Craig Gibson
Stossel on illegal immigration
by Craig Gibson on 25 July 2010
John Stossel is confused about immigration.
2010-07-25 » Craig Gibson
Content
A multi-author blog with a range of opinions on news, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and life
- Browse by category: General -
- < Reflection on today’s mass readings
- > The great sake adventure
- Browse in timeline
- < Reflection on today’s mass readings
- > The great sake adventure
Talkback x 10
Share your thoughts
Re: Stossel on illegal immigration
25 July 2010 @ 8:44 pm
No surprise. Stossel is confused about almost everything.
26 July 2010 @ 1:48 pm
Open immigration is silly. The welfare state makes it absolutely crazy.
A country has an interest in keeping its culture from changing too quickly. It makes sense to allow more immigrants from countries that are more like us, and fewer immigrants from other places.
For example, would we want the country flooded with people who believe in a theocracy headed by a hereditary monarch? Or in sharia law? Or who were committed communists?
26 July 2010 @ 2:40 pm
For those who are in favor of amnesty, guest worker programs, the dream law or whatever it’s called, and easy paths to citizenship, I would like to ask the following question:
“If we allow more legal immigration, should we let those who have repeatedly broken our laws get in line for citizenship ahead of those who have not broken any laws?”
26 July 2010 @ 3:00 pm
I have very mixed feelings about amnesty because we’ve been so lax in enforcing our immigration laws. It doesn’t seem right to fail to enforce a law for years and years, and then suddenly get all mad at the people who didn’t follow those laws.
It would be like putting up speed cameras that ticket you for going 1 mph over the limit when it’s common knowledge that cops don’t even bother with anything less than 5 (or whatever).
A law that isn’t enforced isn’t a law. And there are (so I’m told) credible stories that we’ve actually encouraged illegal immigration — with a wink and a nod — to keep agriculture going.
ISTM the best solution would be to come up with a half-way answer, e.g., people who came here illegally can stay with permament work visas, but they can’t vote or become citizens without going through the standard process.
26 July 2010 @ 3:02 pm
Hey, here’s an idea. How about revoking the citizenship of anyone who hires someone who is not legally entitled to work here?
26 July 2010 @ 3:30 pm
John, are you joking?
26 July 2010 @ 4:01 pm
The real problem is that we don’t have the political will to do anything because illegal aliens and their defenders have become a significant voting block.
26 July 2010 @ 6:02 pm
Dave, you know John never jokes (tongue firmly planted in cheek
Nothing happened before illegal aliens and their defenders became a significant voting block either.
I personally think the coming failure of Social Security will drive immigration reform the old fashioned way – by making it look good for self-interest and the bottom line
28 July 2010 @ 5:12 pm
I was joking about revoking citizenship, but I am glad to see the Reagan era law about hiring people who are not legally entitled to work actually being enforced.
(Here come the micro-violins “It will only hurt the small business”)
I also have to assume that Greg is joking about people who are not citizens voting. If not, evidence please?
28 July 2010 @ 5:28 pm
Well, I don’t think that the laws making real consequences for hiring illegal workers are bad at all – however it is difficult to always encorporate the new paperwork at every turn. Keeping the competition honest by insisting that their workers are legal helps legitimate businesses. But the more scary scenario is state agencies breathing down the necks of the ppl who are hiring legally, and not really effectively rooting out the businesses who hire illegally. For once, Maryland is doing a good job of communicating to employers in a non-threatening way to encourage compliance; I think the transition has actually gone well. **passes out**