Wow... very well put.

I find this analogy to be inappropriate. The United States is not private property. It is a nation. The immigrants in question are not breaking into private property and living there. They are purchasing their own places to live or living with family members which welcome them.

So let us imagine a different example: A township won't allow black people to move in. Black people ask the government to change this policy, but they refuse. So a black family discreetly buys a house and moves in. They are perfectly curteous neighbors and hard workers at their job. Should the government throw out this black family because it broke the law? Or should it acknowledge that its laws are unfair, and change its laws?

Also, I may be mistaken about this, but my understanding of the immigration protests goes like this: Supporters of immigrants were not asking for health care or education, they were asking for amnesty. Amnesty would not give them citizenship, and would thus give them access to neither.

Either way, the immigration debate isn't about individual people being forced to give up their property to someone else. It is about our government deciding that people from other countries aren't allowed to move into America. If I want to sell my house to someone from Mexico, well sorry, the government says that person can't move in. If I want to give a job to someone in Mexico, well sorry, the government says that person can't get a job here.

Your analogy made it sound like our freedoms and property are being trampled on, but in reality, our immigration policy denied our freedom to hire who we choose and sell our property to the person we choose.

Okay, so we agree that your analogy posted above is wrong. But the government did have a good reason for restricting immigrants from coming to America: many immigrants would come to America and immediately go on welfare and medicare. The schools became more crowded, and we simply could not afford to pay for the services they required.

But I think we can find a better solution to this: a way to allow them to move to America without being a strain on our resources. Bush's plan is a step in the right direction. I proposed a plan in another thread (Quick Fix??) too.

Of course you would find the analogy inappropriate. While the United States may not be private property it is a sovereign nation. As such, the government that was established by the people has the ultimate authority in establishing the laws which govern the nation. These laws include immigration laws.

The simple fact of the matter remains that as an independent sovereign nation, we reserved the right to establish criteria for who may or may not enter the country. That power is specifically laid out in the US Constitution.

All the original analogy did was to take what was occuring on a national level and break it down into a simpler level. Illegal immigrants are entering this country illegally, hence the name. Illegal, because they are not following the letter of the law that is established by the US Congress on who can immigrate into this country and how. They are sneaking into the country, crossing our borders without permission, in the analogy, the author chose the idea of breaking into a house. It is the same idea, country, or house, the individuals are criminals.

Now once they are in the country they demand access to social services. Education and healthcare regardless of they are citizens or not. They claim that they come here to do the jobs we don't want to do, the menial labor tasks for a fraction of the regular wage. In the analogy, it is the house work and yard work. Because they are doing this, they want education for their children and access to healthcare, again the analogy addresses this as well.

The analogy is quite accurate in pointing out the problem with illegal immigration in this country. The people come here, claim to do the jobs we don't want to, demand that they should be given social benefits like citizens, and not be treated like criminals because they are here illegally.

Sorry wrong answer. Come now, Multiculturalism is the trendy thing today. It is all the rave in the College education system, all but taken over the sociology department. Multiculturalism teaches that all cultures are equal. Since multiculturalism is true, these illegal immigrant should remain in their own country, it is just as great as ours, right!!! (Can't you just feel the sarcasm dripping from my mouth)

Those opposed to illegal immigration are deemed racist and anti-immigrant. Sorry again just another lie, a grand one at that. People opposed to illegal immigrants are people who value and respect the letter of the law, the most basic of all concepts of our country. By nature illegal immigrant have already broken this most basic tenet. Those who immigrate to this country legally, should be rewarded, not those who break the law!!!!

If you want to come to this country to have a better life, then do so by respecting our traditions and immigrate legally, learn to speak English, and work hard.

To reward criminals is to saw the law is not the rule of the land. By granting amnesty to those who have entered this country is saying that it is alright to break the laws. Since I am already a citizen, let me ask this, what law do I get to break and be granted anmesty???

dmk

i dunno guys but the way i see it there is no difference between what the mexicans are doing now and what the immigrants at plymouth rock did then.

Only this time a large number of people can claim ownership of the land and back it up with money, numbers and weapons.

Seeing as america is a nation of immigrants i find it funny that some people can suddenly claim that their nation is now closed for immigration. How about if your forefathers adn't been allowed to land in america by the red indians. In fact i belive that many places that was the case.. But the immigrants just had better weapons and oprganization. But for all intents and purposes the immigrants broke the law of the land. If you live free now it is because you have amnesty from the illegal occupation of your forefathers.

Is it so unthinkable that another generation should seek the same?

remember amnesty for immigration cannot be put in the same bracket as amnesty from murder.

Again, there you go, confusing those who oppose illegal immigration with those who are anit-immigrationists. The two are separate and distinct. Do not try to compare our countries founding with the immigration that is occuring today.

Until the western world (England, Spain, Portugal, and France) came to this continent it was not a nation. The Native Indians had no such notion. They lived as roaming groups of hunter/gathers, and in some instance established agricultural societies, but the idea of being a country was foreign to them. They had their tribe end of story.

Today we are a recognized nation, as is Mexico, the same country that makes it a felony to be in their country illegally, and who will deport illegals without any trail or hearing.

Our own actions toward native indians is disconcerting, however, at the time it was the way of the world. Civilization, true civilization was expanding, and indigenous peoples had to adapt or fall to the side. Come now is this not what the science of evolution teaches. Hell if its good enough to explain how the world was created, it must also be accepted in other sciences. Survival of the fittest is a process of evolution. Therefore, like it or not, it is a fact of how the world works. (Don't you just hate it when a conservative uses the liberals own works against them).

People who oppose illegal immigration do not impose immigration. Many of them are immigrants themselves. They believe that people who wish to immigrate to this country should follow the rule of law, like they themselves did. They do not believe that criminals should be rewarded for their behavior. By the way, neither does the Supreme Court, see Palmer v Witt.

Speaking for myself, I have no problem with someone who immigrates to this country legally. Those who wait to be accepted, who meet basic requirements and who come here looking to better their own lives. Many have done it. The problem we have is that we cannot have an open border, far too many people would come here if we did, and that would just increase the strain on our social programs and industry. The United States already has reached a population of 300 Billion. Yet today in this world, we remain the only nation that people are literally dying to get into. It speaks volumes for what our nation represents. Jean Kirkpatrick was right when she said, "American you need to face the truth about yourself, no matter how good it is."

dmk

I think the analogy is also quite interestingly invalid, because even taken in its literal context, many Americans would keep that person in their home. I heard that something like half of illegal immigrants were employed by private citizens instead of businesses.

I can see why many people who oppose illegal immigration can be confused with anti-immigration advocates. Because, while xenophobics are against illegal immigration, not all people against illegal immigration are xenophobics. Likewise, the radicals tend to scream louder than the moderates. But, as someone that is against "illegal immigration", I think we should give amnesty to those who are already here (at least to the ones who pass the initiation process), and fix the legal immigration system (perhaps raise quotas). For those who just want to work in the United States, then we could perhaps give them work passes like what the European Union does, or give them dual citizenship.

If we don't, then our economy goes to shit. Although it may sound like a machiavellian arguement to give amnesty, it is also one of altruism. I don't think multiculturism in the United States is a necessarily bad thing (in fact it is apart of our history and culture). But people who use anti-multiculturism as a rationalization for being against illegal immigration, then those people are undoubtedly xenophobic.

I think we should also somehow help the Mexican government better their economy if at all possible.

I have to agree with Jaxian and Katcinsky here, people. Let's make our politicians make immigration a more orderly process! We are a nation of immigrants after all.

I completely agree Tyreay. I think the border to our south is making us far less safe than anything that could occur in the middle east. National security starts at home. Just imagine if the 350 billion dollars spent in Iraq was spent securing our homeland?