Local Immigration Reform Activists Respond to President Obama’s Address

Sounds mighty sensible. And fair. Hope Obama fits this into his pre mid-term deadline this year. The speech sounds like a good first step, but he needs to step up his leadership and shake Congress into action. Good to see some local WA groups keeping the pressure on.

I'm not defending our immigration system as anything close to ideal, but her suggestion that the fact that even people who have applied for residency are “waiting in line” is prima facie evidence of a problem is not persuasive.

If you think people should never have to wait in line, then it suggests that you believe that immigration should be unlimited. I don't know of any country on Earth that allows for unlimited immigration. In fact, I've read that the US takes in more immigrants than all other countries combined.

And we should take in immigrants. My family came as immigrants and 100% of the population of North America is immigrants if you go back not too far in human history. But in a country built upon certain ideals, rather than bloodlines, socialization and citizenship is important. There are limits to the rate of assimilation. Many of our immigrants are poor, too. Unlike, say, Canada, we don't aggressively favor the wealthy and educated in our immigration policy. Our social safety net (and support for that safety net) becomes frayed if it is stretched too far.

I would ask Ms. Jayapal what limits she thinks there should be on immigration.

T, spell out for me please how you and/or your family got here.
Let me decide if you should stay, because as a white dude you jest don't look all that right to me.
Some squinty thing in your eyes that doesn't sit right.

Native Americans can stay. Everyone else should go back to country of origin and re-apply. And wait.

My family fled the Chinese communists and my relatives legally immigrated to places as diverse as Taiwan, New Zealand, and Hong Kong. I was born here.

With all due respect, the “Native Americans can stay and everyone else can go back” cheeky comment is neither original nor serious. It is not a real policy proposal or argument. It doesn't even hold up to its own internal logic: Most “Native” Americans are significantly or largely of European or other non-indigenous ancestry.

Seriously, what do you propose we do about immigration?

“Most “Native” Americans are significantly or largely of European or other non-indigenous ancestry.”

I thought they came from Asia, across the land bridge. Or by seriously well designed and piloted boats, as the raven flies.

I propose what Jayapal proposes, but without the fine.
Nobody should be here illegally, and with computers as they are we should be able to account for everybody and then some.

But the borders for humans should be as open as the borders for moose. Open as hell.

Native Americans' “native” ancestors came from Asia, but most Native Americans have non-native or non-Asian ancestry as well. There has been a huge amount of interracial mixing between natives and whites in the 500 years since Europeans started settling here in the Americas.

If you are for open borders, do you wish to demolish the safety net, free public schooling, etc. and live in some kind of libertarian fantasy? Do you really believe there would be the resources and political support to maintain public schools, welfare benefits, medical care etc. if anyone who wished was allowed to come to the US? Do you believe US civic values could be preserved with an unregulated flow of immigration? What rights do you believe a nation-state has?

“What rights do you believe a nation-state has?”

The concept of a nation-state is bullshit to me.
You can't have people coming over here from Europe, and then saying DONE! We've exterminated everyone we didn't like and now people we do “like”, because they'll work cheaply in the mines, or the yard, or the baby's room…or the computer room or the genetic research room can stay.

I mean, you could. And we do.

But if you'll agree to get the fuck out of my country, I'll “like” your post.

Eff the nation-state, eh? So you're basically at war with modernity and civilization?

And your reasoning is that because atrocities were committed historically by founders of this country and by other historically, its current citizens may not govern? Because that applies to pretty much every significant civilization on Earth. I'd like you to point to any country or civilization of any significance that doesn't have a lot of blood on its hands historically.

And do you read about how many other countries treat immigrants? Do you know how immigrants and foreign workers are treated in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Japan, Hong Kong, China, Mexico, Italy etc.? This country is a lot more humane and accepting of immigrants–legal or not–than most countries.

And what are you talking about telling me to get out of “your” country? I was born here. It's my country, too.

I still haven't heard any policy proposals for how you would deal with immigration. It's a lot easier to find fault than propose workable solutions. In fact that's the entire GOP agenda right now. I kind of hope to hear more constructive ideas on Publicola.

Our forebears don't have blood on their hands.

When we invaded York or Normandy or Ireland, we didn't do anything really wrong. And those girls in Ireland we took to Iceland? All volunteers.

You talk sweet.
But you think of you as us and them as them.

You are them. How would you like us to deal with you?
And I'm not talking in the abstact. You are clearly against “them”, and think of yourself as something different.

You're not different, and neither am I.

Björk the other white meat…

I'm really not following you. Why am I “them?” And is “them” foreigners, immigrants?

And why are you part of “us?” And who is “us”–Native Americans?

You are yellow. I am white.
You think brown people and black people should shove off.

If you're not following me then I give up.
On you and everyone who looks like you.

And his brother.

I'm no Björk fan, generally.
But Dancer in the Dark is one of the best movies that I have ever seen.

Just sayin'.

When did I say anything about brown or black people? On average, a person of African heritage probably has deeper and more numerous roots in the US than a white person, or an Asian person, for sure.

Do you have something against “yellow” people? It seems to be a recurring them of your posts…

“Do you have something against “yellow” people? It seems to be a recurring them of your posts… “

The recurring them is your hatred of homeless people, black people, and anyone who breaks the laws of your adopted country, even if the people who enforce those laws are downright racists.
As long as it's not you they're coming after.

We're running out of room, as always.

I bid you peace, T.
And I'll try my best not to invade your space here any longer.

It's all on you now. Make the world a better place, for me.

1) I didn't “adopt” the US as my home country. I was born here. You have a lot of nerve! You must be from an older generation. Almost invariably people who think I'm a foreigner, or make comments like “oh, doesn't he speak English well” are among the Medicare set.

2) I don't hate “homeless people,” “black people,” or anyone else. I strongly dislike destructive, anti-social behavior–whatever the race of the perpetrator–that violates the social contract of acting like a decent human being and enables society to function.

3) When law enforcers are racists, I condemn that. I was appalled by the gratuitous, “Mexican piss out of you” comment and related attack. I would like to see the officer lose his job. That is unacceptable. (The officer who was assaulted by the two girls whom he tried to stop for jaywalking is another story entirely…)

with talent like that Bjork reference out of nowhere

a truly Michael Scott moment —

we need all the immigrants we can get.

Let's just hope they keep on coming.

T Chen, if you don't want others to make discriminatory remarks about you, and if you wish to continue to see yourself as someone who doesn't make gratuitious comments about particular groups of humans, lay off the “older generation” business. Being ageist isn't any more attractive than being racist.

The people who come up to El Norte are coming here to work, not live off the social safety net. When they get here, they pay taxes because you don't have to have a Social Security card (even a fake one) to get a tax ID number. They probably pay a much higher percentage of income taxes than wealthy “legal” Americans do.

True, I shouldn't have assumed that he must be old. You're right; I dislike it when others presume that a poster must be white, must be a man, must be this or that. It was a slip in a moment of frustration about Barleywine's bizarre comments about me.

BUT then you continue on to make some unfounded generalizations. Many immigrants may come to work, but what do the kids they raise here do? Many people in places like Yakima struggle with this issue. Also, some come here to commit crimes and engage in illicit smuggling of drugs, weapons, and people. It's a complicated mix of motives and activity.

As for taxes, do you think the folks standing around at Home Depot are reporting their income to the IRS? While they may be an asset to Social Security or Medicare when those two programs are looked at in isolation, I haven't seen a study that says that illegal immigrants as a whole bring in more revenue than they cost. Remember that half of the population of the US pays no federal income taxes. It's unlikely that illegal immigrants, who tend to have lower wages than the average American, are going to be paying a lot in taxes.

The top 5% pays a large majority of income taxes in the US. I suspect what you mean to say is that illegal immigrants pay a much higher percentage of THEIR income in taxes than wealthy Americans. That might be true in some localities with high sales taxes, but I'm not sure about it generally in the US. But it is pretty perverse that we tax work more than wealth in this country with the disparity between capital gains tax rates and income from work.

As far as the “older generation” comment, I wasn't disturbed that you thought Barleywine must be old; I thought your characterization of older peoples' opinions was stereotyping.

Yes, I did mean the percentage of income rather than percentage of taxes paid. But it's highly likely (no, there are no statistics) that a goodly share of the half of US population that doesn't pay federal income tax are wealthy people who can afford tax lawyers who are paid to find loopholes.

Conflating the standard illegal immigrant that we're discussing (i.e., the guys standing outside of Home Depot) with drug and weapon smugglers is a bit of a reach. Why would people making that kind of money be standing outside Home Depot?

It seems we've had this discussion before. Possibly when discussing homeless people who have been accused of being drug dealers, although if they were, they could certainly afford to rent an apartment. Or generally poor people, who still pay income tax because they don't have deductions. Your arguments seem the same.

Everyone always dances around the topic when it comes to immigration; it's always been and always will about about expected perception (to each viewer) of what society is, should be, and will be over time, and secondarily about maintaining political control.

The current 'right' is against immigration because
1) They see Mexican, Central and Southern American immigrants aligning with Democrat-type politicians.
2) Study after study shows that Hispanics will be 50+% of the US population in 30-40 years.
3) Whites will inevitably be a minority in the United States, which is perfectly fine and acceptable. Societies are meant to evolve over the years. A lot of people aren't OK with that.

I really wish that news coverage wouldn't dance around these facts.

Actually I have read studies showing the undocumented immigrants have a huge positive economic impact on our society.

Part is from the taxes they pay. Most are receiving paychecks not cash and social security and medicare and income taxes are deducted. Because that's what businesses do when hiring illegals. They're on the books with fake names, duh.

BTW this whole discussion of the income tax not paid, seriously folks, how dumb can youget. Do the math. The chavos hanging out at Home Deport don't make enough money to pay hardly anythign at all in income tax, big duh! You think they're making $100K and would be paying income tax ? WTF?

Their kids — okay, there you got a point. Their kids are in our schools. This is a cost. But you balance this against the fact that ….their parents are here to work. There are in fact no reports of large scale fraud in welfare or other social programs involving vast numbers of Mexicans coming here and sitting back and taking taking taking without working working working. Remember the other half of the complaints about them, they're taking our jobs away? Well it's a form of mental idiocy to complain (a) they're a net economic drain by sucking up welfare and (b) oh my god, they're working ! If they're working theyr'e contributing to our taxes and our economy, duh.

The other point about their kids is this is the population growth that's going to keep social security solvent. Your complaint is that we pay for their kids education? Again, totally stupid complaint. Kids who get educated become ….workers….professionals….business owners….who…pay taxes and maybe will employ your white gringo kids one day who're too lazy to anything as bold and entrepreneurial as make a $3000 investment cross an illegal border work your ass off and put it all into your kids so they become far more wealthy and productive than you were able to be. Seriously, the people who're not working and who're just sucking out benefits is us~!! It's the undocumented folks who're keeping us afloat and that's no lie.

Think about it. The right wing complaint is they pursue economic opportunity by m oving, working, and educating their families. Sounds like the American Dream to me.

As for drug dealers — news flash. We got Murkan drug dealers, too. And it's our gun outflow that's helping the mexican cartels destroy Mexico. It's our insatiable demand for drugs that's destroying mexico. It's our stupid insistence on illegalizing drugs that makes them profitable and outside the law and which has created this whole drug cartel problem. So don't blame the hardworking ciudadanos de los EEUU Mexicanos for the drug crimes. Look in the mirror and blame ourselves.

In addition to Old White Guy's comments, illegal immigrants' kids who were born outside the US don't get higher education or social services. The kids who WERE born in the US do get higher education and social services. Because they're citizens, duh again.

California is now a Hispanic-majority state. That's no doubt scaring the tea partiers. However, although California's economic crisis is blamed on all the illegals straining its finances, it was Howard Jarvis, a white guy, who headed California toward economic destruction many decades ago, with Reagan riding shotgun. For those who want to make illegal immigrants the main problem anywhere, sorry: it's stupid moves by politicians who are US citizens.

Remember, the Right's greatest asset is misdirection. It's been their only viable tool since Reagan nearly ended us as a viable society.

I agree that Reagan's presidency was hugely destructive to America. Carter was moving the US toward a more sensible outlook of conservation, respect for human rights, modesty etc. and then Reagan came in and played to the conceits of the American people and told them that they didn't have to sacrifice anything or conserve anything, whether it was energy or personal savings. I don't think it's a coincidence that personal savings rates started dropping significantly in the Reagan years and reached their nadir in the Dubya Bush era.

I do believe that the welfare policies were very destructive to lower income Americans, who become dependent on them to their detriment. But welfare was never a serious cause of America's fiscal problems, and you're right that Reagan and the right used misdirection to point to Welfare Queens while running up huge deficits on military spending.

We see the same thing now with right wingers drawing a line in the sand with unemployment benefits while we spend so much more dumping money into the bottomless pits of Afghanistan, Iraq, missile defense, and Medicare.

Every time John Boehner appears on a Sunday news program and makes his insufferable remarks about deficit spending blah blah, he should be asked by the host: 1) If you're so concerned about deficits, why did you vote for the Medicare Prescription Drug Entitlement, TARP, the war in Iraq, Missile Defense etc. 2) What SPECIFICALLY would YOU cut to balance the budget?

Yes, children of illegal immigrants do get the full rights as citizens of the US–as they should. We don't have corruption of the blood in this country. It's antithetical to what we believe, which is that people are individuals, responsible for their own behavior and not for their parents' choices.

However, it is not unreasonable to look at the costs and benefits of legal children of illegal immigrants because they are obviously a result and consequence of illegal immigration. That means we have to keep this in mind both when we swell with pride and read that a son of an illegal immigrant has graduated from Harvard and is living the American dream and will become a surgeon or are angered when one joins a gang and shoots someone in Los Angeles. Most kids end up somewhere in between, but an accurate study of the effects of illegal immigration would have to look at all the effects–both positive and negative–of at least the direct offspring of illegal immigrants.

Oh, and CA's economic crisis can be blamed on many factors, from an unfair property tax policy that makes new home buyers pay more than longtime owners, unrealistic pension and benefits deals with unions, a justice system driven by prison guard unions, and many more factors. You're surely right that illegal immigration is not at the top of the list.

I'd appreciate a link to these studies. I haven't read anything conclusive showing anything approaching a “huge” positive effect from illegal immigration.

Unfortunately, even though our schools are the mostly costly of any major country in the world, they aren't producing a lot of well-educated, highly productive members of society, especially in poorer, ethnically ghettoized areas of the US. Mexican-American children lag behind the broader American public in educational achievement on average, so I'm not sure its realistic to extrapolate from that a net-contribution to society. Remember, half of all Americans don't pay income taxes. If current trends are any indication, most children of illegal immigrants are going to be in the “not-paying” half of Americans.

Drugs: Yes, I know there are many American drug dealers. Mostly American, I'm sure. And yes, our law gun control policies are ridiculous, as is our War on Drugs. We could do much to help stabilize Mexico if we changed both policies, and we should look in the mirror. But I don't have a magic wand to implement the reform policies comprehensively that I'd like. I'm stuck with the realities of the US political system now. That means, when I look at the net benefits of illegal immigration, it is inappropriate to ignore the fact that a significant portion of illegal immigration is entangled with violent drug gangs and the drug flow.

1) Yes, that is true.

2) Yes, if “Hispanic” means “do you have a Spanish last name or does someone in your family tree have a Spanish last name even though neither you nor your kids speak more than a handful of phrases in Spanish.” Like Italian or Irish Americans today.

3) Yes, whites will become a minority if we reify this concept that is being foisted upon us that Hispanics are “not white.” If we defined “white” by 19th Century terms, we'd already be at under 50%, because the definition has expanded from only Anglo-Saxons to include Irish, Italians, Greeks, Turks, Arabs, and Persians. My guess is in 50 years this Hispanic/White Anglo issue will seem rather quaint, like we look back now at the anxiety over the Sicilians in New York.

I guess I could have said more simply that a lot of the present hysteria is fueled by ignorant freaked out white dudes.

Yes.

T Chen, I can't disagree with anything you say in your comment above, except the comment about long-term consequences of illegal immigration, since everyone who came to America before 1790, when the first naturalization law was passed, was “illegal”, and I don't think we thought those immigrants or their heirs were a problem.

But still, it's disconcerting to agree with most of what you say.

I completely disagree with Jayapal argument. I am an immigrant, and I have a lot of sympathy with the undocumented or the illigal immigrants. However, I would like to ask her in which country people break the law and demand a legal rights and to be treated like anyone else who followed the law.
This is latino issues, not immigrant issue. I am sure jaypal does not have the entire immigrant community in Washington in her side.

If it's only a Latino problem, then what about the 3 plus million undocumented Asian immigrants in this country? They don't count?

Also, an estimated half of the undocumented in this country came here legally and overstayed their visas. They still are violating a law – on par with a misdemeanor – but it's not an issue that's only about people coming illegally over the border. And what Jayapal lays out here – and what makes sense for our economy and our values – is that they pay back taxes, pay a fine, learn English, and then make real, above board contributions to our society. As opposed to contributions they can only make under the table and not reap the benefits from.

And on taxes – in response to T_Chen – undocumented immigrants pay a huge share of Federal taxes every year.

From Reason (http://reason.org/news/show/122411.html):
“Close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country today file personal income taxes using (fake SS) numbers, contributing billions to federal coffers. No doubt they hope that this will one day help them acquire legal status — a plaintive expression of their desire to play by the rules and come out of the shadows.

What's more, aliens who are not self-employed have Social Security and Medicare taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks. Since undocumented workers have only fake numbers, they'll never be able to collect the benefits these taxes are meant to pay for. Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the “earnings suspense file” — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year.”

I've seen study after study showing that, indeed, undocumented immigrants are a net benefit to our country – contributing more than they use in programs and services. One source is a 2007 report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers (yes, when Bush was in office) that asserted that, the long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is positive.

The study you cited is for ALL immigrants–those here legally and those not. Believe me, I certainly don't question the net positive effects of having the best minds from China, Taiwan, Korea, India, Russia, Nigeria, Venezuela and elsewhere come to the US legally and work in knowledge industries.

But every time I have seen someone try to justify the net beneficial aspects of illegal immigration, they cite studies that conflate both legal and illegal immigration to arrive at a net positive effect. It's like some kind of leftwing version of the NRA's argument: If you oppose any restrictions or regulations on gun ownership you're against the 2nd Amendment!

And by the way, if we provide a path to citizenship or legal residency, then you have to kiss those gratuitous contributions to social security and Medicare goodbye, because they'll be able to claim their benefits and take more than they contributed, like all the folks receiving Medicare do today!

(Here are some links to info about the study)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/washington/20…

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/cea/…

What nation do people break the law and demand a legal right and be treated like anyone else who followed the law?

In America. Bish and Cheney broke the law on torture, demanded to be treated as if they hadn't, and they're getting away with it.

Or take the USA itself in the 1840s. We broke the law and entered Mexico, if you recall, we didn't have the right immigration visas for our army troops that crossed the border. They showed no respect for the law at all. Then we took half of Mexico! That also broke the law, very profoundly, in fact. Yet, we demand that this be forgotten or absolved and we demand the legal right to take half of mexico. Also where we broke the law: we took cuba and the philippines and puerto rico, that has caused lots of immigration here. We took nicaragua, guatemala, and the dominican republic, we took away the government of iran, and helped take away the governments of brazil and argentina, and we took away the government of chile, so let's please stop lecturing foreign nations on how undocumented aliens here are the big law breakers, okay?
And before all that we caused a lot of illegal immigration by taking a few millions Africans and seizing them against the law and bringing them here against the law and selling them and owning them against the law. If you want to know the full picture, we also took the entire lousiana territory against the law — we didn't ask the people their for their permission, remember? we just bought it from…france which had ….sold it to spain? anyway, when we bought it we forcibly took lots of people in without their consent and again we crossed a boundary illegally, or are you going to tell me that it was okay to take control of the Houmas and Oachita and Sioux Indian nations because some piece of paper written in Paris made it legal? That's our legality?

Man there's a lot of selective respect for boundaries going on. The people coming here just want to work and you call that a crime. How totally inhumane and cruel.
Seriously,

“And by the way, if we provide a path to citizenship or legal residency, then you have to kiss those gratuitous contributions to social security and Medicare goodbye”

So that's it? You agree that they benefit us all out of proportion, but if that ends…

T, you're right that I'm an old guy.
Forty eight. Father of two. Grandfather of one.
White as white can be.

And I know I said I was going to try and stay out of this online muck if I could possibly do it, but I'm as addicted to this as I am to beer and cigarettes. It's tough to quit, man. I get shaky.

I've been a little worried that you and others could get the wrong idea about my “get the fuck out of my country” remark, because it was to try and make a point that obviously crashed & burned.
I don't want you out. I respect your contribution here and consider it one of the core views on PubliCola.

But to me your views are the “old guy” views. Right wing.

The old guy white views are understandable to me, but what isn't is someone who benefitted from immigration but wants to cut that off for others. I know, you separate “legal” from “illegal” immigration, but to me it's all good (and not for the low wage or tax benefit situation).

Ten years from now we could be in a situation of economic or military confrontation with China, and you could be a target. I would stick up for you, and so would many people here. But not everyone would.

And the funny thing is that people with your views wouldn't.

hey dude, you're wrong. the post you are replying to cites a link to From Reason (http://reason.org/news/show/122411.html) and JUST LIKE i SAID most illegals are paying federal income taxes and even filing returns….you say the opposite by claiming that link conflates legal and illegal but it doesn't. You're just wrong. Your apology will be accpeted.

So let's review. We had welfare reform, so they're not taking welfare. We complain that they have the audacity to work, so they're not sitting around eating bon bons, they're working. They spend money adding to sales tax and property tax coffers. They have medicare and fica deducted and often don't claim it. In fact most of their kids are back in mexico or wherever. And let's get a bit historical, okay?

As long as it was white people coming we didn't even HAVE immigration control, to speak of, it was unlimited. And we gave them FREE LAND.

When it was black people we enslaved them and stole them.

When it was Latinos we tightened up on borders, except when we were taking Spanish territory by force or through purchase that did not involve the consent of the people in those territories.

You think that today if we had 12 million Canadians here as undocumented immigrants we'd even be having this debate, and calling them welfare queens the way T Chen does, only he uses nicer words?

“Oachita”

At least we named a town Wichita in thier honor.
There are so many places selling fireworks today that couldn't if we just forgot about all the promises and took them by force.
Promises are so last century.

I think it might help lotto sales, too.

Hey good sir, YOU are wrong.

The Reason link does not purport to show that “undocumented immigrants are a net benefit to our country,” which is what wadegraham claimed. The closest the Reason article comes is this:

“The non-partisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families — most of whom are illegal — are factored in, they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume.”

You'll note several things:

1) This link is only about FEDERAL coffers, not total tax expenditures, including state and local governments.

2) Remember that many costs of illegal immigration are born by state and local governments, non-profits, insured car drivers, court systems, and everyone who pays for medical care because of the costs of uncompensated care that must be passed on by hospitals to those who pay.

In short, asking whether illegal immigrants are a net benefit to the federal government's budget is a much narrower, and different question, than asking whether they are a net benefit to the country.

Your apology would be appreciated, but I won't hold my breath because you seem to have an attitude and imply a lot of unfair things about me.

As for the country? Does it have a history of racism? Absolutely. You think I'm not aware of anti-Chinese exclusion efforts, among others? But so what? How's that relevant today? The US lets in more immigrants than all other countries combined, and the vast majority of them are non-white, or Hispanic. Are we supposed to not be able to regulate immigration now because of a history of racism? What is the policy implication here?

T, your economic arguments pro and con are interesting.

But for once consider that these are people, whether or not they benefit you or the federal or local governments.

Reagan once said “tear down this wall!”, but that concept would benefit lots more people that just East and West Berliners if it were carried out more fully.

Like the one between the US and Mexico, the US and Cuba, the one between North and South Korea, the one between Israel and Palestine, the one between whites and blacks, the one between China and the Mongolian hordes (although that one might be interesting to tourists)

And even between you and me, you slanty-eyed some-bitch.
That being between young and old, of course.

Barleywine,

You, too, as a white guy, benefited from immigration just as I did. We're both the descendants of immigrants.

Just because you support something in a moderate, well-regulated way does not mean you must support it without limitation. I support the right of a citizen to own a pistol for self-defense. It doesn't mean I support the gun show loophole, or the right to buy machine guns or unlimited amounts of guns.

It's the same thing with immigration. I support the US being the world's largest recipient of immigrants. They have made us what what we are. It doesn't mean that immigration should be unregulated or unlimited; the process should be well-regulated. I don't know why it is so hard for some people to understand this concept.

And I understand that a lot of right wing Tea Party folks are very anti-immigration, but don't tar me with a broad brush. My views don't fit neatly into any political party. And you'd be surprised by how many legal immigrants oppose illegal immigration. My relatives in Asia don't understand why the US offers those who are in the US illegally so many protections of due process, driver's licenses, free public schooling, emergency health care, sanctuary cities etc. I'm actually quite moderate in my views. I don't buy into the dogma of either pole in the debate.

I can understand that other's don't get this.
In my short time in Korea I was both spat upon and hugged.

“the process should be well-regulated. I don't know why it is so hard for some people to understand this concept.”

I agree completely.

But the whole point of this post is that it's not evenhanded, and it's too slow. And it's unfair.

If we had a great big cement wall between the US and Canada, or the US and Mexico, and all it took was a wave of a chipped card to cross; I'd support that; although better to waive the wall.

My whole problem with your posts is that the overall theme seems to be hatred of those less fortunate.
That could be you or me on the street any day now, and some other blogger saying “screw them”.

I don't want them to screw us, T.
I want us to live in the Jungle in peace.

I've been following this discussion between you (Barleywine) and T. Chen, and I agree with points that both of you make. However, I do not agree that T. Chen's posts are based on “hatred of those less fortunate.” Yes, these are people's lives, people who either face danger in their home countries or seek economic opportunity in the US. Yes, the US has and continues to have terrible foreign policies that create conditions that drive people to migrate (I would actually prefer that we focus on improving conditions in other countries – most people don't naturally want to leave their homes, they migrate due to external pressures like extreme poverty and violence).

However, we also face the realities of limited resources – Social Security and Medicare are headed for bankruptcy. There isn't enough money for education or infrastructure at the local, state, or national levels. These may be due to our country's own choices – like spending 15% of our GDP on national defense and having the most expensive health care in the world – but we can't just ignore these problems. There are important benefits AND costs of immigration that we must consider and deal with, and they are borne disproportionately at different levels and in different states. Highlighting them as part of the immigration issue does not equal hatred of the underprivileged.

Maybe it's not realistic to admit everyone who wants to come here unless and until we make some serious changes to other parts of our government spending and social services. Yet we have made strides in increasing immigration. Today, we admit more legal immigrants than we have at any time since the 1910s – more than twice as many annually in the 90s and 00s as in decades prior. In the 00s, 58-70% of legal immigrants were admitted based on family preference – not how valuable they were to the economy, as is done in many other countries. 18-24% were admitted as asylees, refugees, or under other special programs; 12-22% were admitted based on employment preference. (See for yourself: http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publication…) This doesn't seem “unfair” to me.

I think the main problem with today's legal immigration process is that it is too slow. Applicants should not wait years for an answer. Quotas should be increased. At the same time, I do believe that respect for the law is important. You don't get to choose which laws to obey. If you do, you risk the consequences. This is one of the cornerstones of a healthy democracy and it is what makes the difference between the US and many countries that others are fleeing. Our lives aren't obstructed by corruption in the same way as those of the people of Mexico, India, and dozens of other countries, where justice is much more tied to wealth than it is here. We work to change laws that we don't like, instead of ignoring them. Yes, our government itself certainly does illegal things, but we find out about it and condemn it and change it sooner or later (this does not happen in many places).

For most of us, questioning immigration isn't about “hating” people. It's about how to change a law in a way that reflects our values and our capacities as a nation. We can certainly disagree on how to do that. The resulting solution will not make everyone happy. But it will be progress. And that is successful democracy.

What do people think about of these (failed) initiative proposals: See I-1084 and I-1056?

http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/peo…