Undocumented immigrants

[Trotter]

I am all for sharing the gospel with them, but breaking the law is breaking the law. Just because a death row inmate accepts Christ does not change the fact of what he did and what his punishment will be here on earth. The magistrate has the sword for a reason and all.

Any that accept the Lord should do just as cohabiting couples that accept the Lord which is to turn from their sin (illegal entry into this country) until the time they can make it right (returning to their homeland until they can come legally). If they have accepted the Lord then they should have the church and its members who were reaching out as sponsors.

Christians have to obey the laws of the land unless they are against the word of the Lord. Enforcing the borders and laws of immigration do not fit into that category.

 

[freeatlast]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not know about figures. I do know that illegals with or without green cards is a symptom of the problem not the cause. If we spend the money necessary to reduce drug addiction, we may get less oppressed people crossing our borders--illegally.

The real solution is still preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Peace,

Bro. James

No you cannot know that unless you do the research and find the numbers. As for telling them about Christ we should all so that just before we turn them in.

 

[Bro. James]

The details of the statistical analysis in such an experiment would be cost prohibitive to define; and almost not possible to implement. That these people are in the camp is a fact. Would this experiment include the folks from the Middle East who are also in the camp--remember 9-11?

Stop the drug traffic. The peripheral problems will diminish.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

[freeatlast]

The details of the statistical analysis in such an experiment would be cost prohibitive to define; and almost not possible to implement. That these people are in the camp is a fact. Would this experiment include the folks from the Middle East who are also in the camp--remember 9-11?

Stop the drug traffic. The peripheral problems will diminish.

Peace,

Bro. James

Imprison and deport and the problem will stop a doable and better solution.

 

[jaigner]

Like any liberal the only way they have to defend their non Christian view is to twist what is said.

Oh please.

 

[Don]

Oh please.

Hate to say it, J - but you did twist Free's words. He/she didn't say anything about not sharing the gospel; in fact, I'm pretty sure just the opposite. He/she also didn't say anything about not having compassion on them.

But I have to ask: If you came across a starving man, who turned out to be guilty of not paying child support (comparing civil offense with civil offense; in this case, a man who was so far behind in payments that the courts had ordered his incarceration), what kind of compassion would you have?

 

[mandym]

Hate to say it, J - but you did twist Free's words. He/she didn't say anything about not sharing the gospel; in fact, I'm pretty sure just the opposite. He/she also didn't say anything about not having compassion on them.

But I have to ask: If you came across a starving man, who turned out to be guilty of not paying child support (comparing civil offense with civil offense; in this case, a man who was so far behind in payments that the courts had ordered his incarceration), what kind of compassion would you have?

I agree he clearly twisted their words.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Like Amercan succeses and other country's failures. When America is no longer attractive, then people will no longer be attracted to it. That is your goal, the leftist democrat/republican pushover position. The libertarian platform is border enforcement. And legal immigration has been steadily increasing since 2008.

I am all for border enforcement as well. But I am also for quick, easy and lightly restrictive (ie. no quotas) immigration.

As to "pushover" position, history and logic show that as long as there are strong incentives to gain something of high value, then increased regulation and enforcement does little over the long run to mitigate the problem with those who take the illegal route. But make the route to gaining the thing people desire easily attainable by legal means and people will invariably choose the legal means. So, as long as coming to the US is seen as highly desirable, and as long as it is highly restricted by law, then attempts at stronger enforcement will quickly become cost prohibitive and ultimately doomed to failure. So, the "pushover" position is simply the realistic solution - a solution that actually has a chance of doing away with the illegal immigration problem.

Now, on the other hand, if one simply doesn't want easy and classless immigration, then certainly my proposal isn't going to fly. But for those who "have no problem with immigration" its by far the practicable solution. If you don't want a flood of illegal immigrants, then simply make the laws so that they can easily immigrate legally. But if you don't want a flood of immigrants, then good luck with the strong enforcement thing. At best it will mitigate the problem but it can't solve it, not without the cost FAR outweighing the possible benefits.

 

[mandym]

I am all for border enforcement as well. But I am also for quick, easy and lightly restrictive (ie. no quotas) immigration.

As to "pushover" position, history and logic show that as long as there are strong incentives to gain something of high value, then increased regulation and enforcement does little over the long run to mitigate the problem with those who take the illegal route. But make the route to gaining the thing people desire easily attainable by legal means and people will invariably choose the legal means. So, as long as coming to the US is seen as highly desirable, and as long as it is highly restricted by law, then attempts at stronger enforcement will quickly become cost prohibitive and ultimately doomed to failure. So, the "pushover" position is simply the realistic solution - a solution that actually has a chance of doing away with the illegal immigration problem.

Now, on the other hand, if one simply doesn't want easy and classless immigration, then certainly my proposal isn't going to fly. But for those who "have no problem with immigration" its by far the practicable solution. If you don't want a flood of illegal immigrants, then simply make the laws so that they can easily immigrate legally. But if you don't want a flood of immigrants, then good luck with the strong enforcement thing. At best it will mitigate the problem but it can't solve it, not without the cost FAR outweighing the possible benefits.

Enforce the laws on the boos then their is no doom or failure. the failure is to follow the laws on the books. Let's not pretend that they are being enforced. Our chief law enforcement officer picks and chooses what laws he wants to enforce.

 

[dwmoeller1]

And one question I am very interested in hearing those who are vehemently against illegal immigration:
What about illegal emigration? What of those who leave their countries illegally (ie. Cuba, those who escaped the Iron Curtain, etc.) but were able to enter the US legally? Would you react to them in the same way you would illegal immigrants? Why or why not?

 

[Salty]

What about illegal emigration? What of those who leave their countries illegally (ie. Cuba, those who escaped the Iron Curtain, etc.) ?

leaving Cuba is not against US law.

... Would you react to them in the same way you would illegal immigrants? Why or why not?

The US initiated the "Wet Feet / Dry Feet Policy" for Cubans. I think it was done to tick of Castro.
As far as other countries, normally the US would consider political asylum for those whose life would be in danger if returned. A sub-standard standard of living would not be sufficient to be given political asylum.
Short answer, as long as they enter legally, its fine with me.

 

[freeatlast]

And one question I am very interested in hearing those who are vehemently against illegal immigration:
What about illegal emigration? What of those who leave their countries illegally (ie. Cuba, those who escaped the Iron Curtain, etc.) but were able to enter the US legally? Would you react to them in the same way you would illegal immigrants? Why or why not?

All illegals no exceptions need to be first put in prison and then deported. Right now the federal government is using Houston Texas as a dumping grounds for criminal illegals. What is happening is if illegals who come here have a criminal record at home or they commit a crime while here and are caught an if their home country refuses to accept them back these illegals are dumped on the streets of Houston.
I would say what needs to be done is put them in prison until their home country or another country agrees to take them and if it never does they never get out.
INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants

2006 (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants

CRIME STATISTICS 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually

53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border.

71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or “transport coyotes".

47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.

63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens

66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66% 98% are illegal aliens.

BIRTH STATISTICS 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the U.S. in 2005 to illegal alien parents, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S.citizens.

97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers.

66% plus of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers

http://www.savage-productions.com/illegal_alien_contributions.html

http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org/

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime.html

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Tango Mike Mike

You know.... Im getting tired of hearing some disparaging things.

Link: http://biggeekdad.com/2010/01/tango-mike-mike/ (sent via Shareaholic-Publishers) ---- Tango Mike Mike is the story of Green Beret Roy P. Benavidez and his heroic action in Vietnam that earned him the Medal of Honor. Roy suffered numerous injuries in saving the lives of eight fellow soldiers.

 

[Salty]

You know.... Im getting tired of hearing some disparaging things.

Tango Mike Mike is the story of Green Beret Roy P. Benavidez and his heroic action in Vietnam that earned him the Medal of Honor. .

and this has to do with illegal aliens in what?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

and this has to do with illegal aliens in what?

Are we talking?

 

[Robert Snow]

Are we talking?

He's right, what does your video have to do with this thread?

 

[Don]

And one question I am very interested in hearing those who are vehemently against illegal immigration:
What about illegal emigration? What of those who leave their countries illegally (ie. Cuba, those who escaped the Iron Curtain, etc.) but were able to enter the US legally? Would you react to them in the same way you would illegal immigrants? Why or why not?

I'm really not understanding your question.

Most people are against those who enter this country illegally; by your own statement, you're talking about people who enter this country legally. What does illegal entry into this country have to do with illegally leaving another country?

 

[dwmoeller1]

leaving Cuba is not against US law.

But as someone else pointed out "breaking the law is breaking the law". It may not have been our law they broke but they still broke a law and therefore are just as much "criminals" as those who illegally immigrated.
Why vehemently condemn lawbreaking in one case but excuse it in another?

 

[Salty]

Why vehemently condemn lawbreaking in one case but excuse it in another?

But in the US juristication they are NOT lawbreakers.

Now the US could honor a request for extradition from another country, which they have done many time.

 

[dwmoeller1]

But in the US juristication they are NOT lawbreakers.

Now the US could honor a request for extradition from another country, which they have done many time.

They are still criminals though...which is the main point raised by several here - the fact of their criminality. Why would it matter what jurisdiction they are criminals in? For instance, if they were rapists/thieves/murderers/etc. in Mexico, wouldn't you still consider them rapists even though they have broken no US law? After all, breaking the law is breaking the law and criminals are criminals.

I am not talking about how the US should deal with them, but how is many people's reaction here consistent or reasonable given that most would probably excuse illegal emigration (if not find it outright commendable). Why condemn one type of criminal but not another simply due to the question of jurisdiction?