anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand

[redbirdfan]

I don't consider myself to be anti-immigrant just because I believe our borders should be enforced.  A border that is not enforced and secured isn't much of a border.  I do not believe those who come here illegally are criminals or bad people.  I don't think there is much indication that they are taking jobs that Americans would otherwise take.  I have the utmost empathy for those who come here seeking better futures and I think it is in poor taste to use them as an easy political target.  Having said that, I do believe a country has a right and an obligation to control its borders and to be aware of who is coming in.  My position would be to adopt effective border control through more patrols and technology (I think a physical wall is a waste of time and money) but to allow any undocumented immigrants currently here to become permanent residents.  I would allow for full citizenship with military service and possibly some other types of direct contribution to the country. 

I believe it is unrealistic to deport millions of people, but I don't think it's inherently racist or anti-immigrant to have the opinion that you are not entitled to stay in a country you knowingly entered illegally.  I fully admit that I am not aware of all the nuances on this issue.  There is a good chance that there is factual data out there of which I am ignorant that would affect my opinion.   

[golden1]

Wow.  So much terrible misinformation and a galling lack of human empathy and decency.

It is amazing to me how people here are perfectly fine with the idea that the luck of where you were born should dictate your entire life from cradle to grave.  People really seem to have no idea why most people would choose to take the chance to immigrate illegally.  Try to imagine that you need to escape from a situation where you and your family are in mortal danger. 

Hey but fuck you, go back and die, because if you don't I can't afford my vacation or my TV this year. 

Somehow, I think it's easier to make that call when the person you are condemning to suffering and death doesn't look like you.  Racism is at the heart of it, whether you acknowledge it or not.

What people tend to forget is that we are social animals.  Taking care of people is biologically programmed into us because it makes us stronger and more successful.  Humanity has progressed because our societies have become more inclusive, not less. 

[Cassie]

First of all illegal immigrants are not provided any social services, period so their is no drain. Second when my son married a woman from Poland the legal papers said that she would not be eligible for any social services for 20 years and that he had to agree to support her for that length of time so it appears that legal immigrants are draining our $ either.  Illegals work at jobs that citizens are not willing to do. If that was not the case there would not be jobs for them. Do you want to pick fruit in a hot field for 12 hours/day?  Lastly, lets have some empathy for people that are just trying to not starve to death.

[sol]

I don't consider myself to be anti-immigrant just because I believe our borders should be enforced.

Our border IS enforced.  Obama has deported more people than any other President.  The US spends more on border security than does anyone else.   The notion that our borders are easily porous is absolutely false.

But it's a big border, and enforcement will never be 100% effective.  At some point, there are diminishing returns for investing any further resources in it.

I have the utmost empathy for those who come here seeking better futures and I think it is in poor taste to use them as an easy political target.

Trump clearly has no such empathy or respect. 

I don't think it's inherently racist or anti-immigrant to have the opinion that you are not entitled to stay in a country you knowingly entered illegally.

What about the illegal immigrants who didn't come here knowingly?  What about infants smuggled across the border?  Is it racist to believe they should be deported because of their ethnicity, having committed no crimes?

[sol]

I think the attitude behind the above statement is a big reason why Trump is the president-elect today.  People going around calling others as racists simply because they have different opinions. 

You're going to have a hard time convincing people that Trump's campaign wasn't racist.  Even Paul Ryan called him the "textbook definition of a racist".  Trump blamed immigrants for economic problems caused by white people.  Trump said a judge couldn't do his job because of his ethnicity.  Trump called a hispanic woman "Miss Housekeeping".  How much more evidence of racism do you really need?

As for you and everyone else who voted for him, you can claim that you voted for a racist despite his racism, not because of it, but that doesn't change the fact that you voted for the only candidate endorsed by the KKK.  I'm not calling you a racist.  I'm saying you voted for a racist.  We, as a country, voted for a racist.  And that feels horrible.  America is supposed to be better than that.

[redbirdfan]

What about infants smuggled across the border?  Is it racist to believe they should be deported because of their ethnicity, having committed no crimes?

First, let me be clear.  I am a moderate Republican but I cannot and will not justify Trump's positions on just about anything.  In answering your question, I don't have a problem with the executive orders put in place by Obama to allow the Dreamers to be here without fear of deportation.  BUT, I don't think there is any inherent entitlement to that position.  If you knowingly enter a country illegally, and knowingly bring your children to a country illegally, you should not be surprised when you and your children are not allowed to stay.   

I am not heartless.  I have nothing but empathy for those in the situation.  I know people who have family members who work in the orchards of eastern Washington.  They do more work with fewer protections than people realize.  The actual act of even getting into the country takes more courage and bravery than I could likely muster.  Having said that, the only way a country means anything is if there is some sort of control over who comes in. 

I'm trying not to resort to hyperbole.  I believe we should secure our borders to prevent the entry of unknown and unaccounted for people (deportation is a post-entry remedy).  I believe we should allow people who are here illegally to become permanent residents but not full citizens.  I believe we should institute a guest worker program for those industries where it is difficult to find sufficient U.S. workers (farms, meat-processing plants, etc.). 

I believe having an unsecured and porous border is a problem.  I don't think the vast differences between opportunities available in Mexico/Central America and the U.S. makes it justifiable for anyone to simply enter the country illegally.  We have laws.  They should be enforced.  We have borders.  They should also be enforced.     

[MustardTiger]

Do you guys know how difficult Legal immigration is?  My wife has been here for over 5 years.  We have spent over 5k just in application fees along with countless hours filling in tons of pages of complicated paperwork that even as an educated English speaker was challenging.

We have paid the 750$ application fee for citizenship but may have to wait 6 months to a year to hear anything back.  This goes along with many trips to immigration offices that you must do during working hours.

I just don't know how people expect lower class immigrant families to make it through this process, especially when they don't speak English as their first language.  But ya, maybe that's the point.

[rob in cal]

  I think British Prime Minister Theresa May has made some very good non-racial arguments about the disadvantages of too much immigration, with its impact on housing, the environment, job market, things of that nature.  Concerning the positives of lots of immigration vs little or no, Finland has had relatively little immigration compared to similar European countries, and as far as I can tell hasn't suffered accordingly.  I do wonder about the overall impact of the so-called Brain Drain, which Ralph Nader mentioned in his 2000 campaign.  If in fact big chunks of the so called "best and brightest" from the developing world leave their countries for vastly better opportunities elsewhere (understandable certainly) what are the long term impact on their home countries?
   These are debates worth having, away from the emotionalism which seems to permeate both sides.  I think it was President Clinton who handled the situation well by appointing a black liberal woman, former congresswoman Barbara Jordan from Texas, to chair an immigration reform commission in the 90's.  The commission argued that cutting immigration in half would be helpful, and that such immigration should have much less non-nuclear family reunification immigration and more focus on skilled immigration.  Clinton called for passing the suggestions into law, and most Republicans supported a similarly  focused law, but most Dems and some Republicans combined to defeat the measure in the House in 1995.

[southern granny]

First of all illegal immigrants are not provided any social services, period so their is no drain. Second when my son married a woman from Poland the legal papers said that she would not be eligible for any social services for 20 years and that he had to agree to support her for that length of time so it appears that legal immigrants are draining our $ either.  Illegals work at jobs that citizens are not willing to do. If that was not the case there would not be jobs for them. Do you want to pick fruit in a hot field for 12 hours/day?  Lastly, lets have some empathy for people that are just trying to not starve to death.

Actually they do get some.  I work at a health department and the illegals that are pregnant get medicaid eligibility for the first two months of pregnancy and for the last month which also covers the delivery and postpartum exams.  The months that they don't have medicaid, the health department (funded by tax dollars) pays for all their other pregnancy expenses including doctor visits and sonograms. They are also eligible for WIC benefits for the entire time of their pregnancy and up until they stop breast feeding.    I don't know if they get other benefits, I just know of these because I see them at work.   They are also eligible for all other health department services which are charged on a sliding fee scale so tax dollars cover a portion (if not all) of those expenses also.  I'm not saying that they shouldn't get these services, but I am saying that taxpayers are paying for these services.

[rob in cal]

   Illegal immigrant children also can attend public education.  The whole Prop 187 brouhaha in California in 1994 was about not allowing this.

[RosieTR]

Do you guys know how difficult Legal immigration is?  My wife has been here for over 5 years.  We have spent over 5k just in application fees along with countless hours filling in tons of pages of complicated paperwork that even as an educated English speaker was challenging.

We have paid the 750$ application fee for citizenship but may have to wait 6 months to a year to hear anything back.  This goes along with many trips to immigration offices that you must do during working hours.

I just don't know how people expect lower class immigrant families to make it through this process, especially when they don't speak English as their first language.  But ya, maybe that's the point.

Yeah, I've had a few friends go through this process and it's neither affordable for a lower-income person nor easy for someone who doesn't have job flexibility.

I think that, at the very least, they should have a pathway for citizenship for people brought as children (maybe under 15yo). It's inhumane to deport people who were brought here as kids, sometimes prior to even having any memories not of the US, and sometimes with no knowledge that they aren't a citizen until they hit 18. They had zero control over illegally immigrating, and have little to no knowledge of the culture and sometimes even language. Parents of children who are citizens by birth should be allowed a pathway for residency until the child is an adult (at least 18, maybe 22 or 26).

And there are plenty of illegal immigrants from Asia and elsewhere, not just Central and South America. So let's not make assumptions about that. One other point: illegal immigration slows when the jobs slow. There was a net outflow at the worst jobs period of the Great Recession.

[Johnez]

I don't consider myself to be anti-immigrant just because I believe our borders should be enforced.

Our border IS enforced.  Obama has deported more people than any other President.  The US spends more on border security than does anyone else.   The notion that our borders are easily porous is absolutely false.

Porous is the exact word. Money is spent, and enforcement takes place. Obviously it isn't working though. 11 million illegal immigrants and tons of drugs pouring in. All it takes is $3-4000dollars to get in here. I know people who've paid and employers willing to loan it. There's a vast underworld economy here on the border states. People just willingly accept it or can't imagine the problems. I guess that's fine when you are living above the fray.

[Lagom]

I don't consider myself to be anti-immigrant just because I believe our borders should be enforced.

Our border IS enforced.  Obama has deported more people than any other President.  The US spends more on border security than does anyone else.   The notion that our borders are easily porous is absolutely false.

Porous is the exact word. Money is spent, and enforcement takes place. Obviously it isn't working though. 11 million illegal immigrants and tons of drugs pouring in. All it takes is $3-4000dollars to get in here. I know people who've paid and employers willing to loan it. There's a vast underworld economy here on the border states. People just willingly accept it or can't imagine the problems. I guess that's fine when you are living above the fray.

Guess we better make Mexico pay for a wall, then.

[Johnez]

First of all illegal immigrants are not provided any social services, period so their is no drain. Second when my son married a woman from Poland the legal papers said that she would not be eligible for any social services for 20 years and that he had to agree to support her for that length of time so it appears that legal immigrants are draining our $ either.  Illegals work at jobs that citizens are not willing to do. If that was not the case there would not be jobs for them. Do you want to pick fruit in a hot field for 12 hours/day?  Lastly, lets have some empathy for people that are just trying to not starve to death.

The California public school system is proof illegal immigrants get social services. It is a drain when resources are diverted from American citizens to illegal immigrants and their children to just be able to learn to speak English. And while yes it is impossible to get food stamps, welfare, or even to work here legally when you don't have papers, there is a way around many of those problems-starting with a stolen social security number. Roads, schools, hospitals, all public goods that are being stretched too thin these days, why accept millions more people? There is a reason countries have immigration caps and quotas, why should we be any different?

[Johnez]

I don't consider myself to be anti-immigrant just because I believe our borders should be enforced.

Our border IS enforced.  Obama has deported more people than any other President.  The US spends more on border security than does anyone else.   The notion that our borders are easily porous is absolutely false.

Porous is the exact word. Money is spent, and enforcement takes place. Obviously it isn't working though. 11 million illegal immigrants and tons of drugs pouring in. All it takes is $3-4000dollars to get in here. I know people who've paid and employers willing to loan it. There's a vast underworld economy here on the border states. People just willingly accept it or can't imagine the problems. I guess that's fine when you are living above the fray.

Guess we better make Mexico pay for a wall, then.

Great contribution. Perhaps argue the point instead of crying "Trump" next time.

[Lagom]

My point argues itself. Trump is not a necessary part of it.

[onecoolcat]

Illegal immigration is bad.

Not immigration.

Can you explain to me why it's bad if they are illegal?

Would you feel the same way if Congress changed the rules to grant a legal path to citizenship for anybody who wanted to come here?  Like if they just made all of the illegal ones legal, would they still be bad?

I mean marijuana is illegal too, is that what makes it bad?

Lol

[chesebert]

Do you guys know how difficult Legal immigration is?  My wife has been here for over 5 years.  We have spent over 5k just in application fees along with countless hours filling in tons of pages of complicated paperwork that even as an educated English speaker was challenging.

We have paid the 750$ application fee for citizenship but may have to wait 6 months to a year to hear anything back.  This goes along with many trips to immigration offices that you must do during working hours.

I just don't know how people expect lower class immigrant families to make it through this process, especially when they don't speak English as their first language.  But ya, maybe that's the point.

That is the point. Our family waited 7yrs for the green card and 5 more for citizenship. I know folks who spent 500k for EB5 program (investment in job creation business) and tens of thousands in legal fees to immigrate. The point of immigration is to ensure the persons coming in will have a net positive economic and social effect on the US.

[StreetCat]

That is the point. Our family waited 7yrs for the green card and 5 more for citizenship. I know folks who spent 500k for EB5 program (investment in job creation business) and tens of thousands in legal fees to immigrate. The point of immigration is to ensure the persons coming in will have a net positive economic and social effect on the US.

+1

Any policy (including immigration) should be beneficial to the nation.

[sol]

But right now, people are only talking about providing a pathway or amnesty without an effective solution to stop illegal immigration.  I don't agree with that.

Who is saying that?

You have it exactly backwards.  Right now people are talking about stopping all illegal immigration without providing any pathway to citizenship for people who are currently working here illegally.  That was Trump's whole campaign.

Americans have been deliberating this issue for decades.  Everyone recognizes that you ultimately need both, but they haven't been able to agree on how to do both simultaneously so we go back and forth between doing all of one thing (amnesty for everyone, except no one has ever said this) to all of the other (build a big beautiful wall, says our next President).  We can't even agree on which to do first, which is probably the path forward.  Congress could pass legislation that commits to both, but funds one first.  Except Congress is too dysfunctional to pass anything, so nvm.

I am not the first person to point out that building a wall before starting a pathways program only makes illegal immigration worse in the short term, as people rush to get into the country before it gets more expensive and dangerous to do so.  People already working illegally refuse to go home, for fear of not being able to get back in again.

[StreetCat]

Who is saying that?

Sorry, I should have been more clear.  Many liberals, including Hillary - seem to be in the camp of providing a pathway to citizenship while not proposing any effective and practical solutions to stop illegal immigration.

And before we get into more arguments on this, I don't believe that Trump's wall plan is practical either.

[Metric Mouse]

I actually like the immigrants better than most of the residents/citizens. They are harder working, often smarter, complain less and consume less.  My definition of hell is a mid-size flyover city without a single decent asian grocery, indian restaurant, or vietnamese noodle shop. I would gladly trade all the Trump voters (all descendents of immigrants) for fresh immigrants.   Ship them all north or south. Then build a wall to keep them out.

Apparently large portions of the country were terrified that people like you would do just such a thing, and voted in representatives to ensure their rights were protected.  They can now sleep safe at night for at least the next two years knowing that they wont be subject to mass deportation.

[Mel70]

They should not be able to move to the US and immediately become a drain on our resources and social services; they need to have a job or means of supporting themselves and should not be able to access free social services for X years from their date of entry.

You just said above that they can't conduct business because of lack of documentation. Guess what: accessing social services requires documentation too! So which is it? You don't get to blatantly contradict yourself like that and maintain any sort of credibility.

This isn't entirely true...  In little mexico in my town, there are pamphlets and advice in the supermarkets on how to get food stamps and medicaid while illegal.  I will try to find a photo for you.

There is also a billboard about getting car insurance that says:  No license, No problem!  (Hint: they sell you ghost insurance that vanishes when someone tries to collect).

I have six different friends (and dozens of acquaintances) whom I have personally witnessed getting chewed up by the immigration system.  It needs an overhaul.  Honestly it should have happened years ago, but that doesn't excuse the problems arising from illegal immigrants right now.  If we can secure our border, I feel it will be the first step towards fixing the rest of the program.

Just out of curiosity, have you looked at Canada's immigration policies?  Are they racist too?  What about any other developed country?

Sorry, but no, undocumented immigrants can't get public benefits. Has anyone on this forum actually filled a government form? There is all sorts of red tape, cross-checking information and home visitation to verify that what the person has stated is true.

Also, most of them in fact file taxes because if the opportunity to become legalized came along, on of the first requirements would be to show they have done so to demonstrate good character.   

Also, I wish there was a program that allowed you to remove labor from undocumented immigrants from the industries where they are hired the most, and see how that affects the cost of our goods and services, such as the meat-packing and agricultural industries, child and elder-care, restaurants, and similar. Truth is, we like our cheap stuff and as society refuse to see who is doing the work, like in restaurant kitchens. We just don't want to know. There is a reason they are "tolerated" and it is the cheap labor. Visit the San Joaquin Valley as an example. The work is grueling and badly paid.

[acroy]

I'm not anti-immigrant and barely identify as Republican... but anyway...

Illegal anything = illegal = crime. The country must have rule of law or there is no country. Bad laws must be enforced - and good people must disobey/disrupt them until they are changed.
Jefferson: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

Thoreau: “If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.”

Legal immigration I think is Great! It's easy to forget how diverse and interesting a place USA is - largely due to immigration

America has benefited enormously by being the 'promised land' for so many for so long. The country has 'selected for' those who want to better themselves and their condition. This continues to this day.

The illegals sneaking across the Rio, right now? they are breaking the law. If they want to work and are peaceful, good luck to them I say. To my gov't I say: secure the dam' border and find a legal way to let these people in.

If I was a poor single Central American guy I'd be very tempted to emigrate to USA, legally or not. My best employee snuck across el Paso border, having walked from El Salvador, in 1982. He's a better man than I, and now a citizen and a patriot.

[TexasRunner]

Sorry, but no, undocumented immigrants can't get public benefits. Has anyone on this forum actually filled a government form? There is all sorts of red tape, cross-checking information and home visitation to verify that what the person has stated is true.

Sorry, but yes.  And it is a problem that is growing faster than we can adress it unless we overhaul our entire immigration system (including securing the border / enforcing visas).

How they undocumented immigrants could recieve benefits:  if you came in before a certain date (which you could lie about) or through forging documents or buying forged documents (less common) or having US citizens as children.

I would question if YOU have ever filled out a government form (or worked in a government office).

Also, most of them in fact file taxes because if the opportunity to become legalized came along, on of the first requirements would be to show they have done so to demonstrate good character.   

Wrong again...  Unless they have a social security number they can't file.  Granted since the vast majority of them would have a negative marginal tax rate, this actually hurts them (and is why their labor that is actually recorded balances out with their cost to the taxpayer, if they were able to file, there would be a much heavier burden on taxpayers because they would get full refunds).

Also, I wish there was a program that allowed you to remove labor from undocumented immigrants from the industries where they are hired the most, and see how that affects the cost of our goods and services, such as the meat-packing and agricultural industries, child and elder-care, restaurants, and similar. Truth is, we like our cheap stuff and as society refuse to see who is doing the work, like in restaurant kitchens. We just don't want to know. There is a reason they are "tolerated" and it is the cheap labor. Visit the San Joaquin Valley as an example. The work is grueling and badly paid.

I won't claim to fully understand the intricacies of price of goods with or without illegal influence but your point is why we need to secure our borders and overhaul the entire system.  When immigrants (of all types) come here, it shouldn't take mountains of paperwork and years to become legal.  As a country, we need a way to keep them accountable as well as their employers (and adjudicate justice for any broken labor laws onto the employers).  This can't happen if we don't address the number of illegals coming in.

[Drifterrider]

Illegal immigration is bad.

Not immigration.

Can you explain to me why it's bad if they are illegal?

Is it bad if people speed?  That is illegal.  Is it bad if people drink and drive?  That is illegal.  Is it bad if people don't pay their taxes?  That is illegal.

The question is one of law not morality.

[Mel70]

First of all illegal immigrants are not provided any social services, period so their is no drain. Second when my son married a woman from Poland the legal papers said that she would not be eligible for any social services for 20 years and that he had to agree to support her for that length of time so it appears that legal immigrants are draining our $ either.  Illegals work at jobs that citizens are not willing to do. If that was not the case there would not be jobs for them. Do you want to pick fruit in a hot field for 12 hours/day?  Lastly, lets have some empathy for people that are just trying to not starve to death.

The California public school system is proof illegal immigrants get social services. It is a drain when resources are diverted from American citizens to illegal immigrants and their children to just be able to learn to speak English. And while yes it is impossible to get food stamps, welfare, or even to work here legally when you don't have papers, there is a way around many of those problems-starting with a stolen social security number. Roads, schools, hospitals, all public goods that are being stretched too thin these days, why accept millions more people? There is a reason countries have immigration caps and quotas, why should we be any different?
[/quote+


You are implying that immigrants pay no taxes. That's not true. Immigrants pay state taxes in all consumables (8% in CA) and social security although they will never benefit from it. In addition, they keep our standards of living cheaper. Nannies, housekeepers, senior care, these are all jobs performed in large majorities by immigrants.

[TexasRunner]

First of all illegal immigrants are not provided any social services, period so their is no drain. Second when my son married a woman from Poland the legal papers said that she would not be eligible for any social services for 20 years and that he had to agree to support her for that length of time so it appears that legal immigrants are draining our $ either.  Illegals work at jobs that citizens are not willing to do. If that was not the case there would not be jobs for them. Do you want to pick fruit in a hot field for 12 hours/day?  Lastly, lets have some empathy for people that are just trying to not starve to death.

The California public school system is proof illegal immigrants get social services. It is a drain when resources are diverted from American citizens to illegal immigrants and their children to just be able to learn to speak English. And while yes it is impossible to get food stamps, welfare, or even to work here legally when you don't have papers, there is a way around many of those problems-starting with a stolen social security number. Roads, schools, hospitals, all public goods that are being stretched too thin these days, why accept millions more people? There is a reason countries have immigration caps and quotas, why should we be any different?

You are implying that immigrants pay no taxes. That's not true. Immigrants pay state taxes in all consumables (8% in CA) and social security although they will never benefit from it. In addition, they keep our standards of living cheaper. Nannies, housekeepers, senior care, these are all jobs performed in large majorities by immigrants.

Assuming, of course, that they don't work under the table...  Just something to consider.

[Drifterrider]

Assuming, of course, that they don't work under the table...  Just something to consider.
[/quote]

Yes indeed because we all know that no citizen or resident alien would ever work "under the table".  Only the illegals do that.

[chesebert]

First of all illegal immigrants are not provided any social services, period so their is no drain. Second when my son married a woman from Poland the legal papers said that she would not be eligible for any social services for 20 years and that he had to agree to support her for that length of time so it appears that legal immigrants are draining our $ either.  Illegals work at jobs that citizens are not willing to do. If that was not the case there would not be jobs for them. Do you want to pick fruit in a hot field for 12 hours/day?  Lastly, lets have some empathy for people that are just trying to not starve to death.

The California public school system is proof illegal immigrants get social services. It is a drain when resources are diverted from American citizens to illegal immigrants and their children to just be able to learn to speak English. And while yes it is impossible to get food stamps, welfare, or even to work here legally when you don't have papers, there is a way around many of those problems-starting with a stolen social security number. Roads, schools, hospitals, all public goods that are being stretched too thin these days, why accept millions more people? There is a reason countries have immigration caps and quotas, why should we be any different?
[/quote+


You are implying that immigrants pay no taxes. That's not true. Immigrants pay state taxes in all consumables (8% in CA) and social security although they will never benefit from it. In addition, they keep our standards of living cheaper. Nannies, housekeepers, senior care, these are all jobs performed in large majorities by immigrants.

Illegal for employers to hire illegal aliens. I think we should just encourage all of our businesses to break laws so they can provide cheaper goods and services - great idea right?

[hoosier]

Can we all stop pretending that illegal immigration isn't, by definition, breaking the law?  Good people or bad, they are circumventing the process.  That's why any process exists - to make sure things are done correctly and/or fairly.

People come here for any number of reasons, but to root of their rationale is because this place is better than wherever they came from and you can't fault them for that.  But we can't just make up the unwritten rules/laws as we go and who they do and don't apply to based on emotion.

If the process sucks, then change the process.  Until then, stop breaking the law.

[Jack]

You are implying that immigrants pay no taxes. That's not true. Immigrants pay state taxes in all consumables (8% in CA)

Assuming, of course, that they don't work under the table...  Just something to consider.

Even people working under the table pay SALES TAX, which is what the post you quoted was talking about.

[TexasRunner]

Yes indeed because we all know that no citizen or resident alien would ever work "under the table".  Only the illegals do that.

Not what I said at all.  Don't put words in my mouth.

[seattlecyclone]

Can we all stop pretending that illegal immigration isn't, by definition, breaking the law?

I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise.

Good people or bad, they are circumventing the process.  That's why any process exists - to make sure things are done correctly and/or fairly.

Okay, sure. But the process is irredeemably messed up. Read this article about the process. In a nutshell, people from Mexico who have US citizens in their family and are thus in a higher priority for legal immigration still have to wait about 20 years before they can come here legally, due to the extremely low annual caps Congress has put in place for immigrants from Mexico. These people have a choice between staying away from their family for 20 years or breaking a law. What kind of a choice is that? I can't condone lawbreaking, but when the law forces people into an impossible choice I also empathize with those who choose to break that law.

[Cathy]

I also interviewed at amazon, google, facebook, and most of the time I did not make it past the first round.

Have you considered that maybe you just didn't meet the hiring bar at these companies? At reputable major tech companies, the people who make substantive hiring decisions are not even provided with information on the immigration status of the candidate. Even if the candidate can't legally work in the USA, it's not generally relevant to the hiring decision because these companies have offices all around the world and can locate a successful candidate in places with much more relaxed immigration laws.

[seattlecyclone]

I also interviewed at amazon, google, facebook, and most of the time I did not make it past the first round.

Have you considered that maybe you just didn't meet the hiring bar at these companies? At reputable major tech companies, the people who make substantive hiring decisions are not even provided with information on the immigration status of the candidate. Even if the candidate can't legally work in the USA, it's not generally relevant to the hiring decision because these companies have offices all around the world and can locate a successful candidate in places with much more relaxed immigration laws.

I can confirm this. I am a software engineer with experience conducting interviews at three companies that recruit in a similar manner to the ones you name. I interview candidates from all backgrounds, US-born and foreign. I have never once been told what the immigration/visa status is for the candidates I have interviewed; it makes no difference whatsoever in our hiring decision. If we want to hire someone and they happen to need a visa, we have a different department that will work on that. Oftentimes we can't get an H1-B visa for a candidate, so we'll park them in Canada or Europe or Asia for a while. Once they've been with the company for a year it's often possible to get them to the US through an "internal transfer" visa. But again, the top companies aren't depriving Americans of jobs by hiring foreigners. We hire the best, wherever they may be from. We'd love to bring them to the US where they'll pay taxes and support local businesses, but if our country insists on tightening up the immigration policy we'll just increase staffing in other places.

[seattlecyclone]

Hi Seattlecyclone,

Thanks for posting.  I feel like you are making my argument.  My argument was precisely that tech companies are extremely picky and hire only the absolute best candidates.  Now their argument is they NEED more h1b visas to do this to continue innovation, but I would argue that we could continue innovation with the same amount of visas using more American workers too with maybe just a little more training, and this investment would in fact further the American STEM education system, which I care deeply about :)

I understand not everyone will agree.  But that was my initial argument.

So...you think the companies should stop hiring the best candidates worldwide and limit themselves to Americans, even if that would mean the average quality of their employees would go down? How would that be in their best interests? No, they'll continue hiring who they please, but fewer of them will be located in America if that's the way America wants to do things.

[Jrr85]

Straight from Obama's administration:

Illegal Alien
Also known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable.

Can't we all just enforce the god damn law.

I assume you're aware that Obama's administration deported more illegal immigrants than any other President in history.   He's been enforcing that law more than anyone else.   http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

You want more enforcement than that?

Obama's administration has classified more interactions with illegals as deportations. It's less clear whether his administration has actually deported more people.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story,amp.html?client=Safari

[Paul der Krake]

You are absolutely welcome to disagree.  But my point stands that I don't think innovation will die if we don't increase the number of h1b visas.  We will still hire foreign and American workers, of course.  And I think it would be nice if American workers were given more of a chance, don't you?  Since the US is pretty behind in terms of STEM education. 

What about the foreigners who are passed over to inferior candidates because of where they were born? That doesn't sound very fair either.

Americans already have the advantage of being born into the culture in which their prospective employer operates, they speak the language, and are more likely to have friends and acquaintances already working there. That's quite the leg up.

Besides, all the major tech companies have offices abroad where they employ thousands of employees who, by and large, have no interest in moving to the US.

[seattlecyclone]

Hi Seattlecyclone!

You are absolutely welcome to disagree.  But my point stands that I don't think innovation will die if we don't increase the number of h1b visas.  We will still hire foreign and American workers, of course.  And I think it would be nice if American workers were given more of a chance, don't you?  Since the US is pretty behind in terms of STEM education.

How do you figure? The US has some of the best STEM education in the world, so much so that foreigners line up to get admitted to our universities to study here instead of in their own countries in their own languages.

Again, I'm not saying I am 100% correct and you are right American tech companies absolutely feel no loyalty to the American worker.  But I personally feel very loyal to this country and I feel very passionate about encouraging and giving Americans the chance to develop talent in the STEM fields.

Americans have every chance. We have world-class universities throughout our country. We have public secondary schools of varying quality, but good enough in most places that motivated students end up well-prepared for university. Once we graduate, most of the most innovative companies in the world are right here. The deck is already stacked very much in our favor as US citizens. If we're not successful enough, we have only ourselves to blame. Making it harder for the best people from other places to move here and keep America dominant for future generations is a very shortsighted policy and I will not support it.

And for the record, I think H1-B visas are pretty terrible from a policy standpoint. They're tied to a specific employer, so people on those visas can't look around for other jobs as easily as citizens or permanent residents. It's great for employers because they have a captive employee who is extra motivated to work hard and not ask for raises because it's much harder for them to get a different job than it is for a citizen or permanent resident. For the employee? Not so great.

Canada's policy seems much better. They have a point system that takes a bunch of factors into account, but it basically seems like experience in a technical field and a job offer from a Canadian company is in many cases sufficient to grant permanent residence right away. It's much fairer to the worker while still allowing the company to bring in the talent they need to grow.

[shenlong55]

I don't mean to sound condescending Sol and I apologize if I do, but your question is imo so naive maybe it's hard for people to even take it seriously.  But a naive question warrants a thorough answer so I will try my best!

1) The biggest problem I have towards illegal immigration is that is is unfair for other immigrants.  I myself am an immigrant.  I was born in China and came to the US when I was 8 years old.  My Russian Uber driver the other day told me that in Russia there is a lottery system to come to the US.  For every 100,000 Russians that apply, 1 will get selected and he was that 1.  Now I haven't checked this statistic, but I have no reason to believe he would make this up.  I know for a fact, many of my Indian and Chinese acquaintances and colleagues from graduate school reluctantly went home because they couldn't find a job or couldn't renew their visa in the 1 year time frame the US gives for them after they graduate (this is not a non-trivial number of people).  And what is the lottery system like for people in other countries like other African nations, middle east etc?  I'm not sure what the numbers are but I know it's not that easy to just come to the US.  My point is, illegal immigration is like CUTTING THE LINE.  And your question could be posed as, why is it bad to cut in line?  Because IT IS NOT FAIR to the other people who are patiently waiting and abiding by the law, and going back to their home countries in the hopes of being able to legally come to the US again.

2) What is the point of having borders if we don't respect them?  I can see the argument posited by you and many others, well we shouldn't care about just the good of Americans, we should care about the good of everyone.  Sure from the perspective of the least suffering for the most amount of good regardless of nationality, I wont posit an argument to say whether it would be better for each country to take care of it's own citizens the best or not - I don't think anyone can prove one way or the other, but you could be correct.  However, from the perspective of the sovereignty of each nation, I absolutely think that each country has a responsibility to it's own citizens first.  This is for many reasons, not the least of which is because I feel the people who actually pay taxes, vote, etc should be prioritized.  Which brings me to another reason I don't like illegal immigration - the general disrespect of laws and borders and etc.  It would be one thing if we decided we won't have any rules regarding immigration or we will have open borders, but what is the point of painstakingly voting and making these decisions if we do not even enforce them?  Isn't this a giant waste of time and resources and energy?  And I want to note here also, that the US is not the only country who cracks down on illegal immigrants, try moving to China illegally or Canada or Russia, and see how far you get... Basically most if not all developed countries implement laws for immigration and these are sometimes stricter than the US laws.

3) I think someone or a lot of people already mentioned this, but if an illegal immigrant comes to the US and they need to go to the emergency room, or have some kind of medical treatment, the hospital is obligated to treat them.  I don't have any problems with that, but I just want to point out that the LEGAL immigrants and US citizens are the ones footing the bill.  Also illegal immigrants children use the public school system, the roads, public universities etc etc etc  So again, from a fairness perspective, I don't personally perceive that as fair.  You may differ and that is fine, and you should absolutely contribute your own money to make it happen and that is wonderful that you have that heart, but should EVERYBODY be obligated to contribute money towards it?  Because that is currently what is happening, not to mention the cost of running detention centers, border patrol, etc.  That's where I don't agree.

4) I want to make a point about LEGAL immigration as well, especially H1B visas.  Tech companies make a big hoopla about NEEDING h1b visas to find good candidates.  That is absolutely false.  I should know because I work in biotech, and I have a phD in statistics, and almost everyone who I work with has or had an h1b visa.   I also interviewed at amazon, google, facebook, and most of the time I did not make it past the first round.  My point is this, the tech companies do not NEED h1b visas, they WANT h1b visas.  There is a big difference.  They can find American workers who can do the job with maybe a little more training JUST FINE.  But they greedily want to get the cream of crop talent for rock bottom prices (even though they pay virtually no taxes), and in doing so they are ignoring American talent.  I will give you two examples:  I knew 2 computer science graduates (with bachelor degrees) at school who graduated 2 years ago, right now one is a real estate agent, and the other works for his brother's dentistry business.  They are both good programmers, but unable to find a solid job as a programmer that matched their skills and payed competitive salary for where they lived.  At my company, we routinely pass up American graduate students, for sometimes minor reasons.  And when I was a graduate student for 6 years, each incoming class was about 85% Chinese, 10% domestic students, and 5% other, and out of those students we would kick out anywhere from 0% to 50% of the domestic students out of the program each year and NONE of the Chinese students.  The argument was that it's merit based, and if a student fails their pre-qualifying exam then they cannot stay in the program.  The Chinese students have a stronger math background and almost never fail, the American students struggle, and many of them only end up taking a masters because our program kicks them out.  Even though I am Chinese by ethnicity I found this to be sad, because I feel it's a loop.  People complain about how bad that US is in STEM fields, but if American companies hired more Americans, and allowed more American students to stay in graduate school in STEM fields,  then maybe the US as a country would be better at STEM fields.  It's a feedback loop, and it perpetuates itself.  I get there is a fair amount of conjecture in this area, but I personally feel not increasing the number of h1b visas could really help the US train the STEM talent it thinks it needs from other countries.

5) My last argument that I will make is that I think that there is an ideal range of rate for immigration.  Again this is my hypothesis and probably the weakest of the arguments which is why I left it for last, and you can tell me if you think it's incorrect, but I think it makes sense.  When immigrants flood a country, I think it has a tendency to destabilize the culture and identity of the people living there.  For instance the Native Americans were practically wiped out (of course due to disease) but also culturally, and many of them have never felt like they got back this feeling of identity.  Identity is a difficult thing to quantify.  I think immigration and change are inevitable.  But I also think if it happens too fast, it's like that feeling of going back to your home town and seeing every building you remember no longer there, new buildings all replacing it.  It's jarring and I think can be a bit destabilizing to people.  Now I'm not saying that the US has in fact reached this pace, that's arguable and I think Europe may test that threshold soon, but I think that may explain some of the sentiments people feel about illegal or legal immigration in this country.  And I don't think that necessarily makes them a bigot, or racist, or stupid, or redneck or anything at all.  I wish people everywhere could be a little less judgemental :)

I hope I answered your question in a not too astringent fashion, and thanks for allowing me the opportunity to write how I feel :)

-Leah

Not to be condescending, but you seem like the naive one here to me...

1. I don't buy into this concept of fairness that says that someone else has to suffer because I suffered.  If you do, that's fine, but don't act like your way is the one true way of conceiving of fairness.  Also, your metaphor of cutting the line only really works if one person becoming a citizen means it takes longer for someone else to become a citizen.  Depending on how the changes were structured that wouldn't necessarily be the case.

2. Have you really never gone one mile/hour above the speed limit?  If not, should I be advocating to deport you because you don't respect the rule of law?  Our legal system isn't perfect, not all of are laws are necessarily good laws.  Sometimes people break the laws that they don't agree with, that doesn't automatically make them a bad person.  You have to evaluate each situation individually while acknowledging that maybe the law is wrong (it also might be right, but you have to at least consider both sides).

3. As has been pointed out already in this thread, they also likely pay sales taxes and property taxes at least.  So it's not like they're only taking from the system, they're also paying into it.  My gut instinct is that illegal immigration is a slight monetary negative overall, but not enough to be concerned about when there are much bigger budgetary issues out there.  If you've got some studies that would prove me wrong, I'd be glad to take a look though.

4. I don't really have much to say on this point except that, considering how much your other points hinged on 'fairness' this item takes an interesting turn.

5. I think I can agree with this and say that we should carefully consider the rate at which we allow immigration to happen in the future.  But it has no bearing on the people already here.

[ooeei]

I guess I think of it kind of like a really exclusive movie theater.  Imagine there's a crazy long line for the theater, and you have to get there hours in advance to have any chance of getting a ticket.  They run you through a metal detector to make sure you won't shoot up the place.  You get there ahead of time with cash ready to buy the ticket.  3 hours in you notice there's a side door where a bunch of people are piling in with no ticket and no wait. 

Sure, it's not their fault the door is open, or that it's appealing to go there. Chances are most of them aren't trying to go to the same movie as you, and most of them probably aren't armed and looking to do any harm. It's largely the movie theater's fault for having such a long line and an open door. It is illegal and essentially stealing to go in without a ticket, and eventually paying customers prices will be increased to cover the seats those people take up and the mess some of them make.  I probably wouldn't hate them individually if I met them, and most of them are probably decent people.

I still want the theater to lock the door.  It should also kick out people who don't have a ticket, even if they're good people and have reasons for not wanting to wait in line.  Yes, the line should move faster, maybe that can be worked on at the same time.  I certainly don't think the correct response is giving them all free popcorn and soda, and giving them an admissions ticket after the fact while making the door they snuck in even wider and adding a sign to it.

Obviously the analogy isn't perfect.  Part of why the line is long for immigration is due to the background checks and testing involved with gaining citizenship.  Another part is the amount of paperwork that is needed to get into the system.  More of it is just that they're slow, and that there are a LOT of people waiting in line.  It still sucks to see people from other countries wait YEARS for citizenship and go through all this trouble of getting all of their shit together, and then seeing Joe Somebody just walk across a line and start working under the table a week later.  A friend of mine just posted on Facebook that his parents finally have citizenship after 10 years waiting.

If you think our country will be better off by just letting anyone in who wants to come, that's understandable.  Right now we're basically punishing people who try to do things within our laws, and rewarding people who disobey them.  The liberal argument seems to be that we just make all of the illegal folks citizens and are done with it.  I'd be pretty damn pissed off if I waited 10 years for citizenship, and then everyone said "Hey all you folks who just snuck in, FREE POPCORN AND SODA for everyone!"  I think the current system of extremely in depth and time consuming scrutiny on immigrants from over seas that takes years, and essentially no control at all over people coming through Mexico or the southern coast doesn't make any sense.  A combination of speeding up the immigration process and kicking out people who snuck in the side door is the best solution. 

[shenlong55]

...I certainly don't think the correct response is giving them all free popcorn and soda, and giving them an admissions ticket after the fact...

Why not?  If you are perfectly fine giving them all free popcorn, soda and admissions if they wait in line then what's wrong with giving it to them now that they're in the theater?  You don't seem to be attributing any inherent value to the process of waiting in line.  It just seems like you want person A to wait in line solely because person B waited in line.  I'm sorry, but I really feel like pushing back against this idea that fairness requires others to suffer just because I suffered.

[daverobev]

...I certainly don't think the correct response is giving them all free popcorn and soda, and giving them an admissions ticket after the fact...

Why not?  If you are perfectly fine giving them all free popcorn, soda and admissions if they wait in line then what's wrong with giving it to them now that they're in the theater?  You don't seem to be attributing any inherent value to the process of waiting in line.  It just seems like you want person A to wait in line solely because person B waited in line.  I'm sorry, but I really feel like pushing back against this idea that fairness requires others to suffer just because I suffered.

Your path leads to anarchy. You're making the mistake of thinking about the people that already came in illegally; the problem is the signal you send to people that may be considering it. If you say to the world "illegal immigrants will be granted full status after a period of X years" then a) nobody will queue and b) you will have a flood of people coming illegally.

Until we're in a world where anyone can live anywhere with no barrier, you simply have to have a solid system. Especially when you are attractive. The more attractive a place to live, the tougher the border needs to be.

[FIPurpose]

This is strange dichotomy in the Republican party, and I think there's also some cognitive dissonance for the evangelical side of the party.

1. On the one hand you have everyone saying that it's illegal. We are a country of laws, therefor you have to be punished for breaking them.

Honestly, I think this is sad. We are a country that was founded on disrespecting tyrannical laws. Laws in and of themselves are not a reason for following them nor does it make them right. There have been several that have said effectively "Yeah it's a bad law, but it's the law." Then why are you trying to enforce it? Republicans would drop this if they could start to reconnect with their libertarian/Rand Paul side of the aisle.

2. Evangelicals are very unforgiving about illegal immigration.

I remember when I visited Mexico with a Mexican preacher. Usually preachers have pet topics about things they feel are ruining the lives of people around them. In the South it was usually about dressing up and alcohol, in the west, it's about gambling or divorce. Well to this guy people not taking illegal immigration as a serious sin was his pet topic when visiting border towns. This idea that because Christians should follow the law (they should) and disobeying the law is sin QED illegal immigration is a sin. And for some reason, granting mass forgiveness without repentance drives evangelicals up the wall. You can point to scripture, doesn't matter. You will be deemed a criminal and damned until you beg for forgiveness from God and your local 1st Baptist church.

Also Evangelicals want to see consequences. A common sentiment is that "sin has consequences". I think it's an idea that goes beyond just Evangelicals and pervades the mindset of much rural America. Ironically (or maybe sadly), the solution would be for people to accept a better (sc. forgiveness) and truer form of Christianity.

[shenlong55]

...I certainly don't think the correct response is giving them all free popcorn and soda, and giving them an admissions ticket after the fact...

Why not?  If you are perfectly fine giving them all free popcorn, soda and admissions if they wait in line then what's wrong with giving it to them now that they're in the theater?  You don't seem to be attributing any inherent value to the process of waiting in line.  It just seems like you want person A to wait in line solely because person B waited in line.  I'm sorry, but I really feel like pushing back against this idea that fairness requires others to suffer just because I suffered.

Your path leads to anarchy. You're making the mistake of thinking about the people that already came in illegally; the problem is the signal you send to people that may be considering it. If you say to the world "illegal immigrants will be granted full status after a period of X years" then a) nobody will queue and b) you will have a flood of people coming illegally.

Until we're in a world where anyone can live anywhere with no barrier, you simply have to have a solid system. Especially when you are attractive. The more attractive a place to live, the tougher the border needs to be.

A) Why does anybody need to queue?  What is the value in queuing?
b) Going back to your analogy, if the side door is locked how is this flood of people going to get in besides the queue?

I'm not arguing that we don't need an immigration system at this point in time, just that it doesn't need to take decades and there's no reason to make the people who are already here suffer just because others have.  I just don't see why we can't take steps to further secure our borders, improve the currently broken immigration system and provide a path to citizenship for those already here all at the same time.  Sure some people may still get in illegally, but with more secure borders and an improved legal immigration system it should be reduced even if the path to citizenship does entice a few peopleto attempt it who otherwise wouldn't.

[DoubleDown]

As long as resources are limited (so, for all of humanity), it is natural to want to preserve what is yours, and does not make you a racist or bigot for setting up rules to control resources. If you had unlimited resources to hand out (jobs, housing, schools, social safety nets, food, health care, language training, etc.), then it would make sense to give them out freely. But when they're limited, you can only provide them to one person to the probable detriment of another.

Pick your analogy, it doesn't matter. Take my house as an example on a tinier but very relevant scale: I wish I had enough room and money and food and clothes to allow every single orphan and homeless person and immigrant to take up residence, but I don't. So I have to set limits on who I let live here. I don't have an open door policy where anyone can come and live, and I certainly wouldn't let anyone wander in without vetting them for the safety of all the others already here. If you're going to cry to me about why should I be the winner of the lottery to have a house and food while others go without, I'll just say life isn't always fair and we do what we can to help, but we can't solve everyone's problem, especially if it's to the detriment of my own family.

[grmagne]

If you take a hypothetical country of 10,000,000 people and bring in 1,000 immigrants every year it should never be a problem. Any country in the world should easily absorb small amounts of immigrants and over time the children and grandchildren of immigrants will be able to seamlessly integrate into the greater society. However, if that same country has 500,000 immigrants per year then I guarantee there will be huge social unrest very quickly. No country can absorb that many people sustainably every year.

So the real question is how many immigrants a country can sustainably integrate into the society.  The two numbers I suggested are extreme, but the right answer should be somewhere in between. Luckily there are two very simple ways to figure out whether your population can handle the current level of immigration. (1) Public opinion polls and (2) Elections. If people are unhappy with immigration they’ll let you know. For example, France has an election coming up in 2017 and there’s a far-right wing anti-immigration party called National Front currently polling around 30%. I’ve read articles recently on the BBC and Economist mentioning a real possibility that their party could grow to the 50% required to win the upcoming election.  I know virtually nothing about French politics but if an extremist anti-immigration party is polling that high then something has gone very, very wrong with the country’s immigration policy. I don’t know what the problem is, but something has gone very wrong.

To me, France’s logical course of action is to severely restrict immigration (except for needed skilled labour) until normalcy returns to society. Over time the immigrant population should integrate into society, anti-immigrant sentiment should decrease to almost zero and then in the future it would be time to re-evaluate a new level of (sustainable) immigration. Incredibly though, that’s not what is happening at all. From what I’ve read the mainstream French parties want to maintain the current levels of immigration while demonizing FN supporters as bigots and racists. That sounds like such a recipe for disaster to me. It’s only going to get worse until both sides learn the other’s point of view.

The United States is so hard to figure out. I remember people talking about the U.S. possibly transforming into a post-racial country back in 2008. Whenever I visit, it seems like people are accepting of foreigners and open to immigration, etc. but I’ve misunderstood the national sentiment completely. The current levels must be too high if nearly half the society thinks Donald Trump is the solution. Maybe Americans are OK with the current levels of legal immigration? But if tens of millions of people are that upset with illegal immigration then it has to be dealt with before people get angrier. In this thread, people have already described why they’re upset with illegal immigration and I don’t think that should be ignored (the recent presidential election being a clear example of what happens when the mainstream politicians & media ignore the wishes of large numbers of voters).

[sol]

but I’ve misunderstood the national sentiment completely. The current levels must be too high if nearly half the society thinks Donald Trump is the solution.

Don't be fooled by claims that Americans actually supported Trump.  Remember that more Americans actually voted for Clinton than voted for Trump, but the state distribution of those votes still gave Trump an electoral victory.

Approximately 30% of eligible voters supported Trump in this election, while 31.5% supported Clinton.  Trump didn't get "nearly half", or a majority, or most, or even more than his opponent. 

Americans voted for Hillary Clinton.  The electoral college elected Trump anyway, because that's how our constitution says we should choose a president.

[SisterX]

Globalization also plays a role.  And immigrants today don't integrate as well.  They form small enclaves, isolate themselves, and have their own rules.  Technology plays a role in that.  WHen my parents came over 35 years ago, you got news from home by mail, you made 1 phone call a year back home, no Chinese newspapers, no Chinese anything, you were FORCED to learn English, integrate, watch American movies, eat American food, there wasn't a choice.  Today with technology, skype, internet, immigrants can make their own mini-China/India/Mexico/Middle East/Portugal/Korea, etc and isolate themselves.  You don't even need to know English anymore as Spanish is available everywhere.  They don't always respect rule of law and don't always talk to white people.  Basically, white people feel left out wah. Americans just want immigrants to respect rule of law and procedure, not sure that's a bad thing.  Oh and smile, say hello, be polite, don't spit on the floor, don't shoot/massacre others, don't crash planes into buildings, and make America your home.  Citizenship means America is your home, it's your country.  Many newer immigrants have closer ties to homeland than immigrants before and see citizenship as a right to work, not home.  Though this is a global thing overall with human migrations.  I fault technology as part of the reason for this division and separation of ethnic groups.

....
....
....
....
You clearly need to study your history some more. Have you never heard of Little Italy or Chinatown before? Yeah...those enclaves were started long before current technology. Oh, and the term "ghetto" as meaning "an area mostly inhabited by non-white or non-Christian people" was also long before modern technology.
Your homework: go read, and not just shit that's going to enforce your current ideas. I mean actual reading for expanding your mind and worldview. For example, my current read is "The Worst Hard Time" about the Dust Bowl, because I didn't know as much about that as I would like to. In many ways, I'm seeing echoes of what happened back then coming into play in current politics. Many of the same groups that are being demonized now (immigrants...) were also demonized back then because of a perceived unfairness, that the system was rigged to help them more than it was Good Upstanding Tax-Paying White Citizens.
Would you be okay with illegal immigrants if they assimilated to the dominant culture? Why? Why should they have to lose their heritage? Does it make you uncomfortable? Is it just because you can't understand it? This country has never been built on the idea that we should have one dominant culture. Hell, we even embrace our regional stuff: BBQ in the south, cowboys in the southwest, etc. So, why should immigrants have to lose their culture to become part of the US?

To the rule of law people: on my bike ride to work I get passed pretty much daily by people who are driving 50 mph in a 30 mph zone. I know this because there are speed signs going either way that flash their speed for all to see. It doesn't help, they don't slow down. Should we toss them out of the country? Because they're far more dangerous to my health and well-being in their giant trucks and SUVs than any illegal immigrant ever has been.
Haven't you ever speeded too? Lawbreaker! What about that rule of law you hold so precious? You've never looked for a loophole so that you didn't have to pay quite as many taxes to pay for all those services you think are overburdened? You never drank underage? You've never broken a law, even unwittingly? (As in the case of "illegals" who were brought here as children.) Then what makes you so much better than them? The fact that you were born here? Very strong argument.

As for the idea that preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country will somehow reduce crime, most illegal immigrants are, other than their actual immigration status, law-abiding citizens. Most of the large crimes that happen in this country (massive defrauding a la Wells Fargo and mass shootings) are, again, perpetrated by either white males or companies owned/governed by white males. Yet black people are still the ones being stereotyped and shot in the streets for no reason....

The reason so many of us are saying these thoughts and attitudes are racist is because of the people you want kicked out: Asians, Hispanics, Africans. As Sol pointed out, the people we think of when we think of illegal immigrants are NOT white. When you're talking about all those people cramming themselves into one house, who are you thinking of? I can guarantee you're not thinking of white college students living 2-3 to a room, but how many of us did that when we were in college? I know I lived in a house with 9 other people for a while. Some roommates didn't even have jobs, were living on student loans and the college health plan. Were we a burden on resources? Or is that acceptable? Where do you draw the line and why? Why is it not okay to have immigrants living in a house together to save money?
I realize that it's very hard for people to recognize their own biases. Also, the 'racists are bad and I'm not a bad person so I can't be racist' thought line is very alluring. But, your biases are certainly at play here, and some of them are quite racist. To not point that out, not acknowledge it, is silly.
So many Trump supporters said that they liked the fact he "tells it like it is". But now, when people point out that their biases are showing, the message is just wrong. So maybe it's not that people liked him for telling it like it is, it's that they liked him for telling it the way they see it. That's a very different thing.