Comments | liberalrage: Inquiry: Where Do You Fit In?

luna_k in liberalrage

Inquiry: Where Do You Fit In?

May 31, 2006 10:59

Yesterday, USA Today had a front page article on how Americans are split 4 ways on illegal immigration.
WASHINGTON - Americans hold strong and conflicting views about immigration that underscore the difficulties Congress will face in reaching a final legislative deal on the issue, an analysis of USA TODAY polling data shows ( Read more... )

immigration

Comments 34

jerrymcl89 May 31 2006, 15:16:47 UTC

I'd say I'm about halfway between "unconcerned" and "ambivalent". I don't think mass deportations would be a good thing, either morally or economically. And I can support a path to citizenship for those who are already here, even though I understand the arguments against it (it's unfair to those who are going through legal channels, and it makes people in other countries anticipate that if they can get here illegally, there will eventually be yet another amnesty).

However, I do favor cutting off the future flow of illegals into the country, up to an including building fences. And I'm not a fan of the 'guest worker' idea, because having workers here who can be deported at the whim of their employers invites near-slavery.

evileconboy May 31 2006, 17:04:08 UTC

I guess I fall into the unconcerned category. I think immigration is great, we need more people in this country doing jobs Americans are too lazy to do. Ideally, that would come from legal immigration, but with the xenophobes running the country and organized labor against immigrant competition, we'll never let enough low wage immigrants in to fill demand.. so surprise surprise, they come here illegally ( ... )

ext_4728 May 31 2006, 17:50:22 UTC

I would posit a fifth distinct category. Not sure what to call it, but those concerned with the breaking of law involved in illigal immigration but also concerned with the treatment of said undocumented immigrants.

I'm very concerned with global corporations having this race to the bottom line, seemingly unconcerned with just who will buy their product and just pushing down costs, including labor costs, to almost nil. Undocumented/illegal immigrants are part of the symptom, not the cause. Of course, it seems every generation has their immigrant boogeyman. Mexicans are the current ones (and have been since, IIRC, about the 50's) but in the past Irish, Italians, Chinese, and Japanese (among others) have been the "scourge."

-Vulpin

xiaomi May 31 2006, 18:52:56 UTC

Unconcerned/ambivalent. I actually got ripped a new one for saying that the whole issue was a false crisis awhile ago, but it is. Nothing's seriously changed from how it's been ( ... )

luna_k May 31 2006, 19:01:25 UTC

I actually got ripped a new one for saying that the whole issue was a false crisis awhile ago,

I agree - illegal immigration is to 2006 as gay marriage was to 2004. It's like the conservatives need something to constantly keep them enraged, or else they wither up and die. ::eyeroll::

Illegal crossing upsets me too, and not just because of those brutal coyotes who stuff grown people inside gas tanks or dashboards. Lots of unsavory stuff crosses over that way, including drugs, terrorists, foreign sex slaves, and who knows what else. But you're right - building a Great Wall of Meximerica isn't going to solve that problem, not by a long shot. Bleh.

witch_wolf June 1 2006, 01:28:24 UTC

This for me has been an issue since the 80s the goverment has been ignoring the growing problem. Yes it's a smoke screen for Buba to get the attention away from his failed policies else where -- it doesn't make it a non-existant problem

witch_wolf May 31 2006, 20:02:42 UTC

I think on this issue I am a step below Hard-line, meaning. that I do believe that illegal immigration is healthy for the economy and the illegal imigrants themselves. I do believe that we should take a hard approach on those that are in this country, making it difficult for them to stay in this country ( ... )

xiaomi May 31 2006, 20:24:54 UTC

I understand (but disagree with) your concerns regarding English, especially living in Chelsea, and I totally agree with you regarding employers; if there's any culprit here, it's them. But... a Constitutional amendment? As a legal matter, I'm always uncomfortable with using the Constitution for things which are better left to smaller forms of government, or social issues which need to be resolved outside of legal means.

Amending the Constitution is the nuclear option of politics... you don't do it lightly, and I shudder to imagine the ill effects that such an amendment would have. I mean, look at the 14th Amendment. It was generally understood to mean a very narrow thing but expanded to mean civil rights for all. It's a wonderful thing, no doubt, but honestly, that's not what they meant by equal protection and due process.

Conversely, look at the Lockner Era. That's the sort of thing that happens when your Constitution is too... unwieldy or perhaps more comprehensive than necessary. You never quite know what a conservative ( ... )

witch_wolf June 1 2006, 01:26:30 UTC

I wasn't talking about a constitutional admendment I was talking about the admendment to the bill that passed the senate. I don't think we should add to the consistution just because society wants a change unless that change is not a quick fix solutions ( ... )

xiaomi June 1 2006, 01:29:04 UTC

That's bizarre... I'm a law student here, and I haven't heard of this happening yet (the turned away from an agency) though of course I've hardly heard the gamut of things that can happen here. Which agency was it, if I may? *tries to think of who might be geared that way*...

Thread 13