Should we provide amnesty for all illegal immigrants here in the United States?
Submitted 51 days ago by slingshot322
 Favorite
Embed
Options
|
|
Loading...
| Results | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| 49 votes 23% | |
|
|
| 161 votes 77% | |
I think we should provide amnesty only to those immigrants who have children who have been going to our schools for a year or more. As a teacher, I see kids who did not come here of their own volition, but suffer the consequences when their parents get caught, because their parents came here illegally. I do not like to see children suffer the turmoil this brings to their lives when they had no say in the matter. Then, I think of the example their parents have set and what their children have learned from it. Are they learning that breaking the law pays off? This is an issue that has many levels and is hard to answer.
The tax advantages to our economy would help in my city because regardless of what our administration can or cannot do, school budgets are being cut drastically across the nation.
The tax revenue for the illegals turned legal would also contribute to our U.S. economy, even though it would not be that significant.
No, if they were born hear then foster care can take care of them till there parents get everything settled with their papers, or they can return to Mexico with them. You are basically saying "quick!, get your kid in school before immigrations gets ya, then your home free!"
Why did the first settlers come here and were they legal?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Quite a difference between now and then.
Yeah... the difference is that history is written by the winners. As we have discussed before, the United States did not keep ONE treaty they made with the original inhabitants. NONE. They broke every single one of them. That is not something we should be proud of.
Right. There are still a lot of court cases pending. The native Americans are still trying to get the US to live up to the treaties they made. I got interested in it when I read about the Puyallup Indians in Pierce County, Washington. If their treaties were re-instated, the Puyallup Indians would own Tacoma, Puyallup, and parts of Seattle and other cities. I'd like to see that.
You are very good at making outrageous statements without giving references.
California sure followed up on legal agreements with Native Americans [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Propositions_94,_95,_96,_and_97_(2008)]
Sorry. None of the things you pointed to are land treaties between the US government and indian nations.
My statement stands.
You never said one thing about "land treaties". Your changing your argument as you go, good job.
Don't be silly. In your haste to call me wrong, you brought up a whole different issue. State resolutions about casinos have nothing to do with the treaties the US federal government made with the indians in the 19th century.
Those were treaties about land. You know... treaties like, you can have this land forever... oh wait, we decided we want it... you can all go to this reservation over here instead... we're taking all your land.
Ok, well don't equate me to people from another century..... Do i blame you for the fall of Rome?, no.....
I wasn't equating you to anything. Rome was in another country on another continent a couple thousand years ago. I'm talking about the history of our country. I said the government of the United States did this... and it's not something we should be proud of.
More correctly, the government of decades past.
Do you have evidence that the modern federal government is now ready to live up to the treaties and give them back their land? Otherwise it's the government of decades past up to the present.
Hauli, you are a pain in the arse! This is a USA question! I have a new designation - CDC - it stands for Canadians Don't Count! We will use it when we really don't give a shet what you think!
Yep, perfectly legal. And i love how you ignorantly equate something that happened 100s of years ago to now. But lets me guess, when i try to justify slavery because it happened 100s of years ago you are going to pull a double standard on that one.... can't use past as justification if your aren't going to allow the past to be used to justification everything, and not just what you want it to.
Nice try to get off topic, but lets stay on topic for a bit. First part of the question was, if it is morally acceptable to you when they did it then, why is it not morally acceptable to you now? (Or why was it legal then but not now)
Second part of the question is why did they come here, have their reasons for wanting to come here changed?
Now to answer your off topic reply. Just because the majority believed slavery was right does not make it right. And I am not proud of my forefathers that made my country rich in part with the slave trade, deeply ashamed actually and there are many more things like that for me to be ashamed at. For instance the way we Dutch treated "the pilgrims" (like second class citizens)
Ok, just because your to lazy to fill out a couple pieces of paper and wait "does not make it right". That's like saying it's ok to jump the fence of Six Flags because I'm two lazy to wait in line.
Again you fail to answer or even acknowledge the questions, but it is ok, I was not expecting an answer.
I have been trough immigration myself twice (both times accepted) and witnessed another one close up. It is not as simple as you think it is, maybe you should apply just so you can experience it? The ones that come illegally would be denied entrance if they tried the legal route. One of the reasons why they just walk across the borders.
I understand your desire to keep criminals out, but how would you force 12 million people out of the country and keep them out? Over 5000 people did make it into West Berlin despite the much shorter Berlin wall.
No! None at all. They are making their children suffer by them being illegal. They should be made to leave. A good lesson for the kids in "Obeying the Law" of another country.
Arrow up!
It would set a very bad example for the future ... the next gen of illegals would think "we only need to hide out until the next amnesty".
Good point!
Have you thought about how you would forcefully deport 12 million people?
It has to be stopped. All those that are in the US legally, great. Those that are in the US illegally should be sent back and if they want to come back, they can apply through the proper channels and become legal immigrants. Why is that so hard? That's the reason health care is so expensive. Go to an emergency room in any hospital and see who are mostly being treated.
California is spending more than 10 Billion annually on Education, Health care and incarceration of illegal aliens. It's bankrupting the state.
California isn't the only state where the costs are high.
Please share with us your plan for rounding up 10-12,000,000 people to be "sent back."
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Maybe that's the reason BO wants to establish the new civilian security force.
For the 10th time... Americorps is not a "security" force. He wants a force of trained people who can help in emergencies and disasters. *SHEESH*
Failure to answer the question noted.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Starting to sound like a Bush thing. Made for this used for that.
Only in your fevered imagination. You have no evidence whatsoever that it would be used for any purpose other than the one for which it was intended.
Meaningless conjecture and continued failure to answer the question noted.
Hey waugs, quit being so rabid.
Fix your Inbox to filter him into the trash file, works great! No more rabid, word twisting, condescending insults. I have my mother-in-laws going into the Trash file to... LOL, what fun!
Hey Jonmarc, answer the question.
I think the G-e-s-t-a-p-o had the same beginnings...
And your evidence for that would be what, precisely?