<p>“Hasn’t he done that to your liking? Whose policies do you think are the best?”</p>
<p>No he hasn’t. Did you see him on Meet the Press? His opinions are firm and I disagree vehemently. This is the single most important issue to me.</p>
<p>I guess I’m somewhat closer to Romney’s point of view. I will, however, vote for my party’s candidate.</p>
<p>Yes, I saw him on Meet the Press and he seems to have gotten the religion about securing the borders first. Beyond that, the next biggest issue is what to do with those already here. Romney’s views are so impractical that I wonder how serious of a candidate that he really is. It sounds like major-league pandering to me. I’m sure that he knows he will never be able to start a process of deportation of millions of people and I doubt that the US economy could survive the major jolt if he did.</p>
<p>What I don’t understand is why the only alternatives have to be “road to citizenship” on one hand and “road to Mexico” on the other. It seems to me that a more pragmatic solution would be to grant those already here illegally the ability to stay indefinitely but NO ROAD TO CITIZENSHIP. </p>
<p>I doubt that most came here with the intent to become citizens; they just want to earn money for their families. I can’t blame them for that. Given that and given that they did come here illegally and given that I think our economy has grown to rely on their presence why not allow them to stay but their penalty is that they will not be on a path to citizenship. By giving them legal status (but not citizenship, hence no full amnesty) they will be able to be on the books and pay taxes.</p>
<p>" doubt that most came here with the intent to become citizens; they just want to earn money for their families. I can’t blame them for that. Given that and given that they did come here illegally and given that I think our economy has grown to rely on their presence why not allow them to stay but their penalty is that they will not be on a path to citizenship. By giving them legal status (but not citizenship, hence no full amnesty) they will be able to be on the books and pay taxes."</p>
<p>I disagree to a point. I think there are many who came to avail themselves of social services, which I don’t want to pay for. Let’s talk about legalization after we talk about stopping entitlements. I don’t want to be a party to Mexico’s ethnic cleansing. I would be happy to help and support Mexico in making a better life for its people, and I want existing laws enforced. I’m sorry if this sounds cold, but I view illegal immigration as both an economic and a security issue and until Senator McCain gets serious on immigration, he can’t be serious on either of those things.</p>
<p>On an economic issue I can see your point. However, I think the security issue is a red herring - if the borders are as they are now, I really don’t think that terrorists need to go thorough a hot dessert to get here - there are plenty of other ways for them to gain entry. Even if they did want to enter illegally, it would be far easier for them to come in from Canada than through the hot dessert of Mexico. I really don’t see much of a link between terrorism and illegal aliens.</p>
<p>I think there are many who came to avail themselves of social services</p>
<p>70% of the births at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas were to illegal citizens. Some hospitals in Calif. are higher.</p>
<p>“I really don’t see much of a link between terrorism and illegal aliens”</p>
<p>I said security, not terrorism, and I was thinking of gangs, not terrorists, although Shukrijumah has been known to use that border.</p>
<p>" illegal citizens"</p>
<p>No such thing.</p>
<p>^ ^
Technically they’re citizens (everyone is a citizen somewhere) but illegal in the US 
…But you’re correct, I should have written illegal aliens.</p>
<p>ff: You’re right in a sense about the false dichotomy between citizenship and deportation.</p>
<p>But really, how is letting them stay without a path to citizenship any different than a path to citizenship? You have to tax them, provide them services commensurate with that taxation, register them in the kinds of national systems citizens are registered in… eventually, the only significant difference becomes that they are not able to vote, and have no citizenship ties to the country. Are you really suggesting creating a permanent underclass of non-American residents who know they can never be full citizens? Does that really solve anything? Seems to me it’s only a slight step forward.</p>
<p>Personally, given that deportation will never happen (it’s both practically impossible and would be devastating for the economy), people need to face the reality of the situation. Illegals are here, and they’re here to stay. End of discussion.</p>
<p>The only question is, does America continue to pay lip service to deportation, creating a criminally-inclined, poor underclass, or does America face the reality of the situation and proactively solve the problem?</p>
<p>I like Hillary and Obama’s proposals: provide a path to citizenship that includes paying a fine (for the crime), and paying back taxes (to get rid of the load on the social system caused by non-contributing illegals it supports).</p>
<p>Yes, these people committed a crime by coming here. But they’re here, and unless America can get over the resentment of “you are a criminal, we can’t let you get away with it!”, there’s never going to be progress on the issue.</p>
<p>“eventually, the only significant difference becomes that they are not able to vote, and have no citizenship ties to the country. Are you really suggesting creating a permanent underclass of non-American residents who know they can never be full citizens? Does that really solve anything? Seems to me it’s only a slight step forward.”</p>
<p>What makes you think that this would create a “permanent under-class”. Does one have to be a citizen to escape the under-class? There are plenty of non-citizens in this country on permanent visas who have definitely worked to become part of the middle/upper class. Having citizenship papers does not really make that much difference - learning the language and culture are the keys.</p>
<p>Correct me if I’m wrong (I certainly could be), but I thought that most permanent resident visas had an eventual path to citizenship. Correct?</p>
<p>My worry is exactly what you said - by making it clear that there is no path to citizenship for the illegals in your program, I fear that they would simply not integrate themselves into the culture, viewing themselves as essentially non-America.</p>
<p>“Correct me if I’m wrong (I certainly could be), but I thought that most permanent resident visas had an eventual path to citizenship. Correct?”</p>
<p>Yes, that is my understanding as well. But the granting of citzenship is not their key to the middle class. Most will have attained that status while still non-citizens (and I doubt very much that they would put their economic well-being on hold if citizenship was not a possibility.) </p>
<p>For example. You are from Canada and on a student visa (I presume). If, someone were to tell you that you could stay in the US but not have the right of citizenship, would that stop you from pursuing economic well-being?</p>
<p>^No argument with the reasoning. But to pursue the economic well-being you do so illegally by illegal entry, and THEN have a passel of kids born in US, you can eventually get PR status thru your children. ?? This was touch upon during the debate by Rom (?).</p>
<p>But, my point is that as a compromise (which would actually be workable), illegal aliens currently in the country who are law abiding people would be given permanent worker status but not a path to citizenship. </p>
<p>I’m not aware of what the current laws are with respect to gaining citizenship by means of having kids in this country, but certainly if there is such a law, part of the compromise would be to revoke that loophole. (I would actually favor an amendment which would eliminate the automatic citizenship of children born here, but that is a whole other fight.)</p>
<p>Funding father in that compromise, what would those workers be entitled to out of the public trough?</p>
<p>
‘Paying back taxes’ would be virtually impossible for many of the illegals since there’s no paperwork of what they earned. Besides, many have already sent their money back to Mexico. Let Hillary and Obama spend a bit more time in ‘illegal alien’ country like that around here and see what really happens. </p>
<p>It’s common sense and has already been proven that amnesty in any form only encourages even more people to illegally enter our country. This situation isn’t static - ‘forgiving’ those who have already broken the laws doesn’t solve the problem since they’re still coming here in droves and would be only more encouraged to do so with amnesty or something as simple as a fine.</p>
<p>ZM:
If they are working and paying taxes and otherwise living law-abiding lives, they should be eligible for the same safety net services that would be available to anyone here on a permanent visa. That may not sit well with you, but I think that if you don’t provide that safety net, then you do risk the development of a permanent underclass and all the problems that that entails. Given that deportation is not even remotely feasible, it is the best way of making the best of a bad situation. </p>
<p>However, I would note that these “permanent workers” should also be aware that they are here as guests who must meet certain requirements. The most important requirement is that they must keep their nose clean. Any serious infraction will result in deportation.</p>
<p>Regarding the debate - </p>
<p>I thought McCain didn’t come across well at all. He floundered on many of the questions and wouldn’t give up on the Romney ‘timetable’ question. He went on and on to the point of looking foolish and petty. If McCain were to become President, Letterman will have plenty of onging material for his show.</p>
<p>I thought Romney came off fairly well. </p>
<p>I would have liked to hear more from Huckabee and Paul but the debate hosts were clearly biased to the McCain/Romney race. I thought Huckabee had some pretty amusing statements (give us at this end a chance to speak!) and I sort of felt sorry for Paul since he was essentially shut out, rather rudely, by the hosts (CNN - why am I not surprised).</p>
<p>"underclass and all the problems that that entails. Given that deportation is not even remotely feasible, it is the best way of making the best of a bad situation. "</p>
<p>I completely respect your point, and I don’t think deportation is feasible, but I do think attrition is desirable. It’s outrageous that American taxpayers should be forced to pay the huge amount of money required to educate and provide healthcare for the underclass of other countries.</p>
<p>U<em>U</em>dad,</p>
<p>I agree that it was not McCain’s best performance. I heard that he had weather or plane problems causing him to spend 10 hours to get there. Perhaps that plus normal campaign fatigue was a problem. I can’t imagine how any of them can maintain that type of schedule for months on end and still remain semi-coherent. </p>
<p>The last Rep debate was a lovefest and the Dems went at each other’s throats. This latest series was a reversal of that.</p>