Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?

2009-10-14T02:56:02Z

Shateldo: /* People who work aren't the problem */

==Yes==
Is one civilization responsible for the well being of another civilization?
Is an influx of uneducated people into your country beneficial to your country?

In my humble opinion, in terms of whats best for the country, I would say no to both questions.
: Seekcommon has made a number of interesting points, but he/she is simply wrong. The FBI arrested several men who were plotting to kill american soldiers, many were illegal and in the US for several years. It is imperative that the FEDS go all out to round up all illegals and deport them to whereever they came from. What the heck, they have broken the law anyway and contribute nothing to this society of law abiding and God fearing citizens. [[User:dninsafbicia]]

==No==
Legal immigration control is the answer to illegal immigration. That way people will know what is legal and illegal. Legal=civility while illegal=jail time.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:40, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. It is time that the White man who killed the original inhabitants of the country we call the US of A should leave. Christopher Columbus thought he had reached India when he did not and he allowed for the killings that followed. More recently, so many Irish came to the US, many illegally, we should demand proof that they are here legally. Every one who was not born of parents who were not here on this land originally ought to be asked to demand proof that they belong here and are not here illegally. Great idea. [[User:Seekcommon]]

::Well, that is what is called racism. It has nothing to do with immigrating from one sovereign country to another in a legal means by todays standards of civilization. But let us go farther back in time when succesive waves of people "immigrated" to the Americas. Each one killing their way across the continents until they became the dominant culture. If you can go back far enough to find the first person to inhabit the Americas then it won't mean nothing since they probably no longer exist. But their ancestors weren't originally born here either if you go back far enough. So how about putting a clamp on the racism?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I see "racism" in the current vitriol being thrown at "illegal" immigration, yes, "illegal". The fact is that, "illegal" immigration happens because we have a flawed/inhumane "legal" immigration policy. Today's immigrants (legal and illegal) are very different from the ones that came in the early 20th century/late 19th century. The fact is that without the illegals, much of our economy will crawl. Using the pretext of "illegal" immigration, demagogues like Lou Dobbs of CNN unload on "legal" immigration - issues of H-1 visas for technical people and such - claiming that "such immigrants" take jobs away from "natives". Rubbish, says that most radical of all newspapers, The Wall Street Journal. [[User:Seekcommon] PS - My comments about the white man and such were, obviously meant to make a point that we are ALL immigrants and many came illegally. Inspite of all this, I have always believed that of ALL countries in the world, the US of A remains the most humane and welcoming of ALL foreigners, immigrants - Let's keep it that way, is what I hope we do. [[User:Seekcommon]]

::No, illegal immigrants aren't "helping" the economy. The exploitation of illegal immigrants is the slave mentality. Just as on the cotton plantations of the 19th century, today we have the idea of businesses exploiting illegal immigrants for their own profit. You are right about the existance of flawed policy. That we have sanctuary cities and towns that protect criminal business practices who exploit cheap labor. All about the money, right? They don't lose their business or go to jail even if their under paid workers are rounded up and deported. There are always plenty of American citizens in line to replace them. But if you were given the choice of paying someone five bucks an hour or fifteen bucks then the decision is simple. I've also noticed that only those that don't see a problem with the illegal exploitation of illegal aliens are always screaming about racism. The flawed/inhumane legal immigration policy of the United States allows the "legal" immigration of more people then any other country on the planet. Perhaps the real answer to illegal immigration would be throwing American Citizens in jail for the inhumane monetary exploitation of their fellow human beings. Until that happens, people will immigrate illegally to work as cheap labor.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::: The fundamental reason our country, the US of A is a magnet for the rest of the world is the simple fact that each person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By any measure, we have benefited enormously by both legal AND illegal immigration, I know you disagree. Fine. The workers who are "exploited" are still better off than they would have been in their own country (yes, that includes legal AND illegal immigrants). In fact what is happening is that because the world is slowly trying to catch up to the US and as more opportunities are made available to people in those countries, there is less and less interest and pressure for many to emigrate from their native lands and immigrate to the US - these trends are evident in Higher Education, for sure. Unlike other countries, we are dynamic - people who are laid off, do find other ways to survive/thrive. Yes, many are hurt irreversibly and never recover. No system is perfect, what we have in the US comes close. Adam Smith explained it best - supply and demand. It is OUR demand for goods/services and OUR refusal to pay any more than what we WANT to pay that results in producers trying to find ways to reduce their costs and OUR costs. Yes, the producers DO MAKE money by using cheap labor, but millions of people do have jobs and do very well. No matter what I say or write (or what the Wall Street Journal writes), you will hold steadfast to your view that "illegal" immigration hurts us all and does not help the economy. I disagree. You can make a difference. Stop shopping at Walmart, do not buy a car or a computer or a shirt or a pant that is NOT made in the US A and before you buy anything, ask if the people who made them were paid a "decent wage" and were "not exploited" or whatever. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Apparently illegal border crossings have slowed by more than 10% this year according to a report cited by the Wall Street Journal, today May 2, 2007.
But instead of rigorous enforcement as many would have us believe, this reflects supply and demand, again according to the Wall Street Journal. The slump in the housing market is cited as the main reason as to why fewer illegals are crossing the border and it indicates, again as the Wall Street Journal reports, that immigrants come here to work and not idle and collect welfare. I should add they work and improve OUR standard of living while accepting jobs that go abegging. Many on our unemployed rolls are unwilling to take these jobs or perhaps do not even have those skills necessary or simply refuse because they can and sit and complain about illegal immigration or something else. I'd recommend that they complain to the Wall Street Journal and tell them that the Journal is being unpatriotic and UnAmerican. [[User:Seekcommon]]

: I seem to have some difficulty in providing a link to any interested reader. The article is at online.wsj.com/article/SB117807233027389126.html

I suppose I see immoral behavior anywhere when it comes to immigrants and their current status in the US (particularly Mexican, Chinese, Korean or other non-caucasian, non-white). Even for a litigious society like the US, this surely takes first prize - the story of a Judge that sues a dry cleaner for 65 million dollars - taking it out on immigrants who have done good I suppose.
[www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502763_pf.html Here is the article by Marc Fisher] I am curious as to what the position (if any) of the conservatives on this board about whether of not the law suit has any merit. And why there has been no significant outcry - Could it be because the affected party is not white or black? Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when working people like the Cheungs are being victimized by the system? Or does it have to do something about the race and color of the affected parties and the one that is doing the suing? No, I do not know if the Most Eminent Judge Pearson is black or white - BUT I can guess He is black since nary a word from Jackson or Sharpton. Replace black with "African American" if it offends and I am aware that certain words are to be used only by certain people at certain times under certain conditions after getting permission from Jackson and Sharpton. [[User:Seekcommon]]
: The Most Honorable Judge Pearson is an African American, there was a video. Now it makes perfect sense as to why Jackson and Sharpton are not protecting the cleaners against this blatant racist, anti-immigrant fervor of an officer of the Court in these United States of America - after all, he is one of them and so cannot be bad. Shame on the establishment for allowing such obvious attempts at persecuting hard working immigrants. I can only imagine the treatment meted out to the poor illegals that cross the border to find work and take jobs that others refuse to take [[User:Seekcommon]]

These jobs that americans won't take are a myth. There is no such thing. What is really happening is they are taking jobs at a salary lower than that which americans will take, and in most cases lower than americans are allowed to take due to minimum wage. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 09:30, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==British point of view==
So far this debate has been US-centred, but we have immigration problems of a different kind in the [[United Kingdom]]. Let me say that I believe, in principle, in the value of immigrants to a society, both economically and socially. But our problem is that our country's immigration policies are inadequately enforced by an incompetent bureaucracy. At present, people may be living in the UK and waiting for up to 5 years before the [[Home Office]] processes their application for indefinite leave to remain, or for asylum status. They're in a sort of limbo - they don't have the proper documentation, so they find it hard to get a job, so they can't contribute to society. This isn't the immigrants' fault - it's the incompetence of our [[Labour Party|Labour]] government, who have simply failed in their duty to provide a system that works. Not to mention, we're now getting mass immigration from Eastern Europe due to those countries joining the [[European Union]]. This isn't a bad thing in itself, but we've had a few cases of people with criminal records entering the UK - and our immigration services don't even bother to check their background before letting them in. Once again, the Labour government failed to plan for the future. What a dismal record of failure. [[User:Palace1|Palace1]] 13:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==Student POV==
I don't see why we have to reform American laws concerning immigrantion. Indeed our side of the fence has already solved the problem way back when. The reformation has to occur on the other side of the tortilla wall. If los presidentes of the latin nations would reform their own laws conserning work where people don't earn 10 bucks a day, then we wouldn't have a problem. Secondly, the people of those nations need a spine transplant. They need to learn that governments break with pressure. I hate tools who come into my country demanding that we change our laws. They need to go back and reform their country that they love oh so much. [[User:Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed]] June 25 2007

== OTHER ==

jez could you ask the question in a better format?

IMMIGRATION control is the answer to ILLEGAL immigration....

a country that doesnt have borders isnt much of a country....

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

we should just tell border security personnel to shoot the illegal in the head in be done with it...one less problem...a billion upon billion more to go...and growing...--[[User:Shateldo|Shateldo]] 22:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

==People who work aren't the problem==
Illegal immigrants who come here and work hard and pay their bills aren't the problem. It's people who DON'T work who are the problem. As Milton Friedman said, you can't have open borders and a welfare state. Some number of illegal immigrants are a burden to society. They collect welfare, they occupy subsidized housing, they don't pay for their medical treatment, they get free education, reduced college tuition, etc. Americans are infuriated by those who are parasites on the taxpayers. The majority (?) of illegal immigrants are not burdens, they are contributors. They work hard, producing valuable goods and services. They pay their bills, they follow the rules (except for the obvious illegal immigration).

There is often a difference between immorality and illegality. The voluntary transaction between worker and employer is not inherently immoral but it is illegal if the immigrant is illegal. The involuntary transaction between welfare recipient and taxpayer is immoral but may be illegal.

We should invite into our country those who will be a positive contribution to our American society. We should deport those who are a burden on society.

(To those Conservapedia users who are not US citizens I apologize for writing with a US point of view. I am an American - for which I make no apologies.) [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 09:19, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Well logically there shouldn't be any reason they're illegal in the first place if they're hard working...its not like citizenship will kill them. But
if they do work hard for a while and make some money they should go and get citizenship. People on welfare tho that are on welfare cuz they have too
many children should get deported though...--[[User:Shateldo|Shateldo]] 22:54, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?

2009-10-14T02:55:11Z

Shateldo: /* People who work aren't the problem */

==Yes==
Is one civilization responsible for the well being of another civilization?
Is an influx of uneducated people into your country beneficial to your country?

In my humble opinion, in terms of whats best for the country, I would say no to both questions.
: Seekcommon has made a number of interesting points, but he/she is simply wrong. The FBI arrested several men who were plotting to kill american soldiers, many were illegal and in the US for several years. It is imperative that the FEDS go all out to round up all illegals and deport them to whereever they came from. What the heck, they have broken the law anyway and contribute nothing to this society of law abiding and God fearing citizens. [[User:dninsafbicia]]

==No==
Legal immigration control is the answer to illegal immigration. That way people will know what is legal and illegal. Legal=civility while illegal=jail time.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:40, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. It is time that the White man who killed the original inhabitants of the country we call the US of A should leave. Christopher Columbus thought he had reached India when he did not and he allowed for the killings that followed. More recently, so many Irish came to the US, many illegally, we should demand proof that they are here legally. Every one who was not born of parents who were not here on this land originally ought to be asked to demand proof that they belong here and are not here illegally. Great idea. [[User:Seekcommon]]

::Well, that is what is called racism. It has nothing to do with immigrating from one sovereign country to another in a legal means by todays standards of civilization. But let us go farther back in time when succesive waves of people "immigrated" to the Americas. Each one killing their way across the continents until they became the dominant culture. If you can go back far enough to find the first person to inhabit the Americas then it won't mean nothing since they probably no longer exist. But their ancestors weren't originally born here either if you go back far enough. So how about putting a clamp on the racism?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I see "racism" in the current vitriol being thrown at "illegal" immigration, yes, "illegal". The fact is that, "illegal" immigration happens because we have a flawed/inhumane "legal" immigration policy. Today's immigrants (legal and illegal) are very different from the ones that came in the early 20th century/late 19th century. The fact is that without the illegals, much of our economy will crawl. Using the pretext of "illegal" immigration, demagogues like Lou Dobbs of CNN unload on "legal" immigration - issues of H-1 visas for technical people and such - claiming that "such immigrants" take jobs away from "natives". Rubbish, says that most radical of all newspapers, The Wall Street Journal. [[User:Seekcommon] PS - My comments about the white man and such were, obviously meant to make a point that we are ALL immigrants and many came illegally. Inspite of all this, I have always believed that of ALL countries in the world, the US of A remains the most humane and welcoming of ALL foreigners, immigrants - Let's keep it that way, is what I hope we do. [[User:Seekcommon]]

::No, illegal immigrants aren't "helping" the economy. The exploitation of illegal immigrants is the slave mentality. Just as on the cotton plantations of the 19th century, today we have the idea of businesses exploiting illegal immigrants for their own profit. You are right about the existance of flawed policy. That we have sanctuary cities and towns that protect criminal business practices who exploit cheap labor. All about the money, right? They don't lose their business or go to jail even if their under paid workers are rounded up and deported. There are always plenty of American citizens in line to replace them. But if you were given the choice of paying someone five bucks an hour or fifteen bucks then the decision is simple. I've also noticed that only those that don't see a problem with the illegal exploitation of illegal aliens are always screaming about racism. The flawed/inhumane legal immigration policy of the United States allows the "legal" immigration of more people then any other country on the planet. Perhaps the real answer to illegal immigration would be throwing American Citizens in jail for the inhumane monetary exploitation of their fellow human beings. Until that happens, people will immigrate illegally to work as cheap labor.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::: The fundamental reason our country, the US of A is a magnet for the rest of the world is the simple fact that each person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By any measure, we have benefited enormously by both legal AND illegal immigration, I know you disagree. Fine. The workers who are "exploited" are still better off than they would have been in their own country (yes, that includes legal AND illegal immigrants). In fact what is happening is that because the world is slowly trying to catch up to the US and as more opportunities are made available to people in those countries, there is less and less interest and pressure for many to emigrate from their native lands and immigrate to the US - these trends are evident in Higher Education, for sure. Unlike other countries, we are dynamic - people who are laid off, do find other ways to survive/thrive. Yes, many are hurt irreversibly and never recover. No system is perfect, what we have in the US comes close. Adam Smith explained it best - supply and demand. It is OUR demand for goods/services and OUR refusal to pay any more than what we WANT to pay that results in producers trying to find ways to reduce their costs and OUR costs. Yes, the producers DO MAKE money by using cheap labor, but millions of people do have jobs and do very well. No matter what I say or write (or what the Wall Street Journal writes), you will hold steadfast to your view that "illegal" immigration hurts us all and does not help the economy. I disagree. You can make a difference. Stop shopping at Walmart, do not buy a car or a computer or a shirt or a pant that is NOT made in the US A and before you buy anything, ask if the people who made them were paid a "decent wage" and were "not exploited" or whatever. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Apparently illegal border crossings have slowed by more than 10% this year according to a report cited by the Wall Street Journal, today May 2, 2007.
But instead of rigorous enforcement as many would have us believe, this reflects supply and demand, again according to the Wall Street Journal. The slump in the housing market is cited as the main reason as to why fewer illegals are crossing the border and it indicates, again as the Wall Street Journal reports, that immigrants come here to work and not idle and collect welfare. I should add they work and improve OUR standard of living while accepting jobs that go abegging. Many on our unemployed rolls are unwilling to take these jobs or perhaps do not even have those skills necessary or simply refuse because they can and sit and complain about illegal immigration or something else. I'd recommend that they complain to the Wall Street Journal and tell them that the Journal is being unpatriotic and UnAmerican. [[User:Seekcommon]]

: I seem to have some difficulty in providing a link to any interested reader. The article is at online.wsj.com/article/SB117807233027389126.html

I suppose I see immoral behavior anywhere when it comes to immigrants and their current status in the US (particularly Mexican, Chinese, Korean or other non-caucasian, non-white). Even for a litigious society like the US, this surely takes first prize - the story of a Judge that sues a dry cleaner for 65 million dollars - taking it out on immigrants who have done good I suppose.
[www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502763_pf.html Here is the article by Marc Fisher] I am curious as to what the position (if any) of the conservatives on this board about whether of not the law suit has any merit. And why there has been no significant outcry - Could it be because the affected party is not white or black? Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when working people like the Cheungs are being victimized by the system? Or does it have to do something about the race and color of the affected parties and the one that is doing the suing? No, I do not know if the Most Eminent Judge Pearson is black or white - BUT I can guess He is black since nary a word from Jackson or Sharpton. Replace black with "African American" if it offends and I am aware that certain words are to be used only by certain people at certain times under certain conditions after getting permission from Jackson and Sharpton. [[User:Seekcommon]]
: The Most Honorable Judge Pearson is an African American, there was a video. Now it makes perfect sense as to why Jackson and Sharpton are not protecting the cleaners against this blatant racist, anti-immigrant fervor of an officer of the Court in these United States of America - after all, he is one of them and so cannot be bad. Shame on the establishment for allowing such obvious attempts at persecuting hard working immigrants. I can only imagine the treatment meted out to the poor illegals that cross the border to find work and take jobs that others refuse to take [[User:Seekcommon]]

These jobs that americans won't take are a myth. There is no such thing. What is really happening is they are taking jobs at a salary lower than that which americans will take, and in most cases lower than americans are allowed to take due to minimum wage. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 09:30, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==British point of view==
So far this debate has been US-centred, but we have immigration problems of a different kind in the [[United Kingdom]]. Let me say that I believe, in principle, in the value of immigrants to a society, both economically and socially. But our problem is that our country's immigration policies are inadequately enforced by an incompetent bureaucracy. At present, people may be living in the UK and waiting for up to 5 years before the [[Home Office]] processes their application for indefinite leave to remain, or for asylum status. They're in a sort of limbo - they don't have the proper documentation, so they find it hard to get a job, so they can't contribute to society. This isn't the immigrants' fault - it's the incompetence of our [[Labour Party|Labour]] government, who have simply failed in their duty to provide a system that works. Not to mention, we're now getting mass immigration from Eastern Europe due to those countries joining the [[European Union]]. This isn't a bad thing in itself, but we've had a few cases of people with criminal records entering the UK - and our immigration services don't even bother to check their background before letting them in. Once again, the Labour government failed to plan for the future. What a dismal record of failure. [[User:Palace1|Palace1]] 13:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==Student POV==
I don't see why we have to reform American laws concerning immigrantion. Indeed our side of the fence has already solved the problem way back when. The reformation has to occur on the other side of the tortilla wall. If los presidentes of the latin nations would reform their own laws conserning work where people don't earn 10 bucks a day, then we wouldn't have a problem. Secondly, the people of those nations need a spine transplant. They need to learn that governments break with pressure. I hate tools who come into my country demanding that we change our laws. They need to go back and reform their country that they love oh so much. [[User:Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed]] June 25 2007

== OTHER ==

jez could you ask the question in a better format?

IMMIGRATION control is the answer to ILLEGAL immigration....

a country that doesnt have borders isnt much of a country....

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

we should just tell border security personnel to shoot the illegal in the head in be done with it...one less problem...a billion upon billion more to go...and growing...--[[User:Shateldo|Shateldo]] 22:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

==People who work aren't the problem==
Illegal immigrants who come here and work hard and pay their bills aren't the problem. It's people who DON'T work who are the problem. As Milton Friedman said, you can't have open borders and a welfare state. Some number of illegal immigrants are a burden to society. They collect welfare, they occupy subsidized housing, they don't pay for their medical treatment, they get free education, reduced college tuition, etc. Americans are infuriated by those who are parasites on the taxpayers. The majority (?) of illegal immigrants are not burdens, they are contributors. They work hard, producing valuable goods and services. They pay their bills, they follow the rules (except for the obvious illegal immigration).

There is often a difference between immorality and illegality. The voluntary transaction between worker and employer is not inherently immoral but it is illegal if the immigrant is illegal. The involuntary transaction between welfare recipient and taxpayer is immoral but may be illegal.

We should invite into our country those who will be a positive contribution to our American society. We should deport those who are a burden on society.

(To those Conservapedia users who are not US citizens I apologize for writing with a US point of view. I am an American - for which I make no apologies.) [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 09:19, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Well logically there shouldn't be any reason they're illegal in the first place if they're hard working...its not like citizenship will kill them. But if they do work hard for a while and make some money they should go and get citizenship. People on welfare tho that are on welfare cuz they have too many children should get deported though...--[[User:Shateldo|Shateldo]] 22:54, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?

2009-10-14T02:54:41Z

Shateldo: /* People who work aren't the problem */

==Yes==
Is one civilization responsible for the well being of another civilization?
Is an influx of uneducated people into your country beneficial to your country?

In my humble opinion, in terms of whats best for the country, I would say no to both questions.
: Seekcommon has made a number of interesting points, but he/she is simply wrong. The FBI arrested several men who were plotting to kill american soldiers, many were illegal and in the US for several years. It is imperative that the FEDS go all out to round up all illegals and deport them to whereever they came from. What the heck, they have broken the law anyway and contribute nothing to this society of law abiding and God fearing citizens. [[User:dninsafbicia]]

==No==
Legal immigration control is the answer to illegal immigration. That way people will know what is legal and illegal. Legal=civility while illegal=jail time.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:40, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. It is time that the White man who killed the original inhabitants of the country we call the US of A should leave. Christopher Columbus thought he had reached India when he did not and he allowed for the killings that followed. More recently, so many Irish came to the US, many illegally, we should demand proof that they are here legally. Every one who was not born of parents who were not here on this land originally ought to be asked to demand proof that they belong here and are not here illegally. Great idea. [[User:Seekcommon]]

::Well, that is what is called racism. It has nothing to do with immigrating from one sovereign country to another in a legal means by todays standards of civilization. But let us go farther back in time when succesive waves of people "immigrated" to the Americas. Each one killing their way across the continents until they became the dominant culture. If you can go back far enough to find the first person to inhabit the Americas then it won't mean nothing since they probably no longer exist. But their ancestors weren't originally born here either if you go back far enough. So how about putting a clamp on the racism?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I see "racism" in the current vitriol being thrown at "illegal" immigration, yes, "illegal". The fact is that, "illegal" immigration happens because we have a flawed/inhumane "legal" immigration policy. Today's immigrants (legal and illegal) are very different from the ones that came in the early 20th century/late 19th century. The fact is that without the illegals, much of our economy will crawl. Using the pretext of "illegal" immigration, demagogues like Lou Dobbs of CNN unload on "legal" immigration - issues of H-1 visas for technical people and such - claiming that "such immigrants" take jobs away from "natives". Rubbish, says that most radical of all newspapers, The Wall Street Journal. [[User:Seekcommon] PS - My comments about the white man and such were, obviously meant to make a point that we are ALL immigrants and many came illegally. Inspite of all this, I have always believed that of ALL countries in the world, the US of A remains the most humane and welcoming of ALL foreigners, immigrants - Let's keep it that way, is what I hope we do. [[User:Seekcommon]]

::No, illegal immigrants aren't "helping" the economy. The exploitation of illegal immigrants is the slave mentality. Just as on the cotton plantations of the 19th century, today we have the idea of businesses exploiting illegal immigrants for their own profit. You are right about the existance of flawed policy. That we have sanctuary cities and towns that protect criminal business practices who exploit cheap labor. All about the money, right? They don't lose their business or go to jail even if their under paid workers are rounded up and deported. There are always plenty of American citizens in line to replace them. But if you were given the choice of paying someone five bucks an hour or fifteen bucks then the decision is simple. I've also noticed that only those that don't see a problem with the illegal exploitation of illegal aliens are always screaming about racism. The flawed/inhumane legal immigration policy of the United States allows the "legal" immigration of more people then any other country on the planet. Perhaps the real answer to illegal immigration would be throwing American Citizens in jail for the inhumane monetary exploitation of their fellow human beings. Until that happens, people will immigrate illegally to work as cheap labor.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::: The fundamental reason our country, the US of A is a magnet for the rest of the world is the simple fact that each person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By any measure, we have benefited enormously by both legal AND illegal immigration, I know you disagree. Fine. The workers who are "exploited" are still better off than they would have been in their own country (yes, that includes legal AND illegal immigrants). In fact what is happening is that because the world is slowly trying to catch up to the US and as more opportunities are made available to people in those countries, there is less and less interest and pressure for many to emigrate from their native lands and immigrate to the US - these trends are evident in Higher Education, for sure. Unlike other countries, we are dynamic - people who are laid off, do find other ways to survive/thrive. Yes, many are hurt irreversibly and never recover. No system is perfect, what we have in the US comes close. Adam Smith explained it best - supply and demand. It is OUR demand for goods/services and OUR refusal to pay any more than what we WANT to pay that results in producers trying to find ways to reduce their costs and OUR costs. Yes, the producers DO MAKE money by using cheap labor, but millions of people do have jobs and do very well. No matter what I say or write (or what the Wall Street Journal writes), you will hold steadfast to your view that "illegal" immigration hurts us all and does not help the economy. I disagree. You can make a difference. Stop shopping at Walmart, do not buy a car or a computer or a shirt or a pant that is NOT made in the US A and before you buy anything, ask if the people who made them were paid a "decent wage" and were "not exploited" or whatever. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Apparently illegal border crossings have slowed by more than 10% this year according to a report cited by the Wall Street Journal, today May 2, 2007.
But instead of rigorous enforcement as many would have us believe, this reflects supply and demand, again according to the Wall Street Journal. The slump in the housing market is cited as the main reason as to why fewer illegals are crossing the border and it indicates, again as the Wall Street Journal reports, that immigrants come here to work and not idle and collect welfare. I should add they work and improve OUR standard of living while accepting jobs that go abegging. Many on our unemployed rolls are unwilling to take these jobs or perhaps do not even have those skills necessary or simply refuse because they can and sit and complain about illegal immigration or something else. I'd recommend that they complain to the Wall Street Journal and tell them that the Journal is being unpatriotic and UnAmerican. [[User:Seekcommon]]

: I seem to have some difficulty in providing a link to any interested reader. The article is at online.wsj.com/article/SB117807233027389126.html

I suppose I see immoral behavior anywhere when it comes to immigrants and their current status in the US (particularly Mexican, Chinese, Korean or other non-caucasian, non-white). Even for a litigious society like the US, this surely takes first prize - the story of a Judge that sues a dry cleaner for 65 million dollars - taking it out on immigrants who have done good I suppose.
[www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502763_pf.html Here is the article by Marc Fisher] I am curious as to what the position (if any) of the conservatives on this board about whether of not the law suit has any merit. And why there has been no significant outcry - Could it be because the affected party is not white or black? Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when working people like the Cheungs are being victimized by the system? Or does it have to do something about the race and color of the affected parties and the one that is doing the suing? No, I do not know if the Most Eminent Judge Pearson is black or white - BUT I can guess He is black since nary a word from Jackson or Sharpton. Replace black with "African American" if it offends and I am aware that certain words are to be used only by certain people at certain times under certain conditions after getting permission from Jackson and Sharpton. [[User:Seekcommon]]
: The Most Honorable Judge Pearson is an African American, there was a video. Now it makes perfect sense as to why Jackson and Sharpton are not protecting the cleaners against this blatant racist, anti-immigrant fervor of an officer of the Court in these United States of America - after all, he is one of them and so cannot be bad. Shame on the establishment for allowing such obvious attempts at persecuting hard working immigrants. I can only imagine the treatment meted out to the poor illegals that cross the border to find work and take jobs that others refuse to take [[User:Seekcommon]]

These jobs that americans won't take are a myth. There is no such thing. What is really happening is they are taking jobs at a salary lower than that which americans will take, and in most cases lower than americans are allowed to take due to minimum wage. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 09:30, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==British point of view==
So far this debate has been US-centred, but we have immigration problems of a different kind in the [[United Kingdom]]. Let me say that I believe, in principle, in the value of immigrants to a society, both economically and socially. But our problem is that our country's immigration policies are inadequately enforced by an incompetent bureaucracy. At present, people may be living in the UK and waiting for up to 5 years before the [[Home Office]] processes their application for indefinite leave to remain, or for asylum status. They're in a sort of limbo - they don't have the proper documentation, so they find it hard to get a job, so they can't contribute to society. This isn't the immigrants' fault - it's the incompetence of our [[Labour Party|Labour]] government, who have simply failed in their duty to provide a system that works. Not to mention, we're now getting mass immigration from Eastern Europe due to those countries joining the [[European Union]]. This isn't a bad thing in itself, but we've had a few cases of people with criminal records entering the UK - and our immigration services don't even bother to check their background before letting them in. Once again, the Labour government failed to plan for the future. What a dismal record of failure. [[User:Palace1|Palace1]] 13:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==Student POV==
I don't see why we have to reform American laws concerning immigrantion. Indeed our side of the fence has already solved the problem way back when. The reformation has to occur on the other side of the tortilla wall. If los presidentes of the latin nations would reform their own laws conserning work where people don't earn 10 bucks a day, then we wouldn't have a problem. Secondly, the people of those nations need a spine transplant. They need to learn that governments break with pressure. I hate tools who come into my country demanding that we change our laws. They need to go back and reform their country that they love oh so much. [[User:Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed]] June 25 2007

== OTHER ==

jez could you ask the question in a better format?

IMMIGRATION control is the answer to ILLEGAL immigration....

a country that doesnt have borders isnt much of a country....

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

we should just tell border security personnel to shoot the illegal in the head in be done with it...one less problem...a billion upon billion more to go...and growing...--[[User:Shateldo|Shateldo]] 22:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

==People who work aren't the problem==
Illegal immigrants who come here and work hard and pay their bills aren't the problem. It's people who DON'T work who are the problem. As Milton Friedman said, you can't have open borders and a welfare state. Some number of illegal immigrants are a burden to society. They collect welfare, they occupy subsidized housing, they don't pay for their medical treatment, they get free education, reduced college tuition, etc. Americans are infuriated by those who are parasites on the taxpayers. The majority (?) of illegal immigrants are not burdens, they are contributors. They work hard, producing valuable goods and services. They pay their bills, they follow the rules (except for the obvious illegal immigration).

There is often a difference between immorality and illegality. The voluntary transaction between worker and employer is not inherently immoral but it is illegal if the immigrant is illegal. The involuntary transaction between welfare recipient and taxpayer is immoral but may be illegal.

We should invite into our country those who will be a positive contribution to our American society. We should deport those who are a burden on society.

(To those Conservapedia users who are not US citizens I apologize for writing with a US point of view. I am an American - for which I make no apologies.) [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 09:19, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Well logically there shouldn't be any reason they're illegal in the first place if they're hard working...its not like citizenship will kill them. But if they do work hard for a while and make some money they should go and get citizenship. People on welfare tho that are on welfare cuz they have too many children should get deported though...--[[User:Shateldo|Shateldo]] 22:54, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?

2009-10-14T02:48:28Z

Shateldo: /* OTHER */

Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?

2009-10-14T02:45:40Z

Shateldo: /* No, They Should Be Rolled Back */

{{debate}}

== Background ==

If one assumes that the science which has determined smoking to be hazardous and even deadly over time is valid, then some degree of government regulation is warranted. For example, no reasonable person would dispute that smoking by minors should be prohibited.

The degree to which smoking by adults should be regulated is more debatable, however. Some argue that there's no justification for the legal sale of any product that causes cancer and related diseases like emphysema with not offsetting benefit. Others say that this is a matter of individual choice, and that as long as adults are given the facts, they should have the right to make that choice for themselves.

== Yes, They Should Be Tightened ==

Frankly, there's no legitimate reason smoking should be legal, because the science that shows it to be deadly has even been accepted by the tobacco companies, which focus on smokers-rights instead. The government does not allow the sale of any consumable product that is comparably harmful, and only permits smoking because of the potential outcry of voters addicted to it, and because of the tax revenue that would be lost.

These are cowardly reasons to permit its continued sale. All of society pays a cost for smoking, specifically in assuming the medical expenses for the underinsured, and lost productivity due to illness and death. As for parallels, a light consumption of alcohol (like a few glasses of red wine per week) has been shown to have overall health benefits, while comparable addictive substances that sharpen the senses and suppress appetite, like cocaine, have been banned.

The arguments for lost taxes fall short because that money would be spent elsewhere. Figures from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids assert that smokers cost the economy $97.6 billion a year in lost productivity because of premature death. Per the same source, an ''additional'' $96.7 billion is spent on public and private health care combined, and each American household spends $630 a year in federal and state taxes due to smoking, whether they smoke or not.

The cost of a pack of cigarettes averages $4.49, including taxes. Using this number, a pack-a-day smoker burns through about $31.43 per week, or $1,635 per year. That's higher than the average incentive check the government sent out this spring, and would be an ongoing stimulus to the economy if spent. Alternatively, a 40-year-old who quits smoking and puts the savings into a 401(k) earning 9% a year would have nearly $250,000 by age 70, relieving some of the burden on Social Security, Medicare, etc.

To recap, there is no overall benefit to society from allowing smoking, but every American suffers from the negative impacts in an economic sense. When the voluntary actions of some citizens cause harm to all, there is no rational justification to roll back regulation of the action. Regulation should be tightened with a national goal of ending tobacco sales in this country in the next couple of decades. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:47, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:Good points. I basically agree. Also, to respond to the inevitable point that this would infringe on the smokers' freedoms, I would point out that government restrict our freedoms all the time to prevent situations where we might otherwise put other people at risk. Even if you own a gun, you're not permitted to go around shooting it just anywhere. Or you may have a license to drive a car, but you atill have to observe speed limits and other traffic regulations. And so forth. Smoking really seems no different - you're welcome to smoke in your own home or in the open air, but not in circumstances where you put other people's health at risk through second-hand smoke. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 14:24, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Thanks. I just made a similar point on the Talk page for this debate. Even if you don't believe that second-hand smoke is a health hazard, it's still an annoyance to many non-smokers. We accept regulations on playing annoyingly loud music in open, public spaces because the rights of others not to be disturbed take precedence over those of the individual who's cranking the tunes. That's the same premise for restricting smoking in public - smoking affects an area, not an individual, so the rights of others to enjoy a smoke-free public space outweigh those of the individual smoker. -[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:26, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

== No, They Should Be Rolled Back ==
Well if speaking of the money the 40 year old could put into the 401k plan thing, if the 40 year old just died then there would be just as much saving for the social security stuff. --[[User:Shateldo|Shateldo]] 22:45, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?

2009-10-14T02:44:56Z

Shateldo: /* No, They Should Be Rolled Back */