Let me see if I understand all this…
IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET
12 YEARS HARD LABOR…
IF YOU GO INTO CHINA ILLEGALLY, YOUR CONSIDERED A SPY AND
GET HARD PRISON TIME…
IF YOU GO INTO GERMANY ILLEGALLY, YOU GET A HEFTY FINE, WORK
IT OFF OR PAY IT OFF, THEN DEPORTED…
IF YOU GO INTO ENGLAND ILLEGALLY, YOU ARE IMMEDIATELY
JAILED AND DEPORTED…
IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED
INDEFINITELY…
BUT, IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET:
A DRIVERS LICENSE
A SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
WELFARE
FOOD STAMPS AND
FREE HEALTH CARE?
I got it… maybe we need to VOTE OUR LAWMAKERS OUT.
GO GREEN! RECYCLE CONGRESS!
Is it a fair statement to say: Our own laws, or system, is destroying us economically?"
Everyone else has replied with valid answers to the main topic.
Let me just add that maybe it is to the benefit of the US economy to have extra hands out there working.
This may or may not be so. The mayor of NYC says the country is dying for people to do the work that illegal immigrants do [at the low wages they are very happy to get].
So although it is pretty much the theme of this site that our own laws and system are destroying us economically, it may [emphasis on the may] be the case that encouraging people to come here who are willing to work at low wages is NOT one of the things destroying us economically.
I agree with you there, but I can understand how some individuals would not like to see their communities inundated with foreigners, altering the nature and character of those communities.
If individuals own the means of entrance into the community (roads, airports, docks, etc.) and exclude people peacefully, that’s one thing. But I’m guessing that’s not how most anti-immigrant people want this to be accomplished.
Something I don’t get is part of the access portions to different laws. If universal healthcare, for example, is a ‘universal right’, then why do current plans only allow the U.S.? If it’s because the U.S. should receive it because the U.S. is paying for it, then how come that reasoning doesn’t apply to the individual?
I don’t “get a kick out of this”. I get these pathetic right-wing emails almost daily from people I was unfortunate enough to give my email address to.
Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right. People have a right to flee political oppression and/or hostile economic conditions without any regard for invisible, imaginary lines drawn by government thugs.
The concept of “citizenship” is diametrically opposed to freedom and justice. The word “citizen” is an arbitrary, imaginary concept used to distinguish people who have rights from those who do not. In ancient Greece, a “citizen” was free, could vote, and own property; slaves and women could not. In the Roman Empire, “citizens” were free and could not be flogged or tortured by the government; slaves and subjugated foreigners had no such protection. In Islamic countries, “citizens” could own property, and their rights were upheld in courts of law; the dhimmis were forced to pay the dhimmi tax and had no recourse in courts of law.
In the modern United States, non-citizens are forced to work for less than minimum wage under dangerous or deadly conditions. They cannot put money in the banks, so they can be robbed or mugged. They can be raped, and cannot go to the police. If they play the game, they can collect government welfare benefits, but if they go on strike or demand raises, they can be jailed and deported. They have no rights.
Since I was born on U.S. soil, I’ve been given “citizenship” by no merit of my own; however, foreigners who have been wrongfully imprisoned by the U.S. government–be they Mexicans, Iraqis, or whoever else–have little or no legal protection. I, for one, do not agree with the racket known as “citizenship”. My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good.