The debate is ramping up in the U.S. Senate. A cloture motion was filed by Senate Majority Leader Frist a couple of days ago, so they should be voting in this bill (s. 2611, comprehensive immigration reform/border patrol) either tonight or tommorow morning.

I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens. For a long time I've been very positive about this, but recent amemdments have made it so that this bill may have a harder time passing.

I don't consider this to be immigration reform at all:

I mean, why do we have to have this so-called 'comprehensive reform'? Why can't we lock down the border first then work on a guest worker program? It only seems logical. If the pipes in the house burst and are flooding your house, you logically try to stop the flow of water from the pipes before you try and repair the damage. So why not stop the flow of illegal immigrants before implementing a guest worker program? Why are some of you so adamantly against following the most logical solution to the problem? Why do some of you have such a blatant disregard for the laws of this country?

You're asking this on the internet?

As absurd as it sounds - yes.

It all depends on who's spin and exageration you want to believe. If you want to believe Boortz's *Invasion* way of looking at the issue, then you can get all kinds of worked up against illegals. If you wish to believe that they aren't as big a problem as we are led to believe, then you'll downplay it.

1 Apparently those who proposed these changes/amnesty feel that the illegal immigrants have contributed to the country enough to warrant this.

2 Just a break for businesses. Hard to excuse this one on moral grounds, but it's likely just to keep the economy in good shape. Besides, how much bitching would you hear if the companies had to pay fines etc. regarding workers who have since been granted citizenship?

3 I don't know how they expect this to work out. An attempt to document the illegal workers? If so, then why not just guide them to legal means or deport them? This one I can't quite guess the logic behind.

4 More immigrants isn't proven to be a bad thing. But this recent illegal immigration hot topic has given a lot of people an excuse to go back to that line of reasoning. More legal immigrants should decrease illegal immigrants. What's the problem?

5 I thought you wanted more fence/wall? You're getting it.

Basically the arguments against this mostly stem from a lack of punishment for the immigrants and their employers. "In other words ... nothing. Not a damn thing. No punishment whatsoever to those who have violated the law." -Boortz What's more important? Getting your pound of flesh? Or working to make a situation more bearable?

Please note that it's not like they aren't going to patrol the boarder, and from everything I've heard lately it's going to be done with more vigor than before. So you are working to stem the illegal immigrants (or invaders if you rather), while making efforts to assimilate and accept those who are already there for 2+years. It's not as dramatic or satisfying (to some) as kicking out millions of people and scrambling to fill the positions they've held.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, the laws are currently under review and being changed, so the whole 'Disregard for the law' argument, while valid to an extent, isn't quite solid until the changes are made. And seeing as how the proposed legal changes are being met, I doubt that the 'new' laws would be very welcomed by it's opponents. It cuts both ways, and laws are always subject to review, whether they are laws we like or not.

The point here is that offering amnesty without first securing the border is only going to make the problem worse as people from Mexico are going to rush across the border to take advantage of what's happening. 6,000 troops and an additional 400 miles of fence isn't nearly enough to lock down the border sufficiently.

I'm not an extremist on this, but I am a realist. Trying to secure the border and create a guest worker program means that you won't be able to do either effectively. If you secure the border first, making it impossible for illegals to come into this country en masse (you'll never stop them all, but you can stop an overwhelming amount of them), then implement the program, then you should be able to please both sides.

Cloture passed, Finnancial portion waivered, so the bill is well into being passed by the Senate.

We'll see what happens at the House.

Double Post:

Not Gonna happen. Anyone that can't prove they haven't been in the country since January 2006 are excluded from this bill. This is a very clear part of it.

Double Post:
I think everyone considers themselves to be realistis at everything, man.

The only reason I can think that people are so adamently opposed to free-border policies is that it would provide competition for the established majority, in our case it's Protestant Caucasians. I.e. I'm calling these people irrationally xenophobic.

They simply mask their irrationality behind law. They justify their misplaced aggression, and people go along with it.

A very similar provision was included in the 1986 amnesty. Look at how well that worked.

Photographs taken at Disneyworld.

It's been 20 years. Also, the burden of proof was left on the employer, which makes no sense since the employer WANTS the low-wage illegal immigrants.

Also, it will be far less cumbersome for people to come here now.

Double Post:
Pay stubs is what they have in mind. Also, as I understand it, only the head of the family needs to prove they've been in a steady job for however long, and the rest of the family can get the green crad (it may become "orange card" because of this bill).

Which only exacerbates the fucking problem, what the fuck?

I thought the non-extremists weren't against legal immigration?

It's not the legality that he has a problem with, it is that the law is on his side: The law makes it very fucking hard for immigrants of any kind to come to the US. He likes that. Guess why?

Also, America is with as good an economy as it has ever had. Dow Jones was like close to 12,000 the other day. That's crazy! The all-time high! To say that these immigrants have seriously hurt this economy is something that is hard to prove.

No need to guess, I'll tell you: The flow of immigration, regardless of country of orgin, needs to be strictly controlled so that it is easier to assimilate immigrants into American culture. Unrestricted immigration, which the pro-illegal immigration lobby wants, doesn't encourage assimilation. In fact, it discourages it.

And yet, you liberals will be the first to demand that corporations raise wages, or if they refuse to because of sound business reasons, get the government to use the force of arms to make them do so.

The entire reason why illegals come here to this country is to find work; the only reason they find work is because their illegal status compells them to work for far cheaper wages than any American would accept.

Not many illegals work under the table. The 1986 Immigration Legislation puts the burden of immigration control on the employers. So, employers are only allowed to hire people with social security cards.

A fake social security card costs $50 here in Boston. Most of my friends who are illegal immigrants have them. Since employers WANT illegal immigrants (they are very hard working, they do jobs Americans don't), no one ever checks the Social Security cards.

On the end, illegals can't file their taxes because of their fake numbers, and end up overpaying their taxes for not getting returns.

Double Post:
I was going for the clarity with which you dislike immigrants, illegal or otherwise.

But, whatever man.

Double Post:
By the way, S. 2611 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill) passed the Senate today with 62-36 votes.

Hooray.

I still don't buy this argument. In my country it is well known, and admitted that illegal immigrants work under the table. I find it hard to imagine that it's very different in the US. Your anecdotal evidence based on your friends' situation notwithstanding.

Night Phoenix, so would you preffer that immigration quotas remain as they have been, be reduced, or increased? I mean, what is the limit which should be placed on it? And is 'assimilation' all that important? Why? Not looking for a fight, just curious.

Because of the nature of the data there's no studies to show one way or another. However, from having spent a good part of my life around immigrant circles (and a great part of this circle is composed of illegal immigrants), I can safely say that at least in Boston the great majority of immigrants work with illegal Social Security cards.

For quite some time (2001-2004) people could pay a person in the Social Security office in Chicago a big sum (something like $5k) to have a REAL SSN assigned to them. This was worthwhile, though, because it gave people a shot at getting a legal driver's license, one of the biggest problems that Illegal immigrants face in the US.

I don't dislike immigrants, that's the thing. My girlfriend's family immigrated here from South Korea and most of them still speak more Korean than they do English.

Of course, I realize that sounds like a bigoted white person screaming "I'm not racist, I have two black friends!" but the fact remains - I don't have a dislike for immigrants because they're from another country. I do, however, have a dislike of people who come to this country with no intention of assimilating or learning the language. That's why I believe the flow must be strictly controlled - no more than maybe 100,000 a year total.

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong here, but that's just the way I look at it. To me, the entire point of immigration is to welcome new people to the country to be Americans. A lot of these people coming here illegally don't want to be American; they want to be Mexicans who reap the benefits of American money. This is why you saw so many during those initital protests waving Mexican flags, chanting about how the land from Texas to California truly belonged to them (it was 'stolen' from them, so to speak). These people, in my view, don't want to join and contribute to American society: they want to fragment it. These aren't the kind of people you want as citizens.

But, didn't like, everyone come to America pretty much for the sole reason of reaping the benifits/leaving the poorer conditions of their country? I imagine that immigrants for the most part will be asimilated in the coming generations, without the original immigrants having to even make that effort. Their kids will be more Americanized, and their grand children will likely be the same as everyone else.

I'm still very curious as to why the asimilation is important though. If they are working and contributing etc. then what difference does it make if they speak a different language, or retain different cultural manerisms/habbits?

Because the point is to integrate them as part of a greater whole. Yes, in America we value the individual, but at the same time, there must be some kind of unifying element - it's what makes a country a country.

In most countries that is a common language (which in America, would be English) and a common culture. These illegals flooding over the border share neither with the rest of the population, creating division.

You're assuming that every immigrant or person that comes here is going to stay here. Or even wants to stay here.

If you think that they're only here to send money back to their families they'll leave the moment economic conditions are not favorable. Nor do they probably want to be seperated from their families.

There is. Everyone that has come here has wanted a better life for themselves. They were fleeing persecution, famines, or just looking for a new start. Americans have been endowed with a sense of idealistic optimism. If that's not a unifying force, then I don't know what is.

Only a xenophobe would care about such 'barriers' as language or culture. We're supposively a melting pot remember? Diversity is a strength, not a weakness.

Ever been to New York? Know how many languages are spoken on the streets? Does that make it any more likely that New York City is going to fragment on ethnic lines like Yugoslavia? I doubt it. It's diversity is one of it's many alluring factors. Least' that's what I think given New York was chosen as the HQ of the United Nations, and is foremost in it's supremacy as a center for international finance.

How exactly are open borders supposed to make the U.S. more secure?

Since when were flowery slogans part of debate?

I don't see any problem with requiring immigrants to learn the language of the country they're immigrating to. English has been the de facto official language of the States since it was established, with English today being spoken as a first language by some 225 + million residents. And having an official language is important because it encourages national unity. When you have two official languages, or one side refusing to speak the dominant language, it fosters this "us vs. them" mentality that splits nations apart. Since the very word nation implies cohesion, it's in the best interests of the nation and everyone involved that immigrants be required to learn the language of the country they're entering.