[Vision2020] Immigration Reform: Path to citizenship won't be easy

Wed Aug 21 16:14:20 PDT 2013

Were all things equal, I would agree with you, Scott. I think I've tried to
live my life in accordance with the values you suggest and in general I try
to go the regular route and not cut corners.

But are all things equal? I'm suggesting a pragmatic policy consideration
that is not without its moral problems. But leave ethics out of it; don't
base it on what folks should do; try to base it on what they will do,
whether it is effective policy. Leave ethics to the priests and
philosophers.

Leaving ethics aside, and viewing things from a purely practical point of
view, we should consider some kind of amnesty for existing illegal
immigrants. Bringing the law into the matter always incurs a cost, and how
could that cost be justified other than in some obscure, philosophical way
with which I would likely disagree.

The law should be lean and mean; only used when necessary as well as
justified.

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>wrote:

> You're correct Joe. Someone may want citizenship but won't apply (not
> aware or lacks resources) or maybe doesn't have the avenue to apply (here
> illegally maybe).
>
> I hang with all sorts if various and sundry characters and I've heard all
> sorts of excuses for not applying for citizenship from a few. Some of the
> comments have been 'I'VE LIVED HERE LONG ENOUGH, I DON'T THINK I SHOULD BE
> REQUIRED TO TAKE A TEST' and 'THE CLOSEST IMMIGRATION OFFICE IS IN SEATTLE
> AND THAT'S 4 HOURS AWAY' and 'I DON'T WANT TO BE SUBPOENAED TO SIT ON A
> JURY'.  I don't even know if the last one is accurate. Can you shirk jury
> duty if you're a non citizen?
>
> Anyway IMO when there is process already in place, you should follow the
> process. I think Wayne's point is that for those in the United States
> illegally, they should go back to their home country or else be forcibly
> removed per the current process (law). I don't agree with position which
> I'm sure makes me a hypocrite for calling for other laws to be enforced but
> not deportation laws except under certain instances where enforcing them
> 'makes sense' to me. Subjective, I know, but that topic is for another
> discussion.
>
> So the question I'd have is 'do illegals residing in the US presently have
> a have a path to become legal residents?'  If not, I thin that's the first
> problem to solve. Give them a path to Green Card. Or if that's too much
> (and Greed Cards are tantamount to Nirvana), then they should be offered a
> path to Blue Card which can be continued on the Green Card.
>
> Does this seem fair enough?
>
> -Scott
>
> On Aug 21, 2013, at 10:19 AM, "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> Application rate is not a good measure. There might be reasons -- fear of
> deportation -- for why illegals won't apply that are independent of not
> wanting citizenship.
>
> If we did things like we used to do -- when your relatives came and my
> relatives came -- more illegals would be legals. What's a boat ride to NY
> compared with what they now suffer?
>
> On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> First of all, there has been on talk I hope of just 'giving illegals
> citizenship'.  Even Tom specifically wrote that he wants a 'path to
> citizenship' offered for illegals.  A common path for non-citizens to
> follow presently is to first obtain a Green Card.
>
> As for your question of 'what supports your claim that illegals don't want
> citizenship?', the answer is due in part that even legals don't want
> citizenship. The naturalization rate  of LEGAL immigrants from Mexico who
> are eligible to become citizens is only 36% which is a rate that is half
> that of legal immigrants from all other countries combined.
>
> You can read more about 'the path not taken' at:
>
> http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/02/04/the-path-not-taken/
>
> I am in favor of a path for illegals to first become 'documented' and put
> on a path toward Green Card and citizenship, but if they choose for any
> reason to not to file for any such documentation, then that would be their
> choice alone to remain 'undocumented'.  And if they choose to become
> 'documented', but to not to follow the path to citizenship, then that would
> again be their choice.  It's like abortion.  Women should be offered that
> choice, but not have it forced upon them against their will.
>
> -Scott
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 07:45:14 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Immigration Reform: Path to citizenship won't be
> easy
> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> Why do you say they don't want it? If they don't want citizenship, then it
> is a non-issue. Give it too them, and they'll just give it back. What is
> the harm? My guess is that a lot of illegals would file for citizenship but
> they are afraid of being arrested if they try. Maybe I'm wrong about that
> but what supports your claim that illegals don't want citizenship?
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> The Path to Citizenship doesn't address the root of the problem which is
> how do you force citizenship on people who don't want it?  It's almost as
> difficult as trying force democracy on the Iraqis.
>
>
> http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20130527/immigration-reform-path-to-citizenship-wont-be-easy
>
> "It's certainly not a bill that we would have written ourselves,'' said
> Laura Vazquez, a legislative analyst at the National Council of La Raza,
> who nevertheless said it "makes significant improvements to our broken
> immigration system. "
>
> "The ultimate goal of the legislation we believe is to get as many people
> to move from undocumented status into a path to citizenship,'' Vazquez
> said. "That has to be met by having a process that is real and accessible.''
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130821/4a737499/attachment.html>