ForumsWEPRSo whats you thoughts on the illegal aliens ?

76 18498
ethan3300
offline
ethan3300
100 posts
Shepherd

What are your thoughts on the bill Obama passed that allowed 800,000 illegal aliens to come to america

  • 76 Replies
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Your all ninja.

From 5 seconds of searching, link,


Huh. What words did you use, exactly?

In either case, this link also shows the fact that part of the difficulty in researching anything about illegals is the fact that the government knows nothing about them. The estimates are literally billions off from each other, how can we know what the real impact is?

They get to use the services without paying 'their fair share' of the cost.


They do pay their fare share, using the fares. People who payed taxes for them get the tax money back (Right?), while the illegals don't get any money back. So after everything is threw, they both pay the same averagely.

mmigration policies have been much harsher than even Bush's; he has already deported more people in his first year in office than Bush did in his final year in office. So instead of being a splendid ignoramus, do some bloody research. Stop your incredibly moronic and baseless accusations just out of pure prejudice. It's ok to pick faults through an objective discussion, but to do so because he's liberal, shows how much of a pathetic person one is.


Despite your claims to the contrary, this IS a real action. It is completely based in reality and happening at this moment, this is an indisputable fact. Both liberal and conservative news has covered it, denying that the action is happening is insane. Perhaps you should do some research before freaking out about it?

You all know who that was directed towards.


....Macfan? The OP? The commies? ME?
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

I don't see how you can my point telling Macfan off when he claims Obama is always "bad" into a point attacking you. It was a point highlighting to him that Obama has done more than Bush and other presidents recently to stem immigration. It was a jab at him to not be outright bigoted.

Nor do I see how my points are to the contrary.
So how am I freaking out?

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

I don't see how you can my point telling Macfan off when he claims Obama is always "bad" into a point attacking you. It was a point highlighting to him that Obama has done more than Bush and other presidents recently to stem immigration. It was a jab at him to not be outright bigoted.

Nor do I see how my points are to the contrary.
So how am I freaking out?


I had assumed you where talking about the OP, it kind of sounds like you are. So I just guessed you where saying that this bill does not actually exist.
dair5
offline
dair5
3,379 posts
Shepherd

From what I have heard on it, up here where we have about the same population that the plan is about to let in and no immigration problem, that is usually what happens. The workers risk their necks in America to send money back to Mexico, which makes a lot more since then risking little kids lives, doesn't it?


I'm sorry... I can't really understand that. Could you please rephrase?

Do you expect the law does not effect them, because there "Parents made them do it"?


Yes? If a parent trains a their 5 year old child to steal do we send the child to juvy?

They are all criminals and must face the consequence of the crimes. Regardless if they are children or not.


Okay. I understand if they came here alone. But they have no choice if they come with their parents.

Fair? They broke the law every day for five years, and it would be fair to let them go because?


Because they had no choice! Do you really think that a child could tell their parents that they decided that they were going to stay in their home country? Even after being spoonfeed the idea that life would be so much better in America? Even after the fact that you'd be dragged along if they really wanted you to go? Yes you would. No is just not an answer.

Or you can climb in the window and hide whenever he comes around. Which is illegal, of course. So if you found a man trying to live in your house, wouldn't you call the police to get him out of it? Even if it was a child?


This part needs more detail. Sometimes the man trying to get in has a son. Before they get in the man tells his son hears tons of stories of how amazing life is once he gets inside. And if the son refuses, he must refuse to his father. Who is holding a belt in his hand threatingly. What you're saying is you know all this, but here is what you say when you catch them,
"What? What are you doing here? Get out of my house man! And you there! Yeah little boy, you're just as much to blame. You're a criminal! Get out of here too!"

So how is this law going to help children at all? Their parents are still illegal. They can't even go to the office to get registered as a citizen, since their parents would have to take them there. This will only effect illegals over eighteen, or it will mean that the parents would have to leave the country, since this law does not help them.


The reason most people cross illegaly is usally to have a better life for their family. Themselves too. But mostly their family. They bring start family here, get out of the poverty cycle. If the child is a citizen they can always come back legally, or stay with family here. But family and getting more opprotunities is really the most of the point of illegal and often legal immigration. At least in hispanic and latino familes. Some do it to get away from war, dictators, ect... But a better life for their family is almost always involved.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

I'm sorry... I can't really understand that. Could you please rephrase?


America has money. So the money makers come to America. They leave their families in Mexico. They make money in America. They send money back to their families. Sound right?

Yes? If a parent trains a their 5 year old child to steal do we send the child to juvy?


Yes....Yes we do. That is how crime and punishment works.

Okay. I understand if they came here alone. But they have no choice if they come with their parents.


Why not? Do children not have brains? That is like saying that a gang member is not responsible for his crimes, since his friends in the gang pressured him to do it.

Because they had no choice!


HA! Good one! Children listening to their parents?

Children are responsible for their own actions, the same as adults are. If they commit the crime, why should they not be punished for it?

Do you really think that a child could tell their parents that they decided that they were going to stay in their home country?


Yes? "I would like to stay here with grandma. I don't want to go across the desert to a place where I would not be able to do anything to help anyway."

Even after being spoonfeed the idea that life would be so much better in America?


When they are five years old, they can barely comprehend what a "America" is.

Even after the fact that you'd be dragged along if they really wanted you to go?


Why? If the parents truly care about the child, why would they drag them across a dangerous desert, against their will?

I would like to see the study you based this on.

Yes you would. No is just not an answer.


And why not?

This part needs more detail. Sometimes the man trying to get in has a son. Before they get in the man tells his son hears tons of stories of how amazing life is once he gets inside. And if the son refuses, he must refuse to his father. Who is holding a belt in his hand threatingly. What you're saying is you know all this, but here is what you say when you catch them,
"What? What are you doing here? Get out of my house man! And you there! Yeah little boy, you're just as much to blame. You're a criminal! Get out of here too!"


Exactly! So you see the point. If a child breaks into a house with his father, both are criminals. At the very least, the child is taken away from his father. They don't say "Alright, the old guy has to leave. But you there! You child! You can live in my house all you want. You just have to leave your father behind and somehow provide for yourself without his help".

The reason most people cross illegaly is usally to have a better life for their family. Themselves too. But mostly their family. They bring start family here, get out of the poverty cycle. If the child is a citizen they can always come back legally, or stay with family here. But family and getting more opprotunities is really the most of the point of illegal and often legal immigration. At least in hispanic and latino familes. Some do it to get away from war, dictators, ect... But a better life for their family is almost always involved.


I am well aware of the reasons for immigrating to America, but why does that matter? I also know that a majority of prostitutes have been pressured into the job and find it difficult to leave it, as well as it sustaining them monetarily. Does that mean I have pity for lawbreakers? No. Why should I?

Yes, there is a good chance that this bill will help out the illegal aliens. Basically in the form of taking money from the rest of the population with taxes, witch has a negative effect for everyone else, and in being able to vote. That is really the majority that they will be able to take advantage off, and having a bunch of poorly educated newly Americanized citizens voting is hardly a positive effect. Their wages won't change. I guess they would stop being followed by the police, witch is good for them. But it would also be likely to raise crime, according to you kinda, since they don't have that fear of deportation.

So why should America do this? As a charity by the government? Out of pity? It harms the rest of the citizens at the expense of people who are not even citizens, why should America let them in? They are criminals from another country, there is no reason to let them in.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,444 posts
Jester

Huh. What words did you use, exactly?

lmgtfy

how can we know what the real impact is?

The point is that there is indeed an impact of at least many millions to potentially billions of dollars every year depending on the state.

They do pay their fare share, using the fares.

What about the 'free' ones paid by taxes and donations?

People who payed taxes for them get the tax money back (Right?)

No, that's an expense. They don't get the money back unless the transit operated under budget. Fares don't usually cover the full operating cost, let alone give a surplus, because people want to keep each ride cheap. It's a form of &quotoint of sale" manipulation. People are more likely to accept a tax increase of a cent or two later than a much higher cost of a service when they need it.
dair5
offline
dair5
3,379 posts
Shepherd

America has money. So the money makers come to America. They leave their families in Mexico. They make money in America. They send money back to their families. Sound right?


Uh huh. And sometimes the kids contribute to the money making. Or the parents just take their kids for whatever reason.

Yes? "I would like to stay here with grandma. I don't want to go across the desert to a place where I would not be able to do anything to help anyway."


Typical response: You're coming with us. We are doing this for you.

HA! Good one! Children listening to their parents?


Yes... It is a compleatly different culture than here, trust me.

Why? If the parents truly care about the child, why would they drag them across a dangerous desert, against their will?


So they have a chance at doing something other than tending to the farm. That could be one reason (the reason my family came here.)

I would like to see the study you based this on.


There needs to be a study on this? In some cultures you just don't say no to your parents when they're serious. They can be very intimidating. Do I really need to explain how this works? Thats just the way kids are raised. The parent may not even take no for an answer, they just do want they want. 5 year old verses 20 year old, who do you think will win?

Exactly! So you see the point. If a child breaks into a house with his father, both are criminals. At the very least, the child is taken away from his father. They don't say "Alright, the old guy has to leave. But you there! You child! You can live in my house all you want. You just have to leave your father behind and somehow provide for yourself without his help".


The child didn't really chose to commit the crime on his own though. He was forced into it. He didn't really have a choice when it came to it.

Okay, I don't see how you're a criminal even when you're forced into commiting a crime. I'm not talking about pressure. I'm talking about force. In most situations they have no choice. They are not allowed to make a desicion as big as that for themselves.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

lmgtfy


Huh. I tried things more like "Illegal Immigration in America and hospitals", "illegal immigration injury cases" and things like that. Mostly I just got questions asking if illegal immigrants could file injury law suits.

The point is that there is indeed an impact of at least many millions to potentially billions of dollars every year depending on the state.


We also know that they could be paying millions in taxes, potentially. We really need to start keeping track of this. If one out of every hundred aliens gets injured, would the rest pay for it with their sales taxes?

What about the 'free' ones paid by taxes and donations?


They do not pay for them, I would assume. I am also assuming that those are a somewhat rarer case.

No, that's an expense. They don't get the money back unless the transit operated under budget. Fares don't usually cover the full operating cost, let alone give a surplus, because people want to keep each ride cheap. It's a form of &quotoint of sale" manipulation. People are more likely to accept a tax increase of a cent or two later than a much higher cost of a service when they need it.


...So taxes pay for your subways? I had always thought that they where privately operated. Sounds like you got a kind of messed up system?

Then they pay slightly less then everyone else.

Uh huh. And sometimes the kids contribute to the money making.


Witch is illegal in America. If they where made citizens, that would have to stop.

Or the parents just take their kids for whatever reason.


Great. "They can take their child for child labor. Or some other reason. Sure. Why not"

What reason would you have for ripping your child away from home, into a foreign land, across a dangerous area, all illegally?

Typical response: You're coming with us. We are doing this for you.


Ah huh. And I assume that you are there when the people are "forcing" these poor kids to come to America? Or have seen it done several times?

You need a new hobby, if that is the case.

Yes... It is a compleatly different culture than here, trust me.


Since you have lived in Mexico all those years.

So they have a chance at doing something other than tending to the farm. That could be one reason (the reason my family came here.)


It could be. But why wouldn't they wait until the child was of working age to take him? That would make more since, wouldn't it?

There needs to be a study on this? In some cultures you just don't say no to your parents when they're serious.


And in some cultures it is considered idiotic to bring your kid when there is a high possibility you will die.

They can be very intimidating


Being intimidated by your parents? That is kind of sad, isn't it?

Do I really need to explain how this works?


Yes, why wouldn't you?

Thats just the way kids are raised. The parent may not even take no for an answer, they just do want they want


Sounds like a depressive family, if they just bring their child to a foreign country to act as child labor. Should we not stop things like this from happening?

5 year old verses 20 year old, who do you think will win?


In what? I would assume that if it came down to violence the child would lose. But who uses violence against a five year old? In a debate, if the child legitimately had a point, as he would here, I would assume they would at least consider an alternative.

The child didn't really chose to commit the crime on his own though. He was forced into it. He didn't really have a choice when it came to it.


Lets say that for some reason he was forced to do it. Does that make a difference? A criminal is a criminal, regardless for his reason of committing the crime.

Okay, I don't see how you're a criminal even when you're forced into commiting a crime.


Why not? "Oh it is OK that you shot your pimp. I can tell that you where forced to do this, after all. It is not like you could say no to your parents!"

I'm not talking about pressure. I'm talking about force. In most situations they have no choice.


Going back to the gang example, do you think the only thing making him commit the crimes is pressure? He is essentially forced to do it, I will assume that if he wants to turn away from crime it won't work out well. But does he get off of his crimes for free? No. Should he? No.

In most situations they have no choice. They are not allowed to make a desicion as big as that for themselves.


But of course the parents can make huge decisions- regarding their lives- for them? And of course the child is just a mindless doll who is simply forced to follow them?

This bill is not made for children anyway, as I had pointed out. If a kid can't make his own decisions, he can't live by himself, right? And if a kid can't live by himself, then this bill is pointless.

Lets say your right and a kid was "forced" to come to America. And he lives here for five years, like this action dictates. But he would still just be a kid. So what is he going to do? Go become a citizen? Then what? He can't leave his parents, after all we just proved that he is literally an idiot who can't think for himself. So he would have to go back to them, and nothing would change. He would not even be able to get his citizen ship, since he apparently can't do something so big by himself.

No, this is an act that would effect people who can stand by themselves. People likely over eighteen, who came here before they where sixteen. You remember that link that you put on the page? The one where you said "Those are the kind of people we're making legal"? That statement was partially accurate. Twenty one year olds who already have a job and are living by there selves. But really, if you have a degree you could just apply for citizenship normally...

So how would this bill help kids in any way?
dair5
offline
dair5
3,379 posts
Shepherd

Witch is illegal in America. If they where made citizens, that would have to stop.


I think it's legal at 14.

What reason would you have for ripping your child away from home, into a foreign land, across a dangerous area, all illegally?


To get your child out of an already more dangerous area? To get an entire family out of poverty?

It could be. But why wouldn't they wait until the child was of working age to take him? That would make more since, wouldn't it?


Sometimes there is more than one child. If one can work than he can help support others until they can work. I'm not sure if they're forced to work though. I think it's just expected.

Being intimidated by your parents? That is kind of sad, isn't it?


I guess. It just happens though. Doesn't that happen with every family? At least a little.

And in some cultures it is considered idiotic to bring your kid when there is a high possibility you will die.


That's a risk some take. (Not all face the risk of death you know).

Sounds like a depressive family, if they just bring their child to a foreign country to act as child labor. Should we not stop things like this from happening?


No it's not just for child labor. It's also for better opprotunities. My grandfather tried very hard to make money in D.R but could never get anywhere. If he stayed there he would have been a farmer his whole life. If his kids never moved, so would they.

Why not? "Oh it is OK that you shot your pimp. I can tell that you where forced to do this, after all. It is not like you could say no to your parents!"


In deciding where you were going to live? Could you have just told your parents no if they said you were moving?

Then what? He can't leave his parents, after all we just proved that he is literally an idiot who can't think for himself.


Are you kidding me? What 10 year old, 12 year old, or younger child can just decide where they are going to live? A citizenship means they can come here if they want to and stay. They don't need to worry about deportation for themselves. They can come here or stay here and set up a life for themselves and for future generations of their family. Future generations won't need to live the life that their family was trying to get away from.

No, this is an act that would effect people who can stand by themselves. People likely over eighteen, who came here before they where sixteen. You remember that link that you put on the page? The one where you said "Those are the kind of people we're making legal"? That statement was partially accurate. Twenty one year olds who already have a job and are living by there selves. But really, if you have a degree you could just apply for citizenship normally


I think these people should be citizens anyway. If they've lived so much of their life here, why should they have to prove themselves?
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

I don't know if most of the people here actually got what Obama is doing. He is granting them legal work permits to work for 2 years in America, with the possibility of unlimited extensions later on, not citizenships. So I don't quite comprehend why people are rambling on about the 800,000 extra votes. Yes, he is courting the votes Latinos and Hispanics who are American citizens, but not those of ''uneducated'' just Americanized migrants. So why then are people also arguing about bad voting behaviours?

Also, the argument about taxes. Those migrants who will be covered must be in school or have graduated from high school or be honorably discharged from the U.S. military. Which means that they have had or will have the education that allows them to earn much more than just ''one dollar'' a day. And yes, illegal migrants, or at least those who dare to pay do pay a substantial amount of tax, around 9 billion dollars. Furthermore, such taxes are not used on Social Security for them since illegal immigrants cannot claim Social Security, hence there is more money to cover citizens.

What about crime then? Only those migrants who have not been convicted of any felony or significant misdemeanor offenses can qualify. I think that's self-explanatory.

I disagree with the whole ''Children are criminals too'' point. Children are considered juveniles under the law and hence are not treated with exactly the same laws as applied to parents. They cannot oppose their parents at that age, and hence have to follow them into whatever they choose for them. To classify them as knowing criminals who commit a crime willingly is farcical.

Furthermore, as much as it is fairness to such children, it would be a benefit for America. Many migrants who are stuck in this conundrum are college graduates, with all of them having a high school education or a GED. With the abysmal American high school graduate rate of 68%, this will boost the education level, and value of American workers to compete with the rest of the world. This justification is long rooted, in 1982, the Supreme Court found that all children living in the United States have the right to a public education, whatever their immigration status. The justicesâ reasoning was shaped not by compassion but practicality: it does the country no good to perpetuate an uneducated underclass.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

I don't know if most of the people here actually got what Obama is doing. He is granting them legal work permits to work for 2 years in America, with the possibility of unlimited extensions later on, not citizenships.


So building on that, I forgot to ask, why would everyone be heading down the wrong track of this argument by going around in circles about kids getting citizenships and their parents not? That's quite a different issue; kids of illegal immigrants already get their citizenships because they are born in America, those who tag along won't get citizenships. There are children who are citizens and hence are in a quandary, because they can stay, but their parents cannot, but this is a different issue altogether.

Also, the idea that such immigrants are not ''Americanized'' is quite frankly, a load of rubbish and baloney. If you've been living there since your adolescence, or for at least five years during your youth, it would be quite natural to sport all the characteristics of an ''American'', however you define that fuzzy concept.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

I think it's legal at 14.


Kind of.

"The main law regulating child labor in the United State is the Fair Labor Standards Act. In general, for non-agricultural jobs, children under 14 may not be employed, children between 14 and 16 may be employed in allowed occupations during limited hours, and children between 16 and 18 may be employed for unlimited hours in non-hazardous occupations. [1] A number of exceptions to these rules exist, such as for employment by parents, newspaper delivery, and child actors. [1] The regulations for agricultural employment are generally more lenient. Children as young as 12 may be employed unlimited hours outside of school hours with parental permission. Children under 16 may not be involved in hazardous tasks. [2]"

But even then, a child who had this policy would be nineteen when they where able to use it.

To get your child out of an already more dangerous area? To get an entire family out of poverty?


Ah yes. Risking the life of your child....to get it out of a dangerous area. Makes perfect since...

Sending money back would get the rest of the family out of poverty, without risking their lives.

Sometimes there is more than one child. If one can work than he can help support others until they can work. I'm not sure if they're forced to work though. I think it's just expected.


...Witch is child labor, and illegal. Are you saying we should legalize child labor?

I guess. It just happens though. Doesn't that happen with every family? At least a little.


No?

That's a risk some take. (Not all face the risk of death you know).


Then why doesn't everyone take the path that does not risk death?

No it's not just for child labor. It's also for better opprotunities. My grandfather tried very hard to make money in D.R but could never get anywhere. If he stayed there he would have been a farmer his whole life. If his kids never moved, so would they.


I don't know about your family, but why wouldn't he just wait until they where of legal working age to bring them over? Legally?

In deciding where you were going to live? Could you have just told your parents no if they said you were moving?


I could have told my parents that I don't want to move, especially if it was out of the country. Would they had just slapped you and dragged you out of the country?

Are you kidding me? What 10 year old, 12 year old, or younger child can just decide where they are going to live? A citizenship means they can come here if they want to and stay. They don't need to worry about deportation for themselves. They can come here or stay here and set up a life for themselves and for future generations of their family. Future generations won't need to live the life that their family was trying to get away from.


Wait, so you are saying that the kids are to stupid to live by themselves. So they can come back when they are adults?

Then this does not help children. It would help adults. If a twelve year old kid does not "Risk" deportation but has to leave with his parents if they get deported, whats the difference? He can just come back as an adult? It doesn't help children at all then.

I think these people should be citizens anyway. If they've lived so much of their life here, why should they have to prove themselves?


Because they came here illegally? Because they are adults, and not kids, like so much of your argument rested on? Because they willing came, or willing stayed, in America illegally? Even if for some reason children where not considered criminals, then you have to agree that these guys are. Why should we give up money to foreign criminals?

I don't know if most of the people here actually got what Obama is doing. He is granting them legal work permits to work for 2 years in America, with the possibility of unlimited extensions later on, not citizenships. So I don't quite comprehend why people are rambling on about the 800,000 extra votes. Yes, he is courting the votes Latinos and Hispanics who are American citizens, but not those of ''uneducated'' just Americanized migrants. So why then are people also arguing about bad voting behaviours?


Really? Work permits? Huh. My source of information was not exactly reliable.

Also, the argument about taxes. Those migrants who will be covered must be in school or have graduated from high school or be honorably discharged from the U.S. military.


Which I did know. (I thought they had to finish school, though.). How do you even get into the military as an illegal immigrant?

Which means that they have had or will have the education that allows them to earn much more than just ''one dollar'' a day.


Great! So if they have the money of an average citizen, why don't they just go and get themselves cleared legally? If they have the money, if they have the education, why not just legally apply for citizenship instead of getting some dumb work permit?

And yes, illegal migrants, or at least those who dare to pay do pay a substantial amount of tax, around 9 billion dollars.


Few sources make that claim. Most say far less, like fifty million dollars, and still a good part of that is not from illegal immigrants.

Furthermore, such taxes are not used on Social Security for them since illegal immigrants cannot claim Social Security, hence there is more money to cover citizens.


The few who pay a little bit of taxes can hardly count as being a decent thing. So you are saying that, even though most don't pay taxes, its OK since they don't ask for tax backs?

What about crime then? Only those migrants who have not been convicted of any felony or significant misdemeanor offenses can qualify. I think that's self-explanatory.


They are are criminals, since they all entered the states illegally. Or are you saying it would not be a crime, for some reason?

I disagree with the whole ''Children are criminals too'' point. Children are considered juveniles under the law and hence are not treated with exactly the same laws as applied to parents. They cannot oppose their parents at that age, and hence have to follow them into whatever they choose for them. To classify them as knowing criminals who commit a crime willingly is farcical.


Why does everyone assume that children are puppets that can do nothing without their parents? Why would you not classify them as criminals?

And as I had said earlier, lets say that the children are not criminals. But of course children don't need work permits. This law only effects adults, and of course we can both say that adults willfully staying in the United States is a crime?

Furthermore, as much as it is fairness to such children, it would be a benefit for America. Many migrants who are stuck in this conundrum are college graduates, with all of them having a high school education or a GED.


Great! Then they can go get into America legally quite easily. And legally. Why wouldn't they?

With the abysmal American high school graduate rate of 68%, this will boost the education level, and value of American workers to compete with the rest of the world.


Will it now? They are just living here, and would have already counted toward the graduation rate if they had graduated, correct? And those that failed would have contributed to the failure. How would it boost the education level?

This justification is long rooted, in 1982, the Supreme Court found that all children living in the United States have the right to a public education, whatever their immigration status. The justicesâ reasoning was shaped not by compassion but practicality: it does the country no good to perpetuate an uneducated underclass.


Really? It does allow them to save more funds for the people who actually PAY for the schools, the taxpaying citizens, rather then illegals, doesn't it? Not to mention the fact that they are an illegal underclass, who would literally be kicked out if found out.

So building on that, I forgot to ask, why would everyone be heading down the wrong track of this argument by going around in circles about kids getting citizenships and their parents not? That's quite a different issue; kids of illegal immigrants already get their citizenships because they are born in America, those who tag along won't get citizenships. There are children who are citizens and hence are in a quandary, because they can stay, but their parents cannot, but this is a different issue altogether.


I know about right of soil. But even a casual glance at our arguments and you could see that we are not talking about that. We are talking about parents bringing there children, who where born in their home countries, to the United States. And thus not American citizens.

And apparently this only effects the younger generation, who would receive the work permits, while their parents would not. Correct? I need to find a copy of this law somewhere...
dair5
offline
dair5
3,379 posts
Shepherd

Ah yes. Risking the life of your child....to get it out of a dangerous area. Makes perfect since...


Considering the child could be living in a war torn country... Yes. It does. Besides wouldn't you have to be legal to get your child from your country?

No?


You've never been scared of your father?

Then why doesn't everyone take the path that does not risk death?


Because not all can.

I don't know about your family, but why wouldn't he just wait until they where of legal working age to bring them over? Legally?


He did.

I could have told my parents that I don't want to move, especially if it was out of the country. Would they had just slapped you and dragged you out of the country?


So what you're telling me is that you could have been the deciding vote. If both your parents said that you were going to move, and you said no, then they would just find a way to make it work out and let you stay. Seriously?

Because they came here illegally? Because they are adults, and not kids, like so much of your argument rested on? Because they willing came, or willing stayed, in America illegally? Even if for some reason children where not considered criminals, then you have to agree that these guys are. Why should we give up money to foreign criminals?


Did you actually expect them to leave? As soon as they become 18 you expect them to pack their bags and and find their own way back to their home country. And for what reason? Should they feel some kind of guilt because they got here illegally?

Really? Work permits? Huh. My source of information was not exactly reliable.


I didn't know that either. Hm.

Few sources make that claim. Most say far less, like fifty million dollars, and still a good part of that is not from illegal immigrants.


Could you provide a couple of links please?
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

Really? Work permits? Huh. My source of information was not exactly reliable.


Yes, just work permits. Not citizenships. The Obama administration is quick to point out that the plan does not provide for citizenship but removes the threat of deportation while allows for legal work status in the United States.


Which I did know. (I thought they had to finish school, though.). How do you even get into the military as an illegal immigrant?


Not sure about military, but there have been bills for this.

Great! So if they have the money of an average citizen, why don't they just go and get themselves cleared legally? If they have the money, if they have the education, why not just legally apply for citizenship instead of getting some dumb work permit?


Because when they first arrive, they don't. But after they grow up, they do, since the criterion does stipulate conditions that suggest a good income level. Yet they can't in the past. Before this act, they were not able to gain legal work permits. Many of the 800,000 are college grads with no where to go, and no jobs to seek.

Few sources make that claim. Most say far less, like fifty million dollars, and still a good part of that is not from illegal immigrants.


Source, or nothing.

Research reviewed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that between 50 percent and 75 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes.

The Texas State Comptroller report in 2006 that the 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas alone added almost $18 billion to the state's budget, and paid $1.2 billion in state services they used.

The few who pay a little bit of taxes can hardly count as being a decent thing. So you are saying that, even though most don't pay taxes, its OK since they don't ask for tax backs?


Most pay taxes. What I am saying, is that most pay taxes, a plus point, and almost none claim Social Security, more plus point. I didn't use the lack of claiming of SS to justify a lack of paying taxes. Don't misinterpret.

Why does everyone assume that children are puppets that can do nothing without their parents? Why would you not classify them as criminals?

And as I had said earlier, lets say that the children are not criminals. But of course children don't need work permits. This law only effects adults, and of course we can both say that adults willfully staying in the United States is a crime?


They're not puppets. They just can't not listen to their parents. If both parents leave, there is no way a child can be petulant and stay behind, with no one to look after him.

I would have thought you would be smart enough to realise that none of the 800,000 are children anymore, given that they're going to grant them work permits. Furthermore, if they came before the age of 16, and have stayed at least 5 years, there's a high chance that many of them are approaching, or are at the working age, provided they weren't younger than 11 before they came. Hence yes, those ''uppets'' being targeted specifically are now grown up working adults.

Great! Then they can go get into America legally quite easily. And legally. Why wouldn't they?


They're already in the USA. They got their degree in America. So why the useless and pointless statement? They got their degree on their meandering life journey in the USA, when they were illegal. Giving them up is a pointless waste of educational resources; America would be shooting themselves in the foot to kick them out.

Will it now? They are just living here, and would have already counted toward the graduation rate if they had graduated, correct? And those that failed would have contributed to the failure. How would it boost the education level?


Work permits granted to only those of such calibre. It's not so much as raising as already raised. Kicking them out would decrease such economic gain from human capital. Those that fail would be deported, given Obama's strict rules.

Really? It does allow them to save more funds for the people who actually PAY for the schools, the taxpaying citizens, rather then illegals, doesn't it? Not to mention the fact that they are an illegal underclass, who would literally be kicked out if found out.


As shown, most illegals do pay. Furthermore, the 1982 bill has been in place for 30 years, no one is disputing it virulently. Yes, they would be kicked out, but finding them out is harder than one thinks. So, a public education outweighs the costs by reducing crime rates and unrest.

I know about right of soil. But even a casual glance at our arguments and you could see that we are not talking about that. We are talking about parents bringing there children, who where born in their home countries, to the United States. And thus not American citizens.


Misinterpretation because you kept referring to gaining citizenship, which is not what Obama has signed.

And apparently this only effects the younger generation, who would receive the work permits, while their parents would not. Correct? I need to find a copy of this law somewhere..


Yes. Unless they're parents fit the criteria, which most won't.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,444 posts
Jester

Many of the 800,000 are college grads with no where to go, and no jobs to seek.

Why do they not become naturalized citizens? Surely college grads would have the education to do so. They would then be able to legally work without worrying about deportation.
Showing 31-45 of 76