Lindsey Graham's Modification of 14th Amendment

[edward]

I could counter that why should they care about doing something that they can't legally do (becoming Americans)? As for the language, their children do end up learning English.

Many of those children are already of school age and must be taught English at tax payer expense. The effect that they have had on our hospital emergency rooms is deplorable.

 

[hamster143]

And that excuses them for not learning English, why?

What makes you think that they don't learn English?

Many of those children are already of school age and must be taught English at tax payer expense. The effect that they have had on our hospital emergency rooms is deplorable.

We're talking about 4% of the population of the country, primarily healthy non-elderly people. Would our hospital emergency rooms suddenly stop being deplorable if we instantaneously reduced the population by 4%?

 

[edward]

What makes you think that they don't learn English?



We're talking about 4% of the population of the country, primarily healthy non-elderly people. Would our hospital emergency rooms suddenly stop being deplorable if we instantaneously reduced the population by 4%?

You presume that they are evenly spead out across the country. That is not true.

http://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...p+house+phoenix+&gs_rfai=&fp=f9519659d5d079d0

They have no doctors and no insurance. they show up at our emergency rooms for illnesses and injuries that could be treated elsewhere. Fedeal law requires the ER's to treat them

I won't go into details but my wife recently spent five hours in extreme pain waiting in an ER. About half of the people there were non english speaking hispanics. Enough is Enough.

 

[Office_Shredder]

They have no doctors and no insurance. they show up at our emergency rooms for illnesses and injuries that could be treated elsewhere. Fedeal law requires the ER's to treat them

I won't go into details but my wife recently spent five hours in extreme pain waiting in an ER. About half of the people there were non english speaking hispanics. Enough is Enough.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/er-wait-times-longer-survey/story?id=11240084

It's bad, but it's not like the problem of overcrowded emergency rooms is a uniquely Arizona phenomenon. In fact, 5 hours is faster than average in some states.

Considering also that the ER is not strictly first come first serve, and 'in pain' probably doesn't rank high on the pecking order of selection, I'd say you need more compelling evidence than your anecdote

 

[hamster143]

Y

They have no doctors and no insurance. they show up at our emergency rooms for illnesses and injuries that could be treated elsewhere. Fedeal law requires the ER's to treat them

I won't go into details but my wife recently spent five hours in extreme pain waiting in an ER. About half of the people there were non english speaking hispanics. Enough is Enough.

Two points:

- Our emergency rooms suck badly even in places where hispanics are non existent.

- Three out of four hispanics in the United States are here legally.

 

[Cyrus]

What makes you think that they don't learn English?

I was giving response to a comment Edward made to you. I never said if they do, or don't, bother to learn English. What I did do was challenge your position on why, assuming they don't speak English, it is 'ok' because 'eventually their kids learn it'.

 

[Cyrus]

- Three out of four hispanics in the United States are here legally.

One third of a big number, is still a big number. Even if one Hispanic is here illegally, that's unacceptable.

 

[hamster143]

I never said if they do, or don't, bother to learn English. What I did do was challenge your position on why, assuming they don't speak English, it is 'ok' because 'eventually their kids learn it'.

Straw man. Neither did I imply that it's not 'ok' for them to learn English.

Even if one Hispanic is here illegally, that's unacceptable.

Moving the goalpost. The existence of one illegal Hispanic is obviously irrelevant to the problem of overcrowded ERs.

 

[Cyrus]

Straw man. Neither did I imply that it's not 'ok' for them to learn English.

So we agree then, it is not acceptable for them to come to this country (illegally) and not bother to learn English (the ones that don't). Furthermore, it is not acceptable for them to come to this country (illegally) and learn the language. The first case being more egregious than the second.

Moving the goalpost. The existence of one illegal Hispanic is obviously irrelevant to the problem of overcrowded ERs.

To be clear, I was not making that statement in relation to overcrowded ERs, I was making that statement as to the status of illegal aliens in this country in general. Even one illegal is not acceptable.

Going back to your 1/4th of all Hispanics are illegal, that accounts for a staggering 9.37million illegals! Completely unacceptable!

 

[adaptation]

When I read the tittle of this thread, I expected a bunch of people in here bashing the proposed change. Oops.

Illegal immigration is a failure of United States policy. There is a lot we could be doing to curb the tide. I don't mean building walls.

What evidence is there that the proposed change will have any effect on people crossing the border? It is a speculative maneuver at best. It's reactionary and fails to address that heart of the matter.

I should know better than to get involved in these types of discussions. Nobody is ever open minded enough to actually get anywhere... Caution, rant imminent:

*commence rant*
I'm utterly shocked at the responses of some of you. Many of you are xenophobic or simply (semi)closeted biggots. America is currently viewed as an incredibly racist, money hungry, deceitful, warmongering, bully, child because of people like you.

It is obvious to me that you have not spent any time living in the international community. They are trying to learn English. And by "they", I mean the nationals of every non-native English speaking country who can afford to learn. English is the most spoken language on this planet, and English education is a huge business. Learning is a process. Unfortunately, in many cases it's easier to get into The United States than it is to learn English.

Do you have any idea of why South America and Central America are the way the way they are right now? Are you familiar with chickens coming home to roost? Try reading a little bit about the United States' hand in the ruination of that part of the world.

You do understand that the US was founded by immigrants, right? Not one of them had a green card. In fact, I seem to recall there was some trouble with the previous occupants... You get the fact that the US is supposed to be a shining glorious bastion of liberty and justice for all? We're supposed to be the most free country in the world. We're supposed to be setting an example to all nations, creating a legacy of freedom.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Is that just something written on a statue to you or does it actually mean anything? Have the children of illegal immigrants really hurt you so much that you would deny them the very principals upon which our country and our freedom are based?
*end rant*

Ahhh... I feel better. Thanks for letting me vent

 

[Jack21222]

And that excuses them for not learning English, why?

English is not the official language of the United States. I don't care if an immigrant learns English or not.

 

[cronxeh]

Forget to file is the equivalent of incompetence as a human being. Simply put, evolve or be thrown out of the country

 

[Gokul43201]

From what I see, the US is a multi-cultural country like very few others. For a quick comparison, I choose the UK and France, two other developed nations with a reasonable immigrant community. One would expect, from the criticism here, and from the fact that the UK and France are members of the EU, which protects free movement of labor, that there would be a huge disparity in their treatment of immigrants. Here's what I know:

Unlike the UK and France, which have an official language, the US does not. And neither the UK nor France has bilingual education for immigrants. Both countries, however, do provide bilingual education for natives that speak languages endemic to the region (like Occitan and Franco-Provençal, in parts of France, and Welsh, Gaelic and Cornish, in parts of the UK). Also, closer to the topic of this thread, unlike the UK and France, which do NOT grant automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, the US (so far) does.

The US has been accused in this thread of being particularly xenophobic (especially from the point of view of other countries). Anyone care to substantiate that claim?

 

[Cyrus]

English is not the official language of the United States. I don't care if an immigrant learns English or not.

I'm well aware it is not, nor did I claim it was. If you care or not is your opinion, which you are free to hold.

 

[Cyrus]

What evidence is there that the proposed change will have any effect on people crossing the border? It is a speculative maneuver at best. It's reactionary and fails to address that heart of the matter.

Debatable; however, it does send a very strong message and less incentives illegal immigration.

I should know better than to get involved in these types of discussions. Nobody is ever open minded enough to actually get anywhere... Caution, rant imminent:

We'll see how well you fare.

*commence rant*
I'm utterly shocked at the responses of some of you. Many of you are xenophobic or simply (semi)closeted biggots. America is currently viewed as an incredibly racist, money hungry, deceitful, warmongering, bully, child because of people like you.

It's usually not a good idea to preface your argument with your own foot in your mouth.

It is obvious to me that you have not spent any time living in the international community. They are trying to learn English. And by "they", I mean the nationals of every non-native English speaking country who can afford to learn. English is the most spoken language on this planet, and English education is a huge business. Learning is a process. Unfortunately, in many cases it's easier to get into The United States than it is to learn English.

Good for them, I'm glad they are trying to learn English (honestly). However, that does not excuse the illegality of their status in my country.

Do you have any idea of why South America and Central America are the way the way they are right now? Are you familiar with chickens coming home to roost? Try reading a little bit about the United States' hand in the ruination of that part of the world.

Sigh...yes, poor Central and South America. Nothing is their own fault, everything is our fault. Om-nom-nom, eat that foot!

You do understand that the US was founded by immigrants, right? Not one of them had a green card. In fact, I seem to recall there was some trouble with the previous occupants... You get the fact that the US is supposed to be a shining glorious bastion of liberty and justice for all? We're supposed to be the most free country in the world. We're supposed to be setting an example to all nations, creating a legacy of freedom.

Why is this relevant? The US requires legal status for people and commerce entering into its boarders, today. I don't give a flying freight-train about how immigration was handled in 1920. The above paragraph reads as a bunch of feel good platitudes. Freedom, liberty and justice for all does not mean open boarders, do you even have any notion of what the words "Freedom, liberty and Justice for all" even means? If you don't (and you don't), then simply ask someone on here to explain it to you.

Is that just something written on a statue to you or does it actually mean anything? Have the children of illegal immigrants really hurt you so much that you would deny them the very principals upon which our country and our freedom are based?
*end rant*

I was not aware that writing on statutes trump laws these days. To end my reply to your long winded post, no one is denying them the very principles on which our country was based, but what you are doing is denying those principles to people that apply to enter the states through the appropriate legal process.

 

[drankin]

Is that just something written on a statue to you or does it actually mean anything? Have the children of illegal immigrants really hurt you so much that you would deny them the very principals upon which our country and our freedom are based?
*end rant*

Ahhh... I feel better. Thanks for letting me vent

It's a great quote. It's not part of our Constitution. The spirit of that quote is practiced in a legal manner. We have a system of immigration. Even when we were coming here in droves off the boats in the day.

We do need a physical barrier between our two countries and guards to protect it. There is absolutely nothing else that can prevent undocumented, illegal, pathologically unchecked persons from migrating here and diluting our labor resources.

It's easy to call someone a bigot by definition when they strongly disagree with you.

 

[cronxeh]

It's easy to call someone a bigot by definition when they strongly disagree with you.

So what? Yes I am a bigot. What are they going to do about it? Show me their papers before they run their mouth. And make sure their kids are here legally, too. There is always some agenda there, and knowing people they are trying to gain favors for a personal cause. People are just that selfish, but when you as a whole nation acting selfish they get all rattled and discombobulated. How can you Americans be so selfish, you rich pigs - let us in and let us have your riches! How about, no?

 

[edward]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/er-wait-times-longer-survey/story?id=11240084

It's bad, but it's not like the problem of overcrowded emergency rooms is a uniquely Arizona phenomenon. In fact, 5 hours is faster than average in some states.

Considering also that the ER is not strictly first come first serve, and 'in pain' probably doesn't rank high on the pecking order of selection, I'd say you need more compelling evidence than your anecdote

But then you were not there were you?

This is not my first trip to an emergency room in Tucson for Gods sake. It is obvious to residents how the situation has changed since we have been flooded with illegals.

My wife would have died had I not called our family physician to intervene. He came to the emergency room which is damn unusuall these days. My wife was rushed to surgery immediately.

My other alternative was to take my wife to a new hospital 20 miles away. The illegals don't go there because it is too far to drive!

 

[apeiron]

The US has been accused in this thread of being particularly xenophobic (especially from the point of view of other countries). Anyone care to substantiate that claim?

I would suggest the basic driver here is something else - US levels of inequality, the gap between its haves and have nots. So it is not an ethnic based tension being expressed but an economic one.

See this reference to Pew research.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/the-divided-states-of-america/

 

[Gokul43201]

I would suggest the basic driver here is something else - US levels of inequality, the gap between its haves and have nots. So it is not an ethnic based tension being expressed but an economic one.

See this reference to Pew research.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/the-divided-states-of-america/

Are you saying also that this is a fair justification ... that it's reasonable to call the US xenophobic because it has a higher income disparity than say, countries in the EU (irrespective of its actual policies regarding immigration)?

 

[apeiron]

Are you saying also that this is a fair justification ... that it's reasonable to call the US xenophobic because it has a higher income disparity than say, countries in the EU (irrespective of its actual policies regarding immigration)?

It would seem logical that if the driver is more intense, so will be the observed behaviour.

However xenophobia has other drivers, such as social homogeneity. Some countries, like Korea for example, would rank highly here - on a general attitude of social closed-ness.

This is a good study of the drivers of xenophobia...

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=edpsychpapers

Not unlike other prejudices, xenophobia is a multidimensional and
multicausal phenomenon. Xenophobia is intricately tied to notions of
nationalism and ethnocentrism, both of which are characterized by belief
in the superiority of one’s nation-state over others (Licata & Klein,
2002; Schirmer, 1998). Esses, Dovidio, Semenya, and Jackson (2005)
teased out some important distinctions regarding constitutive elements
of xenophobia. They found that individual and group national identity
focus that is nativistic (i.e., believing that national identity is based on
birth) rather than civic and cultural (i.e., believing that national identity
is based on voluntary commitment to institutions) results in stronger
negative views of foreigners. Their experimental studies also revealed
that nationalism (belief in the superiority of one’s nation over others)
rather than patriotism (affective attachment to one’s nation) is related to
increased negative views of immigrants. Last, Esses, Dovidio, Jackson,
and Armstrong (2001) have shown that high social dominance orientation,
which is related to individual belief in inherent cultural hierarchies
and inequalities within a society, is predictive of anti-immigrant sentiments.
Thus, this scholarship suggests that ethnocentrism, nationalism,
nativism, and belief in a hierarchical world order have been strongly associated
with xenophobia.

So you have three factors dissected there.

As a society, the US might be expected to score low on the belief that birthplace counts (unlike Korea).

When it comes to feelings of superiority...well I think that would might rate on the high side. It is certainly a view I get from PF contributors. However I would have said the US has had also to be an intensely patriotic country - being a nation of immigrants, rallying around the flag and taken oaths of allegiance are a powerful bonding mechanism.

Perhaps this conflict is part of what we are hearing here. US is a superior social institution and so it is, by definition going to be less xenophobic (our comments are just realistic) and less unequal (our inequality levels are evidence of our economic dynamism). All we require of newcommers is that they be the best (as they are joining a superior institution) and they demonstrate the requisite bonding patriotism (criticism of US as the best is poorly tolerated).

So I would say that the feelings of superiority and demand for uncritical patriotism are both unusually strong features of the US - certainly compared to the many other countries I've lived in or visited. If I put up the national flag outside my house, or knew the words to the national anthem, I would be considered positively weird in my country. The only flags I have ever seen hung outside a house here have been foreign ones.

As to the third factor, belief in static social hierarchies, here the US would be presumed to score low. Its ethos is anyone can be president. And the US does score low in surveys. But again, the reality may have become more hierarchical in fact. The US is extremely stratified now in economic terms (Gini coefficients) so there is indeed now something for those at the top, or even in the middle, to protect against incomers.

So overall, you would expect the US to be at low risk for xenophobia as a national trait. If it is expressed, it would be due to more particular tensions - such as economic inequalities. And with inequality having become extreme by international standards, then xenophobia might well be expressed strongly along that particular faultline. Which would explain some of the outrageous (to someone living somewhere else) comments heard here.

Anyway, more of what that paper argues...

Indeed, the popular
myth of the United States as a “melting pot” of assimilated immigrants
is neither supported by historical data nor by evaluation of the treatment
of immigrants in the United States, especially for the immigrants
of color (Schirmer, 1998). Although restrictive and punitive immigration
measures have specifically targeted migrants because of their race and
social class, a broader cultural milieu of anti-immigrant sentiment has
prevailed regardless of immigrants’ demographic characteristics (Perea,
1997). These prejudices are perhaps best comprehended under the heading
of xenophobia

The United States has been known throughout its history as a nation
of immigrants (Smith & Edmonston, 1997). At the same time, the
United States has a long history of xenophobia and intolerance of immigrants
(Fuchs, 1995; Takaki, 1989). White western Europeans, who colonized
the Americas, as well as individuals from many other nations,
moved to the United States relatively freely and in great numbers until
the restrictions of the early 1900s (Daniels, 2002). In 1921, the U.S.
Congress passed the Quota Act, which established a new system of national
origin restrictions, favoring northern European immigrants over
those from other regions of the world. In 1924, the Johnson-Reed Act
further reduced the quota and created the U.S. Border Patrol. Subsequent
immigration policies continued to be guided by race and social
class-based policies (e.g., Chinese Exclusionary Act, the Alien Land Act,
the McCarran-Walter Act) that denied entry or the right to citizenship
to non-White immigrants (Daniels, 2004). Non-White immigrants were
first able to become naturalized citizens only in 1952, whereas this privilege
had been granted to the majority of White immigrants since 1790
(Daniels, 2002). Immigration laws in the 1940s and 1950s were marked
by strong prejudices against individuals of German descent as well as
all those who might be “communists” (Gabaccia, 2002). With the Civil
Rights movement of the 1960s, the ethnically and racially restrictive immigration
quotas were challenged (Daniels, 2002; Gabaccia, 2002).

Then noting that immigrant labour has been both tolerated economically while being simultaneously labelled illegal...

Undocumented migration to the United States has been especially targeted
in recent policies and cultural debates (Gabaccia, 2002). Prior to the
1960s, migrant agricultural workers, especially from Mexico, could gain
lawful temporary employment in the United States under the bracero program.
The 1965 Immigration Act resulted in a denial of all legal rights to
migrant workers, and their status in the United States became that of undocumented
or illegal immigrants. However, the demand for migrant labor
in the United States increased rather than diminished, and in spite
of policies that made life more difficult for them, the numbers of undocumented
workers has continually increased (Daniels, 2004; Perea, 1997).

If this is the true history, it weakens complaints about "all these illegals crossing the border and stealing our jobs, our hospital beds". A fair social contract can't have it both ways. There is no other word for this kind of situation other than exploitation.

If the US government has been turning a blind eye while illegals have found jobs, then the government ought to pay for healthcare etc. There is a clear moral responsibility there. If it is instead mostly US employers who can be blamed for giving illegals jobs, then the cost should fall on them.

And the people unhappy about illegals - either simply from "pure" irrational xenophobic predudice, or hopefully instead, defensible social contract principles - ought to turn their anger towards those actually responsible for the situation.

 

[Gokul43201]

However xenophobia has other drivers, such as social homogeneity.

I thought you were talking about drivers of the perception of xenophobia - I need to back up and start over. But I will not have enough time over the next couple of days, so I will have to get to this next week, when I find more time.

 

[Evo]

Then noting that immigrant labour has been both tolerated economically while being simultaneously labelled illegal...

If this is the true history, it weakens complaints about "all these illegals crossing the border and stealing our jobs, our hospital beds". A fair social contract can't have it both ways. There is no other word for this kind of situation other than exploitation.

The legal seasonal bracero program and the later abuses by california farms which led to Agricultural unions is worthy of discussion, but is taking away from the discussion of the current topic of making children of illegal aliens legal. Feel free to open a thread about the Bracero program and laws passed to end it, resulting in farm owners hiring illegals.

Let's keep this thread on the current issue.

 

[Al68]

I'd like to see a trade system, for every hard working Mexican that wishes to work in the US, we get to send an equal number of our white trash to them.

LOL. Now that's a good idea.

Seriously, I think we're confusing two very different issues. Citizenship means constitutionally protected rights, generally after becoming an adult. Right to free speech, bear arms, free from illegal search, etc. That's the consequence here. Citizenship doesn't constitutionally entitle anyone to any "benefits" from government.

Regardless of your position on entitlements, denying an entitlement to someone doesn't violate any constitutional right of citizenship, anyway, so it's a moot point.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'd like to see a trade system, for every hard working Mexican that wishes to work in the US, we get to send an equal number of our white trash to them.

LOL. Now that's a good idea.

Except that it appears to equate a "hard working Mexican" with "white trash". I can't imagine that such a comparison was intended, but that is how an unwitting passerby is likely to interpret it.

 

[Evo]

Except that it seems to equate a "hard working Mexican" with "white trash". I can't imagine that such a comparison was intended, but that is sure how a passerby is likely to interpret it.

No, I hold a hard working person of any nationality above a worthless legal bum.

 

[Math Is Hard]

No, I hold a hard working person of any nationality above a worthless legal bum.

OK, how about we trade 3 relocated Katrina victims living off the state of Texas for one hardworking illegal Mexican drug runner? I think there's a better chance of the drug runner helping the economy. I'm just saying.

*ducks*

 

[rootX]

OK, how about we trade 3 relocated Katrina victims living off the state of Texas for one hardworking illegal Mexican drug runner? I think there's a better chance of the drug runner helping the economy. I'm just saying.

*ducks*

I am not sure if there can be any legitimate process that can distinguish hardworking illegal Mexicans or bums living off the state.

 

[cristo]

Unlike the UK and France, which have an official language, the US does not.

English is only the de facto official language of the UK (much like it is in the US).

And neither the UK nor France has bilingual education for immigrants.

The UK has started to open bilingual schools (e.g. there are some French-English schools in London).

Both countries, however, do provide bilingual education for natives that speak languages endemic to the region (like Occitan and Franco-Provençal, in parts of France, and Welsh, Gaelic and Cornish, in parts of the UK).

Yes, but these are British people who speak another language as their first language (and, in fact, have that language as their official language-- welsh is the official language of wales).

Also, closer to the topic of this thread, unlike the UK and France, which do NOT grant automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, the US (so far) does.

Not automatic, but a child born here illegally becomes a citizen on his 10th birthday.


I really don't think you can draw a parallel between the UK and the US, since we are two very different countries. European countries have complex immigration situations that do not exist in the US (for example, a billion people have the right to come and live in the UK simply because they are European).

 

[adaptation]

Cyrus, thank you for the time you took responding to my initial post. By saying that I was going on a rant, I was kind of trying to make sure no one would take the ranting too seriously. (Oops.) It was a post that was obviously driven by emotion rather than logic. Please feel free to take this more sane, less emotional post more seriously.

It's a great quote. It's not part of our Constitution. The spirit of that quote is practiced in a legal manner. We have a system of immigration. Even when we were coming here in droves off the boats in the day.

We do need a physical barrier between our two countries and guards to protect it. There is absolutely nothing else that can prevent undocumented, illegal, pathologically unchecked persons from migrating here and diluting our labor resources.

It's easy to call someone a bigot by definition when they strongly disagree with you.

I agree with everything you said except for the physical barrier part. You remeber the Berlin Wall? Great wall of China? The Maginot Line? There are probably others I don't know about. I think if people had more incentive to stay in Mexico, it would be much more effective than any wall.

The US has been accused in this thread of being particularly xenophobic (especially from the point of view of other countries). Anyone care to substantiate that claim?

Can I substantiate my own claim? Hahaha.

I live in China. While there is a general sense of fascination with western culture and the United States in particular here, there is a lot of ill sentiment in regards to our foreign policy. In my job I meet people from all over the world. The general sentiment is the same: the individual American might be alright, but our government is not. It's harder when I might people who are not this open minded...

People ask me if I know that the US is referred to as "The World Police." (The assumption is, I don't know bad stuff about my own country.) Believe it or not, they don't mean "police" in a good way. They mean we stick our noses where they don't belong. We deal unfairly with weaker nations so we'll come out on top. We close our borders to the countries whose population is poor or not predominantly white. (I'm talking perception. Whether or not it's true, is a whole other discussion.)

Actually, when I was studying here, I had some classmates from the ROK who meant "World Police" in a good way. They have been the exception so far.

Seriously, I think we're confusing two very different issues. Citizenship means constitutionally protected rights, generally after becoming an adult. Right to free speech, bear arms, free from illegal search, etc. That's the consequence here. Citizenship doesn't constitutionally entitle anyone to any "benefits" from government.

Regardless of your position on entitlements, denying an entitlement to someone doesn't violate any constitutional right of citizenship, anyway, so it's a moot point.

You're right. I kept thinking of it as a rights issue, but it's not.

Considering the intention of the amendment, I'll concede that it's probably a stretch to extend it to illegal immigrants. I don't have any objection to being true to the spirit of the constitution. What bothers me here is the way people are trying to go about this.

Immigrants, especially illegal ones, always become a target when economic trouble is around. They are the classic scapegoat. "Those immigrants took my job/scholarship/place in line/etc." "I'm sick of paying for those immigrants to (insert just about anything here)."

You should take a look at a breakdown of America's budget. See what percent of your taxes actually goes into paying for illegal immigrants. Then compare that to our economic dependence on illegal immigrants and the amount of money they generate in our economy.

The real question is: Why are they coming to the US illegally? Until we address this problem in a thoughtful, non-reactionary, long term perspective way, the problem will persist. No amount of walls or changes to who becomes a citizen are going to solve the problem permanently.

 

[Evo]

OK, how about we trade 3 relocated Katrina victims living off the state of Texas for one hardworking illegal Mexican drug runner? I think there's a better chance of the drug runner helping the economy. I'm just saying.

*ducks*

I'm not talking about people down on their luck, I'm talking about people that are allergic to supporting themselves.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I'm not talking about people down on their luck, I'm talking about people that are allergic to supporting themselves.

So was I.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/21/nation/na-evac21

 

[Evo]

So was I.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/21/nation/na-evac21

Sounds like a forced "repatriation" program may be in order. Louisiana needs to pony up. And who doesn't understand that most of that land would not have existed under natural circumstances?

But I'm going off topic.

 

[leroyjenkens]

But the child hasn't done anything illegal. Why should it be punished?

If a person throws a baby at me, that's assault. The baby didn't do anything illegal, but if I have to defend myself from it hitting me, I will.

 

[cristo]

If a person throws a baby at me, that's assault. The baby didn't do anything illegal, but if I have to defend myself from it hitting me, I will.

That's a very well thought out and relevant comment. Thank you.