'Shame on us' for not passing immigration reform, Graham says

[Fishrrman]

Luis asks:
[[ So, they'll stay and not become citizens.
What did you accomplish? ]]

OK, I'll answer.

What we'll "accomplish" is that by preventing them from becoming citizens we can prevent them from having a voice in the political process: i.e., the vote.

This is the penalty they must pay -- that they forever remain "non-citizens", even if they remain here.

I know that their children born here will have birthright citizenship and the right to vote, someday.

But "the sins of the fathers" must NOT be forgiven...

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis asks:
[[ So, they'll stay and not become citizens.
What did you accomplish? ]]

OK, I'll answer.

What we'll "accomplish" is that by preventing them from becoming citizens we can prevent them from having a voice in the political process: i.e., the vote.

This is the penalty they must pay -- that they forever remain "non-citizens", even if they remain here.

I know that their children born here will have birthright citizenship and the right to vote, someday.

But "the sins of the fathers" must NOT be forgiven...

That's an assumption.

We as a nation support the idea of universal suffrage, and were founded on the opposition to taxation without representation.

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote." - Bush v. Gore, 31 U.S. 98 (2000)

If there is no right to vote, then voting is not limited to just citizens because voting then can only be a privilege granted by the government.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Because doing anything other than what I have suggested sends a BIG message to all those around the world who are doing everything they can to come here legally!

What I have suggested is the only truly fair thing to do!

Here comes the sloganeering.  Life isn't fair.  It's not fair that children were brought here or born here by illegal parents. 

What is the SMART thing to do?  20? MILLION people are living here illegally.  Many of them have American children going to our schools.  Many of them are the workers that keep job creating and tax generating businesses alive.

If we want illegals out of the country we must replace those workers or pay the consequences when the economy collapses.  Replacing those workers can be accomplished with American babies or a huge expansion of legal immigration. 

Some would point out there are millions of unemployed Americans, but if those people were physically qualified and willing to do farm work, lawn care, automotive, or fast food they would not have gotten a degree they can't pay off because there are no jobs for educated workers.

Some of those unemployed Americans will not work because they are collecting a welfare, disability, social security, or unemployment check, those wealth transfers must be removed to coax these people to work.

Since Americans are not breeding at sustainable rates that leaves opening the flood gates to other immigrants.  Personally I'd rather keep the illegal who has been working in the US for 20 years , but as you point out that wouldn't be fair to all those wanna be immigrant who are too lazy to sneak in.

Want to eliminate businesses using illegals...make legal immigration easy and cheap.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Every time a district attorney agrees to lower charges for a variety of reasons, it sends a message to the victims and their families.  Yet it's done 95% of the time.  We shouldn't have let these illegals in the Country in the first place.  But we did, and many of them stayed, and worked here.  Why is this any different? 

And what message was sent every time we invaded and settled Indian lands here?  We might have made some movies about it in Hollywood reflecting how bad it was...but none of us are talking about giving any of it back to them, at least not me!

Really great analogies.  I'm stealing them.

[MACVSOG68]

Really great analogies.  I'm stealing them.

 ^-^

[massadvj]

Unfortunately they pretty much do that today....

No, they don't.  That's the point.  Our authorities have no way to identify the security threats because they are too busy trying to regulate the labor market.

It's another one of those cases in which a few laws vigorously enforced makes for a better system than a crapload of laws, few of which are enforced.

[MACVSOG68]

No, they don't.  That's the point.  Our authorities have no way to identify the security threats because they are too busy trying to regulate the labor market.

It's another one of those cases in which a few laws vigorously enforced makes for a better system than a crapload of laws, few of which are enforced.

Leaving everything past the first clause of my response requires me to repeat it.  Open borders don't just invite workers into the Country.  They also invite drug smugglers, human traffickers, gang bangers, terrorists and every other kind of evil-doer.  You simply cannot defend the Country without controlling the borders.  Do we only defend against uniformed armies?  What do we do with all of those workers and their families and friends if they cannot secure employment?  Do we let them starve?  Do we allow them to destroy an already damaged emergency health system?

If you're suggesting that the labor market isn't working so well today, I'd agree.  Unfortunately though it may be closer to 1792 France than we are to successful laissez-faire libertarianism.

[Oceander]

*  *  *

And what message was sent every time we invaded and settled Indian lands here?  We might have made some movies about it in Hollywood reflecting how bad it was...but none of us are talking about giving any of it back to them, at least not me!

Interestingly enough, that precise issue came up in Australia when the aboriginal tribes started demanding return of land in Australia.

[MACVSOG68]

Interestingly enough, that precise issue came up in Australia when the aboriginal tribes started demanding return of land in Australia.

True, and even in Hawaii, some lands can only be purchased by someone with native Hawaiian blood.