The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 64

scaeagles · 05-11-2006, 11:55 AM

Aren't Cubans automatically given legal status because it is assumed they need political assylum for escaping a communist country?

Gemini Cricket · 05-11-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Aren't Cubans automatically given legal status because it is assumed they need political assylum for escaping a communist country?

I'm not sure. You're the brains around here...

Alex · 05-11-2006, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I'm not sure. You're the brains around here...

scaeagles is right. Your friend never had illegal status. All Cubans who reach shore are automatically granted political sanctuary. That's what pisses off the Haitians so much.

Gemini Cricket · 05-11-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

scaeagles is right. Your friend never had illegal status. All Cubans who reach shore are automatically granted political sanctuary. That's what pisses off the Haitians so much.

Well that's cool!

I'm wondering why there would be such a distinction in the rules for people who come here from Cuba vs Mexico (and Haiti for that matter). I mean, we think Communism is wrong but we also think the way Mexico is run is wrong. We draw the line because one is a Communist country? (I'm being more inquisitive and not snarky here... in this post at least.)

Alex · 05-11-2006, 12:13 PM

Essentially is a hangover from the Cold War. Nobody really supports it (or the embargo of Cuba) any longer but it can't be changed without appearing soft on Communism.

It is easy to oppose such measures against new countries, harder to actually stand up and say they should be abolished against existing dictators.

Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians also had a period where, if they could get here, they were pretty much summarily granted asylum. East Europeans and Russians who managed to defect were also summarily granted asylum. The hook on which these asylum claims is made is that merely the act of trying to leave your home country is grounds for execution if you're returned.

If Vicente Fox started firing squads for any nationals returned by the United States then things might change.

BarTopDancer · 05-11-2006, 12:42 PM

I haven't really spoken a lot about this topic here. I'm going to divulge a bit further in to my thoughts on this.

If someone snuck across the border, got a job (whatever job it is as long as it's legal), is supporting him/herself, and their family (if they have one) and not sucking the life out of our social programs (welfare, food stamps, wic) then I don't have a huge problem with them being here. Yes, they are illegal, yes, they should have gone through the proper channels, but at this stage in the situation they are making a living, support themselves, being productive and probably doing work that no one who is here legally would want to do anyways. They may not be paying taxes but they are making an effort to truly make a better life for themselves.

If someone snuck across the border, is not making any effort to support him/herself, and their family (if they have one) and has signed up for our social programs (welfare, food stamps, wic) then they need to leave. They are not contributing to our tax dollars and are taking advantage of our programs.

These opnions go for anyone who is here illegally. Our social programs are strained enough without people who are here illegally taking advantage of them.

scaeagles · 05-11-2006, 12:44 PM

As Alex pointed out, innovation and invention can take the place of field workers when economically feasable.

I wish I could remember the details of this.....about 40 years ago there was a strike in California of tomato pickers. At that point in time no one had yet developed a machine that could pick them and it was not practical to spend the money to do so. During a threatened strike by tomato pickers, a farmer worked with existing fruit picking machines and developed one that could pick tomatos without crushing them.

Since the labor was going to cost more, the machine was developed, and there was no longer a need for tomato pickers.

I would suspect that automation is possible for a lot of these job when wage demands escalate.

Ghoulish Delight · 05-11-2006, 01:09 PM

I wonder, how would turning illegal immigration into a felony hold up to ex post facto scrutiny?

Alex · 05-11-2006, 01:14 PM

I would think it would hold up pretty well. "Illegal Immigration" is an ongoing criminal act. It isn't something you did once in the past and that's it. I would think this also precludes statute of limitation type arguments as well.

Gemini Cricket · 05-11-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I would think it would hold up pretty well. "Illegal Immigration" is an ongoing criminal act. It isn't something you did once in the past and that's it. I would think this also precludes statute of limitation type arguments as well.

It's a criminal act that nobody focused on for awhile. Now that we realize it's a problem and it's a little too late.

But again, I don't see our nation crumbling because of the illegal immigration problem. And I just drove across country, there's a lot of land for these people so saying there isn't room isn't correct either.

I think corporations should pay people more to pick crops. They should give them the benefits and retirement opportunities that they deserve. They should be accountable for hiring illegal aliens. But what happens to these illegal workers once the work is gone for them? They go nowhere.

05-11-2006, 11:55 AM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Aren't Cubans automatically given legal status because it is assumed they need political assylum for escaping a communist country?
	Submit to Quotes

05-11-2006, 12:13 PM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Essentially is a hangover from the Cold War. Nobody really supports it (or the embargo of Cuba) any longer but it can't be changed without appearing soft on Communism. It is easy to oppose such measures against new countries, harder to actually stand up and say they should be abolished against existing dictators. Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians also had a period where, if they could get here, they were pretty much summarily granted asylum. East Europeans and Russians who managed to defect were also summarily granted asylum. The hook on which these asylum claims is made is that merely the act of trying to leave your home country is grounds for execution if you're returned. If Vicente Fox started firing squads for any nationals returned by the United States then things might change.
	Submit to Quotes

05-11-2006, 12:42 PM	#6
BarTopDancer Prepping... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Here, there, everywhere Posts: 11,405	I haven't really spoken a lot about this topic here. I'm going to divulge a bit further in to my thoughts on this. If someone snuck across the border, got a job (whatever job it is as long as it's legal), is supporting him/herself, and their family (if they have one) and not sucking the life out of our social programs (welfare, food stamps, wic) then I don't have a huge problem with them being here. Yes, they are illegal, yes, they should have gone through the proper channels, but at this stage in the situation they are making a living, support themselves, being productive and probably doing work that no one who is here legally would want to do anyways. They may not be paying taxes but they are making an effort to truly make a better life for themselves. If someone snuck across the border, is not making any effort to support him/herself, and their family (if they have one) and has signed up for our social programs (welfare, food stamps, wic) then they need to leave. They are not contributing to our tax dollars and are taking advantage of our programs. These opnions go for anyone who is here illegally. Our social programs are strained enough without people who are here illegally taking advantage of them. __________________ Spork is the new MacGyver Postcards From My Edge
	Submit to Quotes

05-11-2006, 12:44 PM	#7
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	As Alex pointed out, innovation and invention can take the place of field workers when economically feasable. I wish I could remember the details of this.....about 40 years ago there was a strike in California of tomato pickers. At that point in time no one had yet developed a machine that could pick them and it was not practical to spend the money to do so. During a threatened strike by tomato pickers, a farmer worked with existing fruit picking machines and developed one that could pick tomatos without crushing them. Since the labor was going to cost more, the machine was developed, and there was no longer a need for tomato pickers. I would suspect that automation is possible for a lot of these job when wage demands escalate.
	Submit to Quotes

05-11-2006, 01:09 PM	#8
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	I wonder, how would turning illegal immigration into a felony hold up to ex post facto scrutiny? __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

05-11-2006, 01:14 PM	#9
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I would think it would hold up pretty well. "Illegal Immigration" is an ongoing criminal act. It isn't something you did once in the past and that's it. I would think this also precludes statute of limitation type arguments as well.
	Submit to Quotes