Can you explain why we should give citizenship status to people who have demonstrated a willingness to break our laws?

Actually, that sounds like a good idea to me. I’m no expert on immigration, but it seems to me that if they’re living here, they might as well be paying taxes and contributing to our society. I’m looking forward to these other responses.

What exactly constitutes “legal immigration”? Hasn’t just about all immigration traditionally been show up first, ask questions later?

Are people waiting patiently at the border for citizenship? I guess I don’t understand who would be at the front of line in the stipulation.

@funkdaddy I think @ThelowaCynic means that immigrants who haven’t broken the law would be at the front of the line, while the criminals would be pushed back.

I think we need to start by recognizing that human beings will always find a way to do what they need to do for the benefit of their loved ones. If someone’s family is in serious need, laws (particularly laws that aren’t based in some fundamental moral principle) will be of secondary importance. If I imagine myself with a sick relative, and the only way I can pay for treatment is by violating an immigration law, then I’m pretty sure I’d do it. That little exercise makes me realize that breaking such a law doesn’t necessarily say anything negative about a person’s character, nor about how willing they are to abide by laws if given a reasonable chance.

Keep in mind, too, that the legal process is simply not always an option. The average wait time for someone to get through the process is now almost 20 years. Depending on one’s circumstances, that may simply be an impossible wait.

Now, of course, not everyone who comes illegally is in desperate straits, but I think enough are that it becomes unreasonable to pass any kind of sweeping judgment against all of them. Many are people who would do us proud as citizens, many aren’t.

Seems to me that instead of worrying so much about who’s at the head of the line, we need to focus our attention on fixing “the line” itself, making legal immigration easier (because it is purposely tortuous) and faster. They’re going to come anyway; wouldn’t it be better to give them a viable way of entering the system fully documented and without the stigma of “criminality” hanging over them? The current system is just a way of transforming ordinary people into criminals.

@essieness I may be mistaken, but I believe by using the term “illegal immigrant” TheIowaCynic is saying they are in fact criminals just by being here, so should not be considered for citizenship. This may not be his/her personal opinion, but at least that’s the argument.

@funkdaddy Good point.

I’m with Harp, as usual.

couldn’t possibly say it any better than Harp.

Harp hasn’t given a single, solitary reason why we should give citizenship preference to people who have shown a willingness to break our laws. Not a single one. What I have heard is why people do it, not why we should give these folks citizenship preference.

@TheIowaCynic Um, your question was why we should give them citizenship status, not why we should give them preference. If that’s what you really wanted to know, then you should have phrased your question differently.

I’m new at this….....I don’t know if I’m supposed to respond to Harp directly or how she was able to respond to me directly…..anyway.

You have not given a single, solitary reason for why we should give citizenship status to illegal immigrants. You have described why it would be rational for them to WANT citizenship status. I have no doubt that 1 billion people would come here if they could. This is no reason to allow a billion people to come here.

@TheIowaCynic
To address someone directly, you type the ”@” symbol, then a list will pop up of people who’ve answered so far. Just select the person you want and it will automatically create a link to the last comment that person made :)

Well, first, I think it’s in our best interest to know who’s here. We don’t have any idea who’s here if they’re illegal. Legal residents create traceable records of activity under their true identities; illegals don’t. That, it seems to me, is a security problem.

It’s also in our interest to have the people living here feel invested in the system. People living as fugitives and without representation, afraid to contact authorities, are never going to feel any sense of responsibility to that society. They’re far more likely to engage in anti-social behavior. When it’s their country, they care about it.

Your concerns about population increase are common, but every demographer that I know of predicts that we’re currently headed for a drastic shortage of young workers, the ones who will be paying the Social Security benefits of Baby Boomers. The current system of making people wait 20 years virtually guarantees that most of the people who get their citizenship legally will be toward the end of their working lives, so they themselves will soon end up on Social Security instead of funding it. We’ll soon be wishing for lots more young people with legal jobs.

@Harp

You have described a need for new workers which is another issue entirely. We currently have unemployment headed towards 10%, so the idea that we need to import new, low-wage workers is silly, and still does not address the issue of why preferential consideration in awarding citizenship should be given to people who have demonstrated a disregard for our laws.

I would expect that anti-social behavior would tend to be stronger among folks who break the law. This is not a profound sociological statement.

You still have yet to give a single, solitary reason why, when there are perhaps a billion people who would like to come here and haven’t broken our laws, that preference should be given to this group of folks who have.

@TheIowaCynic To plan our immigration policies based on the current economic downturn is extremely shortsighted. The policies we make now will have their effects decades down the road, when we’ll barely remember this downturn. The current birthrate trend from us “legals” will simply fall way short; how is that unrelated then to immigration?

As I’ve already explained (sigh), violating immigration laws is hardly a convincing indicator of one’s general attitude toward rule of law under normal circumstances. Perfectly good people do, and arguably should, prioritize the welfare of their loved ones over purely administrative laws.

@Harp

Sorry to make you sigh, Harp but you still have not answered the question. Even if I was to stipulate that we need massive amounts of new people here – that 300 million just aren’t enough….......

You still have not provided a single shred of argument as to why those who have broken our laws should be given preference….........not a single, solitary argument in favor of that.

@TheIowaCynic Preferential treatment was never something that I advocated (and, again, not in your question), but look at it this way: Whatever is done with the people currently living here illegally has no effect whatsoever on the people going through the legal process. They’re not going to get through faster because we clear out the illegals, so the metaphor of “cutting to the head of the line” doesn’t really apply.

Meanwhile, expelling the current illegals raises horrible humanitarian concerns involving vast numbers of children – just as American as you or I – who have never broken any laws. And who then benefits from those expulsions? Nobody.

If you’re really all that concerned about the poor respectable people going about it the legal way, I think you should be writing your representatives right now urging them to free up the Byzantine immigration process, and put more people on the case load. I think that would mean far more to them than seeing their illegal cousins get the boot.

@Harp

In Houston area hospitals, over 80% of births are to “anchor babies,” meaning children born to women who come here, specifically to have their children and get their foot in the citizenship door. These children/families cost gargantuan amounts of money. Hospitals are closing all over the south for the simple reason that they cannot handle the flood of illegals who poor into their emergency rooms. To suggest that these children are as American as you or I (having a family that’s been here for 8 generations) is absurd.

Saying that exporting people who have come here illegally and broken our laws would raise “horrible,” humanitarian issues is silly. You simply put them on a bus and bring back their country of origin, just like Mexico does to the people of South America who come to their country illegally.

There are a billion people who would like to come here. You STILL haven’t given an iota of reasoning for giving citizenship status to illegal aliens; to people who are here in violation of our laws.

@TheIowaCynic

Yep, the whole automatic citizenship for babies thing is a pretty odd way of doing things, but that’s the way it is no matter how you, or I, or anyone else feels about it. That can’t be taken away from those who have it and yes, they’re every bit as American as you are. Sorry, that’s how it works. You can take some comfort in the fact that they’ll be earning the money that shows up in your S.S. check.

I guess you and I just have different standards when it comes to humanitarian issues. Not much I can do for you there. They’re not your family, they don’t look like you (I’m guessing) and they don’t talk like you, so maybe it’s just hard to see the “horrible” part of it.

There, you’ve won; I just can’t come up with an iota that satisfies you. At least you learned how to do the ”@” thing.