Mexican illegals seek refuge from ICE in Canada

[Illuminatus Primus]

Actually fuckwit, the point was that people applying for refugee status in Canada get certain state benefits while their claim is reviewed. That is the strain that is being placed on Windsor, and what the letter to Harper is all about, they're basically requesting additional help to deal with this increased demand in a service they're obligated to provide. Shelter, food and medical care...

Okay, and even if the U.S. had nationalized health care we'd be entitled to give state benefits to non-citizens while their refugee claim which is obviously specious is reviewed? Why? Because Canada does and people are now exploiting the system at the expense of legitimate political refugees and their families? "I'd prefer to work in Canada"-people should not be competing with "where I come from they tortured my dad to death"-people for resources slated for the latter.

There are at least 11 million illegal aliens in the United States. That is the height of absurdity. Let's be serious, they do not have any right to be in Canada and people are directing them there with the express purpose of having them exploit the Canadian services while knowingly they have no rightful claim to refugee status.

Whether or not the U.S. should have a fully nationalized health care in its own right for its own needs is an entirely different issue, and even granted wouldn't mean that these fradulent "refugees" would be in any different situation in the U.S., if the hypothetical U.S. system didn't grant fatuous refugee reviews or coverage for refugees-under-review.

You'll also find that you can walk off with a sports car with the aid of stolen credit card or a forged fucking cheque, that doesnt mean that creating more secure transations isnt a good fucking idea, and it also doesnt mean that you're entitled to that fucking car...but you're just a stupid little fuck so drop dead...or even better pull a Howedar and just run the fuck away you snivelling little retard.

You went off on one of your typical off-the-handle soapbox spiels because Americans are too stupid to use national IDs. You haven't substantiated that a large minority or even a majority of Americans oppose them, much less for "Orwellian" reasons or otherwise. Being bombastic and getting attention don't leave much room for real arguments, I guess.

You haven't cited anything or made any arguments as for why they'd be so much more effective than tracing and cross-referencing existing required identification data, such as SS and driver's licenses. So I'm the fuckwit? Maybe you should go somewhere in order to get needed attention.

The simple matter is that Canada has a system in place to review refugee claims while providing the basic human rights as laid out in the UN Convention on Human rights and also in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, or had you forgotten that these refugees are folk with small children...heaven fucking forbid that someone want to keep their child alive with medical care that they cant get elsewhere...

They're not refugees, and that's obvious. They are not entitled to political asylum. They ought to be deported. And before you make some overgeneralization - I do not support this policy for the U.S. Our problem is much more systemic than yours, and we should provide amnesty for existing immigrants illegal and otherwise and expand (much) the lawful immigration process while toughening and securing the border considerably. Carrot and stick is my stance. And I would also support a better welfare package with nationalized full health care services, and support them for legitimate political refugee applicants.

[Illuminatus Primus]

If you'd like to make the limited argument that the U.S. places undue burdens on Canada in general by not offering ethically-mandated services for political refugee applicants and therefore placing the pressure on Canada to make up the slack, I'll agree with you.

I don't see any evidence for how the price benefits of a general national health care system or national ID feasibility and politics is pertinent, though.

[Keevan_Colton]

If you'd like to make the limited argument that the U.S. places undue burdens on Canada in general by not offering ethically-mandated services for political refugee applicants and therefore placing the pressure on Canada to make up the slack, I'll agree with you.

I don't see any evidence for how the price benefits of a general national health care system or national ID feasibility and politics is pertinent, though.

That was in response to the point about immigrants causing the closure of hospitals and the entitlement issue.

[Kanastrous]

Is the justification for seeking refugee status terrible? Yes. Is their method of seeking refugee status illegal? No? Then your comparison of utterly worthless.

It's illegal in that they illegally entered and crossed US territory to do it (which impresses me as part of the Canadian complaints; (a) it's the US' fault for failing to control our border and (b) it's the US' fault for not making life here comfortable enough, so that the illegal migrants continue north and become a Canadian headache.

Actually, I am not convinced that their method of seeking refugee status is legal. Does it conform to the law, to apply for a protection to which you probably know the law does not entitle you? That looks like fraud, to me. Like applying for any other sort of benefits, to which you know you are not entitled.

Anyway, I think the matter of refugee-vs-resident applications is irrelevant to what I was complaining about, which is Canadians complaining about having to deal with something that they don't appear to think we have a right to complain about, when it happens on our turf.

[Kanastrous]

That was in response to the point about immigrants causing the closure of hospitals and the entitlement issue.

Contributing to, not causing.

Just in the interest of precision.

[SirNitram]

I have no doubt there are some people who could argue that the current level of insanity towards a Misdermeanor could constitute a need to become a refugee and leg it to the border.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, everyone's panties are bunched up over a misdermeanor, not a felony. The GOP had that apple and refused to bite.

[Kanastrous]

Maybe it should be more than a misdemeanor.

Anyway, I don't think that anyone decides their response to illegal entry and residency, based upon its official on-the-books classification. I think people tend to base their response, based upon the perceived harm or benefit, of the illegal residents' presence here.

[SirNitram]

Maybe it should be more than a misdemeanor.

Maybe the sky should be pink. It'd be a nice shade, and only requires adjusting the atmosphere.

Anyway, I don't think that anyone decides their response to illegal entry and residency, based upon its official on-the-books classification. I think people tend to base their response, based upon the perceived harm or benefit, of the illegal residents' presence here.

Of course not. Illegals are the latest bogeymen, just like Clinton's blowjob. The claim of 'rule of law' just makes it ironic when the best response is 'Maybe it should be more!'. Sorry, it was tried and failed.

[Kanastrous]

I'm not primarily interested in the rule-of-law aspect of the issue, though I think it's legitimate to note in passing that I don't think the legal system assigns appropriate weight to the offense.

My objections to effectively unrestricted illegal immigration and the reward of unmolested residence are based mostly upon what I see first-hand, where I live.

I don't know where you live; maybe you see a different facet of the issue that leads you to different conclusions.

[Kanastrous]

Maybe it should be more than a misdemeanor.

Maybe the sky should be pink. It'd be a nice shade, and only requires adjusting the atmosphere.

Oh yeah, and laws which can be and are changed on a regular basis <> the color of the sky.

I'm sure you're smart enough to come up with a better metaphor. Although I doubt you're smart enough, to come up with one that's worse.

[SirNitram]

I'm not primarily interested in the rule-of-law aspect of the issue, though I think it's legitimate to note in passing that I don't think the legal system assigns appropriate weight to the offense.

My objections to effectively unrestricted illegal immigration and the reward of unmolested residence are based mostly upon what I see first-hand, where I live.

I don't know where you live; maybe you see a different facet of the issue that leads you to different conclusions.

I have a unique perspective, in that I've been through INS/ICE. The idea that these people could come in legally is a bad joke. The quotas(Yes, there are quotas!) for Mexico are pathetically low. The cost now approachs two thousand dollars to file your papers. This is not 'To get in.' This is to be allowed the luxury of filing, to be considered, for one of the scarce quota slots. Then, it takes two years. Renewal also takes two years(But your extension is only 18 months! Better hope you don't get accosted in those six months!).

All this, and of course, the reeking stench of hypocrisy that comes from those exorting the horrors of it being fine with the idiot-squad who stopped raiding companies who employ these folks and slowed it to a trickle.

In short, I oppose policy built on stupidity, bigotry, and xenophobia, and I oppose idiot hypocrits even more. And I happen to know what I'm talking about, because I've been there.

[SirNitram]

Maybe it should be more than a misdemeanor.

Maybe the sky should be pink. It'd be a nice shade, and only requires adjusting the atmosphere.

Oh yeah, and laws which can be and are changed on a regular basis <> the color of the sky.

I'm sure you're smart enough to come up with a better metaphor. Although I doubt you're smart enough, to come up with one that's worse.

It's a vacuous statement in response to a vacuous statement. It's mockery. Get used to it.

[Kanastrous]

My perspective is based in part upon my wife's experience; she spent the seemingly obligatory years of paperwork-and-lawyer hell, getting through the resident alien->citizenship process (like, where they keep you waiting so long, that the actual rules all change, while you're waiting...)

In the end, we wound up marrying before all that years-long-with-years-to-go nonsense was resolved.

Also my father, my aunts, my uncles, my grandparents all being legal immigrants, who jumped through the requisite hoops to do it legally.

I'm actually more interested in hammering on employers who take advantage of illegal migrants, than going after the migrants themselves, although I would still like to see better border enforcement and am against anything that normalizes illegal entrants' presence here.

All this, and of course, the reeking stench of hypocrisy that comes from those exorting the horrors of it being fine with the idiot-squad who stopped raiding companies who employ these folks and slowed it to a trickle.

I'm afraid I don't think I quite understand this. Would you mind clarifying?

[General Zod]

It's illegal in that they illegally entered and crossed US territory to do it (which impresses me as part of the Canadian complaints; (a) it's the US' fault for failing to control our border and (b) it's the US' fault for not making life here comfortable enough, so that the illegal migrants continue north and become a Canadian headache.

The only thing Canada cares about when screening border crossers is whether they've had convictions on their record. Whether or not they entered another country illegally, it doesn't matter as long as they weren't convicted for it. Besides, what makes you think Canada is beholden to US immigration laws for judging who they let into their country?

Actually, I am not convinced that their method of seeking refugee status is legal. Does it conform to the law, to apply for a protection to which you probably know the law does not entitle you? That looks like fraud, to me. Like applying for any other sort of benefits, to which you know you are not entitled.

Why don't you prove it's illegal instead of merely saying you don't think it is?

[Kanastrous]

It's a vacuous statement in response to a vacuous statement. It's mockery. Get used to it.

Seems to me that 'maybe we should change our laws' and 'maybe the sky should be a different color' are not statements of equal vacuity.

[Kanastrous]

Why don't you prove it's illegal instead of merely saying you don't think it is?

Okay: deliberately making a false statement on a sworn affadavit, is illegal.

[SirNitram]

My perspective is based in part upon my wife's experience; she spent the seemingly obligatory years of paperwork-and-lawyer hell, getting through the resident alien->citizenship process (like, where they keep you waiting so long, that the actual rules all change, while you're waiting...)

In the end, we wound up marrying before all that years-long-with-years-to-go nonsense was resolved.

Also my father, my aunts, my uncles, my grandparents all being legal immigrants, who jumped through the requisite hoops to do it legally.

Which country? What year?

See, you're not very smart. The quotas for Mexico are ridiculousy low for demand, and of course, in the past 14 or so years(Which, interestingly, coincide with a certain political party), the price and difficulty have spiked ever-upwards.

I'm actually more interested in hammering on employers who take advantage of illegal migrants, than going after the migrants themselves, although I would still like to see better border enforcement and am against anything that normalizes illegal entrants' presence here.

Why? Since you have stated this is not a matter of rule of law for you, what is the basis for your opposition to normalization for those who have comitted no other serious crimes?

All this, and of course, the reeking stench of hypocrisy that comes from those exorting the horrors of it being fine with the idiot-squad who stopped raiding companies who employ these folks and slowed it to a trickle.

I'm afraid I don't think I quite understand this. Would you mind clarifying?

Examine enforcement against companies employing migrants under Clinton(When this was a minor issue when it came up at all), vs. Bush(When it became the latest bogeyman).

Seems to me that 'maybe we should change our laws' and 'maybe the sky should be a different color' are not statements of equal vacuity.

Given you've shown no reasoning or support for the idea, there's really no reason for me to give a shit what things 'seem to you'.

[General Zod]

Why don't you prove it's illegal instead of merely saying you don't think it is?

Okay: deliberately making a false statement on a sworn affadavit, is illegal.

Which false statement on which affadavit? Specifics!

[Kanastrous]

Falsely describing yourself as a refugee, on whichever specific Canadian government form one uses, to do that.

[Kanastrous]

Which country? What year?

Rep. of the Phillippines/my wife/process beginning in 1985

Great Britain/Switzerland/Austria/my relatives/processes beginning anywhere from the 1950s to the 1970s

The point not being that their experiences are interchangeable with someone else's. Simply that I'm aware that the system was and is horrific to deal with, to a greater or lesser degree, depending upon who you are and where you're coming from.

See, you're not very smart.

I sure hope it didn't take you this long, to notice.

The quotas for Mexico are ridiculousy low for demand, and of course, in the past 14 or so years(Which, interestingly, coincide with a certain political party), the price and difficulty have spiked ever-upwards.

Is that meant to imply that the US has an obligation to match its supply of visas/residency permits/naturalizations, to the demand of people from any given country, who want them?

I sure want people who immigrate here legitimately to benefit and prosper by joining us, but I sure don't think a sovereign nation is obliged to base its admissions upon the desire and number of people wishing to to be admitted.

Since you have stated this is not a matter of rule of law for you, what is the basis for your opposition to normalization for those who have comitted no other serious crimes?

Please don't misrepresent what I wrote.

I indicated that the rule-of-law aspect was not the primary aspect of the issue, in which I am interested. Rule-of-law still counts. It's the side-effects of admitting an unassimilated sub-class of people-off-the-radar that I like, even less than the illegality of their entry and presence.

Examine enforcement against companies employing migrants under Clinton(When this was a minor issue when it came up at all), vs. Bush(When it became the latest bogeyman).

Is one administration choosing to enforce existing laws differently than a prior administration "hypocrisy?" Not according to any dictionary definition I have found, so far.

Unless Bush expressed approval of Clinton's policies, then did an about-face later on. Although even that could be interpreted as a policy alteration in the face of changed circumstances.

[SirNitram]

Which country? What year?

Rep. of the Phillippines/my wife/process beginning in 1985

Great Britain/Switzerland/Austria/my relatives/processes beginning anywhere from the 1950s to the 1970s

The point not being that their experiences are interchangeable with someone else's. Simply that I'm aware that the system was and is horrific to deal with, to a greater or lesser degree, depending upon who you are and where you're coming from.

It's gotten alot worse. Enough so that your experience is probably rapidly becoming invalid.

See, you're not very smart.

I sure hope it didn't take you this long, to notice.

The quotas for Mexico are ridiculousy low for demand, and of course, in the past 14 or so years(Which, interestingly, coincide with a certain political party), the price and difficulty have spiked ever-upwards.

Is that meant to imply that the US has an obligation to match its supply of visas/residency permits/naturalizations, to the demand of people from any given country, who want them?

It's meant to imply that quotas are a very stupid way of handling it. You're not China. You're not exactly running out of space.

I sure want people who immigrate here legitimately to benefit and prosper by joining us, but I sure don't think a sovereign nation is obliged to base its admissions upon the desire and number of people wishing to to be admitted.

Then define what you think it should be based on.

Since you have stated this is not a matter of rule of law for you, what is the basis for your opposition to normalization for those who have comitted no other serious crimes?

Please don't misrepresent what I wrote.

I indicated that the rule-of-law aspect was not the primary aspect of the issue, in which I am interested. Rule-of-law still counts. It's the side-effects of admitting an unassimilated sub-class of people-off-the-radar that I like, even less than the illegality of their entry and presence.

You do realize that by opening up or discarding the quotas would remove this, yes? You see, your reason against this is in fact in opposition to what you state. This makes you a hypocrit, or very dumb.

Examine enforcement against companies employing migrants under Clinton(When this was a minor issue when it came up at all), vs. Bush(When it became the latest bogeyman).

Is one administration choosing to enforce existing laws differently than a prior administration "hypocrisy?" Not according to any dictionary definition I have found, so far.

Unless Bush expressed approval of Clinton's policies, then did an about-face later on. Although even that could be interpreted as a policy alteration in the face of changed circumstances.

Do you read what's presented to you at all? I made it quite clear why the hypocrisy is present: The GOP today makes lots of noise about illegals, but has dropped enforcement.

[General Zod]

Falsely describing yourself as a refugee, on whichever specific Canadian government form one uses, to do that.

So what? By your logic anyone who files for refugee status but doesn't meet the requirements and is rejected is a criminal. I'm failing to see examples of people being charged for doing this. Or how this is anything but a big kneejerk overreaction on your part.

[Kanastrous]

Falsely describing yourself as a refugee, on whichever specific Canadian government form one uses, to do that.

So what? By your logic anyone who files for refugee status but doesn't meet the requirements and is rejected is a criminal. I'm failing to see examples of people being charged for doing this. Or how this is anything but a big kneejerk overreaction on your part.

Okay; let's stipulate it's a knee-jerk over-reaction, and move on.

[Kanastrous]

It's gotten alot worse. Enough so that your experience is probably rapidly becoming invalid.

I think I made it clear enough that I know the experiences with which I'm familiar, aren't interchangeable with what others have to deal with. Which doesn't alter the fact that I am aware that the experience can be burdensome and horrible.

See, you're not very smart.

I sure hope it didn't take you this long, to notice.

It's meant to imply that quotas are a very stupid way of handling it. You're not China. You're not exactly running out of space.

So you've gone from 'quotas are ridiculously low' to 'quotas are a very stupid way of handling it.'

Absent quotas, what's a better method for regulating our intake of immigrants? Individual case-by-case? Open borders with unrestricted right-of-residence for any non-criminal who wants it? Something in between?

The present system is obviously a mess, so I am interested learning what you would do, instead.

Then define what you think it should be based on.

Primarily upon the projected utility of the people applying for admission. Which is how I think part of the system is intended to work; preferential treatment for people with skills we need. Physicians, nurses, engineers, etcetera. We have enough uneducated ditch-digger and fruit-picker-grade workers born here already, and shutting off the flow of effective slave labor from the south would have the effect of raising wages for them. And I'll happily pay my extra 25 cents or so per head of lettuce, to that end.

Secondarily upon people fleeing persecution, persecution not including an inability to earn as much as one wants or needs to earn, because the economy in one's nation of origin is in the dumpster.

Since you have stated this is not a matter of rule of law for you, what is the basis for your opposition to normalization for those who have comitted no other serious crimes?

It's the side-effects of admitting an unassimilated sub-class of people-off-the-radar that I like, even less than the illegality of their entry and presence.

You do realize that by opening up or discarding the quotas would remove this, yes? You see, your reason against this is in fact in opposition to what you state. This makes you a hypocrit, or very dumb.

Discarding the quotas wouldn't address the poor assimilation rate of recent immigrants, it would simply mean *more* unassimilated immigrants. And it would accomplish nothing to eliminate their status as a sub-class, because admitting even more unskilled unassimilated people would depress their earning potential even further (a rapidly boosted supply of whatever labor or services they can to offer, against a slower-growing or stagnant demand for it).

Your assumption that the problem of too many unskilled unassimilated people can be solved by admitted more unskilled, unassimilated people, is not hypocritical.

But it's so dumb as to defy belief.

Do you read what's presented to you at all? I made it quite clear why the hypocrisy is present: The GOP today makes lots of noise about illegals, but has dropped enforcement.

You made it quite clear that you think it hypocritical for a Republican administration to enforce laws differently than the preceding Democrat administration did. Don't blame me; that's what *you* wrote.

Now that you're saying that the rhetorical/enforcement disconnect with the Republicans is hypocritical, sure, I'll agree with that.

[SirNitram]

It's gotten alot worse. Enough so that your experience is probably rapidly becoming invalid.

I think I made it clear enough that I know the experiences with which I'm familiar, aren't interchangeable with what others have to deal with. Which doesn't alter the fact that I am aware that the experience can be burdensome and horrible.

Magnitude and it's relevence seems to escape your comprehension.

It's meant to imply that quotas are a very stupid way of handling it. You're not China. You're not exactly running out of space.

So you've gone from 'quotas are ridiculously low' to 'quotas are a very stupid way of handling it.'

I've not 'gone' from anything to anything. You are free to try and dig up where I say quotas are a good thing. You might even find some from when I was still young and a moron. But nothing recent.

Absent quotas, what's a better method for regulating our intake of immigrants? Individual case-by-case? Open borders with unrestricted right-of-residence for any non-criminal who wants it? Something in between?

Is there something wrong with allowing anyone who passes muster to live in a country?

The present system is obviously a mess, so I am interested learning what you would do, instead.

Ditch quotas. If you pass the muster of requirements, you're in.

Then define what you think it should be based on.

Primarily upon the projected utility of the people applying for admission. Which is how I think part of the system is intended to work; preferential treatment for people with skills we need. Physicians, nurses, engineers, etcetera. We have enough uneducated ditch-digger and fruit-picker-grade workers born here already, and shutting off the flow of effective slave labor from the south would have the effect of raising wages for them. And I'll happily pay my extra 25 cents or so per head of lettuce, to that end.

Intended? Not in any recent revisions. Preference by job skills is given to work visas.. Which don't allow you to stay.

Secondarily upon people fleeing persecution, persecution not including an inability to earn as much as one wants or needs to earn, because the economy in one's nation of origin is in the dumpster.

I recommend you go read the words on the statue you jingoists seem to love. It does actually have a provision for people seeking a better job.

You do realize that by opening up or discarding the quotas would remove this, yes? You see, your reason against this is in fact in opposition to what you state. This makes you a hypocrit, or very dumb.

Discarding the quotas wouldn't address the poor assimilation rate of recent immigrants, it would simply mean *more* unassimilated immigrants. And it would accomplish nothing to eliminate their status as a sub-class, because admitting even more unskilled unassimilated people would depress their earning potential even further (a rapidly boosted supply of whatever labor or services they can to offer, against a slower-growing or stagnant demand for it).

Awaiting evidence of the assertion they will not assimilate at a pace similar to other immigrants.

Your assumption that the problem of too many unskilled unassimilated people can be solved by admitted more unskilled, unassimilated people, is not hypocritical.

But it's so dumb as to defy belief.

Indeed, I can't believe you'd be so fucking moronic as to think you can squeeze these strawmen by me.

Yet you do. How insulting. Typical for people in your position who won't change anything as the facts are spread out. I will do it again. Slowly.

The problem is the underclass is created because they cannot gain legitimate residence or citizenship. This is propagated by the ridiculous quotas and more ridiculous costs. Remove the quotas and reduce the costs, and you will not have an 'underclass', you will have more citizens.

And I will simply await your evidence that they will never assimilate.

Do you read what's presented to you at all? I made it quite clear why the hypocrisy is present: The GOP today makes lots of noise about illegals, but has dropped enforcement.

You made it quite clear that you think it hypocritical for a Republican administration to enforce laws differently than the preceding Democrat administration did. Don't blame me; that's what *you* wrote.

Now that you're saying that the rhetorical/enforcement disconnect with the Republicans is hypocritical, sure, I'll agree with that.

Again with the men of straw; are you so pathetic you need to knock them over instead of addressing my argument? Again: The GOP talks one way and acts in the opposite manner. That is hypocrisy. You keep trying to turn this into Dem vs. GOP, when I used Clinton's years as a baseline for enforcement, naught more.