are we doing to solve that? Letting in a lot more poverty stricken people BEFORE dealing with problems we already have?

I encourage you to visit Chalco, Mexico some time. It's on the outskirts of Mexico City. It is the poorest region in the area...next to the city dump (which houses 25,000 people). Now, there is poverty in the United States, I understand this, I live below the poverty line. At the same time, the poverty in the US is nothing compared to the poverty elsewhere. People who are poor in Mexico have it worse than those that are poor in the US.

How is it Racism to say that people should come here legally? I never mentioned ANY race, creed, color, gender, or even sexual orientation. What does Racism have to do with being here Illegally???

You are advocating current border policies and laws which are founded on racist principles. Up until the 1970's there were caps placed on each country, meaning if you were from Europe you had a better chance than say Mexico or China. In the 1970's, they "removed" those caps but if you look to some of the numbers, they are still in place. Though more immigrants come from latin american nations and Asia, look at the per capita numbers. In other words, what percent of Europeans that apply get in vs. what percent of Latinos or Asians that apply that get in. The numbers are very lopsided. This is obviously a racist issue (xenophobic at best) and therefore supporting the current system is supporting racism.

Not the same issue at all. And even if it were, I didn't say anything about prosecuting the illegals, I said they should be deported UNTIL they can come here with legal status.

You would like to think they are seperate issues, but they are not. Going back to the analogy, what you are supporting is kicking the kid out until he asks for persmission and goes through a waiting process to get your food. By the time it is all said and done, he's already died of starvation.

Now to justify the analogy:

Many Mexicans are living off 40 pesos a day. That is the equivalent (after inflation and exchange rate) to about $5-$7 a day in the US. Most of us spend that on one meal at a fast food joint...imagine having to save that the entire day. It would be impossible to get food and to remain well nourished. By making it next to impossible for third world immigrants to make it into the United States we are essentially denying the starving child a bite to eat.

Yes, and I'd put YOU in that category too. Tell me, would you give up YOUR job so many illegals can have a job here? After all, whatever you make is enough to pay for at least 3 or 4 illegals to work and live at the wages most are paid. Would you give up YOUR home, YOUR car, YOUR lifestyle to feed, house and maintain them? If NOT, then I smell HYPOCRISY in your words.

You know what happens when you assume don't you?

For one, if my hourly wage could pay for 3 or 4 "illegals" then that is truly amazing. If I divided it out to four, they would make a whopping $2 an hour. There is not a single illegal immigrant that is willing to work for that...I know...I've worked with them. Secondly, I don't know of many illegal immigrants that could take my job. I work in public education and once I finish my degree will be working towards getting my doctorate in History, Philosophy, and ancient biblical languages. Now, if there is an illegal immigrant that can compete with me for that job (as a professor in one of those) then I would truly be amazed, and if he is more qualified then I hope he gets the job. Third, you set up a false standard. No one is asking you to give up your home or job to allow immigrants into this nation...now you are just being xenophibic. What I am saying is we need to give them an equal shot. Let them in this nation and let them compete for jobs. If they can beat a person out for a job, then i guess the other person should have tried harder. We are not entitled to anything except competition for our jobs. I do not see why me advocating such a concept requires that I be willing to give up everything I own. This is an absurd straw man fallacy that you have created. You are using a priori "logic" and not actually examining the facts of the issue.

OH? So if I don't agree with YOU then I should shut my mouth and leave? Sounds awful totalitarian and very unChristlike in attitude. Are you sure you really want to say that? In fact, like the posting after this one of yours, there is a limit to what this country can do before we ourselves can no longer help any one, including ourselves. Being magnanimous to the point of killing yourself is hardly constructive. Or helpful to anyone.

I love how you took my quote out of context. It shows me exactly what I am dealing with here. Now, let us look at what I said and see if your beserk reaction was really called for:

People care more about their own "rights" and personal property than they do about human needs. Now you tell me, where in the Bible will you find a passage that says we are to worry about our own nation first and the needs of humans second. Show me where it says to neglect the poor and the hungry if they have trespassed into your nation illegally. You show me that, and if you can't, then get out of this discussion because you are not going to prove a darn thing other than you don't look to the Bible before forming a political opinion.

It was obviously a challenge that you have now failed to meet. Instead of actually stepping up to the challenge and showing me from scripture how your position is justified you have instead chosen to whine and moan because someone told you to "put up or shut up." The fact is, you will continue to complain about this because you can't actually justify what you are saying scripturally. Instead, if you search the scriptures, you'll find that you hold a most unscriptural stance on the issue.

I am not asking people who disagree with me to be quiet; I am asking those who have no deisre to look at this scripturally and intellectually to butt out. You fall into that category. Look at the example of Ted. Ted disagrees with me, points out the holes in my logic, but it does so whilst standing on Biblical ground and looking at it through a logical viewpoint. He shows that his desire is to make it easier for immigrants and to help those that are in horrible conditions; the way you come across it looks like you could honestly care less. You just don't want "dem' dad gum illegals" comming over our border. As for what happens to them if they choose not to, it's almost as if though you don't care. Now tell me, how is that Biblical?

as to shutting my mouth and not posting because YOU don't like what I have to say? Don't count on it. And, if retorts like that are your only recourse for handling views you don't like, then maybe you shouldn't be here reading them. You do seem to have a flair for feeling superior in your knowledge or opinions, and while you seem to compose yourself well, seem fairly knowledgeable on many subjects, you aren't the Almighty and not all your opinions are valid. Remember the blessings go to the Humble, not the arrogant

I figured this card would be played at some point, it usually is when people have nothing else to say. It is usually set up this way:

"Yeah, you know what you're talking about, but on this one it's just your opinion....and besides, you're arrogant, you're using your knowledge to prove me wrong!"

For one, how can I take a position without feeling I am right? If arrogance is defined as believing you are correct, then we are all arrogant and your post now holds no credit. If, however, we define arrogance as an extreme self-love and puffing ones self above his or her abilities, I fail to see how anyone in this thread, including myself, falls into this category. I have submitted factual evidence along with logic and Biblical validations. This does not qualify as arrogant; it qualifies as knowledgable in the subject. I came across like I knew what I was talking about and your immediate reacition is to call me arrogant and assume I feel superior over everyone else. WHy is that? Because you can't refute what I said, thus you resort to attacking me. It's a natural human condition; when people cannot defend their position in what they feel to be an adequate way, they attack the person that is contrary to their position. It is what defense lawyers do when they are going to lose a case (look to Johnny Cocran's defense of OJ Simpson...he attacked Mark Furman's character and didn't really touch the issue of OJ's innocence or guilt). It shifts the focus away from the facts and instead to an emotional appeal against a person's character; otherwise known as ad hominem. It is uncalled for, lacks proper justification, and if you try it again I'll report it. My advice to you is to drop this line of discourse, don't even try to attack my motives or personality because you will regret it, and get back to the subject at hand. Savvy?

[Guest Cephas]

Cephas,

Ok Re-read. becoming Naturalized and legally immigrating are two separate and distinct issues. Becoming Naturalized happens AFTER legally immigrating, so your argument about Naturalization of poor Mexicans is not valid. They have to gain immigrant status first, and that is done under different rules.

I'm saying that the naturalization process cannot begin because poor people cannot afford to come over to the US to begin with (legally). In other words, it still costs money to immigrate here, you almost have to have a job promised and your employer helping you out, and you have to pay money for documents. You also have to already understand English to some degree. This makes it impossible for third world immigrants to come over here legally.

Apparently you haven't been watching the news lately or you'd see that the black market for illegals is big business AND that businesses here are paying smugglers to recruit and smuggle in those poor mexicans. It's been on the current news.

How is it Racism to say that people should come here legally? I never mentioned ANY race, creed, color, gender, or even sexual orientation. What does Racism have to do with being here Illegally???

You are advocating current border policies and laws which are founded on racist principles. Up until the 1970's there were caps placed on each country, meaning if you were from Europe you had a better chance than say Mexico or China. In the 1970's, they "removed" those caps but if you look to some of the numbers, they are still in place. Though more immigrants come from latin american nations and Asia, look at the per capita numbers. In other words, what percent of Europeans that apply get in vs. what percent of Latinos or Asians that apply that get in. The numbers are very lopsided. This is obviously a racist issue (xenophobic at best) and therefore supporting the current system is supporting racism.

NO, I'm advocating that Legal channels be followed, IF you believe those legal channels are racist, then work with Congress to get them changed, but encouraging the influx of millions of illegals to suit your or anyone else's idea of "not being racist" is not the answer. We have rules and limits for reasons, agreed that not all of them are valid reasons. We are still far more tolerant than ANY other country in the world, and will still be so after ANY law changes we make.

Not the same issue at all. And even if it were, I didn't say anything about prosecuting the illegals, I said they should be deported UNTIL they can come here with legal status.

You would like to think they are seperate issues, but they are not. Going back to the analogy, what you are supporting is kicking the kid out until he asks for persmission and goes through a waiting process to get your food. By the time it is all said and done, he's already died of starvation.

Now to justify the analogy:

Many Mexicans are living off 40 pesos a day. That is the equivalent (after inflation and exchange rate) to about $5-$7 a day in the US. Most of us spend that on one meal at a fast food joint...imagine having to save that the entire day. It would be impossible to get food and to remain well nourished. By making it next to impossible for third world immigrants to make it into the United States we are essentially denying the starving child a bite to eat.

Yes, and I'd put YOU in that category too. Tell me, would you give up YOUR job so many illegals can have a job here? After all, whatever you make is enough to pay for at least 3 or 4 illegals to work and live at the wages most are paid. Would you give up YOUR home, YOUR car, YOUR lifestyle to feed, house and maintain them? If NOT, then I smell HYPOCRISY in your words.

You know what happens when you assume don't you?

For one, if my hourly wage could pay for 3 or 4 "illegals" then that is truly amazing. If I divided it out to four, they would make a whopping $2 an hour. There is not a single illegal immigrant that is willing to work for that...I know...I've worked with them. Secondly, I don't know of many illegal immigrants that could take my job. I work in public education and once I finish my degree will be working towards getting my doctorate in History, Philosophy, and ancient biblical languages. Now, if there is an illegal immigrant that can compete with me for that job (as a professor in one of those) then I would truly be amazed, and if he is more qualified then I hope he gets the job. Third, you set up a false standard. No one is asking you to give up your home or job to allow immigrants into this nation...now you are just being xenophibic. What I am saying is we need to give them an equal shot. Let them in this nation and let them compete for jobs. If they can beat a person out for a job, then i guess the other person should have tried harder. We are not entitled to anything except competition for our jobs. I do not see why me advocating such a concept requires that I be willing to give up everything I own. This is an absurd straw man fallacy that you have created. You are using a priori "logic" and not actually examining the facts of the issue.

I assumed nothing, I asked a rhetorical question, which by your answer says NO you would not be willing to lose your job to support your position. Which bespeaks a hypocritical position. You would sacrifice the welfare of others, but not your own to support your own beliefs. Whether they would 'qualify' or not is not really the issue (and you would be surprised at how many would qualify. Speaking of Racism showing, YOU are assuming a Mexican illegal, I am not. Many Americans of higher education levels than you're speaking of have already lost jobs to Outsourcing and 'replacement workers' here in the states. Is a race to the bottom your answer? And is it an answer you're willing to live with WHEN it hits you? In fact, I have lost my job AND home to lower wage 'competition', to which, I'm sure you will attribute my views. However you would be wrong. You also forget that your job has many 'benefits' that aren't paid to illegals, benefits you may not be aware of, and taxes paid on you that would not be paid to illegals taking whatever position you currently have. your $8 or so per hour job costs your employer more than just your wages. Costs that those employing illegals don't pay. So again, Would YOU be willing to give up your job to support your viewpoint? It's a question of ethics.

OH? So if I don't agree with YOU then I should shut my mouth and leave? Sounds awful totalitarian and very unChristlike in attitude. Are you sure you really want to say that? In fact, like the posting after this one of yours, there is a limit to what this country can do before we ourselves can no longer help any one, including ourselves. Being magnanimous to the point of killing yourself is hardly constructive. Or helpful to anyone.

I love how you took my quote out of context. It shows me exactly what I am dealing with here. Now, let us look at what I said and see if your beserk reaction was really called for

People care more about their own "rights" and personal property than they do about human needs. Now you tell me, where in the Bible will you find a passage that says we are to worry about our own nation first and the needs of humans second. Show me where it says to neglect the poor and the hungry if they have trespassed into your nation illegally. You show me that, and if you can't, then get out of this discussion because you are not going to prove a darn thing other than you don't look to the Bible before forming a political opinion.

:

No, I questioned what you said after the underlined part. I read the rest and had NO reason to address it. You placed conditions that YOU think I should meet and stated that I should "get out of the discussion" if I didn't meet them. It had NOTHING to do with the underlined statement. I've noticed in other posts in other threads that you have a tendancy to that. That is the reason for the arrogance comment. A "See it my way or get out" attitude. Also an attitude of "I've studied it, I know it all" has prevailed in at least one other thread that I read your postings in. How else would you like to describe that? How would you describe it if it was put to you by another? perhaps the wisdom of "Do unto others" might apply in the way you approach and word things.

the way you come across it looks like you could honestly care less. You just don't want "dem' dad gum illegals" comming over our border. As for what happens to them if they choose not to, it's almost as if though you don't care. Now tell me, how is that Biblical?

Sorry if I come across that way, I'm not skilled at talking both sides of an issue in a limited space. I do care about THEIR plight, but I also care about OUR plight in this nation. If that makes me an uncaring bigot, guess that's what I am. We can't solve all the worlds problems, especially by opening the flood gates and destroying the very thing that makes them want to come here. In point of fact, I care enough that I'm trying to arrange to join a missionary team to an impoverished area of the world. Nor do I see "God's Intervention" in the form of death and disease and suffering as a potential solution to the worlds population problems, though I would have to agree it's a likely scenario. We need to help those people by helping them fix their worlds, not by destroying our ability to help with open door policies.

As to the Criminal background check you are discussing with the other person, how do you propose to do that if anyone can come here legally or illegally? How will you know if they are "desireables" or not? For that matter, how many Americans are here because they or their ancesters were criminals in another country? And, whatever happened to "forgive as we are forgiven", a certain Biblical principal. Where do YOU draw the line?

I figured this card would be played at some point, it usually is when people have nothing else to say. It is usually set up this way:

There are comments that one could make here, but in the interest of Peace and Harmony I will refrain. I would tell you that you also need to look at your own tone and attitudes in discussing things. You will find that much of how you come across is also not Christlike or educated or exudes a tone of superiority.

[Guest Cephas]

Violating Immigration laws is NOT the same as violating laws that are against the laws of God. That Principal applies to laws forcing you to Kill when you know God forbids it, Steal, etc. Poverty exists worldwide, and is growing in our Country too. If you really chose to do something, help them get better living conditions at home.

This is picking and choosing. Like I said, poverty is addressed in over 2,300 verses in the Bible...yet you think it is somehow less important than murder or stealing? Under your logic, once again, Martin Luther King Jr, those in the underground railroad, native americans who refused to move off their land, etc are all guilty of breaking God's laws. Are you even looking at your logic?

Yes, Jesus and the Bible address poverty and HELPING the poor. HE also Addressed obeying ALL laws that didn't conflict with the Laws of God. Approval is given for disobedience to ANY human law, like forced Military Conscripton or being required to harm others. BUT Approval is NEVER given for violating the laws to help yourself or your life situation in ANY WAY. They (as are ALL Christians) are instead admonished to pick up their cross and bear it, even unto death. Does this mean I think they should starve? NO, BY NO MEANS! It means they should obey the legal laws and trust to God. As to OUR response as a Nation and a People. The Christians among us should be working to help them, but that doesn't, of necessity, mean letting them in illegally. There are many ways to help besides that. If YOU believe YOU need to violate our immigration laws to help the illegals, then it's up to how the Spirit leads you to decide that.

Not once in the Bible does it ever mention Jesus telling the poor to steal, to take what isn't theirs, to 'cross borders' or to do any other illegal thing to help themselves out of poverty or a desperate situation. It does mention, lots of times, for the Rich to use their OWN personal belongings to help the poor. SO... How does that fit into YOUR actions? Do you give of your belongings to help those unfortunates? Or do you just stress that others should have to?

Even Paul didn't encourage starving Jewish Christians in Jerusalem to leave Jerusalem, he encourage the Churches outside of Palestine to Contribute Generously to them. And YES, I realize he didn't discourage the Jews from leaving Jerusalem either. However, it also doesn't indicate anywhere that he encouraged them to break the law to feed themselves either.

As to the actions of the Civil Rights activists? Well, let's just end this by saying YOU asked for Biblical Justification for my comment about violating laws. I support the Civil Rights Movement, it's agendas and strongly oppose the current trend to reverse it. As I support trying to help others in ALL lands to have a better life, but you can't use the Bible as justification for violating immigration laws. If, however, you believe our Immigration laws and policies are against the Laws of God, then You have the choice to violate those laws. The Biblical emphasis was on the well to do and the rich using their resources to help the poor, not on encouraging the poor to break the laws to improve their own status.