Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Illegal Immigrant Advocates are their own Worst Nightmare

Don't you enjoy it when the other side actually makes the same argument that this side has been making since the inception of the debate. Let's look to Siskind's blog and a commenter of which is a Legal Immigrant, I give you Kamal Jain.
Legal immigrants should try to distance themselves from CIR and any talks of CIR. These are doomed to fail in the current economic climate. We should lobby for visa recapture and other measures, rather than hoping for the impossible (passing of CIR) and even more impossible (attaching provisions for legal immigration to CIR) to happen. As long as CIR is pushed for by ethnic organizations and lobbies, it will never be "comprehensive" in the sense that it will include both legal and illegal immigration provisions. The Hispanic caucus only cares about Hispanic immigration, and they have proven this time and again. We should just lobby for peace-meal immigration bills like visa recapture, exemption of family members from EB numbers, exemption of US graduates with Masters or PhDs, etc. We have nothing to do with law-breakers and other groups, which have very strong public opinion against them.
And his points about the Illegal Immigrant Advocates:
Let me get this straight, you guys are saying that people who are in legal status according to the immigration laws of the United States don't deserve any more immigration relief and benefits that people who crossed the border illegally and are constantly hiding from law enforcement? I don't think it makes sense to even argue with you. You appear to be either some kind of anarchist or a completely irrational person...

I just love how illegal immigration advocates like to insult and disparage legal and educated immigrants. Like we are all jerks for following all the laws, spending ridiculous amounts of money to deal with bureaucracies in order to maintain legal status, and then (gasp!) having the nerve to ask for something in return for our efforts. What outrage! But obviously it's not politically correct to expect society to repay someone's efforts and hard work, because "we might send a message to the lettuce pickers that they are not smart enough" (to loosely quote one congressman) if we decide to give easy green-cards to PhDs, scientists, and researchers.

And his final nail in the coffin:
What I was saying is: fine, go and do your own stuff, and lobby for CIR, or whatever you feel like doing, but stop messing with legal immigrants, and stop hijacking bills designed for doctors, nurses, and PhDs, and stop insisting that these issues are linked. There is absolutely no connection between doctors and engineers, and illiterate lettuce pickers, except for the vague idea that they're somehow all "immigrants" (even though the difference between "legal immigrants" and "illegal immigrants" is the same as between "shoppers" and "shoplifters" if we have to be technically precise).

I don't mind your pursuit of humanitarian goals (legalizing everybody, happiness and peace on the planet, etc), of providing sanctuaries, and upholding religious values. But please stop acting like as if you have any real argument or any moral high-ground in this debate. What you have is an unverified number (12 million: wow!) which you keep throwing around, extolling the economic benefits of legalizing these people (proof please?), and insisting that everyone else is less important (300 thousand suckers who played by the rules: big deal!..and who cares about innovation, the next big technology, or finding a cure for cance? Forget about this stuff -- the lettuce pickers, and taco stand workers will truly touch your life, and they may even find a cure for cancer in a few generations, just give them time!).

I'm not saying those people who do menial jobs are not important, but they have their own separate immigration categories, and their own problems. For better or for worse they decided not to put too much effort into becoming legal (just as they decided not to invest much effort into other things like education, careers, etc.) It's their own personal choices and their own business. I don't mind and I'm not doing anything to either help them or hurt them. It's people like you and your senators, however, who are causing problems by attacking legal immigrants, and actually doing real, tangible things to hurt their cause.

Why don't you just admit that you hate legal immigrants because they are the only thing that gives any credibility to the current immigration system, which you want to completely discredit and scrap in order to help the 12 million illegals, and let's leave it at that?


I think this says it all about the Illegal Immigrant advocates:
Why don't you just admit that you hate legal immigrants because they are the only thing that gives any credibility to the current immigration system, which you want to completely discredit and scrap in order to help the 12 million illegals.
Now, what about Kyledeb from Citizen Orange:
As such, the real battle will not be between nativists and migrant advocates, but among migrant advocates themselves.
This pretty much sums it up, they now realize that the problems they have are within their own advocacy groups and that the Legal Immigrants want nothing to do with the advocacy of Illegal Immigrants.

5 comments:

Alie said...

The guy makes some really excellent points; no matter how one looks at it, there is no comparison between legal immigrants and illegal aliens. Giving illegal aliens a "path to citizenship" is a real slap in the face to those immigrants who have put the effort forth to come legally.

kyledeb said...

Thanks for the link. I always appreciate the traffic no matter who it comes from.

If there is such a difference between authorized and unauthorized migration, then why is it studies have shown most legal migrants were "illegal" at one time? Even nativist organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies acknowledge this is true to advocate for reducing legal immigration.

I also find it interested that you quoted me to show the differences between migrant advocates, but you failed to quote the fact that nativists are becoming irrelevant electorally. At least we have differences and think critically, instead of going around writing "what part of illegal don't you understand" or "no amnesty" everywhere.

Liquidmicro said...

C'mon Kyle, your own link states the following: Illegal immigrants are those
who are here without legal status.
They either entered the United
States illegally or have violated
the conditions of a visa. Estimates
suggest that a little more than
50 percent of those here illegally
crossed the border without authorization.
As many as 45 percent
overstayed their visas, and the
remainder are thought to have
violated the terms of their border
crossing cards (Pew Hispanic
Center, 2006b).2 Some illegal
residents ultimately become legal
permanent residents, as suggested
in Figure 1
and the graph states Not permitted, RARE EXCEPTIONS MADE which is asylum, and/or AMNESTY.

Now, if you are thinking critically, you wouldn't have to obfuscate the simple facts. You are reading to much into what it is that has been stated.

Is that like "si se puede" and "No human being can be Illegal" everywhere? You also think all against you are "ALIPAC'ers" and "Geriatrics" with not much to do and no intelligence. So, sorry to disappoint you, as I am neither.

Liquidmicro said...

I'll even give you the NEW U Visa to help your argument and the simple fact that a parent who is married to an Illegal can get a stay if it can be shown that the parent is needed to pay child support to the other parent which is a LPR/Citizen.

Liquidmicro said...

I'm not sure I've read your statement correctly, At least we have differences and think critically, instead of going around writing "what part of illegal don't you understand" or "no amnesty" everywhere.

Who is the "we" in the above?

As for the "nativists" becoming electorally irrelevant, that's a whole other topic.