Talk Elections

Note, this has nothing to do with what to do with illegal or legal immigrants currently in the country.

I voted to open the border and eliminate the minimum wage - I would love to have lots of servants!  

I'm inclined to the lowering the minimum wage option.  Look what immigration did for us after the Civil War until we started implementing quotas.  It was fine when we said that prostitutes and felons couldn't come here, but not when we said Italians and Southeast Europeans couldn't.

The Irish all eventually worked their position up too.

I voted for "increase immigration overall".

Other

I think we should have an open border policy with the other first world English-speaking nations(UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). They would integrate into our society at a much faster pace, and we would all benefit. Other than that, I say keep immigration as is.

And are you going to tell us what you would do?

Many countries can speak better English than the average American, such as the Netherlands and Sweden.  I'd be tempted to do this with all of the first-world countries if I were to implement a plan like this.

How much would the wall cost?

Options 1, 2, or 3, or I would settle for option 4.

Actaully, it would be best if we could combine options 1 and 2 to make 1.

Well, a ten foot concrete wall from Texas to Sout hern California...I'm not sure.  I believe this is Pat Buchanon's position.

Pat B. would probably want the low-cost labor of illegal immigrants to help build it.

Option 7.

We should eliminate the minimum wage entirely, not just for immigrants.  We should also have the open border, if they want to do the work and let me sit on my ass I have no problems with them.

I am extremely aggrivated and upset with Bush's illegal immigrant policy, as are a lot of people. It's not enough to sway my vote... yet, but I am upset about it. If the border gets anymore open, you probably won't see another 9/11, but you will see an 8/13, 3/9, 10/19, 5/25, 12/24, 1/1, and God forbid, a 7/4.

Wasn't Gray Davis run out of office in Cali in part because of an illegal immigrant policy - giving or wanting to give driver's licenses, etc. to illegals? Another issue where there seems to be little difference between Dems and GOP.

And I'm not for eliminating the minimum wage. With inflation getting out of control again, we'd be a third world country in a few months if we eliminated minimum wage laws. Besides, I don't like the idea the eliminating the middle class - that's not something we want in this country. We want people to be part of the establishment - they're less likely to vote for crazies that way.

Considering peopel from germany might soon immigrate to india because they are programmers.. get those borders open, we migth need them soon enough ;)

HEY, I plan to live a little longer than 50 more years!!!! ;)

 I say reduce immigration, but my main option would be is to arrest those who hire illegal immigrants, size their assets of their entire family and throw them in prison. What I would do is go to arrest those who manage meat packing plants, own homebuilding companies and other retail managers and arrest them.

I intentionally didn't deal with a plan to deal with illegals who are already here, because it's completely seperate from what to do with immigration quotas and whatnot.

I can support building a wall and deporting all illegals or support decreasing immigration overall and deporting all illegals etc.

For legal immigration I suggest that adult applicants be required to take and sucessfully complete a G.E.D. exam in American English as a requirement to be considered for legal immigration.

I would then suggest we take the top scorers (presuming no cheating) in a number not to exceed one per cent of the population of the United States per annum.  We should also consider running background checks to try to weed out terrorists.

For illegal immigration, build a wall.  Stop it cold.  

Good point, perhaps I should have seperated the poll further to just include legal or illegal immigration.

Does your legal immigration plan significantly decrase the current immigration quotas?

I believe it is a slight increase in legal immigration quotas and a drastic decrease in illegal immigation, hence a massive decrease in total immigration.

I think that we should have a provisional citizenship for native born citizens and then award full citizenship based on that same exam upon their majority.

It would never fly!

You never know, enough stupid people vote for the GOP when their interests would be better served by the Dems.  A savy politician could probably get this measure through, although it could be greased by attaching it to the consitutional amendment that contains the repeal of amendment 16.

Shoot 'em on sight as they are crossing the border.

I suppose you favor the wall then, heh.

you mean illegals right?

Certainly. Or legalize slavery for illegals. Either way it's a win win situation.

You know, technically slavery for illegals isn't against any law.  Amendment 14 Section 1 specifically says that the protections guarantied by the constitution are only guarantied to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States".  Amendment 13 is one such protection and since illegals are not "born or naturalized in the United States", they are not protected from "involuntary servitude".

Similarly, foeti are not yet "born or naturalized in the united states" and therefore are not guarantied "the rights to life, liberty and property".  Thus from a strict-constructionist viewpoint, abortion bans are unconstitutional as they extend rights not guarantied by the constitution, they are a power that was "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States," and as such "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".  The constitution requires the government to preotect the rights of those "born or naturalized" while the protection of all other persons is "reserved to the states".

In my heart of hearts, I consider all and any restrictions on people's movements as heinous and illegal. Remove all borders whatsoever!
Okay, okay, I know, not practicable, dangerous, not going to happen anyway...Still, as little immigration restictions as possible.

I went for Option 4. Reduce immigration from 'bad' countries. I have nothing against educated immigrants coming to work in Britain, however I am opposed to non-english speakers with no skills. What can they offer?

My proposal for immigration policy in Australia:

1. Drastically increase immigration of skilled workers and young families under 35, from countries in the first world

2. Encourage immigration from 'lower' countries like India, but only in young families under 35 again.

3. Fill UN appointed refugee quota

4. Give asylum seekers at least temporary Residence Visas

5. Allow false asylum seekers with jobs and families based in Australia to stay

6. Deport false asylum seekers without jobs or families

I think that basically fits my view. Australia can sustain another 30 million people, and to be truly competitive on the world stage we need another 10 million in the next twenty year, something that will not happen at current brith and immigration rates.

Well, the UK is overpopulated in my opinion. We also have enough unskilled labour of our own without importing it from abroad!
I believe the UK should have a point system regarding immigration. Having family in Britain, speaking English & having a degree, skills etc. should earn the most points. Those who cannot speak English and have no qualifications should get no points. People with criminal records should be barred entry completely.

Regarding Asylum, I believe we should grant asylum to those in need, however they should be required to leave when their country of origin is declared safe. There should be no option of being able to stay indefinately.

Also I would relax the laws on immigration on US/Canadian/Australian & NZ citizens. I have no problems whatsoever with a New Zealander coming to live in Britain.

If you think the UK is chockablock, there is always room for another pommie down here to bag whenever we cream you in cricket.

(how many americans can interpret that? :D)

Would put some other law there, as there are, unfortunately, countries that give you a criminal record for saying "the gouvernment sux"
But all else makes sense, immigration beyond what a country can support helps noone.

No Thanks! There's too many creepy crawlies & poisonous stuff in Oz! The spiders in England are big enough, I don't think I could cope with Tarantulas! :)

Don't know... I kmow one german at least can not ;)

Most Mexicans do not fit that category. (The ones coming into the US)

Turantulas are from the Amazon ;)

I've lived here, in Melbourne, my whole life, and only once have I seen a large spider in this city.

In Sydney they have FunnelWebs though.

Well, you are wrong there.  The 13th amendment doesn't say people can't be enslaved, it says that slavery shall not exist in the United States.  And US citizens are bound by that, meaning that they cannot institute a system of slavery in the United States.

What if a non-citizen had a slave who was also a non-citizen?

I would assume the same logic would apply.  Foreign nationals are obligated to observe the laws of their host countries.

Increase imigration overall, but make sure that we maintain standards for who we bring in.

America is the land of oppertunity.  My ancestors were all imigrants and they came with not a penny to their names.  Why deny others the oppertunity?  It's good for the economy as well.

There is no reason why the US should refuse immigrants. It is after all a nation of immigrants. The same goes for Canada, Australia and NZ. Immigration in Europe is more contentious. It's heavily populated already and has been monocultural for centuries. This makes it harder for the resident population and the immigrants to integrate.

Europe monocultural? No way.

Until the 1950's, England was very monocultural. OK, it was historically a mix of different Europeans, Danes, Germans, French etc. but it was virtually 100% white.
Now some cities such as Leicester are 40% visable minority.

I thought the English don't consider England a part of Europe?
Anyways, even before South Asians etc from the 50s on, there was Italian and Eastern European (mostly Jewish) mass immigration to Britain in the 19th century. Not to forget Irish and Highland Scots - not exactly monocultural!

Hmm, there were small numbers of Italian & Irish immigrants yes, but it hardly compares to the composition of the UK now does it? In any case, I am in favour of multiculturalism.

Aye it does.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that.
My point is, the UK is not a nation of immigrants, whereas the US is. I'm not being devisive, it's just a fact. Most people in the British Isles (60%+?) could probably trace their roots back to 13th century Britain. Perhaps earlier.
99% of Americans have roots in another country. Be that 18th century Spain, 19th century Sweden or whatever.

I think we should mobilize the Natioanal Guard along the Mexican boarder. Let the legals come through from Mexico but just shoot the illegals on site. It'll slow down the immigration a lot and I know that!

Let Canada be open though, hardly anyone comes in from there.

I can see a time in the far, far future where illegal Mexicans are trying to get accross the Canadain boarder!

Completely opening borders and elimination of the minimum wage are both excellent, if unrelated, ideas.  

Less govermnemt = good.

More government = bad.

any questions?

That would take app. 7 seconds.
And the only ones to gain would be Canadian criminals.

If you can get into canada, then it's a lot easier to get into the USA.  My second roomie in college was an illegal immigrant from Iran.  He came to Canada legally, then got into the US illegally from there.  Many of his friends had come to Mexico first, then to the USA from there.  They're coming friend.  You can either burn your money (and mine!) or accept that globalism is here to stay.  Free markets require open borders.  when all the sh**t jobs are taken there will be no incentive for illegals to keep coming and a new equilibrium will be established.  It's really very simple.  (unless you start to offer socialized medicine and welfare and such, then it's like asking for trouble.)  But as long as we have a semblance of free enterprise and Price Theory holds, then you'll have immigration as long as it is economically beneficial to the immigrant and not one second more.

"People should be able to come and go, if they can afford it."
  --Harry Browne

The biggest trouble-asker though is skewed terms of trade. It takes people time to notice. Lots of time. Decades. Mass immigration is here to stay. And all that your - and our, who are worse - politicians do about it just kills hardworking decent folks and feeds smugglers.
"People should be able to come and go, if they can afford it."
  --Harry Browne
The second part of that nicely sums up what's wrong with Libertarians.

I have lots of mathematics to do today and my brain is tired, but I'll give a quick response before getting back to work.  First, the skewing is a problem.  But I'm not sure what kind of skewing you're referring to.  I'd say protectionism in terms of tariffs or lobbies is the sort of skewing that diminishes returns for the investor, but somehow I doubt that's what you meant.  

In your case there's at least the recognition that mass migration is unstoppable, but your government oddly still spends great sums of money bolstering the eastern borders of Germany and Austria, and now Poland and the Baltic former USSR states.  In our case it's even more frustrating, since that recognition doesn't even yet go unchallenged.  

And yes, I agree that social Darwinism can be off-putting if your heart bleeds for the unwashed masses.  Mine does too, which is why I'm a Republican and not a Libertarian.  I'll need to add the phrase "faith-based charity" to my vocabulary to fit in, but I'm not ready to do that just yet.  We do give money to just about every outsretched hand that darkens our doorway, and I suspect most folks would voluntarily even if you didn't force them to by law.

Eliminating minimum wage only for non-citizens is what the post is referring to.  Having an open border but a consistant minimum wage would cause 40% unemployment, which would be bad.

That's quite a double standard there.