Meh. It also produces about 20% of the world GDP. Sounds like a fair trade to me.Psychoserenity wrote: The US is a huge country with vast areas of fertile land, and its relatively small population consumes about 20% of the earth's resources. That is more than 4 times its proportion to the total world population. So I'd say the US is doing just about it's fair share in terms of immigration, but it's nothing special.
And with that we feed the rest of the world and develop the technology the rest of the world depends on. Our output is vastly greater in almost every way than the rest of the world, so we deserve (and need) to use more resources to create all that wealth that the rest of the world gets to use, enjoy and eat.Psychoserenity wrote:Quite a few are close to that, many are more. The in the UK there is a 11.3% foreign-born population. Spain 14.0%, Canada 18.76%. But the Vatican City wins this one, with 100% immigrant population.Coito ergo sum wrote: Fair enough, but how much more do you think the US needs to do to be doing its "fair share?"
1 in 5 of all the world's immigrants, immigrates to the US. 12.5% of the American population, right now, was born in some other country. Name me one country that comes close to that.
The US is a huge country with vast areas of fertile land, and its relatively small population consumes about 20% of the earth's resources. That is more than 4 times its proportion to the total world population. So I'd say the US is doing just about it's fair share in terms of immigration, but it's nothing special.The US has 4.5% of the world's population and assimilates 20% of the world's immigrants. That is more than 4 times its proportion to the total world population.
It costs far less than giving them and their children and their children's children government largess for life, by a damned sight.maiforpeace wrote:Why should I have to pay for schools? I don't have any children. Why should I have to pay for the resources that will be used to enforce this law?laklak wrote:I still haven't seen a rational, reasonable explanation of why this is such a horrible thing. It doesn't change any immigration laws, those are on a Federal level. It doesn't establish any sort of Gestapo-like police agency, or take away anyone's Constitutional rights or protections, it doesn't put illegal immigrants in any more jeopardy than they already are. So what is it that is so objectionable?
Mai, do you honestly think that U.S. taxpayers should have to pay for medical, educational and living expenses for people in the country illegally? How can you justify that? I have no problem if you want to contribute your money to that cause, I'm sure there are plenty of private charities already in existence that help illegals, but what gives you (or anyone else) the right to tell other people they have to pay for it? Hell, we aren't taking care of our own citizens, we don't have the spare cash lying around to take care of a few million illegals.
I'd love to see open borders and the free movement of people and capital across them. Hell, it's a part of the Libertarian Party platform. But it's unworkable unless it's reciprocal. I have no problem with Mexicans coming here and working, as long as I have a right to move to Mexico. Beer and property are cheaper there, I could live one hell of a lot better down there than I do in Florida.
You think taking someone into police custody and turning them over to a federal agency, who in turn has to process the extradition, paperwork, and go through the necessary legal channels to oust these people, who many of will probably be held for unnecessary lengths of time isn't going to cost?
Sucks to be a criminal. But I agree, holding illegals in detention is a bad idea. It's costly and inefficient. The best thing to do is to change the law to disallow any appeals at all by an illegal while they are still in the country. Hook 'em, book 'em, and kick 'em out, all within a few hours or days at most.I have a friend who works with illegal immigrants held in detention - she shared some pretty awful statistics with me about what goes on there, it's no less civilized or humane than how we treat the prisoners of Guantanamo. Let me get back to you with those stats.
Yup, what's fair is fair...laklak wrote:Meh. It also produces about 20% of the world GDP. Sounds like a fair trade to me.Psychoserenity wrote: The US is a huge country with vast areas of fertile land, and its relatively small population consumes about 20% of the earth's resources. That is more than 4 times its proportion to the total world population. So I'd say the US is doing just about it's fair share in terms of immigration, but it's nothing special.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/ ... onomy.html
)
http://www.mybudget360.com/gross-domest ... -illinois/The United States received 40 percent of its GDP from California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois. California accounts for over 12 percent of national GDP
You're paying for schools because it's part of social service for all citizens.maiforpeace wrote:Why should I have to pay for schools? I don't have any children. Why should I have to pay for the resources that will be used to enforce this law?laklak wrote:I still haven't seen a rational, reasonable explanation of why this is such a horrible thing. It doesn't change any immigration laws, those are on a Federal level. It doesn't establish any sort of Gestapo-like police agency, or take away anyone's Constitutional rights or protections, it doesn't put illegal immigrants in any more jeopardy than they already are. So what is it that is so objectionable?
Mai, do you honestly think that U.S. taxpayers should have to pay for medical, educational and living expenses for people in the country illegally? How can you justify that? I have no problem if you want to contribute your money to that cause, I'm sure there are plenty of private charities already in existence that help illegals, but what gives you (or anyone else) the right to tell other people they have to pay for it? Hell, we aren't taking care of our own citizens, we don't have the spare cash lying around to take care of a few million illegals.
I'd love to see open borders and the free movement of people and capital across them. Hell, it's a part of the Libertarian Party platform. But it's unworkable unless it's reciprocal. I have no problem with Mexicans coming here and working, as long as I have a right to move to Mexico. Beer and property are cheaper there, I could live one hell of a lot better down there than I do in Florida.
You think taking someone into police custody and turning them over to a federal agency, who in turn has to process the extradition, paperwork, and go through the necessary legal channels to oust these people, who many of will probably be held for unnecessary lengths of time isn't going to cost?
I have a friend who works with illegal immigrants held in detention - she shared some pretty awful statistics with me about what goes on there, it's no less civilized or humane than how we treat the prisoners of Guantanamo. Let me get back to you with those stats.
Carlos Slim Helú (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈkaɾlos esˈlim eˈlu]; born January 28, 1940) is a Mexican business magnate and philanthropist[2] who as of 2011 is the richest person in the world, for the second year in a row. He is the chairman and chief executive of telecommunications companies Telmex and América Móvil and has extensive holdings in other Mexican companies through his conglomerate, Grupo Carso SAB, as well as business interests elsewhere in the world.
América Móvil, which in 2010 was Latin America’s largest mobile-phone carrier, accounted for around US$49 billion of Slim's wealth by the end of 2010.[3] His corporate holdings as of September 2011 have been estimated at US$63.3 billion.[1]
The Mexican magnate's growing fortune has caused a controversy because it has been amassed in a developing country where per capita income does not surpass $14,500 a year, and nearly 17% of the population lives in poverty.[21] Critics claim that Slim is a monopolist, pointing to Telmex's control of 90% of the Mexican landline telephone market. Slim's wealth is the equivalent of roughly 5% of Mexico's annual economic output.[22] Telmex, of which 49.1% is owned by Slim and his family, charges among the highest usage fees in the world, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.[23]
According to Professor Celso Garrido, an economist at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Slim's domination of Mexico's conglomerates prevents the growth of smaller companies, resulting in a shortage of paying jobs and forcing many Mexicans to seek better lives in the United States of America.[24]
The process is the same, whether or not they have a driver's license. Start by going back to their country of origin - you don't need ID to get out of the U.S., just to come in - thus fixing the fact that they are here illegally. They go to the U.S. Embassy there, and apply for the appropriate visa and green card. When they get the visa, they come back to the U.S. - legally. When they get their green card, they can work and apply for citizenship.maiforpeace wrote:Also, back in your day, you didn't need identification to enter an immigration office - now you do, so if an illegal child were to be accompanied by their illegal parent, the parent would be arrested.
So, you want to make yourself legal, how do you do it if you don't have identification like a drivers license?
So, let's say they are 20 and adult - remember, they don't have a drivers license or passport. So, somehow, you get in to the office, probably only with the intervention of your local congressperson. When you apply for citizenship, one usually gives an address, you have to identify who your parents are, you have to swear you haven't done anything illegal - most young people are afraid to apply for fear they will bust their parents.
These things change from time to time. Back in the 1960s, it took years for my mother to get her citizenship, even though she was married to an American citizen. At the time there were very low quotas for immigration from the far east, which may also have affected Mai. Nowadays, we no longer have quotas based on country of origin.Coito ergo sum wrote:That sounds strange. I filled out the N-400 for my wife - and we paid a fee (I think it was something like $400 or so). She signed it, a few months later she was called for an interview. They asked her a few questions about American history and government, and she was approved. In another couple of months, she appeared for the very moving swearing in ceremony. Easy-peasy. The whole process took 6 months.
Maybe some of us have more contact with would be immigrants who play by the rules, but end up not getting citizenship because the rules have to be strict enough not to pander to illegals. Those are the people I feel for - people who get a visa, work here for years, and then can't get a green card because the illegals have spoiled things for them.maiforpeace wrote:Maybe it's my personal contact with these actual immigrants that we are discussing that makes me a bleeding heart liberal, but I do empathize and would rather lend them a helping hand than kick them to the curb.
I actually emigrated from France...I was born there, but was allowed to be the citizenship of my father, who was Vietnamese. Back in those days, they respected your national origin. Now, you are expected to renounce it...no more dual citizenships.Warren Dew wrote:The process is the same, whether or not they have a driver's license. Start by going back to their country of origin - you don't need ID to get out of the U.S., just to come in - thus fixing the fact that they are here illegally. They go to the U.S. Embassy there, and apply for the appropriate visa and green card. When they get the visa, they come back to the U.S. - legally. When they get their green card, they can work and apply for citizenship.maiforpeace wrote:Also, back in your day, you didn't need identification to enter an immigration office - now you do, so if an illegal child were to be accompanied by their illegal parent, the parent would be arrested.
So, you want to make yourself legal, how do you do it if you don't have identification like a drivers license?
So, let's say they are 20 and adult - remember, they don't have a drivers license or passport. So, somehow, you get in to the office, probably only with the intervention of your local congressperson. When you apply for citizenship, one usually gives an address, you have to identify who your parents are, you have to swear you haven't done anything illegal - most young people are afraid to apply for fear they will bust their parents.
These things change from time to time. Back in the 1960s, it took years for my mother to get her citizenship, even though she was married to an American citizen. At the time there were very low quotas for immigration from the far east, which may also have affected Mai. Nowadays, we no longer have quotas based on country of origin.Coito ergo sum wrote:That sounds strange. I filled out the N-400 for my wife - and we paid a fee (I think it was something like $400 or so). She signed it, a few months later she was called for an interview. They asked her a few questions about American history and government, and she was approved. In another couple of months, she appeared for the very moving swearing in ceremony. Easy-peasy. The whole process took 6 months.
Those illegal immigrants haven't spoiled anything for those who come here legally. Do tell, how do they do that, exactly? It's the BCIS that spoiled it for me...they literally lost me. I didn't get my green card for the longest time because THEY reassigned my A-10 number to some Guido from Italy.Warren Dew wrote:Maybe some of us have more contact with would be immigrants who play by the rules, but end up not getting citizenship because the rules have to be strict enough not to pander to illegals. Those are the people I feel for - people who get a visa, work here for years, and then can't get a green card because the illegals have spoiled things for them.maiforpeace wrote:Maybe it's my personal contact with these actual immigrants that we are discussing that makes me a bleeding heart liberal, but I do empathize and would rather lend them a helping hand than kick them to the curb.
Wow. Props to her.laklak wrote:Would have been one hell of a lot simpler if she'd just married me to start with, but she wanted to get in on her own, she never wanted anyone to say "she married him for the green card".
Absolutely they have. The reason it's so difficult to get into the U.S. legally in the first place these days is exactly because of people who sneak in or overstay their visas and become illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, those difficulties also affect people who would like to immigrate legally.maiforpeace wrote:Those illegal immigrants haven't spoiled anything for those who come here legally.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 33 guests
