What ever happened to this approach to immigration?

"Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free / The wretched refuse of your teeming shore / Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me / I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

- Poet Emma Lazarus, "The New Colossus," 1883, inscribed beneath the Statue of Liberty in 190338


Or this?

"These men of many nations must be taught American ways, the English language, and the right way to live."

- Henry Ford, on immigrants39

Or this?


"Wide open and unguarded stand our gates / And through them presses a wild motley throng / Men from the Volga and the Tartar steppes / Featureless figures of the Hoang-Ho / Malayan, Scythian, Teuton, Kelt, and Slav / Flying the Old World's poverty and scorn / These bringing with them unknown gods and rites / Those, tiger passions, here to stretch their claws / In street and alley what strange tongues are loud / Accents of menace alien to our air / Voices that once the Tower of Babel knew! / O Liberty, white Goddess! Is it well / To leave the gates unguarded?"

- Poet Thomas Bailey Aldrich, "Unguarded Gates," 1895


Not looking to start a pissing match here. Looking for a real discussion about immigration, and different approaches to it. I haven't really read a good one yet, but the above our famous quotes, that I feel are a good representative of our approach in the past.

thoughts???

The United States has always welcomed immigration and there are procedures to accomplish that. We have laws like every other country to maintain order.  Just because you break or ignore our laws does not make you a special case worthy of bypassing the existing legal system.

Darth Cheney wrote:The United States has always welcomed immigration and there are procedures to accomplish that. We have laws like every other country to maintain order.  Just because you break or ignore our laws does not make you a special case worthy of bypassing the existing legal system.

The existing system doesn't work though. How should be change it, or repair it to work again? What steps should be taken?

Confused18 wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:The United States has always welcomed immigration and there are procedures to accomplish that. We have laws like every other country to maintain order.  Just because you break or ignore our laws does not make you a special case worthy of bypassing the existing legal system.

The existing system doesn't work though.  How should be change it, or repair it to work again?  What steps should be taken?

Secure the borders first before anything else.

And, I do think that this issue is nearly if not worse than the Monsanto issue......

BladeRunner wrote:

Confused18 wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:The United States has always welcomed immigration and there are procedures to accomplish that. We have laws like every other country to maintain order.  Just because you break or ignore our laws does not make you a special case worthy of bypassing the existing legal system.

The existing system doesn't work though.  How should be change it, or repair it to work again?  What steps should be taken?

Secure the borders first before anything else.

And, I do think that this issue is nearly if not worse than the Monsanto issue......

I think we should just annex mexico, and call it New Texas or Old Mexico... (New Mexico is already taken...)    

Confused18 wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Confused18 wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:The United States has always welcomed immigration and there are procedures to accomplish that. We have laws like every other country to maintain order.  Just because you break or ignore our laws does not make you a special case worthy of bypassing the existing legal system.

The existing system doesn't work though.  How should be change it, or repair it to work again?  What steps should be taken?

Secure the borders first before anything else.

And, I do think that this issue is nearly if not worse than the Monsanto issue......

I think we should just annex mexico, and call it New Texas or Old Mexico...  (New Mexico is already taken...)    

Sure. And add all of the Mexicans to our population of dependents.

BladeRunner wrote:

Confused18 wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Confused18 wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:The United States has always welcomed immigration and there are procedures to accomplish that. We have laws like every other country to maintain order.  Just because you break or ignore our laws does not make you a special case worthy of bypassing the existing legal system.

The existing system doesn't work though.  How should be change it, or repair it to work again?  What steps should be taken?

Secure the borders first before anything else.

And, I do think that this issue is nearly if not worse than the Monsanto issue......

I think we should just annex mexico, and call it New Texas or Old Mexico...  (New Mexico is already taken...)    

Sure. And add all of the Mexicans to our population of dependents.

Hell, Blade, that might be the way to get the Masskins to learn English. Can you understand the gibberish they yap? I certainly can't.

sodaknomad wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Confused18 wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Confused18 wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:The United States has always welcomed immigration and there are procedures to accomplish that. We have laws like every other country to maintain order.  Just because you break or ignore our laws does not make you a special case worthy of bypassing the existing legal system.

The existing system doesn't work though.  How should be change it, or repair it to work again?  What steps should be taken?

Secure the borders first before anything else.

And, I do think that this issue is nearly if not worse than the Monsanto issue......

I think we should just annex mexico, and call it New Texas or Old Mexico...  (New Mexico is already taken...)    

Sure. And add all of the Mexicans to our population of dependents.

Hell, Blade, that might be the way to get the Masskins to learn English. Can you understand the gibberish they yap? I certainly can't.

True. But an English dependent is no different than a Spanish speaking dependent as far as the damage it causes to our economic system.

We're starting to agree again, you guys better watch out...


I think no matter what we do, it's not going to be pretty. I think it's a bit of a shame we send all kinds of support for this that and the other around the world, and we let Mexico become what it has... I know that we have issues we should solve in house first, but if i had a shed on fire in the back yard, and supper in the oven, I'd go put the fire out in the back yard. Just saying...

Confused18 wrote:We're starting to agree again, you guys better watch out...


I think no matter what we do, it's not going to be pretty.  I think it's a bit of a shame we send all kinds of support for this that and the other around the world, and we let Mexico become what it has...    I know that we have issues we should solve in house first, but if i had a shed on fire in the back yard, and supper in the oven, I'd go put the fire out in the back yard.  Just saying...

Excellent point. IMO - the recent bill (the one that passed the Senate) is the best one we've seen in decades. Reagan admits that his amnesty was a big mistake. We've seen nothing better 'til now. That took some real bipartisan effort. It's not going to please everybody of course.
The House version is actually a band-aid, and merely kicks the can down the road. But as usual, too many wimps more worried about re-election than solving the problem.

Confused18 wrote:"Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free / The wretched refuse of your teeming shore / Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me / I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

- Poet Emma Lazarus, "The New Colossus," 1883, inscribed beneath the Statue of Liberty in 190338


Or this?

"These men of many nations must be taught American ways, the English language, and the right way to live."

- Henry Ford, on immigrants39

Or this?


"Wide open and unguarded stand our gates / And through them presses a wild motley throng / Men from the Volga and the Tartar steppes / Featureless figures of the Hoang-Ho / Malayan, Scythian, Teuton, Kelt, and Slav / Flying the Old World's poverty and scorn / These bringing with them unknown gods and rites / Those, tiger passions, here to stretch their claws / In street and alley what strange tongues are loud / Accents of menace alien to our air / Voices that once the Tower of Babel knew! / O Liberty, white Goddess! Is it well / To leave the gates unguarded?"

- Poet Thomas Bailey Aldrich, "Unguarded Gates," 1895


Not looking to start a pissing match here.  Looking for a real discussion about immigration, and different approaches to it.  I haven't really read a good one yet, but the above our famous quotes, that I feel are a good representative of our approach in the past.  

thoughts???

Back when most of that high minded poetry was written, the US immigration policy operated on quotas based on national origin and labor skills. The wheels came off that kart in 1965 with the passage of the Hart-Celler Act by a Democrat controlled Congress that raised the total number of immigrants legally allowed into the country, ended the quota system and stressed family reunification over labor skills. What we got was a poor and unskilled immigrant reuniting with their poor and unskilled relatives, producing a a seemingly endless chain of relatives and an onerous chain migration that depopulated many of the small towns and villages in Mexico while imposing horrendous socio-economic costs on the United States. Essentially what we have now is a de facto open border and the current Senate bill will do little to nothing to change that and should properly be called the Immigration Bill of '86 X 4.  

Jeeeezzzz Gomezzzzz -
Read the Bill.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Jeeeezzzz Gomezzzzz -
Read the Bill.

 We can't know what is in the bill until after we pass the bill.  I suppose with you numerous advanced egrees you have already read the bill. Maybe you can give us the shortened version?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Jeeeezzzz Gomezzzzz -
Read the Bill.

Jeeeeezzzzz RWB, do I have to? All frickin' 1200 pages worth? Even the people who have read it in it's entirety admit they really don't understand it all while Dirtbag Harry Reid wants the House to forego debate entirely and just pass the bill. Just another "we-have-to-pass-it-to-know-what's-in-it" moment like ObamaUncare was.

Rep Tom Cotton of Arkansas tries to give us the down low on the Schumer-Rubio Frankenstein Immigration Bill in the Senate.

America is a nation of immigrants, but we’re also a nation of laws, and the U.S. immigration system should respect both traditions. Unfortunately, the Senate immigration bill undermines the rule of law without solving the country’s illegal-immigration problem, and it will harm American workers. The House of Representatives will reject any proposal with the Senate bill’s irreparably flawed structure, which is best described as: legalization first, enforcement later . . . maybe.

This basic design flaw repeats the mistake of the 1986 amnesty law, which, according to former Attorney General Edwin Meese, President Reagan considered the biggest mistake of his presidency. The Senate bill ensures, as did the 1986 law, that we’ll have full legalization but little-to-no enforcement.

Ya gotta love this gem:

After 10 years, the CBO predicts, the illegal-immigrant population will have declined to only eight million from today’s 12 million. So much for solving the problem. All we’re doing is setting up the next amnesty.

In other words it doesn't solve a damn thing and we get to do it all over in ten years. What a freakin' mess.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/tom-cotton-hammers-senate-immigration-bill.php

You really need to read it Gomezz. Or at least refrain from making a fool of yourself via this continued guessing, and using biased comments as fact. It's not that complex. It's not perfect, but the best in a long time. No amnesty in there. The House is kicking the can (re-election fears, I assume) again.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:You really need to read it Gomezz. Or at least refrain from making a fool of yourself via this continued guessing, and using biased comments as fact. It's not that complex. It's not perfect, but the best in a long time. No amnesty in there. The House is kicking the can (re-election fears, I assume) again.

But, but, but,...you are so wise.  You wouldn't be able to understand the title let alone the context of the bill.  I am afraid liberalism has destroyed your entire brain and you are nothing more than a drain on Erf's resources. Do the right thing...

RedWhiteBlue wrote:You really need to read it Gomezz. Or at least refrain from making a fool of yourself via this continued guessing, and using biased comments as fact. It's not that complex. It's not perfect, but the best in a long time. No amnesty in there. The House is kicking the can (re-election fears, I assume) again.

Yah, like you've read a 1200 page bill that changed daily. You should refrain from telling lies and confirming yourself as a dumbazz.

Maybe you can explain it all to Rep John Carter of Texas. He seems a bit confused and embarrassed by the House version of the bill he's drafting.

Rep. John Carter (R-TX), while saying the House bill would have border security "triggers" without offering specifics, acknowledged, "There are things in the bill that I don't know what they mean because I'm not an immigration lawyer.”

Carter's comment emphasizes how difficult it is for legislators to not only read the bill but to fully understand what they are voting for.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/29/House-Immigration-Bill-Drafter-I-Don-t-Know-What-Everything-Means-in-My-Bill

Biased comments? From the CBO? HayZeus, you are tone deaf aren't you? Here I'll repeat this comment since you seem to have a comprehension level of a 25w 'fridge bulb.

After 10 years, the CBO predicts, the illegal-immigrant population will have declined to only eight million from today’s 12 million. So much for solving the problem. All we’re doing is setting up the next amnesty.

Nothing to contribute, Darth? - As per usual then, just keep throwing out insults.

Gomezz - using your time to throw personal insults on a remote forum, does nothing to increase your knowledge of the topic.
lol - now you believe the CBO? Quite a reversal. Must have "evolved". lol

What do either of you think of the "military service path to citizenship" portion of the bill?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Nothing to contribute, Darth? - As per usual then, just keep throwing out insults.

Gomezz - using your time to throw personal insults on a remote forum, does nothing to increase your knowledge of the topic.
lol - now you believe the CBO? Quite a reversal. Must have "evolved". lol

What do either of you think of the "military service path to citizenship" portion of the bill?

 That currently exists DA.

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Nothing to contribute, Darth? - As per usual then, just keep throwing out insults.

Gomezz - using your time to throw personal insults on a remote forum, does nothing to increase your knowledge of the topic.
lol - now you believe the CBO? Quite a reversal. Must have "evolved". lol

What do either of you think of the "military service path to citizenship" portion of the bill?

 That currently exists DA.

- - - do you approve of it?
(GI education, health, benefits, etc. for those "lawbreakers" and their future families)
Why?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Nothing to contribute, Darth? - As per usual then, just keep throwing out insults.

Gomezz - using your time to throw personal insults on a remote forum, does nothing to increase your knowledge of the topic.
lol - now you believe the CBO? Quite a reversal. Must have "evolved". lol

What do either of you think of the "military service path to citizenship" portion of the bill?

 That currently exists DA.

- - - do you approve of it?
(GI education, health, benefits, etc. for those "lawbreakers" and their future families)
Why?

What a riot. Where are we gonna put all these illegal immigrants in an Army that is due to cut 80,000 men by 2017 and an additional 44,000 from the other branches? Are we gonna bump American citizens and legal immigrants from a shrinking pool of available positions so an illegal immigrant can get his citizenship? Dream on.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Nothing to contribute, Darth? - As per usual then, just keep throwing out insults.

Gomezz - using your time to throw personal insults on a remote forum, does nothing to increase your knowledge of the topic.
lol - now you believe the CBO? Quite a reversal. Must have "evolved". lol

What do either of you think of the "military service path to citizenship" portion of the bill?

 That currently exists DA.

- - - do you approve of it?
(GI education, health, benefits, etc. for those "lawbreakers" and their future families)
Why?

Obama feels the wet Latinos are expendable and will send them to battle jihadist around the world in a perpetual war of his choosing.  Obama...the war president.

How do you feel about Obama sending drones to murder entire families in their home countries based on incomplete inteligence information?  Should Obama be charged as a war criminal?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:
Gomezz - using your time to throw personal insults on a remote forum, does nothing to increase your knowledge of the topic.
lol - now you believe the CBO? Quite a reversal. Must have "evolved". lol

What do either of you think of the "military service path to citizenship" portion of the bill?

Oh save your histrionics for someone who gives a crap. Don't worry your peanut brain about my schedule, when I need a social secretary I'll hire someone with legs that look good in nylons and heels.

So you are doubting the CBO numbers now. Quite the evolution for a Liber. You got complaints, take it up with the director, Doug Elmendorf. I even did your leg work for you. E-Mail - communications@cbo.gov or if you don't mind listening to crappy Muzak, dial (202) 226-2602.

Darth - waaaayyyy off topic. Didn't answer the question. Do you approve of that portion, or not?

Gomezz - Lame attempts at diversions.
I take it that you don't approve the "military service path to citizenship" portion of the bill, then. Which of the other "paths to citizenship" in the Senate Bill would you throw out, and which do you think have merit?