What do you think about the immigration compromise in the works?

Question

Is it fair? Is it right? Is it peaceful? Is it a quality answer? Will it help our security or hurt it? There are several opinions. What is yours?

Answer 1

Its a start--but no more than that. What I find interesting is the hysterical reaction on the part of the right-wing to this--they clearly don't want any reform.

The billl--as written--won't solve the immigration problem. It will, howeer, at least get the process moving. That's a shame, in many ways. We could resolve the whole thing with a well-drafted piece of legislation, which this is not. But such a measure won't pass at this point, so this is probably the best we can do.

The problems aren't in the "path to citizenship" part--those are workable (and if anything, could be even more restrictive than they are).

But the bill has two flaws that are going to make it hard to implement because they create strong incentives for both the immigrants and their employers not to comply:
1)employers are not being put on the spot. The bill should contain an "amnesty" for businesses --contingent on their prompt compliance with the laws regarding reporting and verifying immigrant workers and their status--and strong, enforceable penalties for not doing so.
2) The requirement that current illegals return to Mexico and then apply to return is silly. It makes more sense to simply them to apply for legal status where they are--faster and cheaper for everyone. If they qualify, fine. If not--that way we know where they are and can simply pick them up and deport them But for the immigrants, this is n expense and disruption that will prompt many to avoid or delay registering, not because they are "flouting the law" but because they can't afford it.
3) The fine ($5000) is way too high. Many--the majority--are simply not going to be able to raise that kind of money. So they will simply continue to work illegally. I can see a ffine--making the point that they should not be breaking the law is fine. But $500 makes a lot more sense--its a reasonable figure. And there should be some sort of mechanism to allow the fine to be paid out over a period of time. That could be in the current law--but if it is, no one's said so.
4) Again, this may be part of the bill,, but it isn't clear if that's the case: a) it should apply only to those who have not violated any other laws (other than a parking ticket and such) and b) legal status should be only for those who are in fact working 9plus their dependants). If we are going to allow them to stay legally to work--they need to be working or go back where they came from.

Answer 2

It's not a compromise. It's exactly like the last amnesty. It makes a false promise of border security, while immediately granting legals status to law breakers.

The extreme positions, to review were:

1) Just enforce the existing laws. Deport all illegals, secure the border.

vs

2) Wave your hands and make all the illegals sudenly legal, and give them a path to citizenship.

The bill is not a compromise between those two positions - it /is/ the 2nd position. Period.


It is not fair. It is not right. I don't know what 'peacful' has to do with it, but I'm thinking that if the goverment won't deport invaders, people might start taking it into thier heads that they'll have to be eliminated in some other way - so it might have some very un-peaceful consequencels. It is not an answer at all, it is a surrender. It can't hurt our security, since we have none, but it perpetuates that lack of security that has allowed 12+ million invaders into our country - tens of millions more will follow.

Answer 3

Is it fair? Not to others who have to go through the proper channels to become citizens.

Is it a quality answer? I think it was the best they could hammer out given the circumstances.

In the long run it will help our security provided the borders are really tightened up like promised.

This "problem" has been brewing since before the 1900's. If it was such a problem, why wasn't it taken care of, in say, 1950? 1990? 9/11/2001?

It has very little to do with security and a lot more to do with politicians manipulating this issue to garner votes, otherwise it would have been taken care of right after 9/11.

Answer 4

No, NO, NO, No, No it will hurt security that is already damaged. What about all the Identities they have stolen? What about Ft Dix last week? All of them Illegals or had over stayed visas with intent to kill! That's Anarchy dwelling in A Socialist Communist Society. We would no Longer be a Sovereign Nation with the ability to Rule! Last I checked, this is America and we are Not Gumby!

Some of them are in fact Children, brought here as Slaves for the Sex Slave Trade! Women are frequently beat into submission and sold as Sex Slaves.

My opinion is that it is wrong headed thinking, solves nothing and makes the problem worse! They are Rewarding Wrong Doing. What about the people who stood in line and those still waiting? How would you like it after standing in live at the grocery store people jumped ahead of you , after you have been waiting and hour just because there was an open gap? Same thing! People have been standing in line for years for legal entry, and you let all these Law breakers get ahead? I don't think so and everybody Voting For Amnesty should Be IMPEACHED for not upholding their Oaths of Office to Protect First American Citizens, Uphold the Laws and protect the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. they are Not looking out for our welfare or Health as many that are here have Incurable diseases.

Answer 5

NO.Been tried and failed... In the 1980's Reagan agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status of immigrants—even if they had entered illegally—who were law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in the United States. Illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship. It wasn’t automatic. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.
Sound Familiar.....
The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty did not solve the problem. There was extensive document fraud, and the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued unabated, forming the nucleus of today’s large population of illegal aliens.
Now here we are again.. It seems every so many years, we have a blanket amnesty bill, the provisions of controlling our borders are ignored and no laws are enforced...

Answer 6

No it is not far and it will not be peaceful. Not on the least. I think a more severe punishment should be enacted. I think those that come forward pay a fine and also give up any hope of being a citizen of this country. They should not be eligible for any social benefits and will never ever be allowed to vote. If they can't afford to take care of themselves, they need to return to their home country. If they pay their fine, stay out of trouble, and pay their taxes then their children can become citizens and earn the right to vote. That is the least sacrifice they can do if they want our freedom so bad that millions of our military have fought and died for throughout our history.

Answer 7

It has pros and cons so I say If is taking seriously by the Gov. Then it will be a increase of security but if is not taking seriously then will be a chaos...
Fair not really for the ones that are legally here and that have family that can immigrate legally...
So the longs they don't change that part I am OK with the bill.
Is not a perfect bill yes...Because is amnesty what they are granting...

Answer 8

Watch the CNN Headline News special hosted by Glenn Beck tonight at 7:00 and 9:00 PM Eastern time. The whole hour is dedicated to the topic and border security.

Answer 9

I REALLY don't like the thought of giving amnesty to tons of people who have broken the law. But I do like some of the other ideas on the table. One thing that perked my ears up is the proposal to base admittance or denial more on skill and education level than on family ties. If a person wants to come here and add to the burden of our already strained resources, then by all means, require that they contribute something meaningful to this society they want so badly to be a part of. If we enacted such a requirement and actually enforced it, I'd be inclined to have a more welcoming attitude than I do now.

Answer 10

I think its bullshit.Illegal aliens don't pay taxes and are breaking the law.Now if i worked and didn't pay my taxes they would fine me or fine me and lock my *** up.Plus i garuntee i would have to pay the IRS back whatever i owed them.In other words im a citizen and im held accountable for my crime.So why would anyone with any ******* sense think its ok to give someone who is basically a criminal special treatment!!!Its bullshit!!!!All these special interest groups preaching about cival rights and **** want special treatment......not equal rights.The next time theres a big protest,and there will be,they should just snatch up anyone there without a green card and send them back to where they came from.........period.Im cool with foreign people coming here to have a good life....that all good!!!I just think that if you wanna live here you should have to be held accountable for your actions just like everyone else.