How about our next debate - Illegal Immigration?

[jimnyc]

I think many great topics were tossed out in the other thread for what would make good debates. No whether or not we can get people interested enough in a particular topic to want to enter a debate is another question.

I think the issue of illegal immigration is a hot enough topic to draw attention to a good debate. Should their be a border fence? Do we deport all found illegals? Do we grant amnesty? Should drivers licenses be given out to illegals? What should be done to companies found hiring illegals? What is the solution to the illegal immigration issue?

Does anyone feel they can offer a compelling argument against aspects of illegal immigration? And what about those that believe in "rights" for illegals and amnesty?

Would anyone like to volunteer to take a stance on either side? First 2 to respond will get the debate!

** Disclaimer - we can shorten the length of the debate (total replies) if the respondents both agree and feel it's too lengthy **

[5stringJeff]

Jim, I'd be up for taking the anti-illegals side but it would have to wait until at least a week from Monday. Mid-terms and all.

[82Marine89]

I'll take the "against illegal immigration" side if Jeff can't.

[Pale Rider]

I'll play the devils advocate and argue pro illegal alien... OK I'm done... :laugh:

[Trigg]

I'll play the devils advocate and argue pro illegal alien... OK I'm done... :laugh:

Ok, but if your going to take OCA's place you better brush up on your cussing.

[Agnapostate]

Did you ever do it? This forum's drowning in rightists, so I can adopt a pro-amnesty position. :)

[jimnyc]

Did you ever do it? This forum's drowning in rightists, so I can adopt a pro-amnesty position. :)

Hopefully someone will take you up on your offer. And hopefully they'll ask you why you think it must be a "rightists" position to expect people to abide by the law like every other person in this country. Then they should ask you if "leftists" believe in our laws or not. Either way, enjoy!

[Trigg]

Did you ever do it? This forum's drowning in rightists, so I can adopt a pro-amnesty position. :)

I don't see this as a Republican or Democrat argument.

I have plenty of Dem's in my close family including my sister and father-in-law. Both think illegals should be kicked out, we should build a wall, and they should abide by the laws of this country.

Neither believe in amnesty or as it should be called, rewarding criminal behavior.

[Agnapostate]

I'm not a "Dem," which underscores my point about rightists. Are you volunteering?

[jimnyc]

I'm not a "Dem," which underscores my point about rightists. Are you volunteering?

I'd volunteer but I know these things can drag out too long and I end up putting friggin hours into it. Don't think I want to do that. And your words are too big for me sometimes, you'd need to dumb yourself down.

With that said, even a dummy like me knows that laws are laws and shouldn't be broken, and we certainly shouldn't reward anyone that breaks our laws.

[Agnapostate]

Then let's hear from someone.

EDIT: And complex ideas demand a fairly complex means of expression, not that I try to deliberately confuse anyone.

[Nukeman]

Then let's hear from someone.

EDIT: And complex ideas demand a fairly complex means of expression, not that I try to deliberately confuse anyone.

Has amnesty worked in the past to curb our illegal alien problem???? It has been granted on 3 separate occasions? We still have problems with influx of illegals

[Agnapostate]

Are you volunteering, then? :)

[Nukeman]

Are you volunteering, then? :)

Nope just asking some questions. My argument can be summed up rather quickly. I don't believe in rewarding illegal activity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also don't believe in burdening our already over taxed welfare system with a few million new reciepients......

[Agnapostate]

Those are both sentiments that wouldn't last. Maybe I could take on several people at once? :)

[PostmodernProphet]

I suspect if you stated a position someone would challenge you on it......personally, I think the US needs to develop an intelligent program for work visas......if an employer wishes to hire someone from out of the country and they wish to work for him they should be able to get a work visa and walk through the door instead of walk across the desert.....then we wouldn't have issues of "illegal" or "amnesty"....we also wouldn't have a border control problem.....

require the employer to pay a minimum of 40 hours.....higher than minimum wage.....full health care so there is no need for public assistance......AND pay a $1 per hour excise tax to the government to finance the cost of the visa program......

[Agnapostate]

No one up for business, eh?

[PostmodernProphet]

???..../acts like a mime trapped in a soundproof room....feeling his way around the walls and wondering why Agna cannot hear him.....

[Agnapostate]

Really? So you're up for a little one-on-one contention, eh? ;)

[Nukeman]

Really? So you're up for a little one-on-one contention, eh? ;)
My God man just say what YOU have to say and quit asking the same question over and over and over.......

Tell us YOUR stance and we will go from there!!!!!!!!!

[PostmodernProphet]

Really? So you're up for a little one-on-one contention, eh? ;)

I posted a position.....contest it......we don't need no stinkin' arena.....here, now, quit tucking your skirts between your legs.....

[Agnapostate]

You know that I don't have sufficient permissions to start a thread in the one-on-one forum. Have Jimmy start a thread there, and you can attack my own contention that we should legalize all border crossing and ensure provision of amnesty to illegal immigrants currently residing within the U.S. The reason for border crossing en masse is related to inequitable international wage differentials, which are the reason that such migration occurs across the U.S.-Mexico border where it would not occur across the California-Nevada border or even to the same extent across borders of EU member states. These differentials are exacerbated by the expansion of trade liberalization, which displaces Mexican farmers and agricultural workers, first causing them to migrate to urban areas of Mexico and then to the U.S.

There are two potential means of reducing such substantial illegal immigration, the libertarian means and the authoritarian means. The libertarian means is reliant on the aforementioned laissez-faire strategy combined with the expansion of fair trade to reduce international wage differentials. The authoritarian means involves enactment of police state policies and brutal repression against border crossers, which apart from being unethical and provocative of insurgent violence against border guards, is a wasteful fiscal expenditure regardless.

[DragonStryk72]

You know that I don't have sufficient permissions to start a thread in the one-on-one forum. Have Jimmy start a thread there, and you can attack my own contention that we should legalize all border crossing and ensure provision of amnesty to illegal immigrants currently residing within the U.S. The reason for border crossing en masse is related to inequitable international wage differentials, which are the reason that such migration occurs across the U.S.-Mexico border where it would not occur across the California-Nevada border or even to the same extent across borders of EU member states. These differentials are exacerbated by the expansion of trade liberalization, which displaces Mexican farmers and agricultural workers, first causing them to migrate to urban areas of Mexico and then to the U.S.

There are two potential means of reducing such substantial illegal immigration, the libertarian means and the authoritarian means. The libertarian means is reliant on the aforementioned laissez-faire strategy combined with the expansion of fair trade to reduce international wage differentials. The authoritarian means involves enactment of police state policies and brutal repression against border crossers, which apart from being unethical and provocative of insurgent violence against border guards, is a wasteful fiscal expenditure regardless.

So the fact that we do not, in fact, possess the means to house, feed, and otherwise provide for all these extra makes no never mind to you?

I have no issue with immigrants, that is not a problem in my mind, as we are, and always have been, an immigrant society. As to the "libertarian" method you mentioned, we're not stupid, we understand we do have threats attempting to make their way in currently.

To believe that wages alone determine the direction of immigration is slightly ignorant. There are numerous problems that come with open borders, because people will not only leave impoverished countries, but ill countries as well, and that means possibly infected people making their way in, and infecting the rest of the country. It's just not feasible right now for us to have fully open borders, and that means we simply cannot take on all comers.

I grant that the current system is impractical, as the current tax system only supports the illegals, while "punishing" those that obey the laws, and nor does a 700-mile wall work as a true stopgap measure along a 2100-mile border. However, impractical as it may be, the oppositional opinion, that of your allowing completely open borders, does not work either.

The solution that I put forth is a better system than the current, and allows for us to allow more to come in legally, while cutting the number of illegals drastically. Currently, the system in place requires a substantial fee to gain citizenship, during which time, you must stay in your original country. This I believe is alot of the reason why people violate the laws in order to cross. Instead, I believe that a better system would be to put off the fee into installments, so that the immigrants in question can get in the door, and begin working, without having put up $900+ USD (close to a year full salary in many of the countries that seriously want to emigrate here). This still allows us to stem the flow, without giving up the security of our borders. Now, during this time in the country, as usual, they must stay for a minimum length of time in the USA, but this, along with the fees involved, can be waived with contracted government service, such as working for FEMA, the military, or otherwise.

However, with this improved method of allowing people coming in, we need to at the same time more strongly enforce the immigration laws. Those that are in the country illegally have a choice to make: They can either put up the fees they did not pay, arrange a payment plan for it, or enter government service for a time to get it waived, with the final option being to be deported back to their country of origin.

Even with a different system, it is our own horrible tax system that makes it so much easier for illegals to exist within the country without paying in the taxes that would entitle them to the benefits of being a citizen. To counter this we would need to adopt the Fair Tax, so as to be able to do a retail sales tax that would ensure that everyone in the country is paying into the system.

[PostmodernProphet]

You know that I don't have sufficient permissions to start a thread in the one-on-one forum. Have Jimmy start a thread there, and you can attack my own contention that we should legalize all border crossing and ensure provision of amnesty to illegal immigrants currently residing within the U.S. The reason for border crossing en masse is related to inequitable international wage differentials, which are the reason that such migration occurs across the U.S.-Mexico border where it would not occur across the California-Nevada border or even to the same extent across borders of EU member states. These differentials are exacerbated by the expansion of trade liberalization, which displaces Mexican farmers and agricultural workers, first causing them to migrate to urban areas of Mexico and then to the U.S.

There are two potential means of reducing such substantial illegal immigration, the libertarian means and the authoritarian means. The libertarian means is reliant on the aforementioned laissez-faire strategy combined with the expansion of fair trade to reduce international wage differentials. The authoritarian means involves enactment of police state policies and brutal repression against border crossers, which apart from being unethical and provocative of insurgent violence against border guards, is a wasteful fiscal expenditure regardless.

like I said, we don't need a special forum.....if you want to argue about something spit it out....

question:....when you say we should "legalize" all border crossing to you mean open borders, no reason needed to cross, no inspection, no identification, no questions?