ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Two Cents on Illegal Immigration.

  1. #1
    SOURCE: http://www.shaunkenney.com/2005/11/
    two-cents-on-illegal-immigration.htm


    Two Cents on Illegal Immigration,
    by Shaun Kenney

    I've been reading with interest the conversation over at Bacon's Rebellion regarding Jim's post on illegal immigration. Agreed, most of the response thus far to Jim's thoughtful invitation to debate and discussion has been both political and irrational.

    This having been said, I am going to offer a conservative response to why Speaker Howell's proposed initiative to combat illegal immigration is counterproductive, not to mention that it shows some very disconcerting flaws.

    For starters, we have to ask the question whether or not we are truly acting, or whether we are simply reacting towards a problem. Illegal immigration is nothing that the Commonwealth of Virginia can tackle on it's own. The problem of illegal immigration is correctly framed as a federal problem. Unless Virginia intends to put up fences and post guards along our own borders, we have no choice but to deal with the problem constructively.

    This begs yet another question. Will these policies of shooing out illegal immigrants of workhouses, denying them in-state tuition, sanctioning businesses who hire illegal immigrants, etc. cure the problem? Or are we yet again treating the symptoms? By imposing these regulations, we fail to ask the immortal question: Quo vadis?

    What then will Virginia's illegal immigrants do? Will they work? Will they stay at home? How will they earn a living? Even if Virginia were to actively enforce the plank of Speaker Howell's initiative where state police could detain and remove illegal immigrants charged with a crime (loitering?), where will they go? When will they come back?

    We can all see where this leads. Virginia, much like Arizona or Texas, will embark on a plan that is tantamount to a revolving door policy.

    But let's stop for just a moment and reflect on what we're really saying here. Check off the arguments Howell makes against illegal immigrants. Why should we shoo them off? Why, the reason they must go is because (apart from the fact they are illegally here, a federal problem) they impose upon our social safety net! As Jim Bacon comments :

    [I]llegal immigration is a unavoidably a state/local problem when illegal immigrants apply for food stamps, seek medical care and attend overcrowded, fiscally stressed schools. These problems cannot be fobbed onto the federal government. The problems are inherently local, and they're real.

    Do we hear that? Republicans. Arguing that people should be shooed off because they are adversely impacting our socialized safety net of food stamps, medical care, and public schools.

    Does anyone else see the problem here?

    Let's be brutally honest. The reason why these programs are failing isn't because of the impact of illegal immigration. They're failing because they are traditionally societal roles that are being hijacked by a government bent on stressing socialism rather than individualism.

    To fork over the failure of these institutions upon a convenient class of people isn't exactly what I would call just, though it certainly is a predictable repetition of history with respects to human nature.

    Setting aside the contradiction conservatives offer defending liberally-imposed social agendas, what we have here is an appeal to that old American fear of "the other". That when something doesn't go well, we find some group of people to blame. At first it was the British, then the French, then Indians, next the Irish, extending to Catholics, then to Slavs, then to African-Americans, and currently with anyone of Arab descent. History does indeed repeat.

    Now in an age where our open borders and socialized government system have been under threat, we are presented with illegal immigration. And it's not a stretch to say that when people speak of "illegal immigration," it's shorthand for Latin Americans crossing the Mexican border, and not grandma from the Ukraine stuffed into a duffle bag on the next Delta flight.

    Here is where the rubber meets the road. Conservativism in my mind (and a slight deviation from the definition Ken Cuccinelli gave this morning) operates on the principles of free markets, free people, and a free society. That comes with a price tag, starting with the rules necessary to make socieities free.

    If the concerns from the Howell bench stem from the impact illegal aliens have on our social programs, then what precisely is the problem then? As a conservative, I might suggest that the problem isn't so much the presence of illegal immigrants per se, but rather the presence of government, a presence conservatives are supposed to be fighting against.

    Seeing this, let's argue in hypotheticals. If the social programs these illegal aliens are supposedly straining to the breaking point ceased to exist tomorrow, would the opposition be so strong?

    Now one might argue yes, and I'll offer two generalized scenarios:

    (1) Yes Shaun, they should still be removed because they are here in the United States illegally.

    Then remove them, as is the federal governments responsibility to do so.

    (2) Yes Shaun, they should still be removed because they are filthy Mexicans.

    Then I say you're a racist, and deserve to be beaten to a **** pulp.

    So the argument boils down accordingly. The argument against illegal immigration is either (1) a decision policy makers in Washington - not Richmond - need to develop and enforce, or (2) one motivated purely on the fear of "the other" and based on race. Propping up decaying social programs and using illegal immigrants as the scapegoat is only making a bad situation terribly worse.

    Yes, those who want to come and be American citizens should go through the process as law-abiding citizens, and no, I am not arguing for amnesty for illegal immigrants or condoning the practice. But the market has provided a makeshift solution that should not be ignored.

    Local and state governments are doing what they can to help, but private solutions (businesses hiring undocumented workers, workhouses offering employment to otherwise idle and listless workers, opportunities for bettering one's station through education) are already being implemented.

    Society adapted to fix problems imposed upon us by the federal government's ineptitude. Fixing federal problems at the state level is like swirling a stick in the a muddy stream and expecting the water to clear up. It doesn't work that way.

    What's the alternative if the federal government will not exercise it's responsibility? I don't have that answer. But I do know that "cracking down" on illegal immigrants, as a state issue, is either poorly though out or diabolically motivated by racist hate.

    Which one it might be, I'll allow the gentle reader to decide. But let us not confuse reaction to a problem with true and constructive action.

  2. #2
    SOURCE: http://www.shaunkenney.com/2005/11/
    two-cents-on-illegal-immigration.htm


    Two Cents on Illegal Immigration,
    by Shaun Kenney

    I've been reading with interest the conversation over at Bacon's Rebellion regarding Jim's post on illegal immigration. Agreed, most of the response thus far to Jim's thoughtful invitation to debate and discussion has been both political and irrational.

    This having been said, I am going to offer a conservative response to why Speaker Howell's proposed initiative to combat illegal immigration is counterproductive, not to mention that it shows some very disconcerting flaws.

    For starters, we have to ask the question whether or not we are truly acting, or whether we are simply reacting towards a problem. Illegal immigration is nothing that the Commonwealth of Virginia can tackle on it's own. The problem of illegal immigration is correctly framed as a federal problem. Unless Virginia intends to put up fences and post guards along our own borders, we have no choice but to deal with the problem constructively.

    This begs yet another question. Will these policies of shooing out illegal immigrants of workhouses, denying them in-state tuition, sanctioning businesses who hire illegal immigrants, etc. cure the problem? Or are we yet again treating the symptoms? By imposing these regulations, we fail to ask the immortal question: Quo vadis?

    What then will Virginia's illegal immigrants do? Will they work? Will they stay at home? How will they earn a living? Even if Virginia were to actively enforce the plank of Speaker Howell's initiative where state police could detain and remove illegal immigrants charged with a crime (loitering?), where will they go? When will they come back?

    We can all see where this leads. Virginia, much like Arizona or Texas, will embark on a plan that is tantamount to a revolving door policy.

    But let's stop for just a moment and reflect on what we're really saying here. Check off the arguments Howell makes against illegal immigrants. Why should we shoo them off? Why, the reason they must go is because (apart from the fact they are illegally here, a federal problem) they impose upon our social safety net! As Jim Bacon comments :

    [I]llegal immigration is a unavoidably a state/local problem when illegal immigrants apply for food stamps, seek medical care and attend overcrowded, fiscally stressed schools. These problems cannot be fobbed onto the federal government. The problems are inherently local, and they're real.

    Do we hear that? Republicans. Arguing that people should be shooed off because they are adversely impacting our socialized safety net of food stamps, medical care, and public schools.

    Does anyone else see the problem here?

    Let's be brutally honest. The reason why these programs are failing isn't because of the impact of illegal immigration. They're failing because they are traditionally societal roles that are being hijacked by a government bent on stressing socialism rather than individualism.

    To fork over the failure of these institutions upon a convenient class of people isn't exactly what I would call just, though it certainly is a predictable repetition of history with respects to human nature.

    Setting aside the contradiction conservatives offer defending liberally-imposed social agendas, what we have here is an appeal to that old American fear of "the other". That when something doesn't go well, we find some group of people to blame. At first it was the British, then the French, then Indians, next the Irish, extending to Catholics, then to Slavs, then to African-Americans, and currently with anyone of Arab descent. History does indeed repeat.

    Now in an age where our open borders and socialized government system have been under threat, we are presented with illegal immigration. And it's not a stretch to say that when people speak of "illegal immigration," it's shorthand for Latin Americans crossing the Mexican border, and not grandma from the Ukraine stuffed into a duffle bag on the next Delta flight.

    Here is where the rubber meets the road. Conservativism in my mind (and a slight deviation from the definition Ken Cuccinelli gave this morning) operates on the principles of free markets, free people, and a free society. That comes with a price tag, starting with the rules necessary to make socieities free.

    If the concerns from the Howell bench stem from the impact illegal aliens have on our social programs, then what precisely is the problem then? As a conservative, I might suggest that the problem isn't so much the presence of illegal immigrants per se, but rather the presence of government, a presence conservatives are supposed to be fighting against.

    Seeing this, let's argue in hypotheticals. If the social programs these illegal aliens are supposedly straining to the breaking point ceased to exist tomorrow, would the opposition be so strong?

    Now one might argue yes, and I'll offer two generalized scenarios:

    (1) Yes Shaun, they should still be removed because they are here in the United States illegally.

    Then remove them, as is the federal governments responsibility to do so.

    (2) Yes Shaun, they should still be removed because they are filthy Mexicans.

    Then I say you're a racist, and deserve to be beaten to a **** pulp.

    So the argument boils down accordingly. The argument against illegal immigration is either (1) a decision policy makers in Washington - not Richmond - need to develop and enforce, or (2) one motivated purely on the fear of "the other" and based on race. Propping up decaying social programs and using illegal immigrants as the scapegoat is only making a bad situation terribly worse.

    Yes, those who want to come and be American citizens should go through the process as law-abiding citizens, and no, I am not arguing for amnesty for illegal immigrants or condoning the practice. But the market has provided a makeshift solution that should not be ignored.

    Local and state governments are doing what they can to help, but private solutions (businesses hiring undocumented workers, workhouses offering employment to otherwise idle and listless workers, opportunities for bettering one's station through education) are already being implemented.

    Society adapted to fix problems imposed upon us by the federal government's ineptitude. Fixing federal problems at the state level is like swirling a stick in the a muddy stream and expecting the water to clear up. It doesn't work that way.

    What's the alternative if the federal government will not exercise it's responsibility? I don't have that answer. But I do know that "cracking down" on illegal immigrants, as a state issue, is either poorly though out or diabolically motivated by racist hate.

    Which one it might be, I'll allow the gentle reader to decide. But let us not confuse reaction to a problem with true and constructive action.

  3. #3

  4. #4
    ImmortalE: Why did you spend your whole day's pay on this dumb article?

  5. #5
    Can someone sum up ImmortalE's viewpoint. I have yet to read one of her thesis and really never have no intention of either.

  6. #6
    Simple.
    USA must be fair. Either deport all illegals without exclusion or allows every single illegals to plead their case before the legal system, regardless of how one become illegals in the 1st place.

  7. #7
    Since when did those who disregard our sovereignty and routinely break our laws earn the right to "fairness" from America...the country for which they show no respect?

  8. #8
    I'm sure E will showed up to answer that question sooner or later. My guess he'll start spewing stuff about constitution and fairness, etc.

  9. #9
    Simple.
    USA must be fair. Either deport all illegals without exclusion or allows every single illegals to plead their case before the legal system, regardless of how one become illegals in the 1st place.
    marmaduk, why you speak on my behalf and spread misinformation?
    First, US should be fair, and it is not what I say but what US Constitution implies, which is BTW the highest LAW of the land.
    Aren't you the one who always claim to bash illegals for violating the LAW?
    Isn't it then a bit HYPOCRITICAL of you to state sarcastically "My guess he'll start spewing stuff about constitution and fairness, etc."?
    Second, I neither support deportation of every single illegal alien (some are USC family members, others are brought here as children, like German kid discussed on other thread), nor do I support full amnesty.
    And you know it well, since you had speciphically asked me about my views and I answered you clearly.

    Finally, why are you screwing this thread , which, MIND YOU, is a copy-paste of article about Illegal Immigration written by Republican blogger from State of Virginia?

    Well, I guess it brings us back to what we knew all along:
    marmaduk is Hypocrite and Demagogue, who can't ever argue his/her points on merits, but must always resort to falsification of facts to support his/her extremely biased point of view.

  10. #10
    screwing thread? Sug asked, I answered imho. If you disagree, feel free to debate, which what u're doing right now

    afterall, who's the one with the multiple userid with tendency to spread lies and destroy thread and the board ?

Similar Threads

  1. Illegal Immigration Okay for Me, Not for You.......
    By BoardWizard in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-26-2011, 07:14 AM
  2. Illegal Immigration
    By Barron in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-05-2008, 12:39 PM
  3. Illegal Immigration
    By inspector45 in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-27-2006, 06:03 AM
  4. COST OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
    By LieMaster in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-26-2006, 07:23 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: