The importance of immigration


Everyone seeking entry into the US is assumed to be an undesirable. That’s why you spend so much money on forms, records, financial statements, interviews, background checks, medical exams to legitimately come here - it’s on YOU and your sponsor to prove you’re not. Even legal and legit asylees undergo background checks. They’re not just allowed in to wander freely of their own accord. People who apply for entry either come in under the VWP (Visa Waiver Program) using an ESTA clearance - which means they’ve got a scannable passport that we can glean information about them from and they’ve submitted for advance permission to enter - or they’ve submitted preliminary paperwork for an entry visa through ICE and have been granted clearance to enter.]

If you enter as a refugee or requesting asylum, guess what? You have to wait to be checked out, even summarily, before we’ll just let you in the door. And you are held in a detention facility until that clearance is granted.

And rightfully so.


Hahaha, best post on the thread.


Why is pure politics in “Social Justice”?

Never the 'twain shall meet.


Have you read the.encyclical about social.justice?


You are not alone in your amusement. I am amused by the irony that I become the free-market, economically conservative, pro-business guy on this topic. But then, we have been let China gain on us economically using their powerful labor force. If we fall, as we become more and more the human rights villains on the world stage, maybe they will become less as they rise.

I guess Trump’s friendship with Kim might be preparing in case he needs a new job in a year or two.


It doesn’t have to be, and it is not as much as most people think it is. In fact, what Trump is doing is more costly. Those that work, even illegally, pay taxes. Allow them to work legally, and they can pay taxes commensurate with their cost. If that is too much, then they can go back. Consumption tax and property tax have the advantage of insuring every one pays something.

Historically, hasn’t there always been such a people? It seems the more nationalism rises, so does the need for a despised people. The Italians and Eastern Europeans all had a turn. Then, of course, there was the Irish, everyone’s favorite people to hate, first the British who killed them in the hundred’s of thousands, then the Americans, who killed even more in the Civil War. Then, like all veterans who are used and abused in war, they were not, as a people treated as human beings with equal dignity.

If we did not have illegal immigration, I am sure that the current swell of nationalism would have found some target for hate and bigotry.


Amusement and bemusement are not the same. I am the latter.

I guess you just don’t want to answer my question.


What question is that?


An open border means letting anyone in, no immigration rules, just if you can get here, you can stay.

You wrote: I don think anyone advocates for open borders. Welcoming illegal immigrants, say by letting them be legal, is not the same as an open border. It is quite the opposite.

To me what you wrote seems contradictory. My question is can you explain the contradiction? How is letting anyone in and giving them all a path to citizenship different from letting anyone who gets in stay? Aside from your suggestion that they also be given citizenship if they want it.


Correct me if I’m missing something, but the USCCB has called for permanent residency, not citizenship as per this document:

So, I’ll adjust my original question: Are you advocating a path to permanent residence (called for by the USCCB), or are you calling for a “just path to citizenship”? If the latter, can you explain what is your idea of a “just path to citizenship”?


I do not believe in letting anyone in. There are people who should never be permitted entry. What I would like to see, is letting people in based on criteria, not quota. One such criteria would be working and paying a tax to support the services they use. I mean it is the opposite of an open border because such a welcoming stance, and one that is easy for honest workers to use, would make the border more secure, as we would have records and tracking of people that enter.

Most of them are taxpayers.

It is of interest that most of the services used, such as roads schools, emergency medical access, are funded through consumption taxes. But I am a big believer everyone should pay taxes.


Exactly whom do you think foots the bill for illegal immigration?

It’s ultimately paid by the taxpayer.


I am totally against just granting citizenship myself.

My husband came here legally, married to an American citizen. They didn’t offer him citizenship and won’t for twenty years. Completely and utterly unfair to just hand over citizenship. Thousands have applied - or have been here legally as LPRs for years - and won’t get it just handed to them. They either have to ask or wait for it to be offered automatically.

It’s also unfair to just hand over lawful permanent resident status. We have people in the queue for that who have been doing it correctly and have been waiting for years.

Absolutely not on both counts.

Grant a leave to enter or a temporary visa. Then apply like everyone else. That’s a “just path”. It’s the one that already exists.

Just my two cents.


They are not Federal taxpayers. They cannot be. Sales tax and property tax don’t foot the bill. Federal tax revenue does.

Weird that that was quoted before I even said it.


I agree. My wife is an immigrant and her family followed the law. She is now a citizen.

The idea that someone who cuts in line or breaks the law to enter should get some kind of benefit for doing so, does not seem right. I agree with some kind of temporary visa, and the just path to permanent residency means getting in line with those who follow the law.


An open border would be considered welcoming in that we allow people in, so I still don’t understand that.

Overall, I think you have some interesting, thought-out ideas there.


Nice 9gag meme but the amount of money the government takes to enforce border security is far less than the amount required to support tens of millions of welfare leaches.


I will say that I agree but my mind was changed on implementation by Brother JReducation, whose background had given him insight to the matter. It’s like the parable of the workers in the vineyard. The workers who had been there all day were bummed out because they received the same pay as those who had arrived later in the day.

As long as we receive what is just in our individual case, does it matter that others receive more?


Right. They neither pay into, or can receive federal services, as a rule. However, remember that we have many Americans that also pay no federal income tax. But we will be slipping from the immigration to fair tax. I am just saying, the do pay taxes. I think the idea of a flat guest work tax for federal expense totally acceptable, though not a very high one, as most federal taxes go to the debt, the military and entitlements, which do not constitute services immigrants cost us.

Sales tax and property taxes do foot the bill of most local services ( the ones actually used), at least in my state they do.


Yes - when you have played the immigration game, and I have, of course it does.

Is it fair when you work somewhere for ten years and find out that a brand new employee in your same position with equal education and no experience makes more per hour than you do? No, it isn’t.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit