“Slow down. Slow down. How about a little foreplay?”— Speaker John Boehner on whether or not the House could support an agreement that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants now living in the United States, according to ABC News.
At most, give illegals temporary legal status in exchange for having no permanent rights and NO path to citizenship. Illegals often came here for the standard of living anyway, so some of them might not need citizenship as much as legal residency and the right to work.
Although some were brought to the country illegally as children and are blameless, many of us don't want to reward their parents' illegal behavior by compensating for the wrong done by the parents. And the parents really are to blame for creating their difficulties, yet they instead accuse opponents of legalization of being mean racists.
If they came illegally, then the parents didn't respect U.S. law and should forfeit the chance at citizenship; that way we can deport them if needed. Why would we want lawbreakers to become citizens? The children didn't break the law, but they are likely to consider their parents' actions as justified. If they probably have the same law-breaking mentality, we should not want them here either.
Those illegal workers chose to live dangerously by coming to America illegally. They put themselves and their children in that situation of fear. The people of America did not invite them here or promise them anything.
Having to go back to their country of citizenship might be tough. But I've seen stories about expatriate Americans (and not just retirees) settling in Mexico, even though they speak no Spanish and know nothing about the society there. If those people can do it, then these immigrants could do it (and probably adjust more easily). They just don't want to. Is that reason enough that they should stay?
Naturally, they don't want to return to a country that offers little opportunity to them. But why should our laws and public policy be determined simply by what they want? We don't have to give them what they want, to fix the problem they (or their parents/guardians) created by immigrating.
It's totally understandable that these people want to maintain their current living standard and network of friends and so on. Just because we can understand their motives doesn't mean we should ignore all of the other concerns involved with legalizing them.
Those struggling migrants would not have to live an life in the shadows in their country of citizenship. That's one of the reasons why they should return there.
The Latino media blame the immigration system for deportations and split families. They speak as if the immigrants' rulebreaking has nothing to do with the immigrants' difficulties.
These immigrants violate various rules and laws, and then demand that the federal government relieve them of the consequences. Their advocates speak as if they can't imagine anyone having a problem with that.
I'm having difficulty comprehending their sense of entitlement. I wonder whether some Latino media never air a significant exploration of the anti-illegal-immigrant position.
Consider an analogy: If someone gets sent to prison, and then they or their children complain about separation of the family, do we blame the justice system?
Here's my problem with your argument: it doesn't work. So long as the opportunities in America are better, the possibilities for their family are better, they will continue to flood over the border into the US. Sure, you can deport them, you can hope for self-deportation, you can do all sorts of things, but the real effect is that not only is the US failing to stem the tide, it has yet to next-export illegal immigrants through any policy changes.
So you have a continuously growing group of 12 million illegal immigrants and as we've seen with so many other policies (drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc, etc, etc), the harder you press on it, the more it gets driven into the hands of criminals. As their rights continue to not be protected, poverty and the social consequences grow. Meanwhile, they're costing the system - not just with the aforementioned poverty but in the realms of health care, education, and municipal services while they cannot be followed for evading taxes.
I can sympathize with the idea of "let's not let them be citizens" - give them permanent residence status and bar them from obtaining citizenship unless they came to America legally. But hiding them in a hole just allows that hole to drain the system. Clamp down and all you do is dig that hole deeper. Build a fence and they'll just tunnel under it. People walked through minefields to get from East to West Germany - knowing full well that if they were spotted, they wouldn't be arrested but *shot on sight*. So long as America remains the land of opportunity compared to Mexico, the formula will never change. So what are you going to do? Clamp down on a problem that will never help and ensure that it will always harm society? Or will we give them a path to the light where we can welcome them in as a contributor?They're not going anywhere and you will never find them all so those really are your only choices
Yes, many will come in spite of our immigration laws. But how many MORE would come, if it became clear that unauthorized immigrants can expect periodic amnesties?
And if we actually give up (like we did with alcoholic beverage prohibition) and make it legal for people to just show up, how many will come? The world's poorest, least capable, and most desperate people might decide it makes more sense to rely on whatever charity they can scrounge up here. Realistically, not every American will ignore the homeless/starving/jobless masses; somehow, money will be diverted to charity from other uses that our economy relies on currently. And how can we employ them over the long term, with unemployment already high?
And as more foreigners hear about their countrymen fleeing to America, the more plausible that option will seem, so we might see the trend accelerate.
Also, how much less will the current illegals be "costing the system" as you phrased it, if legalized? Their needs will remain, and they often will still be poorly paid.
Oh how I hate going back to a thread that's a week old.
Your biases and assumptions are on full display. Your first error is in assuming that they are reliant upon charity to live here. However, the vast majority of illegal immigrants are finding whatever methods they can to work - they want to work, they want to contribute, and they work hard. Charity is far from their source of income.
Second, you fail to understand that their objective is not citizenship but rather for a better life for their children. When they make their decisions to back up and move, very little attention is paid to whether they'd be accepted or not - they care only about whether there is a chance their children would have a better future. Granting "amnesty" reduces the risk factor slightly, but only slightly. They might get caught...they might be sent back ... but the chances of that happening - amnesty or no - is tiny. And the cost of being sent back is nonexistant.
Third, they don't contribute to the system at all right now - they pay no taxes right now and there is no way to prevent that. However, their skill levels can provide them jobs where people are making well above minimum wage and once they step into the light, they will be able to make their full wages and begin contributing back to the system. How much? I don't know, but 12 million can't possibly have a net effect of zero. (Also, there's plenty of evidence that says that the cost on the system of those who are in the dark is far higher than if they are in the light even with the same level of income - things like emergency room visits are vastly more expensive than being able to regularly see a family doctor. The impact on the system when someone isn't given a chance to get basic education or improve their skills costs the economy far more than providing those opportunities. The list goes on and on and on)
Fourth, you assume that they only steal jobs. Only this is yet another unfair bias based entirely upon their conditions. If we know anything about immigrants (illegal or not), it is this:
- They're driven enough that they left their home country
- They're willing to take risk enough to leave their home country
- They desire to achieve more enough to leave their home country
Replace "to leave their home country" with "to start a business", and you have all the properties needed for an Entrepreneur. And as Republicans love to point out, it is small businesses that get the economy back on track.
And really, your ultimate problem is your inherent assumption that illegal immigrants inherently detract from society whether they're welcomed in or not. But the flaw in that is that people who are in America, who are full members of America and contribute to America improve America. We all work together to make a better country. We are all what drives the nation forward. It isn't a nation of takers and givers but of people who help the society together. Any Rand was wrong: the greatness of society is in how we all live our lives, not how the "successful" live their lives.
Boehner's getting senile: He's getting Obama mixed up with the hookers he pays to dress up like Obama.
This comment has been deleted
Slow down? So what the speaker is arguing for is to do nothing like they've done for 4 years? Sure; do nothing. That will sure improve things in 2014 and 16.
Somehow I don't think that's the first time Boehner has said that to a reporter.
Said reporter probably just wanted to get it over with as soon as possible.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
Your GOP colleagues in the Senate just schtupped the entire female population of the United States.
Please consider this your "foreplay".
You may now commence screwing the population of illegal aliens living in the USA, and, by extension, their family and friends. Take the blue pill if you need to; it's bound to take more than 4 hours...
"I thought the election was the foreplay."
Rolls over and lights a cigarette. That was really good. Let's do it again in 4 years.
@sacredh Who knew Ohio was an aphrodisiac?
She kicked my butt in yahtzee. 3 of her first 5 rolls resulted in Yahtzees. I told her after the first game that I'd beat her the next time. Her response? "I doubt it. You suck".
We knew how to quit Karl. We took his ad money, rejected his guy and then laughed at him on Fox that night.
Ohio to Karl: Thanks for the money, sucker.
@sacredh I'm getting set for the SOTU.
Hi, I'm SueN, and I'm a politicsaholic.
Just roll over and go to sleep.
Good grief, Paulejb is extra tiresome today in the MMR thread. His brethren appear to have him carrying all the water alone, so maybe that's why.
@AlistairCookie Indeed. Have been busy until now and peeked in at MMR. When I've looked recently he seems to be the only one, so at least that's a relief.
But dinner and drinks would be such a waste of taxpayer money...and I'm guessing Boehner's not a cheap date or drunk.
So the party that realizes it might have a Hispanic problem still doesn't want to address the problem of 11 million undocumented people living and working and, yes, paying taxes in this country. Because they might piss off the old angry white people who aren't numerous enough to win national elections.
Sounds like a helluva plan.
I supposed orange and blue do contrast nicely
“Slow down. Slow down. How about a little foreplay?”
John, time is of the essence. Who knows when you're going to pass out you drunk.
And the phrase "path to citizenship" has been bandied about since at least the Bush II administration. I know he's old, and strangely orange, but how much foreplay does he require....nope, I've changed my mind, I'm really not asking that.