Illegal Immigration

Sure I would. But how does that apply to the question of *illegal* immigration? For one, if I understand your analogy correctly, it would apply to ALL immigrants, not just illegals. So, your analogy isn't an argument against illegal immigrants specifically, but against poor immigrants in general.

...But lets just let you explain your analogy before going further down that path.

 

Do you have the statistics that show that illegal immigrants are paying taxes to the United States? That they're contributing to Social Security?

If they're fully contributing to this country, then it's harder to argue that they're taking advantage of our medical facilities, schools, etc.

If they're not, then his analogy is totally appropriate.

 

The FAIR study, which was alluded to earlier in the thread to argue that immigrants are costing 113 billion, found that illegal immigrants are paying both income and SS taxes nearly as much as they would if they were legal. Plus, it recognizes that illegals are not getting access to the full benefits they would be entitled to if they were legal.

Depends on what you mean by "taking advantage of". In one sense, since they are not here legally, any service they use is "taking advantage of" it regardless of the taxes they pay. But, what seems clear is that they are no more of a drain on our society than any group of poor legal citizens. If anything, they are less of a drain than the legal citizen of the same social stratus would be.

So, in the end, the whole "taking advantage of" argument is an argument against
a. our social welfare system
b. *any* poor immigrants
There is no study which links this sort of thing to illegals per se - that is, if they were actually here legally, all financial arguments against them would, if anything, be strengthened.

How so?

 

One of the first things of good thinking is to not make assumptions. Since the analogy is not explained, and since it could reasonably be taken in several ways, good thinking dictates that I let you explain the analogy before assuming one particular meaning. Is that unreasonable to you?

 

Well, first of all, you are assuming that you understand the analogy in the same way I did. That's part of the problem with analogies that are not explained.

But lets go ahead and assume you understand the analogy properly and I misunderstood it.

The problem with this is that it assumes that federal and state dollars being used by illegals are exactly analogous to your own property and possessions, and that crossing a border is analogous to breaking into a home. Since these are public dollars, public borders, and public welfare which is being used, please demonstrate how these are exactly analogous to your personal property and personal resources.

For one, do you consider yourself to have invited the poor citizens of our country to use public funds, programs and land?

How old is your father? And where is he originally from?

Just so we are clear, I never made such a comparison.

 

Being an illegal alien is not a crime.

 

You act as if I said being an illegal alien is not illegal. I didn't say that. I said it's not a crime.

 

Can you explain the difference?

 

Yes. The status of being an illegal alien is a civil violation, not a criminal one.

 

Thanks. I understand what you mean now.

I'm not too versed in US immigration law. If an illegal immigrant were prosecuted, I assume it is a civil court that manages the case? What legislation or acts would they be prosecuted under?

 

Found it. It is the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 signed into law by Bill Clinton.

 

So if we collectively decided to grant all illegals amnesty and forgave them any non-criminal laws they might have broken linked to their status as illegals, would that mean the whole problem was solved?

So, it sounds like he came at a time in our history when immigration was effectively open. If so, then your whole story isn't comparable to today's illegals. For instance, if he immigrated at a time in our history when the process was not much more than getting on a boat and coming, then it bears no comparison at all to the situation for immigrants today. There was effectively no "waiting your turn" beyond maybe waiting in line to get immunized once you got here. Making it sound as if his situation was comparable to today would be fallacious. Not to at all denigrate what he did (it's a great feat), merely to call into question the way you are using his story.

Sorry if the context wasn't clear. All immigrants in that case would apply only to the situation as we find it today. At the time your father came there weren't even the sort of welfare programs that he could have gotten aid from even if he had wanted to.

My statement about all immigrants was to point out that the money the illegals are using has nothing to do with their illegal status (or, if it does, its actually a lower impact). Thus, pointing out the money they cost the government is about their being poor, not being illegals. Its primarily a commentary on our social welfare system, not whether they are here illegally.

 

It was said (or implied) that the immigration law is a just and necessary one.

If you agree, why would you say the immigration law is just? Was the lack of a significant one through much of our history unjust?

Why would say the immigration law is necessary?

 

Right.

If an illegal alien is charged with a crime, the procedure is the same as any other person. For an illegal alien to be deported, the government must file a civil petition with the court. The burden of proof is on the alleged illegal alien to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is legally entitled to be in the United States. Also, while the state of being an illegal alien is not a crime, the act of improper entry by an alien is a misdemeanor.

 

A quick tour of any border town would quickly dispell that rumor.

Besides...there's a very important word here: "illegal."