Skip to main content

Would you support legislation that would allow US citizens preferences in hiring, require proof of citizenship in order to qualify for governmental transfer payments (welfare), immediate deportation of illegal aliens, and establish a "3 year and out" policy for legal aliens (legal aliens have say 3 years to attain US citizenship or leave the US)? Please explain why or why not.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The reason I posed this question is because living on the border it is a hot issue. I really never thought much about it until I moved here. And then after watching Mexican Nationals crossing the border for the sole purpose of seeking medical treatment that they have no intention of paying for. Or, finding out that many small border cities have three times more private mail boxes (Mail Etc.) than residents because Mexican Nationals are using them as mailing addresses to receive welfare payments. Or watching airport workers who are US citizens being laid off because of travel slow-downs, while resident aliens, who have no interest in being US citizens (as evidenced by their being in the US for 10 years and having not taken the first step towards citizenship) are retained.

I've come to the position that if one wants the benefits of living in the US, then one should work to become a citizen of the US.

Racist ??? Zenophobic ??? I don't know. But I know that I've been called nigger here more than I was in Cleveland - the 2nd most racially segregated city in America. And, in some cases, I believe it was the only word in English that they knew.

BTW, this isn't a rant against Hispanic folk, I feel the same about immigrants from Asia, Europe or any other place, that come here and use the system without committing to it.
Racist ??? Zenophobic ???

Those words are popping up on this site in several places. Why the worry? It is hardly xenophobic or racist to demand that someone refrain from harming you or cheating you out of what you earned, and if someone thinks it is, it probably says more about them. If you had said that foreigners had no right to come here for any reason, that we should close our borders and not let in people *because* they're different, that would be one thing.

As it is, I don't mind the legal aliens who make a contribution. I have a bias, though, because my dad is a legal immigrant, and so are several of his cousins who live here. They talk of going back to the Bahamas, but while they're here they live their lives like everyone else. One of my cousins actually works in a prison, she doesn't occupy it smile
Our system is too lenient with welfare for those that do not deserve it. I have heard of expectant mothers trying to get across the border just so the baby will be born in the US and the child qualifies for benefits. I'm all for doing the humane thing so deliver the child and send them home.

As far as 3 years or out, I think that is about right.
I voted "I don't know". Let's break it down.

Originally posted by Kweli4Real:

Would you support legislation that would allow US citizens preferences in hiring

Define "preferences". My only question here is that a number of industries have heavy concentrations of Mexicans (some legal, some not), for example. Landscaping, construction labor, textiles, manufacturing etc. If I am a business person in any of those industries - if this law inhibits my ability to get good, cheap labor - obviously I'm not going to support that.

Other than that, again if I'm a business person, why can't I hire who I want? Maybe that's Americans, maybe not.

require proof of citizenship in order to qualify for governmental transfer payments (welfare)

OK - here I have to really think about this one. You've got to imagine that someone on assistance is not contributing anything to the tax rolls. If that's the case, what difference does it make if someone is American or not?

Obviously the natural next question though is - should my tax dollars be paying for an undocumented alien? That makes me question the real motivation of welfare. While clearly it is to help American citizens who are in need, is its scope broad enough to cover helping any people within our borders? Further, while the common perception of this particular issue is of poor folks illegally crossing the border for the express purpose of taking advantage of "the system", what about the legitimate cases of people, newly arrived in this country, who hit hard times? Should we just automatically turn our backs on them?

I honestly am not sure about this. If welfare is structured to eventually get people off of it to become a productive, tax paying citizen, then isn't it in our best interests to get as many people to that position in life as possible? Also - at some level - isn't a person's nationality incidental to whether they are in need or not? As Americans, are we OK with having starving people in our borders?

Not sure on this point. I'm sure you can guess how I'm leaning though. wink

immediate deportation of illegal aliens

Not sure - again, having lived in San Diego I understand that illegal aliens perform a vital role in our economy. Without them lots of businesses would suffer.

and establish a "3 year and out" policy for legal aliens (legal aliens have say 3 years to attain US citizenship or leave the US)

Sounds reasonable but I know absolutely nothing about this so I'm in a vacuum. Now what is the law in this area? I know we have legal, documented aliens who are authorized to be here but who have no intention of becoming citizens. I don't have a problem with that.

Very interesting question.

Onward and Upward!

[This message was edited by MBM on October 29, 2002 at 04:49 PM.]
Hello MBM,

As Americans, are we OK with having starving people in our borders?

Who starves? We don't have soup kitchens? No one wants anyone to starve, and no one need do so. Any able bodied person should be able to find a job, there's too much to do in this country for anyone to starve. I believe most immigrants come here for school and for work, but some of them undeniably are coming for what they can get. This manifests itself in various ways, maybe you've heard about the Korean women who deliberately have their babies here so they can get them into college here later smile Generous welfare states such as France have worse problems, though. We would know what type of immigrant we were dealing with if we tighten the standards for who can get welfare, and who can't: you're able bodied, no, or for a shorter time and a smaller amount. Get caught cheating, and out you go.

Plus, would we have to worry about this if we had tighter requirements on letting people in? We welcome the skilled and the educated, true. If we don't already, we should insist on sponsors who can vouch for the newcomer, and can provide assistance. If they don't have a sponsor, then insist they prove they can work.
Hello, MBM,

...but obviously those services aren't sufficient or else there wouldn't be a need for government assistance at all.

It's not necessarily the services that are insufficient. At any rate, there are any number of agencies and charities out there that are designed to help needy immigrants. I would rather strengthen those. If someone has 3 jobs, is using every available assistance out there and still needs help, I could see justifying my taxes to help them. Otherwise, no.
Lets be real "AMERICANS"?who are these people, these Americans!, do U mean Italian, Irish, german or any other group of huddle masses yearning to be free of despotism, poverty and the rest of the litiny that pre-ambles citizenship. As an African descendent in America I support no laws or policies that over shadow the debt owed we, I am still not a citizen just a civilian in anothers world who am I to limit someone elses ability to attain that which I was not granted freely of my own choice?, What place do I have to debate someone elses access to success without bridaling and concentrating our own oppurtunities?, we arent even AMERICANS (ADOAWILAE(BLACKS)) we're afro-american/black american/african-american, negro, nigger or the affirmative reactionaries but definantly not Americans!. So in this quest to give the "american elite" the right to limit who will become part of the "slave club" or admit new applicants to the elite ranks, where do we really stand in this debate besides as the sidelined 12% of the whole population yet #1 of overall national consumer investment and incarceration rate. Huh we stand where all closed lipped, inactive unorganized peoples are .... NO WHERE
Peace Love Light
P.S. when will black people preffer themselves and their survival over the survival of another?
...who are these people, these Americans...

Well, I am. With or without hyphenation. I just asked in your other thread, but I'll ask here: What are you proposing we do? Start up a new country somewhere? It sounds like you are calling for blacks all over the globe to converge in one place (Africa?) and start anew. Okay, but to what end, and how would you bring about this end?
Actually, a lot of Mexicans who lost the war did stay where they were in the Southwest. We call them Americans now smile But someone from Chiapas is also of Indian descent, and never had a claim on Arizona or any other state, and we rightfully call them aliens. At any rate, you lose a war, you lose the spoils. This applies to any French aliens, too.

Besides, you don't really want to institute a one drop rule for Mexicans do you? "If you have one drop European blood you can't come here! Get lost you Martin Sheen look-alikes!" big grin
"At any rate, you lose a war, you lose the spoils. This applies to any French aliens, too"

Interesting, but does not negate the fact that Native peoples were forcefully displaced in the westward expansion of euro-american males. Europeans were not originally in the Southwest. The French gave up any rights to be here, thanks to Toussaint,Napolean and Thomas Jefferson.

What's really interesting is that Cubans are rescued but not returned, Haitians are captured and returned. And How is it that all sorts of Arabs are allowed in this country vs. a very limited number of SubSaharan Africans? We will always be limited to 12% of this country and no more.

But some will find a way to rationalize 100% of every American policy, no? wink

"I coulda freed thousands more if only they had known they were slaves..."

Harriet Tubman

[This message was edited by negrospiritual on October 31, 2002 at 05:44 AM.]
Hello Negrospiritual,

Actually, at times the French did *lose* but I could be wrong about that. At any rate, those Mexicans who did live in the Southwest at the time they fought and lost, are called Americans now. Any others still living in Mexico proper are still Mexicans, Mexico is their country to fix up or flee. Arizona or Texas or California or New Mexico aren't Mexico, ergo Mexicans (such as the ones from Chiapas, southern Mexico) have no claim. The Mexican government looks up our borders as their safety valve, that's why one of them said Proposition 187 was an act of war (stop laughing). They are welcome to come and work, but why shouldn't they do it the legal way?

About the you remember the Mexican government saying it would deny asylum to the Cubans who stormed their embassy? It's interesting that they believe they should have the right to control *their* borders, isn't it?

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.