USA Immigration

[PattayaMale]

I was watching Al Jazzera talk about illegal immigration in the USA. One Congressman brought up the idea of using the social security card with the persons picture on it. When a person goes gets a driver's license, opens a bank account, sign a loan, signs a rental contract, buys an airline ticket, etc.; this card would be swiped to help make sure a person is in the USA legally. It made sense to me and I thought about Thailand.

 

Thailand has a national identity card for its citizens. For non citizens, we are required to go every 90 days and "report". If someone overstays their legal status. they are fined and arrested and deported. If I as a non citizen want to buy a car or motorbike, I have to go to immigration first and get a letter. If I want to stay at a hotel, I must present my passport.

 

With today's technology, why is immigration in the USA allowed to get so out of hand? I think Thailand could teach the USA something about controlling illegal immigration.

 

What is your view?

[Guest]

Thailand could probably also teach the UK a thing or two about controlling immigration.

[Guest fountainhall]

. . . this card would be swiped to help make sure a person is in the USA legally. It made sense to me and I thought about Thailand.

In 1981 Hong Kong made the use and carrying of photo ID mandatory. This was in an attempt to stem the huge inflow of illegal immigration from mainland China, and it worked. Having lived there and carried my ID card in my wallet, I think it is a wonderfully sensible idea. Hong Kong has since expanded its uses and now ID card holders no longer need to use their passports on exit and re-entry. All I do is go to a set of gates, insert my card, then put my thumb on a glass plate - and immigration takes less than 15 seconds. My passport is irrelevant (although the airlines still require to see it).

 

Illegal immigration is a major issue not just in the USA. In the European Union it is now an enormous problem, especially given the freedom to move around the Schengen countries. The UK, though not part of the Schengen agreement, is estimated to have 750,000 illegal immigrants and precious little idea what to do with them. The last government was committed to the introduction of a national ID card, but the new government has killed that (and not only on grounds of cost - civil liberties organisations have always been against it).

[KhorTose]

What is your view?

 

I depart completely from the American Civil Liberties Union and my liberal friends on this one. A national Identification card is needed and long overdue.

 

1. I have no racial, ethnic, economic or religious predujices, but as a taxpayer I only wish to have my tax dollars go to helping legal American immigrants and citizens in need, and not going to support people who sneak into the country.

2. In this day and age of terrorism, I think it is unconscionable not to have a national id system.

3. I am upset if I have to support a needy mother with my tax dollars when her bum of a husband has taken off and got himself a new id so he does not have to pay child support.

4. The ACLU says I have to worry about "Big Brother", well I am more worried about the murderer that fled custody, and now lives down the street with a new id. You can substitute rapist, child molester or armed robber for murderer and I am still upset.

5. It is about time we stop employers who hire illegals and pay them less then they would have to pay American workers.

6. A national ID would be a big crimp in the sex slave business in the US and the business of importing sweat shop laborers with a big debt to work off to the smugglers.

 

Great question

[Bob]

With today's technology, why is immigration in the USA allowed to get so out of hand? I think Thailand could teach the USA something about controlling illegal immigration.

 

What is your view?

 

I think we're mixing apples and oranges here a bit. The "illegal immigration" issue here in the states really doesn't have much to do with technology as it has to do with having a border with Mexico that's rather porous. Whether we upgrade our technology (and I do agree that a national ID is a reasonable necessity as Khor Tose discusses) won't solve much of the problem, at least in my view.

 

And I wouldn't really tout Thailand's system. I'd bet that Thailand's illegal immigrants, as a percentage of the total population, might actually exceed the problem occurring in the United States and most of it, like in the US, is because of extremely porous borders in the north of Thailand (and, to some degree, in the south). There are multitudes of various peoples from Burma and Laos all over northern Thailand and, as we've read regularly over the years, even people from as far away as North Korea. And I believe that Thailand too has the same problem with foreigners overstaying their visas.

 

Because of the issues of the modern world (mainly the possibility of terrorism), I'd support any reasonable method to limit illegal immigration; however, at the same time, let's not forget that 99%+ of these people are illegally crossing borders either to join family members, escape an oppressive regime, or to simply try to better themselves economically. It's somewhat hard for me to consider a Mexican here in the US (or a Shan in Chiangmai) a criminal.

[kokopelli]

The Nazis also issued a national ID card for all German citizens. A J on the card identified someone as a Jew. Maybe a M could be used to id a Mexican, A for Arab, etc? It worked for the Nazis so it would likely work for the good old USA, home of the free, land of the brave, blah,blah blah.

[Guest]

I am about as liberal as they come. But, I see no problem with a national ID card. It seems like a logical thing to do. What am I missing?

[Gaybutton]

The Nazis also issued a national ID card for all German citizens.

I thought they revoked their citizenship. Be that as it may, I don't see national ID cards as equivalent to what the Nazis were trying to do, especially considering the number of countries, including Thailand, that issue national ID cards. I don't see anything going on in Thailand that even remotely resembles anything the Nazis did and I don't foresee the USA ever doing anything like that either.

 

Illegal aliens in the USA has become a very serious problem and is costing legitimate citizens a fortune, money they need for themselves. I don't know of very many other countries that put up with illegal aliens. Why should the USA?

[kokopelli]

I don't see anything going on in Thailand that even remotely resembles anything the Nazis did and I don't foresee the USA ever doing anything like that either."

 

 

Illegal aliens in the USA has become a very serious problem and is costing legitimate citizens a fortune, money they need for themselves. I don't know of very many other countries that put up with illegal aliens. Why should the USA?

 

The German Jews, Gays and other minorities didn't foresee what was in store for them.

 

Much has been said about the costs to Americans due to illegal aliens. Some claim the illegals contribute more to the economy than they extract. I don't have the answer to that. Maybe others do?

 

Facts count not opinion.

 

My own personal opinion is that much of the anti-illegal sentiment in the USA is primarily racially/ethnically motivated.

[Bob]

The Nazis also issued a national ID card for all German citizens. A J on the card identified someone as a Jew. Maybe a M could be used to id a Mexican, A for Arab, etc? It worked for the Nazis so it would likely work for the good old USA, home of the free, land of the brave, blah,blah blah.

 

A rather nasty and inappropriate comparison. A national ID card, used in many countries (including Thailand - I presume you've seen one) hardly lists inappropriate data. I suppose it's theoretically possible that driver's licenses could list inappropriate data and I'm wondering if you're against those too.

[Guest kjun12]

Laws of the US prevent the requirement of a National Identity card. Also, the right wing of US politics would go crazy about such a requirement. Much more so than the liberals.

[pong]

what original poster, TY-male, said about overstayers being caught and fined-well, that may occasionally happen-but it is estimated there are some 100.000+ of such-some for years. And also do not forget that most of ''illegals'' in Thailand are not white westerners, but Burmese, laotians, Combodians etc-and 1000s of Chinese.

Talking about China (mainlan=people republic)-their Id-card system is rtop of the bill-with chips and all-and f.e. a passengerlist for a ferry is that way done in seconds-except for me, the white gwailo-has to be processed the old-fashioned way-or not at all-too cumbersome.

[kokopelli]

A rather nasty and inappropriate comparison. A national ID card, used in many countries (including Thailand - I presume you've seen one) hardly lists inappropriate data. I suppose it's theoretically possible that driver's licenses could list inappropriate data and I'm wondering if you're against those too.

 

The Nazi ID card only illustrates what can happen, not necessarily what will happen. But give an inch and someone takes a foot.

 

I recall that many States in the US objected to certain info that the federal government wanted them to include on their State drivers licenses. A States rights vs Federal rights. Just what data was asked by the Feds, I don't know. But will try to find out.

 

I suppose my objection to a National ID card is because I have friends who, some would consider, as those horrible illegals who are draining the wallets of real Americans. The ones I know are wonderful people who work hard, contribute to the economy and are as American as anyone,but not citizens. Some are from England and Ireland and others from Mexico. Even now they are very cautious of traveling by public transportation whereby they may be asked "show me your papers". Luckily they are not from Arizona.

 

I might add that the Social Security number was never meant to be a national identifier. Even though the law states that, you can see just how far the law has been bent. Give an inch............

[Guest fountainhall]

I don't know of very many other countries that put up with illegal aliens. Why should the USA?

As I mentioned, the UK does, as do a whole lot of other European countries. They try not to, but immigration mainly from some of the old Soviet Union countries not in the EU and from Africa is now out of control in several countries.

 

The ones I know are wonderful people who work hard, contribute to the economy and are as American as anyone,but not citizens.

The US clearly has two issues with Immigration. One is what to do with those who are already in the country. The second is how to stop more coming in. I have no doubt that kokopeli is right. Many of those now in the US are hard workers and do contribute quite considerably to the overall economy. So the obvious solution is an amnesty, and then crack down really hard on future illegals. But I know politically that's just not going to happen. So the arguments will just keep on going round and round, the issue of what to do with existing illegals will remain on the back burner, the border fence will get longer and longer, and once completed it will be assumed that the US is illegal proof. But then there are always boats - the way most now get in to Europe.

 

Certainly, if the US could work out a solution for existing illegals and accept that ID cards are a sensible tool in this day and age, as both pong and I have said, the ID card systems used in Hong Kong and in China are extremely efficient and do make life considerably easier for ordinary citizens in other ways.

[Gaybutton]

One is what to do with those who are already in the country.

Maybe I'm overly harsh, but to me the issue is not the fact that they may have been in the country for a long time and are contributing positively. I think the issue is the fact they are there illegally. I understand the problem, but quite frankly I don't sympathize with it if they are there illegally. Even if they've been there for a number of years, to me that simply means they have gotten away with it for a number of years.

 

If I had my way, illegals who already are in the USA as of a specified date, whether they arrived twenty years ago or fifteen minutes ago, would be given the opportunity to apply for citizenship and those that do would come under a general amnesty. Those who fail to do so and future illegals should not be allowed to stay if they are caught.

 

I think one of the reasons I'm unsympathetic is because I was a Florida resident during the Mariel boat-lift. That was when, under Jimmy Carter, Castro emptied out his prisons and sent them along with all the people coming over from Cuba in boats. The problem was, no federal money covered it. Most of those people remained in Florida and it was the Florida taxpayers who ended up footing the bill. To this day I still resent having seen so many of them living in nicer homes than I could afford and getting all kinds of benefits unavailable to me as a taxpayer, and yet my tax money was financing it.

 

Fair is fair. None of my ancestors received any kind of help when they came over, but they became citizens. I have no objection to permitting illegals already present in the USA to become citizens too. While I realize circumstances are different now, it just makes no sense to me to even have immigration laws if they are not going to be enforced and it makes even less sense to me to permit people who are there illegally to remain there.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

I, personally, know several illegals in the US. One in particular was an student on a valid student visa. When his father found out he was gay (how? I don't know) he stopped sending him money or paying for his education. He had to drop out of school and couldn't go home. He started washing dishes, waited tables, worked at an oil change shop and finally started his own house painting business. He is a hard worker and doesn't cause anyone any trouble. He has paid taxes all along. I am certain there are thousands more like him. The US government needs to offer amnesty and citizenship for those who have worked AND paid taxes for a period of time. IMHO

[Guest fountainhall]

If I had my way, illegals who already are in the USA as of a specified date, whether they arrived twenty years ago or fifteen minutes ago, would be given the opportunity to apply for citizenship and those that do would come under a general amnesty. Those who fail to do so and future illegals should not be allowed to stay if they are caught.

I understand one of the issues is that there is in existence a queue system. So if you have an amnesty, one of the arguments I have heard politicians advocate most strongly is that all illegals must first return to their country and join the queue. Realistically, this is just never going to happen. But if those already in the country get preferential treatment and are allowed to stay, another group screams that this is totally unfair to those who have obeyed the rules by joining the queue. I can't see much room for compromise on either side.

 

I agree with GB. Those in a country should be permitted to stay. This is what happened in Hong Kong, and the illegals issue which had plagued Hong Kong for decades all but vanished. To make it slightly more palatable, those under the amnesty scheme could be made to pay a fine over a number of years for not being legal from the outset. But you would still come back to the question: how do you ensure that illegals are not allowed to stay in future if you have no way of finding them? And that surely means some form of ID card, because tightening Immigration regulations is not going to prevent future illegals from just overstaying and melting into the background.