[Vision2020] So, you think our borders need tightening, huh?

[Scott Dredge]

Thanks Rose & Wayne.  I'll consolidate my responses here.

Rose writes:
<I find it abhorrent to deny anyone the right to enter this country when they are coming to escape a no hope situation in their home country.  Which of us would turn away a family who asks only to work, feed and educate their children.>

I'm not sure that it's a 'no hope' situation, but being in the United States offers magnitudes more work, education, and health benefits than the country they're fleeing.  It's hard to say which one us would turn away a family.  I think it would depend on how big of a cumulative drain or asset such families would be on the regions that they're congregating in.  If they want to send their kids to public school or even private school I have no objection to that.  In general, it seems Idaho does a fairly good job of employing illegals.  Something like 80% of the Idaho dairy farm workers are illegal.  And if you make them legal, they would unlikely work those jobs and instead would move on to higher paying jobs that they'd be entitled to by law opening the way for other illegals to take their place in the lower paying jobs they've now vacated.  So while it's abhorrent to deny anyone the right to enter this country, it's not so abhorrent to me anyway to document them and them put them on a path toward to legal residency and ultimately to citizenship.  It's abhorrent to me to simply just give them immediate citizenship because that's a complete injustice to the many millions of people that do come here legally, follow the rules to obtain residency, and then follow more rules to obtain citizenship.  So again, I'm fine with a path to citizenship, but let's make it fair, reasonable, and properly scaled to all of the rest of immigrants that wish to come over here from various countries all over the world.  Doesn't that make perfect sense?

Wayne writes:
<Some people assume that our immigration laws are racist or biased in favor of certain nationalities. Not so now, although it was true for a long time. Orientals, for instance, were not allowed to immigrate to the U.S. and there were national quotas for immigration, with the quotas being weighted to give preference to northern Europeans, then later, to natives of the Western Hemisphere. That is no longer so; the last vestige of race or national origin in the law disappeared in 1965.>

It's hard to say Wayne.  India and China each have populations over 1 billion people and we have relatively strict immigration policies for those countries compared with other countries.  It seems a case could be made on race / bias.  Or maybe not given all the facts and realities.

-Scott 

From: bear at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] So, you think our borders need tightening,  huh?
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 18:54:04 -0700
To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com

Scott,
Another view, from the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers:

Since the mid-1960s, our immigration laws have been intended to protect us in four major areas. In no particular order, they are:Public safety - Alien criminals may not enter the U.S. legally or remain here except in extraordinary circumstances. At one time, protecting public morals was seen as a public safety issue, so prostitutes, polygamists, sexual deviates and some others were not allowed to come here. The idea of public morality seems a quaint concept now, but once upon a time it was important to us. Public health - For decades carriers of contagious diseases or those afflicted with physical or mental diseases affecting their ability to support themselves were not allowed to enter the U.S. To a large degree, most of those have fallen by the wayside in the actual application of the law, but they are still on the books. Jobs - In one way or another, most people earn a living by selling their sweat to someone else who needs it. Sweat is like any other commodity; as it becomes more available it becomes cheaper, that is, wages go down when there's lots of it available. Immigration adds to the pool of sweat, so to keep immigration from depressing wages too much we have limited it to varying degrees over the years. National Security - Foreigners who would harm the country cannot come here, but the definition of who that is changes with time. Once upon a time it was Communists and Nazis; now it's terrorists, for instance. Our entire body of immigration law starts with this fundamental concept: no foreigner may come to the United States without our permission. The law then sets about defining who can get permission and under what circumstances. For instance, the law says that anyone coming to perform skilled or unskilled labor may not enter unless he has a certification . . . well, never mind. It all gets very complicated once you get into the "unlesses" that apply to every facet of immigration laws. But FYI, the term "work permit" is nowhere in the law, and neither is "guest worker." Some people assume that our immigration laws are racist or biased in favor of certain nationalities. Not so now, although it was true for a long time. Orientals, for instance, were not allowed to immigrate to the U.S. and there were national quotas for immigration, with the quotas being weighted to give preference to northern Europeans, then later, to natives of the Western Hemisphere. That is no longer so; the last vestige of race or national origin in the law disappeared in 1965. Just remember this: our immigration laws are not whimsical. They exist for a reason, and they adapt over time to new reasons, becoming more strict or less strict in any particular area as society's needs, desires, and perceptions change. For more than thirty years we have ignored the fact that there are good reasons for immigration laws and allowed illegal immigration on an unimaginable scale. We are now paying the price for that.   		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130901/9836b3b3/attachment.html>