Quote Originally Posted by T.G. Oskar View Post
I guess you mean something like this, right?
Yes. There are multiple types of visas, with one being needed to apply for permanent residency and citizenship. Nobody said it's easy -- I just pointed out the obvious fact that it's more than possible, and thousands upon thousands of people do it every year.

If I had to choose who I wanted to join my country, it would be the immigrant who cares about upholding the law.

That's...almost a joke, you know; for some people ... their chances of entering the country legally are pretty much close to zero. Why, then, provide them with the illusion of legal entry to the U.S. if the goverment will place so many hurdles on them, some so inaccessible so as to completely deny their entry by legal means, and not blatantly tell them "we don't want no wetbacks in here"?
Would you prefer if the United States federal government said, "no immigration"? Or would you rather thy provide multiple means of legal immigration and enforce them? Very few people have a problem with immigration in general -- and very few have a problem with Mexicans. (Don't try playing the race card, with "oh you just don't want them in your country because they're hispanic" -- you're better than that.) What we do have a problem with isillegal immigration. From any country.

Hmm...by that you mean the Mexican federal government, the government of the state of Mexico, or the regional governments of northern Mexico?
Yes. Since the state of Mexico prettymuch surrounds the capital, they share many of the same political ambitions. The local governments in the north are overpopulated with Mexicans and Central Americans who have traveled through the country, and the best way to get them out is to help them move north.

Since...the official posture of the Mexican federal government is to prevent the incursion of Mexican nationals and nationals of other Central American countries through the U.S.-Mexico border (in cooperation with the Border Patrol of the U.S.), and to advocate for an immigration reform in the U.S. so that Mexican nationals may enter the U.S. legally as immigrants (specifically those whom the above-mentioned immigrant or dual-intent visas don't apply to).
Yes, that's the official posture of the Mexican federal government. Of course that's the official posture -- we have a problem with something that's happening between their country and ours, and it would be simply moronic for them to openly, publicly, and officially advocate for more of that to happen. Unfortunately, U.S.-Mexico relations are frequently strained when it's discovered that the Mexican government -- mainly their federal government and northern local governments -- are printing brochures and pamphlets to tell people how to sneak over more effectively.

It's not easy to become a legal immigrant with intentions of becoming a legal resident within a degree of poverty and scholarity well below the average, if existing at all. In fact, it may seem even ridiculously difficult.
And again I ask -- why should we import people with low levels of education and job skills, when we have more than enough of our own people who already fall into the same category?

That kind of thought, though...it's kinda like saying "well, a convict cannot claim to be an upstanding, law-abiding citizen if it broke a law", but never recognizing that they have paid their debt to society.
No. No. No.

It's kinda like saying, "well, a convict cannot claim to be an upstanding, law-abiding citizen if they continuously break the law." Being in this country illegally is just that -- illegal. It's not just getting in to the country, it's staying as well.

The way laws exist now, that would be the equivalent of saying "well, since you broke a law, you're now confined to remain in prison indefinitely", which makes crossing the border a crime along the lines of homicide (since once deported, a person may not enter the U.S. by legal means ever again).
No, it wouldn't -- it would be the equivalent of saying, "well, since you broke a law to come in here, you obviously can't be trusted to uphold our laws, so you lost your chance."

Um...isn't that desperate enough? I mentioned that kind of desperation because I don't think someone hungry for days would be still capable of thinking rationally; at least, not the average person. Even worse when they get tempted.
So it's a situation of "I'm so poor I'm willing to do anything for money -- so let me spend a bunch of money to have that chance"? Let me guess, they're all Obama supporters?

Those who fall in pyramid fraud scams are breaking the law, no? Just saying...
And they're their own fault. What's your point?

Now...how about people who get scammed out of their Social Security check, or receiving pension, for example (meaning, people who cannot work harder or longer, as you say)?
Do you see a bunch of grandmas who've been scammed out of their pension prostituting themselves or selling drugs? Or is it just as I pointed out -- most people who need money find legal means of making it?

Now suppose that having two jobs were a crime. Or that working overtime were a crime (it's not a crime per se, but not all employers will allow or support working overtime, and working harder does not necessarily imply getting a sure raise).
Working overtime is a crime? Where are you, France?

Because for these advocates, being an immigrant with a desire to progress isn't a crime.
And maybe to me, smoking marijuana isn't a crime. Or having sex with minors. Or stealing from somebody with more money than I have. Too bad it doesn't matter what I think or what they think -- whether they perceive it as such or not, it's still a crime.

Because these advocates know the hurdles that some people have to become legal residents, and they understand the desperation of the people who came illegally to work and/or study (and progress and even repay the society in which they currently live).
So it's aright to break the law so you can repay society? I should use that argument if I get caught selling drugs or prostituting -- it's alright, Your Honor, I was only doing it to pay my taxes and donate to charity.

Because there are already resources for illegal immigrants within the U.S. to change their status from illegal to legal, but they need assistance on the matter. And while there are resources, there are not enough resources.
From who? Why should my tax dollars go to protecting a criminal?

Again -- why are these advocates supporting criminals and trying to make their crimes legal? And why am I the bad guy for trying to make them not commit the crimes in the first place?

So...apparently Kwanzaa, Hanukkah and Ramadan are clearly 100% American traditions (religious traditions? Bah, humbug; heck, Kwanzaa isn't even a religious tradition...).
We don't have African, Jewish, and Muslim lobbies trying to force America to obey their traditions, do we? (Well, we don't have African and Jewish lobbies trying to force America to obey their traditions, do we?) How many demands have you heard for Jewish holidays to become national holidays? Now think about the demands for September 16 and May 5 to be American national holidays -- I know I've heard quite a few.

Apparently stuff like pizza, bratwursts and sauerkraut, lager, crepes, various kinds of pasta such as spaghetti, fettuccine and others, baklava, gyros...well, various kinds of food are pretty much American-exclusive (what if Italy has several kinds of pasta? Durum semolina was invented in America!).
I've never seen a group of Germans outside a high school demanding that they serve sauerkraut and bratwurst for lunch every day, washed down with a good stout. Have you? However, there are schools in California that have buckled to the pressure of their mostly-immigrant constituents and ended up with an entirely Mexican menu.

And certainly there's no requisition of African-Americans to learn and respect and observe African (not African-American, African) cultural traditions, there's no Chinatown, there's no Jewish or Italian ghettos...
If they want to follow their own traditions, that's fine -- nobody's got a problem with that. The problems come in when they start demanding that everybody else follows their traditions. Blacks, Chinese, Jews, Italians -- they don't expect everybody else to act and sound like they do.

Alright, let's stop with the joke. No, Hispanics don't demand people that they learn their language and observe their culture and language: they are just adding that to the big mixing pot that's America.
Many hispanics have demanded that we learn their language and observe their culture. That's quite the opposite of "they don't demand". There are demonstrations in California quite often -- most with Mexican flags, some with Mexican flags flown above American flags.

You aren't forced to learn Spanish, not as much as you're forced to learn the stereotypical slang of African-Americans (not all of them speak that way, actually). As for people requesting services in their language: people from other countries are following suit (otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for translators of different languages, most specifically people fluent in Arab).
I'm not forced to learn Spanish? Are you sure that I didn't have to have at least two credits of Spanish to graduate high school? Are you sure that local governments haven't been forced to put up road signs in English and Spanish both? Hell, even road signs warning drivers to slow down because they might hit people sneaking over the border? Or to teach their police officers Spanish, to ensure that any hispanic they arrest understands their rights?

According to what? According to studies that show that influence, but that usually have to indicate that the data is not sufficient or clear enough to really point at them as the actual cause? Or that there are studies that show the contrary, along the same guidelines (but hey, since those are by groups that advocate an immigration reform, they are biased and hence unreliable sources in comparison to groups that advocate no immigration, instead of mentioning that they are unreliable sources because any study would equally have insufficient data to prove the other side...)
If that was the case, yes. You sound like you are flat-out denying problems caused by illegal immigrants. I thought you were smarter than that. It's fact: illegal aliens are disproportionate in commissions of crimes, teen pregnancy, poverty, and dropout rates. Hell, about a quarter of our federal inmates are illegal aliens. Do you really not know, or do you just prefer to deny it?

Certainly, there might be an increase in crime on places whose population usually increases in size; that happens virtually everywhere and doesn't necessarily have to deal with immigration specifically (not to mention a specific sub-set of immigrants). That seems more like generalization than anything else.
It's not much of a generalization when places with higher populations of illegals have more crime than places of the same size with less illegals.

Well then: stop issuing more visas to people. Or at least, visas that allow legal immigration; visits are OK, since they are that, visits.
So you'd rather we stop allowing legal immigration, instead of simply cracking down on illegal immigration?

And it's not like the Border Patrol is inefficient (or are you insinuating that? I presume not).
That's true. The Border Patrol has their hands tied with underfunding and politics. When they can't do their job without worrying about investigations and harassment (and, of course, insults and accusations of racism), they simply can't do their job.

Now, when you're referring to "our people", you're referring to...anyone who's a citizen, right? Or just a section of the population that can be identified as "our people"? Would you include on that case people that are legal residents, naturalized citizens of the United States that are of Hispanic descent as well? That term, "our people", is pretty broad; I'd say pretty ambiguous.
There you go, trying to insinuate that I'm a racist again. Nice try. But no, "our people" refers to Americans -- whatever color, sex, religion, or national origin. You really had to dig for that one, didn't you?

...but this might be a bit closer. Those people that want to legalize their immigration status within the U.S.? Yep, at least the majority of those people are what you explained: good people, with jobs, that obey most laws (and that also might be willing to learn English and become citizens and that pay most taxes as well). Pretty silly, right?
So "the majority" of people who want this crime to not be a crime ... their presence here is illegal, but they care about the laws?

Sure -- and the majority of people who want to legalize marijuana have never touched the stuff, right? The majority of people who want to change the legal drinking age to 18 are over 30, right?

Telling people that they have to wait several years to get in...that's not saying "stay out", that's staying "just wait a while". Maybe in that wait, they might not be wishing to migrate anymore, you know. Worse if what you can tell them is "well, you can stay...on the closet...up until you're living here for 4 years, in which I'll let you into the old unused room I got right there, unless you become part of the family several years later and then I can let you share the rest of the house".
Or, more accurately, "we don't have room for all of you, so some of you can come in now and be a part of us, and the rest will have to wait. Unless you just want to sneak in my window, then get upset when I catch you and tell you to leave and not come back."