No Longer 'ILLEGAL' ??

Multi-American : 'Out of status?' Rep. John Conyers on what to call undocumented immigrants in U.S. (Video) | 89.3 KPCC

What an idiot.

It's a pretty dopey gambit.

That said, I think we should give amnesty to the vast majority of people who are here illegally, and basically have an open door policy for people who aren't an obvious security and/or criminal risk.

Immigrants are a good thing.

Since they ARE illegal, I don't want to give any of the 11 million plus the right to vote. That is the price for being illegal. Those who went through the system legally can vote. If the Democrats won't go for it, it suggests they were doing this to get their votes.

I'm more concerned with justice than with what's legal.

I have no interest in punishing someone for doing something which should have been legal in the first place.

How do idiots like this get elected ?

Oh, wait, I get it. By illegal immigrants. Nevermind.

-t

Meh.

His district has a minuscule amount of illegal immigrants. I wish more representatives went to bat for people who aren't their constituents.

Using the term "illegal" has always been an intentional use of a pejorative that was technically incorrect. "Illegal" means violating a law, almost always a "criminal" law. Immigration law is "civil" law; coming into the U.S. without permission violates regulations and can result in civil penalties (including deportation), but it does not violate a criminal statute. In other words, it's not the same kind of act as stealing someone or beating someone. I find it rather interesting that the people who appear to have first used the term "illegal alien" were legislators who should know very well the difference between civil and criminal law...

Conyers is just acting as point man for a Republican effort to stop sounding like jerks when it comes to immigration. They have a long tough road ahead on this task, because they've worked hard at BEING jerks on the issue.

We have a "War on Terror". They invaded our soil ILLEGALLY.
They were horrible citizens in their own country, do you think they will somehow become model citizens in the USA?
They had no respect for our laws, so why should we have them as citizens?

How do you know they were "horrible citizens"?

There are plenty of laws I have zero respect for.


Note to Glenn: Conyers is a Democrat.

Really ?

You think the current problem with US politicians is that they care TOO MUCH about their OWN constituents ?

You really think stuff will get BETTER if they care more about OTHER constituents ?

-t

The problem is, amnesty to all the non-legal immigrants in the US kind of shits all over the thousands of people who are desperate to immigrate to the United States but don't have the luxury of sharing a border with us.

I've personally known immigrants on both sides. I was friends with a really nice girl from South Korea when I lived in Indianapolis. She had moved here with four other girls, and each of them spent thousands and thousands of dollars and several years of bureaucracy and waiting in order to come to the United States. It was the only option she had for coming here. She couldn't just pay someone to help her cross a border.

On the other hand, I'm also friends with a really good guy from Mexico who came here illegally. He paid a guy around three grand and literally hung off the side of a boat, underwater, to cross the border. He spent the night under a dock in freezing water and then had to walk like thirty miles to get to his sister's house. He ended up going back to Mexico to stay with his family for awhile, which was a huge effing mistake, now that there's an amnesty program in the works. He also can't get back illegally - the price has skyrocketed because of the extreme violence that has been increasing in Mexico, and he can't afford it anymore.

There are plenty of illegal immigrants in the US who are worth keeping. But what do we say to all the people elsewhere on the planet who want to come live here? I'm not saying that we should just deport all the Mexicans living in the US illegally, but I don't know that blanket amnesty is the answer, either.

The problem with making it too easy to immigrate to the US is that we'd have an influx of new residents that we don't have the resources to support. Throwing open the door and allowing every person on Earth who wants to come here arrive without any limit would put some serious strain on the country.

It's also worth pointing out, I think, that immigrants from countries other than Mexico have a significantly easier time getting here legally. There are so many people from Mexico trying to get to the US that the government has opted to impose special restrictions on that country. I don't really agree with that at all - there's a happy medium between banning any Mexican who can't justify their presence in the US, and allowing every single person to cross the border en masse.

That may be the case for politicians who popularized the term, but I've always used it - and interpreted it - to simply mean "not legal", especially in this context. A legal immigrant is one who went through the appropriate channels - in their own country as well as the US - to arrive here. An illegal immigrant is one who did not.

Control the language and you can control the discourse, or something like that. Illegal means just that - they are breaking a law by being here. It's real simple.

SOME immigrants are a good thing, others don't need to be here. When I look at the police blotter in the local newspaper and 3/4 of the crimes are committed by "undocumented persons" then I wonder if there's a problem.

Other immigrants who don't need to be here are the "Reconquista" bunch, who persist in wanting to turn this into Mexico. Many of them have probably never seen the squalor of Mexico. We've had these folks get pretty militant here in Texas.

If people are willing to assimilate rather than wait for everyone else to cater to them, then they're welcome here. If they are willing to contribute more than they use in social and law enforcement services, then they're welcome here. A "path to citizenship" already exists.

Another consideration: why should it be easier for those who get amnesty to sponsor relatives to come here? Shouldn't there be some kind of support requirement - can they just bring family here and stick them in Medicaid and other social service systems immediately? Students who come to this country are required to demonstrate that they have health coverage and can support themselves - why should it be different for sponsored immigrants?

Agreed. We have an immigration system, but it moves at a glacial pace (when viewed in real time), and some people want to improve their family's lot right now. They aren't coming here to hurt the USA, there's no malicious intent. They only want a better life, and the overwhelming majority are willing to bust their asses in crappy jobs to make that happen. If we still had an Ellis Island type setup (with better conditions), they'd gladly use it, but we don't. Streamlining the process, which is now possible with our current tech, would pay dividends in; happier migrants, improved revenue collection, and a more substantive feeling of national pride (which brings about more seamless integration). If we work to include and embrace them, treating them as guests and valued neighbors, we'd find them to possess the same grit and ingenuity of our ancestors. That infusion would energize this country and make it more fruitful, in contrast to the alienation and distrust they (for the most part unjustly) foster now.

It's a classic story, my grandfather immigrated here from Cuba (through NYC) when Castro came into power, with his family and the equivalent of $20 in his pocket. When he passed away a few years ago he was worth >$40M and employed more than 500 people in south Florida. His most prized possession was his certificate of citizenship, that now hangs on my wall, and he was openly proud to be an American. Patriotic, almost to a fault. We need more people like him in this country.

And yet there coming here is harming the country.

The process doesn't take a long time because of bureaucratic delays, I takes a long time because the are limits on how many people can immigrate and the line is long. These people are line jumpers. There are allot more legal immigrants into the US now per year than passed through Ellis Island.

And what happens when so many low-income immigrants come to the US that there are no more crappy jobs left? Then we have a huge draw on the country's social welfare programs, especially considering that many of these families have multiple children (remember, Catholicism prohibits birth control - and the ones that aren't Catholic generally can't afford it, either) that become the state's responsibility when the parents can't find work.

Your heart is in the right place. I want to help bring more people into the United States, too. It's painful to hear about the atrocities happening daily in Mexico. Even so, there has to be a balance with how the US handles policies regulating Mexican immigration. It's not as simple as just opening the floodgates to everyone who WANTS to contribute to society.

"Open door" was a little hyperbolic, but our system is so ****ed up, anything sane seems like a relatively open door.

Lets say we allow a Mexico quota of a half-million/year.

Right now we have about a half-million/year crossing the border illegally.

I'm not seeing a massive change in the resource drain profile.

Not sure the solution is to shit on people who do share a border.

Replace the phrase "care too much about" with "pander to".

The quota from mexico is already 250k you want to increase it to 500k or 750k?

How long is that line backed up?

The country is harming itself. We leave the kitchen door wide open and then complain that the neighbors are coming in and eating our food. Either bar the door or invite them in, it's common sense. Throwing them out, just so they can walk back in later that night, is asinine and a waste of resources.

Our limits are what we set, we have the tech to check backgrounds internationally. There are good birth records in Latin America now. Set some bright minds to working on a fast-track system and they'd come up with something, what we have now is bullshit. It's like "fixing" a busted dam with a bucket brigade.

These sorts of immigration stories about people seeking better lives are common, but there are also a whole bunch of less sexy sorts of stories: falling love abroad and wanting to marry, wanting to immigrate here after a temporary work or student VISA, wanting to be close to family, etc. It's a long and expensive process on all counts.

If one of your wives lived in Canada and you just discovered that a parent was terminally ill and wanted to move there to be closer, your story is much different than the picture you've painted above.

My point is that immigrants are not homogenous, their paths to legal residency are not homogenous, and these contexts are not homogenous either. I grow impatient about people barking at others for not "becoming a citizen properly", especially when they don't understand that legal residency doesn't require becoming a citizen.

I'm not suggesting you are stating otherwise, just adding to all of this with supplementary stuff.

What does this concept of assimilation mean to you?

I think what you mean is "comply by our laws".

My wife was a Canadian citizen and immigrated to the USA. She still visits family up in Vancouver but has no interest in living there anymore. The climate and drug culture made her grow to dislike the place (heroin addicts aplenty, not sure how that's changed). When she wants to go, she goes, then comes back. We went through exactly that situation with her father, who died a few years ago. She went for a month, they both did. I went for a week, near the end, then we all returned after the funeral.

If you're simply passing through, or taking up residency, you have no right to gripe about US policy. Want to effect change? Vote. Want to vote? Become a citizen.

Participating in democracy can include many other forms beyond voting or running for office. If this is directed at me, I feel wholly comfortable with griping about US policy I disagree with.

You're a visitor, though. Not actually a part of the democracy, so your views mean considerably less.

As long as you're comfortable with US citizens not giving a rat's ass about Canadians griping about US policy, it's all good.

-t

Maybe you missed the part where I pointed out that there are other ways to participate in a democracy other than voting? I participate in this democracy more than many voting American citizens. I'm also not a visitor, I'm a permanent resident.

You seem a little off your game.

I'm good with it all. I assess gripes based on their merit, I'm not as intellectually lazy as to think that somehow having a piece of paper (which, if it matters, I've been perfectly eligible to have gotten anytime over the last 10 years+) somehow makes one's insight and beliefs more enlightened. As I've said before, my insight and opinions are better formed than those of many American citizens.

I discriminate gripes based on whether or not they make sense.

"Hello! Thanks for calling Big Mart! For English press 1, for anything else, LEARN ENGLISH!"

Yeah.

Try and get your parents to **** here next time.

You typically feel the opposite of what you say at this point, so I know my comment struck home.

You're entitled to feel as comfortable as you like, but not being a citizen means your opinion on US policy is less important. It's like:

citizen>>>>>>>>>>resident>>visitor>foreign

Talking and paying taxes is not participating, and comparing your actions to lazy Americans who don't vote doesn't help. I feel the same way about them: If you don't vote, your opinions have little or no weight.

Or, just start filling out the requisite paperwork. It's not an ordeal.

So, do you care to explain how any of this makes logical sense?

Because you have a right to vote means that your opinion is more valid? How does that work? If your point is that it carries more weight on the actual elections, sure one vote is worth more than no vote, but what if I were to go out on election day going door to door trying to get people to register and vote? I didn't do that, but if I did I'd argue that my impact on the election would probably be worth more than my vote, especially if I was in a non-competitive state.

I hope to understand why you feel this way, because I've heard this before, and it makes absolutely no sense to me.

As a Canadian uninterested in sponsoring a family member to live here, somebody who will have no problem returning to Canada at any point in my life or renewing my Canadian passport, somebody living in a non-competitive state, spending close to $1000 and having to take a trip to Chicago is too much of an ordeal for me.

You have the right to disagree with my decision, but I'd be surprised if you could come up with a terribly compelling argument as to why my opinions are invalid, and why you feel the need to single me out while not singling out the millions of Americans that do not vote either. How is my not voting here as a long-standing permanent resident dissimilar from an American who chooses not to vote, and wouldn't my staying informed and participating in this democracy in other ways at least equal that American who decides to abstain from this democracy?

The important variable here is participation in this democracy, voting is just one way to do that.

If paperwork alters the substance of your opinion, maybe your opinion wasn't worth all that much to begin with.

Exactly. And no offense about having to take a trip to Chicago :) I like Chicago a lot, it's just that when I'm there I don't want to have to be stuck inside an INS office for most of the day :)

I'm going to talk out of both sides of my mouth, because I'm bored.

Wanting to become a citizen displays a certain amount of investment.

Your opinion won't change because of the paperwork, but the desire (or lack thereof) for the paperwork indicates something about the individual, and how they relate to the country.

To put it another way. If I moved to another country, I doubt I'd change my citizenship status.

When it comes down to it, I'm an American. I'm always going to be a guest in the house, regardless of how much I dig the other place.

I'm not sure my opinions shouldn't be judged through that lens.

It's not that I'm opposed to being a citizen, if it were a little more convenient for me I'd do it. In saying this I'm not suggesting that the process should change, it's just that certain things work for certain people, ya know? For example, some people are okay with pirating music, some not. I'm okay with not being a citizen and instead being a permanent resident, that works for me, and I don't see my decision based on emotional investment or lack thereof.

But as a permanent resident I'm not a guest, a guest would be somebody here on a temporary VISA. I'm literally allowed to be here for the rest of my life with the only limitations being not being able to vote, run for office, or sponsor a family member. Right now I can live with that.

Citing inconvienence as a reason would indicate something of a lack of emotional investment, no?

Isn't this splitting hairs?

The way I said "I'm an American", you're a Canadian.

You may not feel quite the same way I do, but it's same from an applied standpoint.

You are a humble ***hole, I give you that.

-t

All emotional investments are all relative to something, right? What amount of emotional investment is "right"?

Your opinions are better formed too. Statistically speaking, most Americans are apolitical, and that is leaving aside the adage that people in general (of any nationality) are dumb and suck.

The paperwork isn't the point, it's the initiative in doing. If a person cares enough to get on a forum and bitch every day, but not enough to go out and file paperwork to become a citizen, then I can only assume that they're overly sedentary and rather useless. They can whine, or they can vote. The first is just hot air and a waste of bandwidth, TBH.

The amount which fits how you'd like to be perceived.

Yeah... like I said before. :hmm:

This is the angle the other side of my mouth is working, but without the assumption as to why.