<p>HGFM, “those people” that are “breaking the law” are your fellow human beings. The law in question is, in the meantime, neither divine law nor inspired in the moral teachings of any religion.</p>
<p>While neither of us is Jesus (and I don’t happen to follow his teachings since I’m not Christian) those of us who strive to lead a moral life must confront the morality of our laws, and change them if found wanting.</p>
<p>So the moral question is not: are illegal immigrants breaking the law? (THEY ARE, by definition.) It is rather: How should the law (and its enforcement) change in order to provide a more fair and just arrangement for the 300 million citizens of the USA and the 12 million people living among them without citizenship?</p>
<p>The situations you are referring to are victims of crime, not people who are breaking the law. They’re very different.</p>
<p>citygirlsmom-of course not. Everyone deserves basic human rights. But I don’t understand why it’s so wrong to want people to immigrate legally, and to discourage others from hiring illegal immigrants.</p>
<p>mommusic-are you seriously comparing me to the Nazis? That hurts…it really does.</p>
<p>I disagree with the whole AIDS thing…and, like SamK said, it’s irrelevant.</p>
<p>Maybe I wasn’t clear with my arguments. Of course I’m going to help someone that I see in need, and no, I don’t “check to see that everything I eat was gathered legally”. I might as well stop eating. But I don’t see why that means I can’t be against illegal immigration. Why is it so wrong?</p>
<p>Yes, immigrants brought bagels, sushi and pasta to the US. They also brought smallpox and AIDS. None of this is irrelevant to the current discussion, which hinges on:</p>
<p>1) A study that claims a high rate of sex crimes by illegal immigrants.
2) A general debate of possible solutions to the illegal immigration problem.</p>
<p>Ahhh, then I wasn’t clear. Allow me to clarify.</p>
<p>In “helping them break the law”, I was referring more to those who hire illegal immigrants.</p>
<p>Of course, if someone is in need, I’m going to help them regardless of their circumstances.</p>
<p>The civil rights movement was, in my opinion, different. Those people were fighting moral wrongdoings…I fail to see how disagreeing with illegal immigration is a moral wrongdoing (if you can convince me trust me, I’ll be the first to admit I’m wrong! I’m not saying mine is the final word at all).</p>
<p>Also, I think you’re confusing loving someone with agreeing with them.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with how illegal immigrants got here; doesn’t mean I don’t love them.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with my friends who go out and get drunk and high on the weekends; doesn’t mean I don’t love them.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with my friends who are homosexual; doesn’t mean I don’t love them.</p>
<p>I do not agree with all laws. But I do think, as I’ve said multiple times, that if they want to come here they should do it legally.</p>
<p>HGFM, I’m also against illegal immigration. I think Congress should come up with a compromise plan to accomodate the masses of illegal immigrants that we have irresponsibly and for so long allowed into our country, threatening the rule of law. I don’t think we can deport 12 million people. I don’t think it is practical and I don’t think it is moral. Yes, I’m proposing some kind of amnesty.</p>
<p>After that, we should have a comprehensive and realistic immigration policy that recognizes the strong demographic pressure from Latin America in particular, with a strong enforcement (border, labor and individual) as well as work with our neighboring countries to improve their standards of living in order to reduce this pressure. Let’s be realistic. A fence will not cut it.</p>
<p>The problem is large and complex, and largely of our own creation. If we cut the “us vs. them” rhetoric that poisons the debate, there is a chance that a solution can be reached.</p>
<p>I would define anyone who commits a sex crime, “illegal” so if there were one million sex crimes in the U.S., then the statement is true. A tautology, but true.</p>
<p>^That is a very good point, and very eloquently put if I do say so myself. :)</p>
<p>I suppose, for me, it would depend on the type of amnesty as to whether I would support it. I don’t think we should just let them all stay without giving them any consequence whatsoever…like I said, I suppose it would all depend on the proposal.</p>
<p>1) Sets a minimum time limit, so people who come in tomorrow are not entitled to the amnesty.</p>
<p>2) Sets a fine for those who want to take advantage of the amnesty. The fine should be high enough to pay for the administration of the amnesty process, and low enough so it does not become prohibitive to the immigrants (or they will not take advantage of the amnesty, leaving things as they are today.)</p>
<p>3) Spells out a process going forward to obtain citizenship, plus enforcement against illegal immigration, that encourages future immigrants to follow that process rather than continue the current practice in the hopes of another amnesty in the future. (I THINK THIS IS THE HARDEST PART)</p>
<p>4) Includes a massive education program on both sides of the border to promote legal immigration and/or discourage illegal immigration.</p>
<p>The second we can find a way to increase the amount of low-cost labor without immigrants, I’m all for slowing down immigration. Until then, economics will win.</p>
<p>oh gosh decent wages, what a horrid thought!!!</p>
<p>let me get this straight, you want to bring DOWN the economic base of the US? And how would you do that? oh no minimum wage, no unions, no protections, no insurance, nada</p>
<p>then we would be a 3rd world country!!! so who would want to come here?</p>
<p>Well, by lowering wages, that is what you would be doing, and as for standard of living, less wages, lower standard of living and volia, your third world nation, which is what i do believe some corporatists want</p>