• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas Valedictorian Admits to Being Illegal Immigrant

Reheat said:
I don't think anyone including Trump is actually talking about a physical wall made of wood, stone, concrete or steel.
Click to expand...
What beren said. Unless Trump didn't mean what he said (and I'd not be surprised if he didn't).

Many advocates in the border states advocate a combination of measures to include electronics and sensors and increasing the border patrol. I think in some areas a physical wall might be appropriate, but in others locations it wouldn't.
Click to expand...
That misses the point entirely. The whole idea of a Mexican wall, electronic or otherwise, makes King Canute look sane.

For example, it would take very little effort or cost for those truly wishing to enter the USA "illegally" to get to any other neighbouring country and cross in from there. Look north...a MUCH longer border with Canada, most of which is unpatrolled and can be walked across with ease. Unless you are going to build a Canadian wall too...

But by far the most "illegals" are valid visa overstays. That is, they come in perfectly legally on a valid US visa. The "illegal" part is a visa violation, not a border incursion. No Mexican wall can stop that.

Nothing will likely totally stop illegal entry, but if there's a will to stem the tide I think it's feasible to reduce it significantly. Also, exit monitoring is also needed because the vast majority of illegals are simply visa over stays...
Click to expand...
Ninja'd by you. Exactly. The question is: What tide? Statistics are showing that the majority of US-Mexico border traffic is now the other way. People are leaving the US that way, not entering. A wall would actually prevent them doing so if the goal really was to rid the US of "Mexicans".

No, a brave new wall, either electronic or concrete, would play little or no part in stemming any "illegal immigrants". So if it were to be built, it would be throwing a LOT of taxpayer money at a useless task. The companies doing the building would LOVE that! Free government money by the billions! Who wouldn't turn that golden egg down?!
 
Norman Alexander said:
No, a brave new wall, either electronic or concrete, would play little or no part in stemming any "illegal immigrants". So if it were to be built, it would be throwing a LOT of taxpayer money at a useless task.!
Click to expand...

Leaders in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico don't agree with you....

Here's a list of most of the problem summarized as opposed to a thousand links..

http://www.fairus.org/issues/illegal-immigration
 
All this talk of building a wall is a little off topic. How would it have stopped this girl? Her family overstayed their visas in 2010.
 
Did Larissa Martinez and her family steal other identities (I've no evidence they have done so) to remain in the USA and pay the appropriate taxes? Or are they using they own identities and somehow earning a living while contributing like other tax paying lawful residents?

I'm reminded of how Jose Alvarez stole another person's identity. While Jose had reasons for wanting to stay in the USA, he did cause a mess for the real Mr. Alvarez.

Ranb
 
foophil said:
All this talk of building a wall is a little off topic. How would it have stopped this girl? Her family overstayed their visas in 2010.
Click to expand...

It's not off-topic. In her speech she said that people like her yearn not to be constricted by a wall built on hatred and prejudice. I only pointed out that Trump plans a wall built on a concrete foundation. So I figure there must be a disinformation campaign that has misled her.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It's not off-topic. In her speech she said that people like her yearn not to be constricted by a wall built on hatred and prejudice. I only pointed out that Trump plans a wall built on a concrete foundation. So I figure there must be a disinformation campaign that has misled her.
Click to expand...

Don't double down on a failed joke. She was being figurative and anyone who isn't a complete ignoramus knows it.
 
Stacko said:
Don't double down on a failed joke. She was being figurative and anyone who isn't a complete ignoramus knows it.
Click to expand...

Failure is in the eye of the beholder. It was really not meant to be a joke. It was meant to mock her metaphorical language. There is nothing hateful or prejudiced about building a wall. If you want to argue that having a restrictive immigration laws in he first place is hateful and prejudiced, you could actually formulate a reasonable argument (I know I could). But given that crossing the border without permission from the US government is, you know, illegal, building a wall is merely a law enforcement measure. A pretty damn humane one, if you ask me. You would probably get a lot fewer people dying in the desert if they knew there was a wall on the border.
 
I feel like I'm living in the future whenever this stuff comes out. I'm like haahahah that **** doesn't happen anymore, everyone knows how stupid that is. I have woven myself quite the cocoon. First of all if I let myself think about it I'd probably cry. Second, where I live in the world is actually better than the rest of the world. I live in Toronto so, that's just a fact.

**** you, Texas, for making me think about this ****.
 
Fudbucker said:
What would Canada/Mexico do in this situation? I've heard Mexico has some harsh immigration laws.
Click to expand...

Wildcat? Is that you?

First, I just looked them up and Canada/Mexico is not a country. There's Canada, and there's Mexico. Which one do you want to know more about?

Why here's an opinion piece by an immigration attorney. Be careful, you know it's a trap, already, don't you?

Yet, despite the apparent criticism over the US program, Canadian policy makers have been considering the merits of implementing a similar amnesty program for which some estimates currently place at more than 200,000 illegal immigrants in Canada predominantly living and working in Toronto. Many illegal immigrants are economic migrants who are currently employed but who cannot get legal status within current selection models.

Canadian immigration policies for the most part differ from the United States, which is one of the only countries in the Western world where natural population growth occurs without the need to rely on immigration to ensure labour market growth. Unlike the United States which requires family or employer sponsorship as a condition for long term admission, Canada admits some 150,000 economic class immigrants each year with minimal emphasis on employer arranged employment. Canada also admits some 100,000 temporary workers under a number of employer sponsored industry specific agreements (favouring the building trades, information technology, caregivers, students and spouses) with other sectors being considered as well. Together, these two programs are the centrepieces of Canadian immigration policy.

But despite the criticisms and the policy differences, a Canadian amnesty program offering temporary worker status to individuals who are already employed could go a long way in freeing up resources which are currently being used to deal with our illegal immigrant problem not the least of which is trying to track them down. Moreover, illegal immigrants are not tax payers and do consume government services. Offering them legal status will increase our tax base and will also address the problem of employers who hire illegals and avoid paying employer contributions. The effects of this economic problem although unproven in Canada, are no doubt significant.

Once we have a grasp on our illegal immigration problem including the industries involved, our policy makers can identify solutions and introduce programs that offer long term legal status to an important group of skilled workers who are employable and for whom economic integration will not be in doubt. This is the raison d’etre of our immigration programs. And with a Federal Election on the horizon, the timing to take action could not be better.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah.... it's an opinion piece.... PUBLISHED ON THE IMMIGRATION CANADA WEBSITE. Do you really want to ask how Canada would handle this?




Next,.... Let's just take Mexico. Do you know what an AMERICAN illegal comparable to this girl or her productive family would have done to them by Mexican Immigration? Tell us. Hmmm? No information? Let me help you. There are numerous Americans in Mexico who overstay their tourist visas or their employment visas. And the Mexican government is so concerned about this that they fine them fifty dollars and actually advise such people that it's easier and cheaper to just pay the fine, because Mexican Immigration then simply extends your visa.

It seems that both countries LIKE productive immigrants.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Fudbucker said:
What would Canada/Mexico do in this situation? I've heard Mexico has some harsh immigration laws.
Click to expand...

Wildcat? Is that you?

First, I just looked them up and Canada/Mexico is not a country. There's Canada, and there's Mexico. Which one do you want to know more about?

Why here's an opinion piece by an immigration attorney. Be careful, you know it's a trap, already, don't you?

Yet, despite the apparent criticism over the US program, Canadian policy makers have been considering the merits of implementing a similar amnesty program for which some estimates currently place at more than 200,000 illegal immigrants in Canada predominantly living and working in Toronto. Many illegal immigrants are economic migrants who are currently employed but who cannot get legal status within current selection models.

Canadian immigration policies for the most part differ from the United States, which is one of the only countries in the Western world where natural population growth occurs without the need to rely on immigration to ensure labour market growth. Unlike the United States which requires family or employer sponsorship as a condition for long term admission, Canada admits some 150,000 economic class immigrants each year with minimal emphasis on employer arranged employment. Canada also admits some 100,000 temporary workers under a number of employer sponsored industry specific agreements (favouring the building trades, information technology, caregivers, students and spouses) with other sectors being considered as well. Together, these two programs are the centrepieces of Canadian immigration policy.

But despite the criticisms and the policy differences, a Canadian amnesty program offering temporary worker status to individuals who are already employed could go a long way in freeing up resources which are currently being used to deal with our illegal immigrant problem not the least of which is trying to track them down. Moreover, illegal immigrants are not tax payers and do consume government services. Offering them legal status will increase our tax base and will also address the problem of employers who hire illegals and avoid paying employer contributions. The effects of this economic problem although unproven in Canada, are no doubt significant.

Once we have a grasp on our illegal immigration problem including the industries involved, our policy makers can identify solutions and introduce programs that offer long term legal status to an important group of skilled workers who are employable and for whom economic integration will not be in doubt. This is the raison d’etre of our immigration programs. And with a Federal Election on the horizon, the timing to take action could not be better.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah.... it's an opinion piece.... PUBLISHED ON THE IMMIGRATION CANADA WEBSITE. Do you really want to ask how Canada would handle this?




Next,.... Let's just take Mexico. Do you know what an AMERICAN illegal comparable to this girl or her productive family would have done to them by Mexican Immigration? Tell us. Hmmm? No information? Let me help you. There are numerous Americans in Mexico who overstay their tourist visas or their employment visas. And the Mexican government is so concerned about this that they fine them fifty dollars and actually advise such people that it's easier and cheaper to just pay the fine, because Mexican Immigration then simply extends your visa.

It seems that both countries LIKE productive immigrants.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I couldn't get past the bolded.

A) Attacking grammar is pathetic enough
B) If you're going to attack someone's grammar, at least get your facts straight:

Meaning or

The slash sometimes serves as shorthand for or, as in:

Each guest must present his/her ticket prior to entry.

Once the new president is elected, he/she will have little time to waste.

The deficit reduction will be achieved by spending cuts and/or tax increases.

http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/slash.html

In other words, if you see "his/her" it's probably not a reference to a hermaphrodite. Got it?
 
So the question is what do we do with people who admit to being here illegally? From a practical point of view, deporting her is a waste of talent and tens of thousands of public education dollars.

On the other hand, we're a nation that supposedly follows the rule of law principle, so why should she not be deported, while two million non-valedictorians have been deported since Obama took office? Is that the secret to avoiding INS? Publicly declaring your undocumented status when you've accomplished something? The policy we have now seems totally capricious and arbitrary.

There is currently no legal mechanism that will allow her to stay here legally. So do we just kind of ignore the fact that she's here illegally?
 
How about the Nazis were allowed to stay in the US because they were useful against the Russians?
 
Desert Fox said:
How about the Nazis were allowed to stay in the US because they were useful against the Russians?
Click to expand...

Yes, and we also injected people with plutonium and interned Japanese citizens and kicked Indians off their land and allowed slavery and didn't let women vote. Why even have laws if we can just point to some unsavory episode in our history and say, "see?"
 
Fudbucker said:
Yes, and we also injected people with plutonium and interned Japanese citizens and kicked Indians off their land and allowed slavery and didn't let women vote. Why even have laws if we can just point to some unsavory episode in our history and say, "see?"
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that's the point Desert Fox was trying to make. You commented and asked,

Fudbucker said:
...we're a nation that supposedly follows the rule of law principle...

So do we just kind of ignore the fact that she's here illegally?
Click to expand...


In response, Desert Fox basically pointed out that we've made exceptions for worse examples of humanity, simply because we felt they could be useful in a time of war.

We make exceptions all the time for any number of reasons, or none at all (presidential pardoning of convicted criminals, for example).
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I'm not sure that's the point Desert Fox was trying to make. You commented and asked,




In response, Desert Fox basically pointed out that we've made exceptions for worse examples of humanity, simply because we felt they could be useful in a time of war.

We make exceptions all the time for any number of reasons, or none at all (presidential pardoning of convicted criminals, for example).
Click to expand...

But it's not a good comparison. We didn't go overseas and recruit this young girl because she was a valedictorian in another country, which is what we did in Operation Paperclip. Wernher von Braun wasn't living here illegally and allowed to stay because of his mad science skillz.
 
Fudbucker said:
But it's not a good comparison. We didn't go overseas and recruit this young girl because she was a valedictorian in another country, which is what we did in Operation Paperclip. Wernher von Braun wasn't living here illegally and allowed to stay because of his mad science skillz.
Click to expand...

Italy has asked for extradition for American nationals. . . .Secretary of State just says "Nope" and it ends right there. I am sure that there is somebody with the power to just say "Nope, we are not deporting her or her family."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom