Agree or Disagree with this legislation?

Immigration and our Borders Forum

I want to know what most of you think of this legislation on illegal immigration and our border security.

Do you agree or disagree with what is proposed in the Senate regarding this issue?

In my opinion, I agree with the bill. I think it is about time we upheld our immigration laws and got stricter on these immigrants if they are to stay here.

I do not, however, think that they should all go back. They are vital to our economy, but they should follow our laws.

What do you think?

I don't know of any other country in the world that accomodates illegal immigrants except ours. Here's what Chinese officials do with illegal immigrants in there country:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news_images/2005-10-6-rest.jpg
The man in this picture is a North Korean illegal immigrant

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/east/10/01/falun.gong.arrests/story.falun.gong.ap.jpg
In Hong Kong

These are some of the photos I can find.

Too bad we can't outsource our border security to the Chinese. I guess it's just one of those jobs Americans won't do.

If the border security and mindset some of you possess had existed in 1492 I guess we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we?

hazel,

I think we are in agreement on what we would prefer, but we are talking about different bills. I am not sure of all of the mechanics of how this is moving through Congress, but it started with a very strict bill which would have turned all existing illegal aliens into felons and demanded their prosecution and deportation.

But that bill was killed and replaced by the McCain-Kennedy bill, which not only amounts to amnesty, but also creates a huge incentive for more immigration. About 70% of the American people are against this approach. Congress heard from enough of those 70% to get cold feet and the bill died last Friday. The whole issue will be taken up again when Congress gets back into session in a couple weeks. Meanwhile, they are home getting an earful from their constituents.

The whole reason for this Anti-Immigrant hysteria is that Mexicans the wrong color (non-white). If the Irish, Danish, Swedes & the like were coming here in droves again (like they used to) you so-called "Americans" would welcome them with open arms. The only people that were brought here against their will are the blacks (like myself) and whites don't include us in the term "American". In other words "American"="white".
But the only true Americans are the "indians" whom this land was stolen from.

Will Congress resume work on an immigration bill as soon as it returns from recess or is the matter dead for some extended period of time? If the issue is immediately taken back up, will there be new demonstrations? I am wondering what the likelihood is of a series of say a half dozen consecutive demonstrations, maybe a week apart.

Bush is sure getting blindsided in this immigration issue. First he gets out in front as the main sponsor by promoting his “guest worker” program, much to the chagrin of his conservative base. Then he gets rolled by the Democrats who commandeer the cause as their own, and paint Bush as anti-immigrant.

With the pro-immigration demonstration in the background, CBS showed a poll in which 74% of Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling of the immigration issue. The clear implication is that those 74% agree with the demonstrators in the background and oppose Bush because he is conservative, and naturally against liberalizing the immigration laws. However, the actual truth of the matter is diametrically opposite.

The truth is that Bush, who is a close friend of Mexican President Fox, has been leading the charge for amnesty in the form of a so called “guest worker” program. The truth is that the 74% who disapprove of Bush’s handling of the immigration issue are expressing their disapproval of the demonstrators and Bush because they are both in favor of amnesty. So here is CBS killing two birds with one stone. In the same report, they falsely paint the majority of the American people as being in favor of amnesty by falsely painting Bush as anti-immigrant. It’s another fine example of CBS media left wing bias, but you have to be pretty quick to catch it.

Quick to catch it, or do you have to twist and contort it to suit your agenda? Any thinking person knows that the 74% disapproval didn't mean they supported the demonstrators, and that was clear if you listened to any of the debates about the issue.

People that are so intent on saying the media is biased usually have to break their back to show how the evil left wig media bias destroying us all!

There seem to be two basic approaches to the immigration issue:

1) Enforce the border; even build a wall if necessary. Permit legal immigration in a controlled setting. Consider some experimental, limited version of a guest worker program with fully enforced regulations and controls. Come up with a solution to the illegals already here, including deportation.

2) Create a fast track to the legalization of all currently illegal immigrants. Relax the current border laws, and encourage immigration from all Latin American countries under the general banner of open, free trade of goods and labor.


The majority of the U.S. citizens prefer option #1, however, Bush and the people demonstrating in the streets prefer option #2. So it is easy to see why CBS would say that 74% of the American people don’t like the way that Bush is handling immigration. It's a true fact.

But why would they also say that the majority of Americans want some kind of amnesty program? It is true that amnesty is a part of option #1, which the majority prefers, so maybe the CBS poll refers to option #1, which would be consistent with placing the majority of those polled in disagreement with Bush. But amnesty is a very small and tentative part of option #1, whereas it is the veritable centerpiece of option #2.

Clearly, CBS wanted to say that Bush did not have the support of the American people, but at the same time, CBS did not want to say that Americans were against illegal immigration.

You said: "CBS showed a poll in which 74% of Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling of the immigration issue." You then said "70% are for amnesty," those two polls aren't opposite.

The problem here is your bias, not the polls.

The only person saying Bush is pro-amnesty is you. You seem to believe that whatever your view is, it's a fact. This isn't about ambiguity, this is about you wanting to define the terms so that you can call CBS biased.

No wonder it makes no sense, where do you get your facts from?

CBS: Views on Immigration (4/6/2006 - 4/9/2006)

Most Americans – 74% - think illegal immigrants in the U.S. should be able stay and work in this country if the following criteria are met: they pay a fine, they’ve been in the U.S. for at least five years, paid any back taxes owed, can speak English, and have no criminal record. Those criteria match those in the Senate compromise bill that was shelved last week.

FAVOR ALLOWING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO STAY AND WORK IN THE U.S. IF CERTAIN CRITERIA ARE MET?
Favor - 74%
Oppose - 23%

FAVOR ALLOWING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO APPLY FOR WORK PERMITS?
Favor - 49%
Oppose - 43%

When asked the question with no specific criteria, about half still favor allowing illegal immigrants to apply for work permits, while 43% oppose the idea. Republican and Democrats favor allowing this in both circumstances, while Americans living in the Midwest give it less support in principle than other Americans.

IMMIGRATION AND POLITICS
President George W. Bush receives low ratings for his handling of the overall issue of immigration. Only 26% of Americans approve of his handling of it, while 53% disapprove. 21% are not sure. His approval ratings on the economy, Iraq and terrorism are higher.

PRESIDENT BUSH’S HANDLING OF IMMIGRATION
Now
Approve - 26%
Disapprove - 53%
Don't know - 21%

10/2005
Approve - 21%
Disapprove - 53%
Don’t know - 26%

Even some members of the President’s political base do not approve of the job he is doing on immigration. 44% of conservatives disapprove of his handling of the issue; and while 42% of Republicans approve, almost as many - 41% - disapprove.


Like I said, you inject bias into your diatribe against the "liberal media," but you don't even havethe facts straight. You have essentially the same number of people that approve/disapprove/don't know. The president has actually gained support.

I don't even know what you're trying to say, but okay.

Euclid, I can see that you are a two dimensional type of person who thinks people are either for one thing or for the opposite. Most people don't let the media or the government control what they think or let survey questions define the depth of an issue.
It is not necessary to believe businesses lie. Surveys and polls essentially tell nothing about how people feel about an issue. They are useful in catagorizing information in a format that can be summed up on a daily changing basis to write a short column about which sells advertising.
I am one for amnesty and against Bush's handling of this issue. That Bush and Congress made illegal immigration and terrorism a race issue is not acceptable to me as a native american. When people complain about mexicans taking jobs I know it is the brown skinned ones, those with native blood that are being identified. It is not the pure spanish blood mexicans who stand out. It is not the European or Canadian illegal aliens being debated. Tying immigration changes to Mexican border patrol identifies specifically who Congress and Bush want to keep out of the United States, and that is non-whites. It is easy to say that the illegal immigrants from Mexico are the most numerous. They are the only ones anyone pays attention to and count.
I know that foster homes are scarce already and I know that illegal alien families usually each have one or two citizen children. Proposing to arrest or deport millions of individuals will create a tremendous burden of millions of US citizen children having to go into foster care and be raised by the government. These children are not Mexican citizens. They were born here. Because of the current lack of foster homes there are already children living in situations they shouldn't continue to be exposed to. Adding millions of government created orphans will only hurt more children. This is the issue being decided even if no one is debating it.
We already know Mexico doesn't want millions of US citizen children illegally immigrating to their country with their Mexican parents. Why should they raise these children and have them using their inadequate resources? The House seems arrogant enough to think they can force Mexico to raise these US citizens. Or more likely House members did not think at all. This is why amnesty for illegal immigrants with citizen children is the alternative to splitting up families. Even if the government was willing to pay to raise all these children after shipping their parents to Mexico, there are not foster homes to handle them. Proposing laws that cannot possibly be rationally enforced may be politics but it is not how a country should be run. Our representatives should have to explain how their laws will work in the real world before passing them on to the Senate.

But...but...but, whisperpoint, the President has his own amnesty program and you oppose it? Doesn't that mean you don't want people to have amnesty.

Thank you for pointing out that the president's guest worker program is not accepted by a sizable number of people. As Bill Maher pointed out so succinctly, it's the equivalent of someone saying, "Welcome to my house, now go clean the toilet." Under the guest worker program, it is my understanding that there is no path to citizenship for the 12 million people already here, that's why people don't consider it amnesty, as it isn't.

The Bush plan and the Senate plan are not the same plan.

I do believe that people have the right to live anywhere they so please. But there has to be rules set in place. You cannot just come to America and start changing things, our children having to learn spanish, spanish televison and what not. I mean if they want to embrace their culture so bad then stay in Mexico. Don't make the U.S like from where you've come. You must assimilate to make it here, not the opposite.
If I were to move to France i cannot expect the French gov't or any gov't to accomdate me so that I do not have to live my life as they do. To me they are coming here making demands. They want us to change our laws for them. It doesn't work that way. If you don't like the way we do things than you can leave. Especially if you are illegal. Illegal is illegal. And i'm here to tell you, as a Texan, it's looking like little Mexico down here. If Mexico is so grand that you have to bring it with you why not stay. You can't have Mexico and our U.S of A. It doesn't work that way. And the law need to be changed on just because you're born on US soil you are a US citizen. Only in America does that law apply. It's crazy.

But if you come to this country legally and do all that is asked of you to become a citizen well WELCOME to you. But those demanding we change our ways it just too much. You are now in OUR country. Our rules.