ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy

THE PILGRIMS WERE NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS

Rate this Entry

Quoteth Bart Simpson who was forced to write this phrase on this evening's episode of the Simpsons. That should drive a few antis crazy for a day or two.

Submit "THE PILGRIMS WERE NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS" to Facebook Submit "THE PILGRIMS WERE NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS" to Twitter Submit "THE PILGRIMS WERE NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS" to Google Submit "THE PILGRIMS WERE NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS" to StumbleUpon Submit "THE PILGRIMS WERE NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS" to Reddit Submit "THE PILGRIMS WERE NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS" to Digg Submit "THE PILGRIMS WERE NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
  1. 's Avatar
    The form of government was different back then. It was a loosely connected association of tribes. Not a single nation with a strong central government.

    It was really more of an invasion. And we won. Unfortunately and sadly - mostly because of spread of disease with some massacres thrown in - the Native Americans were screwed (for lack of better words).

    It's quite a stretch to compare what happened then with what is occuring today. The pilgrims were migrants, but what accompanied them was a private and government sponsored military force.
  2. Greg Siskind's Avatar
    Ooh, I knew I could draw a defensive response on this post. I think in their heart of hearts, most antis know this is a loser to argue. But don't let a little hypocrisy get in the way.
  3. 's Avatar
    This is our heritage you are talking about. Of course it will stir up Americans (who you seem to cast as anti-immigrant) when you do such a thing.

    There is no way to justify what occured with the Native Americans. So I won't even try. However, today's reality is that we are a nation of laws. For our nation to be successful we need to be ruled by law. This rule was decided by an elected democracy.

    I expect everyone to uphold our laws. And especially you - considering that you probably have an oath to do as much in your profession.
  4. Another voice's Avatar
    "I expect everyone to uphold our laws. And especially you - considering that you probably have an oath to do as much in your profession."

    Hypocrasy has no limits, I have bveen participating in this blog for a while now and I have never read a suggestion by Greg that the laws should not be respected. You are missing the point completly.
  5. 's Avatar
    No body is against rules. Lets make the rules that are in touch with reality. Rules are a means to an end. When it comes to immigration, the rules are not in touch with reality.

    I have heard the antis come up with all kinds of excuses. Here is one that cracks me up: Helping the illegals won't be fare to the legals waiting in line.

    Do you know the legal immigration is broken? Lets hear how you are going to fix it, since you hold the current rules so dear. Do you even know what the problem is? The current rules are not going to discourage illegal immigration.
  6. bobzibub's Avatar
    Then the law is an ***.
    http://pennlive.com/midstate/patriotnews/article304373.ece?fulltext=on
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071115.wfire15/EmailBNStory/National/home
    http://www.mindsay.com/news/when_rules_are_wrong_border_patrol_stops_ambulance.mws
  7. 's Avatar
    "When it comes to immigration, the rules are not in touch with reality. "

    How do you know that? We have laws on the books (which haven't been enforced). We are a democracy. At some point (in the 80s last time the issue was visited) laws were written to define our laws as they are today. Those laws were passed by people we elected.

    Law breaking may be a reality, but it flies in the face of what we as a representative democracy stand for. Until our elected officials change the laws, they must be enforced. The fact that they can't reach an agreement on this means that the current laws, however flawed they are, still stand.

    I would like to see some form of CIR passed. But I would also like to see our laws enforced. The problem as we know it today is a result of non-enforcement of the law.
  8. Another voice's Avatar
    "The current rules are not going to discourage illegal immigration."

    Illegal Immigration exists because in the current system there is no way for these immigrants to come through the regular channels legally and because of the strong economic forces sorrunding the issue.

    Discouraging Immigration to this country is not smart population as in many other industrialized nations is not growing fast enough ever hear of the "baby boomer generation". Fixing the current system so people do not have to do it illegally is what is needed. Immigration of any kind has always enhanced this country's potential.
  9. Another voice's Avatar
    "I would like to see some form of CIR passed. But I would also like to see our laws enforced. The problem as we know it today is a result of non-enforcement of the law."

    It goes deeper than a simplistic aproach such as the one described above. CIR is not politically popular that is why Washington prefere status quo or current system as you described "laws not been enforced". Who supports people and puts people in Washing ton the same businesess that benefit from the work of these immigrants. So its all connected and that is why a comprehensive solution will be the only way to resolve all aspects of the problem.

    Deal with the people that are already here and growing.
    Design a better system so all future immigration has a shot at coming here legally. Regardless of Low or high skills.


  10. 's Avatar
    "How do you know that?"

    Lets see. Economy is a good motivation for migration such as the Irish immigrants of yore. Employment based legal immigration wait times right now would most likely stretch for most applicants to 10yrs or more . Strike that, make it tens of years. I could do the math but it will be insulting your intelligence. For unskilled (govt classification not mine) workers there is no provision for economic immigration.

    Insanely long wait times for most or no avenue to come legally, my friend is a law not in touch with reality.

    So what is this CIR you are proposing? Does it help the issue? All I hear is building a fortress.
  11. Greg Siskind's Avatar
    >>How do you know that? We have laws on the books (which haven't been enforced).
  12. 's Avatar
    "Illegal Immigration exists because in the current system there is no way for these immigrants to come through the regular channels legally and because of the strong economic forces sorrunding the issue."

    Wait a second, this argument simply says that if there isn't a legal channel it's OK to take an illegal channel.

    People don't seem to grasp the importance of rule of law. Had people not broken the laws in the first place (both employers and employees) they wouldn't be faced with the challenges they face today.
  13. 's Avatar
    "Wait a second, this argument simply says that if there isn't a legal channel it's OK to take an illegal channel."

    Exactly this radical illegal lobby uses the same argument when people who are waiting to come here legally asked for a better treatment than illegals. There are some people from Mexico whose applications are pending for almost 20 years, because they are they are trying to do it right way. Any reform/law that treats illegals better than people waiting in line is unfair. These people should go to end of the line , no shortcuts because ones mom or dad jumped the border(Dream Act).

  14. Another voice's Avatar
    "Wait a second, this argument simply says that if there isn't a legal channel it's OK to take an illegal channel."

    It does not say that at all it points out the fact that the current system does not work and forces people to take that other route to feed their families just as the Irish, Italians, polish and many other poor immigrants did before. You were the one that said that Illegal Immigration was caused because the current law is not being enforced.

    "People don't seem to grasp the importance of rule of law. Had people not broken the laws in the first place (both employers and employees) they wouldn't be faced with the challenges they face today"

    While you are right that the rule of law is important. Everyone has to live in the reality of the 21 century and the economic forces of that reality combined with the broken Immigration system is what causes that the rule of law get sacrificed when it comes to Immigration. In addition please read Greg's posting I think he sums it all up nicely.
  15. Another voice's Avatar
    "Exactly this radical illegal lobby uses the same argument when people who are waiting to come here legally asked for a better treatment than illegals. There are some people from Mexico whose applications are pending for almost 20 years, because they are they are trying to do it right way. Any reform/law that treats illegals better than people waiting in line is unfair. These people should go to end of the line , no shortcuts because ones mom or dad jumped the border(Dream Act)."

    Both CIR proposals that failed to pass adress these issues 2006 & 2007 versions. NO need to discuss this part, I do not think that anybody is advocating for preferencial treatment rather that for a practical and comprehensive solution.
  16. Greg Siskind's Avatar
    >>People don't seem to grasp the importance of rule of law.
  17. A's Avatar
    "You guessed it - they got amnesty!"

    In that case why pros have a problem when people call legalization an Amnesty?
  18. 's Avatar
    "The first question should be whether the laws serve the interest of the country. We should not have and enforce laws that are detrimental to the country's interests. "

    I disagree strongly with your second point - which is that we should not enforce bad laws. We should enforce all laws - even the bad ones.

    If laws are deemed bad by our elected representatives, they should change the law. There is a slippery slope when we start getting in the business of choosing what laws we will or won't enforce. And what laws we will or won't obey.

    If we enforced our bad immigration laws two decades ago, perhaps that would have triggered reforms. Instead we allowed a massive problem to form because of non-enforcement.

    I disagree strongly with drug policy - and believe pot should be legal. I think the law is unwise, but I also choose to obey the law. Should I break the law, I would rightly expect to be punished if I were caught.
  19. Greg Siskind's Avatar
    >>We should enforce all laws - even the bad ones.
  20. Here you go's Avatar
    http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/california/
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: