Obama's Attorney General Nominee: Illegal Immigrants Have a Right to Work in The United States

a reply to: Shamrock6

Genocide aside, because I really wasn't referring to that...

I was talking about when it initially became a democracy rather than a desimation of the indiginous...
Putting that aside for arguments sake...


I'm really talking about those who fought the colonists to create the Land of the Free...



I didn't know there was an asterix beside the phrase to highlight "unless they're an immigrant without a Visa or paperwork"...




Here's my example...

I'm a Muslim, I follow the Quran & Muhammad and find my morality there...
Not in what Saudi Arabia decide to do nowadays...

If I was an American...
I'd take my morals & values from the founding fathers...
Not from people who added new laws for whatever purpose after they had passed away...



Again, you may say apples and oranges...

But I think you're smart enough to understand where I'm coming from, morally.



Like I said, if the illegal has no real reason to be there other than just wanting a handout or to spread their criminal enterprise... Kick the tramps out...

If they've got a good reason to have arrived, even if not by the book, which may not even be a possibility to some, then I don't see the harm in following Thomas Jefferson's ideology, in fact I think it would do a disservice to the Founding Father not to take his advice.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: neo96
I think our communication problem, Neo, is that you consider Illegal Immigrants to be anyone who comes in without permission & paperwork or a Visa...

I consider an Illegal Immigrant to be an already known criminal in the country they came from without a damn reason to be leaving there in the first place but to cause havoc on another's Land...

By entering into a country illegally, it makes that person a criminal by definition. How hard is that to figure out?

Not according to Thomas Jefferson they're not...
Not unless they didn't have a reason for which to enter the land.


And the fact that he called it "a right" that "nature has given to all men" how could it possibly be a crime?

& if it is in fact a crime, then you have bigger problems to worry about in the States, because it won't be long before your "rights" become a "criminal act"...

Thomas Jefferson was referring to lands not yet established as sovereign nations.

You're trying to make an incredibly dimwitted comparison.

Here is the quote from Jefferson that you're taking out of context:

To remind him that our ancestors, before their emigration to America, were the free inhabitants of the British dominions in Europe, and possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as to them shall seem most likely to promote public happiness. That their Saxon ancestors had under this universal law, in like manner, left their native wilds and woods in the North of Europe, had possessed themselves of the island of Britain then less charged with inhabitants, and had established there that system of laws which has so long been the glory and protection of that country.

Jefferson is certainly not justifying illegally entering a sovereign nation for no other reason than to reap the benefits of that nation's social programs. If Mexicans don't like the current state of their country, they should work toward fixing it. They don't because they can easily escape to the U.S. and take advantage of our prosperity.

A more accurate comparison would be DOUBLE the current population of Ireland flooding illegally into the UK after a collapse of their economy... but I'm sure you'd be just fine with that, right?

a reply to: marg6043

Currently. Currently illegal immigrants can't move out of poverty, neither can their children. They're stuck because they don't qualify for a number of legal benefits.

They're not leeches, they're people. They're capable of bettering themselves and their communities if given the chance. We're intentionally hindering these people by denying them legal status.

Our immigration system is very broken. It's not that we're letting too many in, we're simply not letting enough in.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: marg6043

Currently. Currently illegal immigrants can't move out of poverty, neither can their children. They're stuck because they don't qualify for a number of legal benefits.

They're not leeches, they're people. They're capable of bettering themselves and their communities if given the chance. We're intentionally hindering these people by denying them legal status.

Our immigration system is very broken. It's not that we're letting too many in, we're simply not letting enough in.

You should probably spend some time in areas with a large number of Mexican immigrants, both illegal and legal, before you try to make so many idealistic claims.

a reply to: links234

No one is denying them legal status except themselves. THEY made the choice to come here and live here illegally when there are legal channels to follow.

If someone just comes and barges into your home and stays there, do you finally just give up and allow them to live there or do you evict them? I mean wouldn't it be cruel of you to deny them the ability to just access your resources at their whim.

a reply to: links234

Currently. Currently illegal immigrants can't move out of poverty, neither can their children. They're stuck because they don't qualify for a number of legal benefits.

What a coincidence!

Neither can millions of LEGAL Americans.

a reply to: Answer

Then why didn't he say that outright?


Probably because that's how you want to interpret his words maybe?



He said new habitations...
A new house or home...


& I never said he was justifying the idea to enter a country just for a handout...
That's not a natural right...

Fleeing oppression is...


& you can say "fix your own country instead" all you want but not for one second do I actually think you're stupid enough to believe that's possible for all of the people who have left their Nation...

That's just a right winger deflection that ignores corruption in the Land of other countries and plays the role of telling those who question morality "well that's their problem not mine"...

& only a buffoon would allow you to say that and then change their whole moral standpoint and say "yeah screw them sort your own life out"...

I'm not talking about people looking for handouts here...

I'm talking about desperate mothers that have fled from a God awful situation with children, young teenagers who have fled the arms of Devilish influence such as cartels that say "do as we say or your heads on a spike", I'm talking about men who have had family members slaughtered and been run out of their countries...

You can label all of these people as "handout grabbers" all you like...

Don't expect others to buy that #...

Especially leaders of the free world whose job is to keep the Planet stable...
Not just the patch of Land they represent in the bigger picture.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Shamrock6

Genocide aside, because I really wasn't referring to that...

I was talking about when it initially became a democracy rather than a desimation of the indiginous...
Putting that aside for arguments sake...


I'm really talking about those who fought the colonists to create the Land of the Free...



I didn't know there was an asterix beside the phrase to highlight "unless they're an immigrant without a Visa or paperwork"...




Here's my example...

I'm a Muslim, I follow the Quran & Muhammad and find my morality there...
Not in what Saudi Arabia decide to do nowadays...

If I was an American...
I'd take my morals & values from the founding fathers...
Not from people who added new laws for whatever purpose after they had passed away...



Again, you may say apples and oranges...

But I think you're smart enough to understand where I'm coming from, morally.



Like I said, if the illegal has no real reason to be there other than just wanting a handout or to spread their criminal enterprise... Kick the tramps out...

If they've got a good reason to have arrived, even if not by the book, which may not even be a possibility to some, then I don't see the harm in following Thomas Jefferson's ideology, in fact I think it would do a disservice to the Founding Father not to take his advice.

All well and good.

Until you are sending your kids to failing state schools with class sizes around 40, wait weeks for Doctors apointments, get water shortages, have overcrowed roads, blackouts from a old power grid ect.


Public infrastructure still needs to be able to keep pace.

a reply to: links234

But using this logic an impoverished American can illegally enter Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, etc and expect benefits and protection. We can't even take care of our own, and not just America, all govs. They squander resources, waste them and pretend there's nothing they can do about it. We shouldn't have to pay for people who don't belong here.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Thomas Jefferson = slave owner.

George Washington = slave owner. And fought against the native Americans.

So which principles should I be following of theirs?

The very definition of "immigration" is moving to live in a foreign COUNTRY. Not another area, not another land, not another area that some people currently inhabit but who will pack up and leave in a couple months when the seasons change. Another country.

a reply to: links234

Sadly putting them into legal status and giving them welfare will perpetuate the circle of poverty the same way that has done it for decades to the already legal American poor in the nation.

That is why the welfare state is growing and eventually will bankrupt the nation.

This is the reality of been poor in America adding more poor to the pool will fix nothing.

Make those countries like Mexico a Nation rich in Oil take care of their own rather than kissing their corrupted leaders butt while their control their nations resources and get fat they allow their poor to come to the US in order for the tax payers to take care of them.

The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer

◾Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.
◾In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion.
◾At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion.
◾In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire.

These costs would have to be borne by already overburdened U.S. taxpayers. (All figures are in 2010 dollars.)

The typical unlawful immigrant is 34 years old. After amnesty, this individual will receive government benefits, on average, for 50 years. Restricting access to benefits for the first 13 years after amnesty therefore has only a marginal impact on long-term costs.

If amnesty is enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over the course of his remaining lifetime than he would pay in taxes.

Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs because it undercounts the number of unlawful immigrants and dependents who will actually receive amnesty and underestimates significantly the future growth in welfare and medical benefits.

www.heritage.org...

Amnesty will create the biggest deficit in tax revenue in the nation, take that with the deficit we are to face under the Obmacare and trust me the estimates are from back in 2010, right now the numbers are growing and getting worst

How can something like this help the nation are the need for votes so bad for the Democratic party that they doesn't give a darn about the nations wellbeing?

The rich get richer the poor are nothing but expendable, for one death in poverty is millions more to be born into the poverty pool and that is without amnesty

Child Poverty

More than 16 million children in the United States – 22% of all children – live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level – $23,550 a year for a family of four. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses. Using this standard, 45% of children live in low-income families.

Most of these children have parents who work, but low wages and unstable employment leave their families struggling to make ends meet. Poverty can impede children’s ability to learn and contribute to social, emotional, and behavioral problems. Poverty also can contribute to poor health and mental health. Risks are greatest for children who experience poverty when they are young and/or experience deep and persistent poverty.

www.nccp.org...

Is this the future that the rich and powerful wants for the rest of the nation? because of political agendas?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: links234
No one is denying them legal status except themselves. THEY made the choice to come here and live here illegally when there are legal channels to follow.

By making legal immigration out of reach for anyone making less then $100,000/year then the system is doing it. Not the immigrants.

If someone just comes and barges into your home and stays there, do you finally just give up and allow them to live there or do you evict them? I mean wouldn't it be cruel of you to deny them the ability to just access your resources at their whim.

If someone barges into my home seeking help, I help them.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Slave owner, touché my friend... I guess their values were questionable.

Way to make my argument invalid



I will still stand by my morals on this issue...

I haven't been referring to handout snatchers at all in this thread... Screw them...

But those who are fleeing, from the beheading, organ selling, child prostituting, human trafficking dangers of whichever Nation they left, are a different kettle of fish... Visa or not... Paperwork or not...



Morally speaking.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Answer

Then why didn't he say that outright?

Because, like most writings during the 18th century, it was assumed that the reader had some common sense.

Unfortunately, that's not the case today.

Furthermore, since you do not live in the U.S. and have probably not spent much time here, you really don't have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion and are simply blathering on about ideals and principles without a full understanding of the situation.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Didn't the original "settlers" in the Americas work?

Weren't they illegal immigrants?

Weren't they the original Republicans trying to get away from rule of The Crown?




Talk about partisan double standards.



I suppose these immigrants aren't the same because they're brown instead of European Warlords.

Actually no it wasnt illegal for them to come to the new world. There were not any laws against it then. Unfortunatly we DO have laws now and ignoring them for one set of people is elitist and downright unfair to the law abiding citizens who came legally.

How is that a double standard?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Thomas Jefferson = slave owner.

George Washington = slave owner. And fought against the native Americans.

So which principles should I be following of theirs?

The very definition of "immigration" is moving to live in a foreign COUNTRY. Not another area, not another land, not another area that some people currently inhabit but who will pack up and leave in a couple months when the seasons change. Another country.

And Mexicans,and other illegal immigrants will be the new slaves to the state, just like the rest of us.

Just like the AA's,Irish, and Chinese, etc. were.

Same o Same o.

a reply to: crazyewok

Sorry for the late response crazy, I'm not ignoring you...


& you make a great point.


Of course infastructure is necessary to keep stable...

But realistically, that needs to be fixed anyways, immigration or not, because eventually reproduction will cause that infastructure to collapse anyways if it isn't maintained and improved and enlarged all round.



& if some of these "illegals" who are willing to work to help that along, then it all pays for itself anyways.


imo.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Lol!

I get your point, to a degree. Believe me, I'm all for liberty and so on. But I also see that there's a downside to the fathers as well. I just don't buy into colonists being illegals.

The rest of what you said I can agree with. But there's a difference between fleeing persecution and wanting to make more money while not paying taxes, or simply wanting to live off the system. Cheers

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: links234
No one is denying them legal status except themselves. THEY made the choice to come here and live here illegally when there are legal channels to follow.

By making legal immigration out of reach for anyone making less then $100,000/year then the system is doing it. Not the immigrants.

If someone just comes and barges into your home and stays there, do you finally just give up and allow them to live there or do you evict them? I mean wouldn't it be cruel of you to deny them the ability to just access your resources at their whim.

If someone barges into my home seeking help, I help them.

To your first point, do you have any evidence to validate your "$100,000/year" assertion?

To the second, if you want to help people, by all means go ahead.. That still doesn't give you the right to dictate how the rest of the country should respond to the same scenario.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Ok, so now everyone else's problems have now become ours by default because if they want to bring their problems here they can and they can't fix their problems on their own?

What a crock.

You just basically said that every person in the world has a right to come live in the US and bring their problems with them and I have some kind of obligation to fix their lives ... but they have no obligation to fix their own lives wherever they came from? What kind of logic is that?