i think you have a well thought out idea. the only thing is..what about people like me and my fiance?...we have struggled through the hell that is legal immigration, and we still arent finished with the fight... after the 2 years of the illegals probation my soon to be husband will still not be a US citizen, where does that leave us?...we have spent alot of time, money and tears going through this process and for what, for others to get it faster and easier by breaking the law?.....i rarely speak badly about illegals, because i know that most are just trying to make a better life for themselves, but in this case i must ask what will this law of yours do to help the legal immigrants?
2007-09-02 16:21:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by jessica39 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
No. I have a better idea.
Congress should pass a law giving all EMPLOYERS of illegals in this country 3 months to turn themselves in to a police department of their chosing. They will be arrested and they must plead guilty. In exchange they will be given 2 years probation and must HIRE ONLY LEGALS, IF THERE AREN'T, THEY HAVE TO COMMUNICATE TO THE INS AND GET LEGALIZATION FOR THOSE WHO THE EMPLOYER NEEDS. This is not amnesty since EMPLOYERS would be found guilty and they would serve their sentence (probation).
2007-09-02 15:22:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
each and every state desires to enact rules like Oklahoma and Arizona. that's the only the federal government will ever take proactive steps. many of the Senators and Congressmen spend the majority of their time counting votes and money for his or her next election, such a large style of, who're the two based on the votes or marketing campaign money, or the two, from this concern, relatively can no longer see it as a concern. because maximum illegals are from international places south of our border, the votes will consistently be a catch to Democrat professional-amnesty politicians, however the money may be dried up by using making it too costly or impossible for American agencies to employ them with out risking the lack of ability of each and everything they very own. Then a minimum of the Republicans and Independents could turn anti-amnesty or maybe anti-unlawful. precise now, there is almost no person in Washington taking this heavily, different than those attempting to push amnesty through. it is going to take plenty longer, yet could have a extra lasting consequence, if adequate states persist with the Oklahoma and Arizona lead.
2016-10-17 13:11:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's not.
What makes you think someone well networked who broke our laws to get here will suddenly obey our laws?
There should be no concessions in the first place for someone who trespassed and then took a job away from an able and willing citizen.
The solution is simple. In order to save the U.S. taxpayers over $100 billion dollars annually that illegal immigrants suck up, we will have to build a $10 billion high-tech 2300 mile barrier, make the jobs trespassers do known and available to U.S. citizens, pay for their transportation to the job sites, and then deport as many trespassers we can as fast as we can to Southern Mexico (if they are Mexican). The average illegal immigrant costs the U.S. taxpayers at least $10,000 annually.
The lack of jobs in Mexico for most of our illegal immigrants is Mexico's problem and it is Mexico's responsibility to solve it. They have the money and resources to do so. They need the political will. This solution will force them to accept these people into their society or perish.
2007-09-02 16:09:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by spirit dummy 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
my friends the 8 country most industrialized most the people are to egoist there are people getting to much pay for no work there are 2 highest salary in the state with 75millions$ in Canada too; some public people are paid from 5millions $and up and we the tax payers with a minimums wage we have to leave half the salary just for tax so I hope all the poor people to wake up and go on strike locking all the business until the rich pay the tax and the poor have a decent salary they can live in a moderate life.
2007-09-02 15:37:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by jashuear 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, I would say it depends on the every country budget and the land space to occupy the maximum amount of population for supporting migrants that keeps flocking from one country to another maybe because of their home leaders mutually agreed on war in their country or on their roof tops.
Some nations will give them temporary odd jobs approved by their govt to survive with conditions that they have to go back once war is over. Their decent temporary job productivity
will bring income to the country they are residing too and they will get paid with a temporary pass for staying without prosecution.
Poorer nations will confiscate the immigrant's entire income and assets they possess and push them to the grey market for illegal activities. Proverty nations will find the dead bodies of these victims of rape and abuse in large garbage bins in red light district, rivers, forest valley, drains in certain areas
When there is war, you will have to migrate like it or not, it is not about religion, race, or only limited to one country's leader or geographical location. but after migration problems like this may happen in their lives for survival in an alien nation.
It all depends on the understanding of the country you are choosing and are they governed by international law on human rights or self-made law
Do you like peace now?
2007-09-02 15:28:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by varsitythoo@yahoo.co.uk 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think your drinking kool/aid again> I say round them up family's every 1 and deport them knowing that if they ever come back then it;s 20 yrs in prison>An if there wanted than they serve there time building the fence an prisons since there so good at construction>?
2007-09-02 15:24:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by 45 auto 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
So, how do you force them into turning themselves into the police when they cannot even be stopped from tunneling, scaling fences etc. You are dreaming partner. They need to be give 30 days to head back to mexico posthast or be rounded him and placed in a concentration camp in the Mojave dessert and their backpack blowers confiscated.
2007-09-03 11:43:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Bush's solution was much stricter on the illegal immigrants (fines and back taxes were expected), and did not at all satisfy the angry people.
2007-09-02 15:15:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by Thomas M 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No way not a good solution.. The only solution is to enforce the laws on the books, buld a border fence, have sweeps and deportations. Thats what we need.
2007-09-02 15:19:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by osirassun6 2
·
2⤊
2⤋