Why Illegal Immigrants Should Be Allowed To Stay

| | Comments (51) | TrackBacks (0)

I just got this from a friend....

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.

Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.

But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest except for when I broke into your house).

According to the protesters:

"You are required to let me stay in your house. You are required to add me to your family's insurance plan. You are required to educate my kids. You are required to provide other benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part).

"If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.

"It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house. And what a deal it is for me!!!

"I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.

"Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE so you can communicate with me."

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why Illegal Immigrants Should Be Allowed To Stay.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1266


Eric the 1/2 troll said:

Poor analogy, Jack. You own your house. It is personal property. You worked for and bought it. You (as in the typical American) do not own the entire US. You simply have the good fortune of being born here. Frankly, you have done nothing to earn the "house" you live in any more than the noncitizens. You have had your citizenship handed to you on a platter.

Now as to this part of your analogy:

"According to the protesters:"

Actually that should read "According to God:"

J. Scott said:

True that. Take it a step further. You may "own" your house but you pay property tax to counties or cities as well as income tax to your federal/state government which are tasked with your protection. Local police are funded by you "to protect and serve". Collectively citizens of a county pay into a system that covers the whole county, thus you can make the extension that your tax goes to the greater cause same with the federal/state sysems. Are citizenship has not "been handed to us on a platter" but has been earned over countless generations.
Just because you cross the border does'nt make you an American. Being an Amercian and being a citizen are two entirely different distinctions my friend.

Jack said:

So, Troll, if one inherits a house from one's parents, then it is OK for another person, who did not inherit a nice house, to break in and live there?

No, Troll, this IS my country, which I inherited from my parents.

zimzo said:

It's not your country, Jack. It's our country. I would like the illegal immigrants to stay. You don't have the power to kick them out. If you don't like it, you can always move out.

Eric the 1/2 troll said:

When you say this is MY country it sounds all nice and patriotic. But in actuality you OWN nothing. Furthermore, you (the average American) did nothing to earn their rights. Heck, most do not even perform their basic civil duties (voting and jury duty) so they really do not even deserve the rights they have, imo. So you should stop trying to use the house analogy, Jack. As I said, it is not a apt analogy - it just makes good hyperbole.

Jack said:

"I would like the illegal immigrants to stay." -zimzo

You just lost that fight with the rest of the owners. The amnesty bill is dead.

Lesseeee... the United States Government BOUGHT the Louisiana Territory, took various other territories, and BOUGHT Alaska. Certainly the government owns the National Forests and National Parks. Various governments own the lands the road are on, and all the land that make up our military bases. Whose taxes paid for those lands?

Since the government is "of the People," that makes ME a part-owner in all that.

Furthermore, Troll, if you work in an office, I'll bet you sit in YOUR chair at YOUR desk in YOUR office. But you do not own them, do you? Yet you would be very offended if you came in to work one day and found someone in "your" office, at "your" desk, sitting in "your" chair, and using "your" computer.

The possesive pronoun does not imply ownership, but association. Just try convincing "your" spouse otherwise.

Eric the 1/2 troll said:

'"I would like the illegal immigrants to stay." -zimzo

You just lost that fight with the rest of the owners. The amnesty bill is dead.'

Jack what about the death of the immigration bill suggests the illegal immigrants won't be staying?

And thanks Jack for showing that saying "our" country does not mean we actually OWN it and for verfiying how poor of an analogy this was. I really like the office analogy you worked in there. If my company saw fit to give "my" desk to someone else I really couldn't do anything about it - it is not (as you pointed out) "mine". Not a perfect analogy either - but a little more apt. Nice work.

Jack said:

Actually, Troll, I first showed that I DO have part-ownership of this country. (I notice you did not address that.) Then I showed that the use of the possesive pronoun does not require possession, but only association.

Now, in the office case, "your" company (you don't own it, do you?) did NOT give "your" desk to someone else. In fact, that someone else works for ANOTHER company!

How's the analogy going now?

zimzo said:

When the Democrats sweep the election in 2008, helped in part by a huge shift in Latino voters disgusted by the right wings efforts on immigration, a better immigration bill, one that provides amnesty without the ridiculous punitive measures will undoubtedly be passed. All thanks to people like you Jack.

stay puft said:

yes, in reality we can't cut just rip out 13 million people who are enmeshed in our economy.

amnesty is inevitable and necessary. the only real issue is how to make it fair to people who have been "waiting in line." The what is really unfair is to have to live in a state of pseudo-citizenship for upwards of 20 years (in some cases more)

Amnesty will happen. It will be interesting to see how accepting the anti-immigrant crew will be of their new fellow citizens when that day comes.

Eric the 1/2 troll said:


I did not address your attempts to hold to your failed analogy because they were absurd. You have no claim of "ownership" to the government, the lands of the US, nor anything but your own personal property. There is clearly a difference between "public" ownership and private ownership. That is why you get paid for eminent domain takings. You want further proof? If the County sells a property, I certainly do not recieve a prorated portion of the proceeds - nor do you. They go back into the operation of the County (something I do not own).

"How's the analogy going now?"

To address your office analogy (part deux), while it may be strange if a person from another company is using "my" desk at work, I would still have no right to be offended. My company (the US government in this case) may choose to kick them out but I would have no real reason to get up in arms about it - personally. Even if I were a stockholder (kind of like your partial ownership claim for the US), I still would have very little recourse to kick out the other company's emloyee. I could always try to ban with the other stockholders to try to kick out the management that allows this use of the company resources but that would likely be difficult (especially if the company were not in the red and the other employees were serving a purpose and contributing to the bottomline). So maybe your second office scenario is more apt after all.

Ted said:

"what is really unfair is to have to live in a state of pseudo-citizenship for upwards of 20 years"

So what you're saying is that it's unfair to have entered the country illegally, cut the line, disregarded the law, and then not have all the rights and privileges of someone who DID enter the country legally, who didn't cut the line, and did obey the law of the United States.

Makes sense to me.

J.Scott said:

Troll please. I think someone needs a refresher course in some government. First start with some James Madison,a little Jefferson, then progress to some Teddy Roosevelt...so state parks and National parks are not owned by all citizens and available for use by everyone, including you beloved illegals. Read why the hell a federal system was established in the first place which is to collectively provide for all....we all buy in with taxs and thats are only obligation to sustain the federal government.
One of the best things OUR forefathers left us was the ability to invoke free will as part of our freedom. AS a citizen I can stand on my head and watch Amercian Idol and eat frito lays all night pal because guess what its not demanded that we participate one bit other than pay taxs. If people make the choice not to that is the right given them.
Citizenship my friend ain't easy.

You know you've struck a nerve when Zimzo starts into forecasting bravado mode.

jacob said:

this issue hurts democrats worse than it does republicans. For every legal Latino who pull the lever for a democrat, that vote will offset by someone who is voting against the open borders idea, who might have voted for the democrats otherwise.

Illegal immigration hurts blacks and the poor in general. A poor Latino who votes for open borders is shooting himself in the foot economically. I am sure this will be painted as a racism issue. The tired hoary trump card of the left.

Union members hate illegal immigration because it has hurt the trades badly. So despite what the Union Bosses urge, the membership is going to look at this differently.

Nice try at the fear mongering zimzo. As usual you role this out (or snide insults) when you are losing the argument.

stay puft said:


I guess I should clarify, I was referring to people who come in legally and have to spend decades filling out paperwork in order to become citizens. We should streamline that process, but we shouldn't hold the insanely bureaucratic nature of legal immigration against undocumented people.


We can't hand citizenship out on a silver platter because,

"AS a citizen I can stand on my head and watch Amercian Idol and eat frito lays all night"


Is that really what is meant by, "freedom?" Do you think there are laws prohibiting such behavior in China, or Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or Mexico...?


jacob said:

I am in agreement with you regarding the nature of the legal immigration process. It is a process that is capricious.

Ted said:

stay puft,

I was not aware that anyone who came here legally would have to wait that long for citizenship unless they simply decided they didn't want it.

I met with a gentleman from Austria who has been here at least 20 years and isn't a citizen because he just hasn't applied for it.

Who exactly to you have in mind?

Ted said:

How's this:

1) Anyone who wants to become an American citizen must leave the country and come in legally. Maybe have an expedited road to citizenship but I don't like that because it's still cutting the line.

2) Anyone who does not want to become a citizen and simply wants to work here registers with ICE so the appropriate criminal background check etc can be run. They can pay a fine to help defray the cost.

These individuals can remain for a certain period of time as a guestworker but will NEVER EVER become a citizen.

3) Anyone wanting guestworker status who does not register within say 90-120 days (or whatever is reasonable), if caught, is deported immediately with no right of return.


Everybody has an incentive to "come out of the shadows". We know who is here--we know who is serious about becoming a citizen and who is only here for the money. Obviously there will be people who want to become citizens but who do not want to leave and come back. Well, tough. They have the option to stay for a period of time and work if they want. If they want citizenship, great, but they have to play by OUR rules.

Criminal types obviously won't register, but when they start getting nabbed after the registration period they're out of here immediately.

All of this assumes, of course, that we get the border under control.

zimzo said:

It seems as if I am the one who has hit a nerve. Latinos are the fastest growing minority in the country. If past voting patterns held the Democrats would receive more than half a million new Latino votes. In the last preseidential election Bush received 40% of the Latino vote, enough to give him victory. Recent polls show Latinos turning away from Republicans in droves. Now only 22% say they are likely to vote Republican, because of the immigration issue.


Voters who are opposed to amnesty represent the most extreme right-wing of the base and are not likely to vote for Democrats anyway. However, many of them are disgusted with Bush's support of immigration reform and many of them will stay home.

Blacks see the Republican stance on the issue to be racist, and those blacks who did vote for Bush have returned to the Democrats because of issues like Katrina.

In the 2006 election union members went 68% to 30% for the Democrats. Many unions see immigrants as potential new members. Many already have significant numbers of immigrant members. So your hopes of recruiting union members through fear mongering are also doomed to failure.

So please keep talking up the immigration issue all the way up to the 2008 election.

jacob said:

thank you for the Democrat talking points.

ACTivist said:

I like the use of the term "my country". It professes ownership which every american (U.S. in this case) has the right to do. With that ownership comes the duty of cherishing and protecting its freedoms. The last time I looked, those freedoms were meant for the citizens of THIS country. That is something that I and my forefathers have fought, and in some cases, died for. That is something I still fight for. Our forefathers didn't intend for our country to have open borders were we built the system and freedoms and everyone else gets to reap the benefits freely. That is what socialists think, like, say, zimzo who is more than willing to give away his farm as well as everyone elses. Sorry zimzo but I don't put my hard earned money into taxes to allow freeloaders to live better.

This country was a republic built on democracy. The immigrants didn't come here for the money but for a better way of life i.e. freedom from persicution of religious belief, freedom from tyrranny, better quality of life, freedom of thought and speech, etc. It seems we have been moving away from a democracy toward socialism and capitalism. Big business has created the greed and socialistic ideals have opened the doors. The common citizen that is just trying to make a fair buck isn't getting his or her monies worth as we tend to pander to the freeloaders.

You have good citizens fighting for our rights and freedoms and then you have citizens that just want to give it all away as if the whole world deserves it. I don't think so. If you are an illegal alien trying "to feed your family" or "looking for a better way of life" then I suggest you use the U.S. as a model and make that way of life in your own country as our forefathers did. Either do it legal or stay home. We have enough house-cleaning to do in both business and government and I think that this is one of those jobs that americans are willing to do for themselves.

I'll add my two cents worth.

I would want, for the most part, the ability for nearly anyone from anywhere to immigrate here. But I believe that there needs to order in everything we do. There needs to be some regulation -- but that regulation should not be used as a club to prohibit any people group from immigration.

First, any person that wishes to immigrate should agree to abide by the laws of this land -- we don't need people that come here with the purpose of overthrowing our government, or breaking our laws (including laws on immigration).

Second, those that come should be able to demonstrate they will be productive members of society. That can be done in a number of ways.
1) They could have a sponsor that bonds themselves to assure the person/family is not a burden to society.
2) They have a sufficient amount of money that they can reasonably be sure of both being able to live here and support themselves (this would be for "wealth" people -- the amount should probably be fairly high).
3) They have promise of employment with benefits sufficient to ensure they will be able to support themselves (and their family if they bring a family).
4) They have a demonstrated, reliable source of income that will provide support after they get here.

Third, immigration should be contingent on learning English at conversational proficiency. Entry of an immigrant student into public education should be contingent upon them speaking English and being able to pass a test geared toward assuring they can learn in a classroom taught in the English language.

I'm not averse to having some limited "charity" immigration as well. This is where the country as a whole might set an amount it feels is reasonable to spend on those outside the country to help them.

Just as I cannot legitimately take the food from my own children to feed others, the country should not be taking services from its own citizens to help others. There is always a limit to what can be done to help others. Better to realize it and set the amount that one will use to help others ahead of time -- when emotional appeals are not at the front -- and then stick to it than to do miserly little or so much that you fall into need.

This does not mean that we shut out those in need completely, nor does it mean we accept every call for help. There will always be poor, which means we will always be able to help (as long as we do not become poor ourselves).

Voters who insist on an enforcement-first immigration policy represent -- well, I won't give away any numbers just now -- but a respectable percentage of the population, surprisingly.

zimzo said:

And you are basing that on what, Joe? Wishful thinking?

USA Today Gallup Poll 7/6-8/07

"In your view, what should be the higher priority in dealing with the issue of illegal immigration: developing a plan for halting the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S., or developing a plan to deal with illegal immigrants who are already in the U.S., or should both be given the same priority?"

Halting Flow 20%
Dealing with those in U.S. 25%
Same Priority 53%
Unsure 2%

And Jason, I've come to love your style. First, you make a bunch of assertions based on no evidence, which all turn out to be false. Confronted with evidence of the falsity of your assetions, you then assert that I am a democratic propagandist, a socialist or a liar. It's a pattern you repeat again and again but it reassures me that there is something I can always depend on in this ever-changing world in which we live in.

AFF said:

..what are these strange things you post Zimzo....I so rarely see them on this blog.

Could they be facts?

Reality has a well known liberal bias

Te said:

So it was the pro-amnesty people that our fearless senators were listening to that caused them to bury the immigration bill.

stay puft said:


jacob said:

The following fox poll asked different questions

According to this poll
- poll shows that 67 percent of Americans favor putting military forces on the borders to stop illegal immigration
-91 percent consider it a serious problem

The poll you sight obviously differs.

The Rassmusen report at

support for an enforcement first policy on immigration tops the 60% mark

here is a breakdown of the numbers state by state ...

I would say this goes beyond 'wishing thinking' zimzo.

I also noticed that none of the questions in the gallup poll directly addressed the question of border enforcement per se.

jacob said:

Glad you come and pay us here at NTH a visit now and then.

I am also glad that you are there to support zimzo. I see you as a liberal cheerleader. Which is oh so cute. Tell me do you have any original thoughts of your own?

That whole pathetic "Reality has a well known liberal bias" line that you keep repeating like some parrot in a cage. Which site did you get that from? moveOn, DU, DR, Kos? I know you did not come up with it. So enlighten us here at NTH.

Oh, one more thing. If all you do is wait for someone else to make your arguments for you, you will never really understand why you believe what you believe.

zimzo said:

Here is the question they asked in the push poll you cite, Jacob:

"Some people say it makes no sense to debate new rules for immigration until we can control our borders and enforce the existing laws. Do you agree or disagree?"

I think I'm going to conduct my own push poll: "Some people say that Jacob just makes stuff up and then when he's challenged on it desperately tries to find evidence to back up what he says and failing that insults anyone who disagrees with him by accusing them of saying exactly the same things as other people who base their opinions on facts instead of using their imaginations like Jacob, who also probably ends games he is losing by accusing his opponent of cheating, turning over the board and walking away, which isn't very sporting of him. Agree or disagree?"

Jack said:

Disagree. I've beaten jacob at chess on numerous occasions (though our one official contest was a vey ugly draw ending with a queen and pawn against two rooks), and he has never accused me of cheating.

jacob said:

1. I did not find said question in the gallop poll. Seriously what is your point? I said there was no question that asked people in the _gallop_ poll if they want the border secured. Do you agree or disagree?

2. What did I make up? The Rassmussen numbers? The Fox poll numbers? Those are direct quotes. I also sited what the numbers were related to.

3. How did I insult _you_ in my last comment? Are you AFF? Please note the following:
"Oh, one more thing. If all you do is wait for someone else to make your arguments for you, you will never really understand why you believe what you believe."

So far his only real contribution is in effect "you guys suck, rah rah zimzo". What do you want, he is asking for it.

4. I have not insulted you though you have taken the time to insult me just now. I would prefer not to go tit for tat, yet, so for me the real issue in our conversation at this point is pt 1 from above. Lets go there instead.

I have seen the conversation evolve as follows:
a. Joe made a statement that the public at large wants the border secured
b. you site a poll that is asking a lot of questions regarding immigration, and you site numbers to refute Joe's statement
c. I site two others polls, one of which (Rassmussen) addresses the matter pretty directly that support Joe's statement (or more correctly, it refutes yours)

Your move, or do you want to flip the table?

AFF said:


"Reality has a well known liberal bias"

Google, bitch, yours, not.

You flip the table everytime you play dude -don't get upset when I piss on the remains

Jack said:

That's AFU's way of saying that he cannot be expected to provide documentation of his "facts."

zimzo said:

Your first statement in this thread and Joe's statement in this thread contained assertions about attitudes toward immigration that were not supported by any evidence. The Gallup poll specifically asked whether people preferred to halt the flow of immigrants first, to deal with the immigrants already here first or both at the same time. The results contradicted your assertions. The polls you linked to were severely flawed. You insulted AFF and you insulted me by referring to what I said as "Democratic talking points." In the past you have called me a liar and made remarks about my being off meds, etc. Look it up. I have merely pointed out (accurately) that you make a lot of statements without backing them up that usually turn out to be false.

jacob said:

Please show me where I was 'flippin the table'. I know I can back up what I said about you. You have lots of comments by me, so you should be able to make some argument.

As for "Google, bitch, yours, not." Bravo!! You have engaged directly. Now, since I don't speak babble would you please write in English.

Join on in AFF. Just can the pitiful rah rah. Good to have you aboard.

Remember if all you do is wait for someone else to make your arguments for you, you will never really understand why you believe what you believe.

Jack said:

"In the past you have called me a liar and made remarks about my being off meds, etc. Look it up."

That's another lie, zimzo. I, not jacob, am the one who called you a liar (and I proved it), and said you were off your meds.

jacob said:


1. "Your first statement in this thread and Joe's statement in this thread contained assertions about attitudes toward immigration that were not supported by any evidence. The Gallup poll specifically asked whether people preferred to halt the flow of immigrants first, to deal with the immigrants already here first or both at the same time. The results contradicted your assertions. The polls you linked to were severely flawed."
a. I repeat I did not see a direct question in the Gallup poll. I have looked.

b. Could you explain your assertion regarding the Rassmusen poll? How is it flawed. Or for that matter, how is the Gallup poll not flawed. Blanket statements like this will get us nowhere.

2.a. "You insulted AFF"
True. I am trying to get him to stop playing cheerleader and goad him into making his own arguments. Guilty as charged here.

2.b. "you insulted me by referring to what I said as "Democratic talking points.""
But those _are_ the Democrat talking points on immigration and the 2008 election zimzo. I don't lift my arguments from elsewhere. It appears you did. Maybe you did not realize it. If my pointing this out offends your sensibilities, sorry. But note, such parroting of either parties party line does deserve mention. Are you trying to tell me you would have done so san's sarcasm?

3. "In the past you have called me a liar and made remarks about my being off meds, etc. Look it up."
a. I am not the only one who has leveled the 'liar' charge at you zimzo. Would you like to see a push poll on this? Please note, while I have called you a liar, I am also the most infrequent leveler of this charge among the posse that has noted your less than stellar performance in this area.

Furthermore, please note your refusal to answer the questions posed by myself, Jack and Joe has been seen as the height of mendacity. It is actually the root of the liar charge leveled against you. For it is dishonest not to answer the question as posed.

Does this make sense to you? Please note, I am not asking you to agree that you're a liar (that would be silly). But simply to agree or disagree with the premise that a real dialog does require one to answer posed questions in the debate

b. The whole meds thing was simple revenge some of your more aggravating behavior. It appears I have struck a nerve ;-)

4. "I have merely pointed out (accurately) that you make a lot of statements without backing them up that usually turn out to be false."
We can argue this one all day long, in both directions. I do not tell deliberate falsehoods zimzo. I calls it like I sees it.

jacob said:

I called him a liar as well. Just not as often as you and Joe.

One more thing, I know YOU said he is off his meds, but I started that whole line months ago. As for zimzo taking his meds well, you know.

Jack said:

Well, you jumped on the bandwagon. :-)

jacob said:

dolt, its my bandwagon you jumped, not the other way around

stay puft said:

"Reality has a well known liberal bias"

-Steven Colbert, 2006 White House Correspondence Dinner


good stuff! "Some people say..." --classic push poll question!

ever notice how "some people say" prefaces mostly everything they report on Fox news? ("Some people" being Sean Hannity, O'Reilly and that dweeby "war on easter" guy)


Fox News is a 24-hour video tabloid, you know that! I love the 2.a. and 2.b. Next time will the break out the roman numerals?


Jack said:

Jacob -- my bandwagon was that zimzo is a liar, your's is that he is off his medicine. OK?

Puffalump -- why does your smiley have no nose?

jacob said:

I. good to here from you
II. calling Hannity, O'Reilly and 'the dweeb' video tabloid is about spot on (for that matter so is much of CNN and MSNBC)
III. So what is Couric and the other clowns on the CBS, NBC and ABC? They are not tabloid, the format is wrong for that, but there is too much opinion passed off as fact.
IV. Brit Hume is another matter.
V. Colbert said that. Thanks, it figures.

jacob said:

I can agree to THAT grand compromise. Zimzo, what do you think.

Jack said:

He doesn't.

ACTivist said:

Jack and Jacob, you should be ashamed of yourselves. That is not the christian way to treat your fellow men (zippo an AFU). I wish you both would be more tactful in your dialog dealings with them as it appears MANY nerves have been hit upon and I don't want them going "postal" in my neighborhood! Your kindness in this matter is greatly appreciated. :-) (mine has a nose, jack)

stay puft said:

cannibals, godless cannibals

zimzo said:

Jacob go back and read my original post on the Gallup poll, I copied the question right there. If you don't believe it, Google it.

I already explained how the poll was flawed. It was a push poll. Again, if you don't understand what that is, look it up.

I really don't care if you insult me. I was just poiinting out that it seems to be your modus operandi when you are losing an argument. And I was defending AFF.

I agree with Puffy. Roman numerals would add a certain class that the rest of your writing is lacking.

jacob said:

I. I'll go look again. I believe you, I even copied the damn thing into a word file and still did not find the question you mentioned.

II.a If you explained why any of the polls are flawed I missed it. Will go look.
II.b I know what a push poll is.

III.a yeah you do
III.b are you sure you are not projecting? We could run a poll and see what others percieve
III.c AFF is a big boy, he can take care of himself. Maybe LA is a viable idea afterall

IV. heal thyself

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here