For those who are curious...

[LucasJamison]

There is only one problem with this statement. If they are not citizens, they do not have the rights (like trial by jury and presumption of innocense) afforded by our laws. If they are here and are not ciizens, they are guilty and should be deported.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Note that "person" is used, rather than "citizen".  The wording of the United States Consitution is very particular and deliberate.  Legal resident or not, they are afforded due process of law.  I happen to think this is a good thing.

This much is true, it is scary how different you are from your character, yet pull it off very well.

I think it'd be a hell of a lot scarier if I was anything like my character, actually.
 

I am not a big fan of an electric fence, however I do agree with a fence and additional border patrol agents. The cost is paltry in comparison with what we will save in schooling, social programs, major cultural changes that will come as the country becomes more of a Mexican American Union, and Health Care.

I haven't seen any cost estimates for initial construction or maintenance.  It looks like it would take a minimum of about 400,000,000,000 to fully fund the existing proposed legislation that you're not happy with.  That's over a several year period (5-8, can't quite recall which), but it's only 10,000 or so additional border guards and about 700 miles of fencing.  I think you would be able to see where such measures could easily run into the trillions over the course of 30 years, as do the costs you mention.  How, then, are they "paltry in comparison"?

To sum up my position, I believe we could start with suring up the border, then we could deal with those who are here already. It would make these plans to integrate those who are already here more palatable to those who live in the border states especially that are seeing their economies getting devastated. Many of these illegals are otherwise law abiding residents. After we insure there will not be another surge of illegals that are given hope by amnesty, measures can be drafted to help those who we can integrate into our melting pot. One of the biggest mistakes Ronald Reagan made was giving amnesty without significant border enforcement measures. The surge of immigrants coming across the border dramatically spiked after that measure. I simply want to see us do it right this time.

I can see that, and agree that if President Reagan wanted to stop illegal immigration, he went about it badly.  I'll also note that I don't think he had any interest whatsoever in stopping illegal immigration, for the same reasons neither of the President Bushes had/has any interest in doing so, or President Clinton, or for that matter just about any US president we've ever had.

I think your position is reasonable, but I'm still not sure where the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of '07 falls short of this - it gives everyone and their cousin a temp visa, to get them on the books, but then requires a review for perm visa ONLY AFTER the border is effectively secured (or, rather, only after certain povisions are implemented, the result of which is intended to secure the border - an important difference).  I mean, you don't want to have 12 million or so people running around with no papers for another 10 years while fences get built, right?  So get 'em on the books and they're trackable.  Deciding whether or not to deny permanent applications or renewals for them later on is easier when you first know who they are.

[Horace]

I will not be at all surprised if, due to an inability or lack of desire to do the necessary work to understand and engage in a worthwhile fashion in a discussion that pushes the bounds of your comfort zone, you wish to withdraw at this point.

I thought the reason I gave was quite clear. "PS. Because this conversation, as they usually do, is taking up more time than I ever wanted to give it..."
Sorry I didnt put it in terms that were easier for you to get.
And was that "comfort zone" crack supposed to make me laugh?

[Alf Cunha]

**  So .. how did we go from this ...

Besides, such ad hominums do not further your arguements.

**  To this?

I thought the reason I gave was quite clear. Sorry I didnt put it in terms that were easier for you to get.
And was that "comfort zone" crack supposed to make me laugh?

** I don't have a strong position either way on the issue, though I do feel that simply granting citizenship would be a slap in the face to those who went through proper channels (the main problem lies with the system - the question is how to fix it)

    Two things did catch my attention: the first is the remark regarding a person's character versus their player.  I really hope people, as a whole, do not think that characters are an accurate reflection of their players.  Much like Dave, I play a character who - aside from being female -  is immoral, biased, misanthropic, sadistic, and egocentric ... I would hope that no one thinks this is a reflection of me.  Further, if the characters played in this game truly reflect the people playing it I have even less faith in humanity than I did before.

    The other thing is, every time I read this thread I can't help but mentally replace the American speakers with indigenous people of North America and the illegal immigrants with the "brave pioneers who came to this country to find a better life"

[Horace]

**  So .. how did we go from this ...

**  To this?

Well, put the pieces back in that you left out, and it looks to me like I was responding to insults (real or percieved) one by pointing it out, and the other by responding in kind.
I responded to what I percieved as an insult derived from a twisting of my reasons for not spending more time in the discussion, with a mild somewhat sarcastic insult of my own.
Now, I know this will astound all of you, I know it did me, but I guess I'm just not so perfect after all.
Damn.


Oh, and I did specifically refer to lucas, not Dave. Yes, I do know the difference between character and player, even if I am so bad with names that I still can only easily connect some peoples faces with their character names.

Brian,
Who is still spending way more time in this conversation than I ever intended.
Damn, there goes a bit more perfection....

[LucasJamison]

I thought the reason I gave was quite clear. "PS. Because this conversation, as they usually do, is taking up more time than I ever wanted to give it..."
Sorry I didnt put it in terms that were easier for you to get.
And was that "comfort zone" crack supposed to make me laugh?

It was supposed to make me laugh, actually.  Mission accomplished. 

But it was also intended seriously - obviously, the conversation was getting into territory you are neither prepared to explore, or comfortable working in.  Rather, I assume a default lack of comfort given the lack of preparation.  Few people feel comfortable holding forth on topics they are not well versed in - those who ARE comfortable doing so tend to be obnoxious blowhards who're too stupid to know when to shut up.  I am often just such an obnoxious blowhard myself, though not in this particular circumstance.

And your reason sucks - if you're not ready to have a conversation, don't jump on it in the first place.  Like I said - no one's asking you to post 2-3 times a day in the thread, but if you've got things left to say, or anything left to contribute - do so at some point.  The thread'll still be here next week, and the week after.  If you have nothing left of value to contribute - say so and bow out.  Otherwise, whether it's your intent or not, you give a distinct impression of a valley-girl style "whatever" and walking off in a huff.  Just sayin'.

[LucasJamison]

** I don't have a strong position either way on the issue, though I do feel that simply granting citizenship would be a slap in the face to those who went through proper channels (the main problem lies with the system - the question is how to fix it)

It's got to be less than 100 years since people generally started seeing immigration as a problem.  I mean, no one ever liked immigrants, but we needed bodies to fill up America throughout its westward expansion and even after that, and US birth rates weren't enough for that kind of growth.  Whether anyone liked it or not, no one was going to criminalize something the country so badly needed.

I think the problem is made much worse by not even having a clear goal.  I mean, why is unchecked immigration a problem?  Because it poses an initial drain on the economy.  If people immigrate to the US without marketable job skills, or money of their own, especially if they don't speak English, then they don't do very well, especially not at first.  So they draw off the social services grid and don't pay back into the system anywhere near that rate.  The key thing is: at first.  If, overall, the net lifetime contribution is positive, rather than negative, then we should consider the initial drain a long term loan.  If the system can sustain the unrestricted growth rate initially, then over time it's a good thing.

Unless the immigration debate has been so completely hijacked by racist/xenophobic or other interest groups to the point where that the entire anti-immigration position is fallacious (which no one seems to be claiming), it seems the system can't sustain that initial load.  So some bottlenecking needs to occur.  What I'm waiting for is a purely economic, not legal or moral, analysis of just how much immigration the US can support.  If we can afford to support 5 million new "low skill" immigrants a year, then let's do it.  If it's 100,000, then we need to talk about how we can get the number down that far.  What are the numbers, and how do we get there?

We WANT our population to grow, net, over time, we just need to have a handle on it.  All this bluster about legality and the propriety of line-jumping clouds the issue to the point where you can't even really talk about it, you know?

    Two things did catch my attention: the first is the remark regarding a person's character versus their player.  I really hope people, as a whole, do not think that characters are an accurate reflection of their players. 

Well, to be fair, I don't see how anyone would interpret his original remark to be confusing me with Lucas - I certainly didn't think so.  The intent was that obviously, to portray him the way I do, I must have an understanding and certain appreciation of sarcarm, flaunting authority, going against established social propriety - all of which is true.  But I wanted to point out that in Lucas, I let the worst of all of these things play out, and that while within the bounds of moderated simulation, it's alright to explore these parts of ourselves, we shouldn't glorify or take pride in them, because in the end they're not really cool.

I may've snuck in a backhanded dig about player/character conflation, and that was me unfairly playing to the audience.

    The other thing is, every time I read this thread I can't help but mentally replace the American speakers with indigenous people of North America and the illegal immigrants with the "brave pioneers who came to this country to find a better life" [/b][/size]

No one likes to let a pesky thing like history get in the way of progress. ;p

[Horace]

It was supposed to make me laugh, actually.  Mission accomplished. 
 Otherwise, whether it's your intent or not, you give a distinct impression of a valley-girl style "whatever" and walking off in a huff.  Just sayin'.

Obviously snipped for brevity.

As I said, I had not meant to invest as much time as this thread turned out requiring.

However, if you have something going on in your head that doesnt allow you to accept the reason given, and instead compells you to come up with insults and some kind of laughable amateur psychology "outside your comfort zone" crap to make yourself feel good, then enjoy yourself.

Dont waste your time responding, as I do not have time to waste on a conversation with someone who can not grasp that when someone says they dont have time, all it means is they dont have time.

Oh, gee, I did some insulting of my own. There goes a bit more perfection.
Damn.

[Alf Cunha]

it looks to me like I was responding to insults (real or percieved) one by pointing it out, and the other by responding in kind.
I responded to what I percieved as an insult derived from a twisting of my reasons for not spending more time in the discussion, with a mild somewhat sarcastic insult of my own.

**  Brian, it seems you're taking this thread a little too personally (remember, it is the flames and rants category - so you know debates may get heated so there is really no reason to take any of this personally).  I was pointing out that your posts were starting to take on a personal after you had advised someone else to avoid said behavior.

Now, I know this will astound all of you, I know it did me, but I guess I'm just not so perfect after all.
Damn.

**  That's just passive-aggressive behavior for which there is really no need - furthermore it makes you come off as a bit juvenile (granted, many of us have done this sort of thing - me included - but let's call each other on it and go back to rational discussion.

Oh, and I did specifically refer to lucas, not Dave. Yes, I do know the difference between character and player, even if I am so bad with names that I still can only easily connect some peoples faces with their character names.

**  The comment to which you are referring was a general statement about people's behavior/perceptions - it actually had little to do with your statement other than the fact that it prompted the thought.

Who is still spending way more time in this conversation than I ever intended.
Damn, there goes a bit more perfection....

As I said, I had not meant to invest as much time as this thread turned out requiring.

Dont waste your time responding, as I do not have time to waste on a conversation with someone who can not grasp that when someone says they dont have time, all it means is they dont have time.

**  Okay, yeah, we get it.  No one is demanding that you respond at all, much less with any frequency (actually, you don't even have to respond to this if you happen to read it).  What Dave stated was simply an observation that may or may not be correct (though some of your excessive reactions are doing more to prove his theory than debunk it).

Oh, gee, I did some insulting of my own. There goes a bit more perfection.
Damn.

**  Again, there are better ways to approach an argument such as this.  Had you not wanted to continue the conversation you could have given a parting statement pertaining to your position and bowed out, with the caveat that you might stop in and add a comment or two.  The fact that you appear to be growing more and more defensive is only adding credence to Dave's comments.

[Alf Cunha]

I think the problem is made much worse by not even having a clear goal.  I mean, why is unchecked immigration a problem?  If the system can sustain the unrestricted growth rate initially, then over time it's a good thing.

**  I'm primarily going to speak from a personal perspective, and my knowledge base on the topic is far from expansive.  The illegal immigrants have obviously contributed to the country's economic growth - if there were no jobs for them to fill then they wouldn't be here and they wouldn't have steady employment.  As far as looking at the problem in the long term, the American political machine - not to mention the average voter - does not seem capable of looking past the immediate future.  Our culture, as a whole, is one of a materialistic here-and-now, and until we can somehow get away from that mode of thinking the problems that plague the nation will continue to grow (sooner or later if you want to get something you're going to have to make a sacrifice somewhere).

If we can afford to support 5 million new "low skill" immigrants a year, then let's do it.  If it's 100,000, then we need to talk about how we can get the number down that far.  What are the numbers, and how do we get there? All this bluster about legality and the propriety of line-jumping clouds the issue to the point where you can't even really talk about it, you know?

**  I'm certain that if the economists and politicos put their mind to it they could come up with a reasonable number for this, as well as develop an approach that will satisfy both sides of the issue (whether it will actually happen ... that's another story altogether).

Well, to be fair, I don't see how anyone would interpret his original remark to be confusing me with Lucas - I certainly didn't think so.

**  I agree, I don't think Brian was actually thinking you and Lucas were one and the same.  The comment just triggered an observation that I've made in the past.  When your interaction with someone in a game is primarily character-based it seems to me that people begin to associate the traits of the character to the player.  I think part of that is because some people just aren't good role-players and tend to "play themselves" another part is simply the human tendency to generalize. Just saying - get to know the people you rp with, you might be surprised that they're nothing like their characters.

No one likes to let a pesky thing like history get in the way of progress. ;p

**  Absolutely ;-P  On a related note, I happened to stumble upon a thread somewhere with people 'debating' (read arguing) the immigration issue.  At one point a pro-immigration writer expounded something along the lines of "well next week [May 5th] we're going to be celebrating our independence and waving our flag on your soil, so ha!" (the sad part is that May 5 celebrates Mexico's defeat of a far superior invading French force - their independence is September 16 - it just amazes me how people will speak so passionately on the subject of culture when they don't even know their own history)

[Frigemall]

I am all for Legal Immigration. I would happily see all the immigration numbers be increased. The problem with illegal immigration is that there is no way of integrating them into society. Many illegals form whole communities that resemble their home countries with just a better financial system. The goal of putting quotas on legal immigration is to hopefully keep track of those in our borders and to help them integrate by insisting that they learn at least the basics of our language and culture. Many of the people that are trying to get into our country that are turned away are highly educated people that could contribute quite a bit, but they are turned away becaue many feel we are over what we can handle mostly because of the huge amounts of illegals. When you have so many from one country trying to come in, you threaten to change the culture. Already our country is forced to be bilingual and in many cases multilingual. Some change to our culture is good. The melting pot ideal is what this country has been about for years. When you have so many from one culture, you change it and make it so we have to adapt instead of those coming here. I think this is wrong. If someone wants to come here to add to our country, I say I am all for it. If someone wants to come in and change it to fit their ideals, then I say it is wrong.

[GM John]

Dave wrote:

> And your reason sucks - if you're not ready to have a conversation, don't jump on it in the first place.

I've said this same thing to this same person on this same board after he did the same thing last year. 

He said at the time that he avoids such things and that he will not be drawn into political discussions.  Yet there he was posting.

He even says here and now that "this conversation, as they usually do, is taking up more time than I ever wanted to give it..."

Usually do makes it clear that he realizes this has happened before and implies that the speaker should have known it was likely to happen again now.  Einstein's definition of insanity, inserted here for no reason at all: repeating the same process over and over but expecting a different outcome.

I agree with your perceptions and assumptions of his reasons for withdrawing.  Even if his stated reason is also true, yours ring true for this observer, and they are not mutually exclusive.

You'd think a gamer would realize that when you withdraw from a conversation you provoke an attack of opportunity. 

[LucasJamison]

I agree with your perceptions and assumptions of his reasons for withdrawing.  Even if his stated reason is also true, yours ring true for this observer, and they are not mutually exclusive.

When you spend enough time reading message boards and blogs, you begin to see these patterns.  I've said, in less diplomatic moments, that people who say things like this must either be idiots or liars.  Idiot may not be the best way to describe it -- maybe a complete lack of introspection or self-awareness?  A willful misuse or misunderstanding of the terminology I'm using when they respond?  But I think for most of the worst one's it outright lying.  To themselves if not intentionally to me.

I don't know enough to say whether racism is a key motivator for a majority of anti-imigration groups.  The issue is confused greatly because so many of those most likely to immediately and loudly proclaim their lack of racism haven't the slightest idea what they're talking about when racism comes up in a remotely academic sense.  I think some degree of xenophobia is there for a significant percentage, probably a larger one that for which the primary motivator is racism particularly.  There is definitely a desire to punish people, and I have to wonder about people for whom punishment of others brings joy or satisfaction.  I mean, they get all Judge Dredd about immigration, but when you get to a point where taking that same hard line would conflict with another of their positions, now you get a chorus of "But that's different!".  And I'm not saying this all true necessarily of... is it Brian?  (I'm not sure we've met.)  But that's what I see enough of that I'm just not willing to give the benefit of the doubt.  I mean, you show ME that you're reasonable, well-intentioned, and educated enough about the topic that your opinion should matter to me, but I won't assume that about people anymore, you know?

I think most people would agree that as it stands now, the immigration system is problematic and not a good thing (this would be true for those who want totally open borders as it would be for people who want totally closed borders).  Like so many great political successes it pisses EVERYONE off, so no one can build consensus by ganging up on the one group that isn't.   Well, that's not entirely true - business interests that are well served by having a large undocumented labor pool OUGHT to get the lion's share of the flack, but for some reason seem untouchable in this.

You'd think a gamer would realize that when you withdraw from a conversation you provoke an attack of opportunity. 

And then, of course, there's that.

Also, if you want a way to save face and just end things without further comment?  Stop responding.  It's not like a face-to-face conversation you're just walking off in a huff about.  So it's not just weirdly disingenuous, it's kinda... silly.

[LucasJamison]

Our culture, as a whole, is one of a materialistic here-and-now, and until we can somehow get away from that mode of thinking the problems that plague the nation will continue to grow (sooner or later if you want to get something you're going to have to make a sacrifice somewhere).

Definitely.  I mean, there's nothing wrong with a little bit of "don't care how, I want it nooooooooooooowwww" - it can provide necessary motivation to excel and achieve new heights.  Even the sky isn't the limit of ambition, and I think that attitude that nothing's impossible and that if need be, we can do anything, is not only necessary but good for people.  The problem becomes remembering to aggressively guard against the unfortunate companions to ambition - greed and a sense of entitilement.

**  I'm certain that if the economists and politicos put their mind to it they could come up with a reasonable number for this, as well as develop an approach that will satisfy both sides of the issue (whether it will actually happen ... that's another story altogether).

Well, I don't know that you CAN satisfy all, or even most people on this.  What you can definitely do by laying out the numbers is cut out the bullshit.  Anyone who really thinks that deporting 12 million plus people and slamming shut the borders is going to cut their taxes and improve the availability of chariy and emergency care at hospitals has no f'ing clue what they're talking about.  Those people need educating.  The ones who use those as reasonable-sounding excuses to justify their guy reasons, which tend to be more about tribalism/racism/xenophobia/what have you, you have to work twice as hard because FIRST you have to cut through all the bullshit and call them out publicly until they either cop to it our so totally discredit themselves that they're neutralized.  Then once the bullshit is gone, you have to start addressing and trying to overcome deeply irrational but highly emotionally compelling reasons for their positions.  Even at that point, such people will have a non-trivial level of support becase there are a lot of people even now even in the US for whom "you know, you're right, I just don't like Group X, they're Negative Stereotype Y and don't deserve to be in MY America" is an ACCEPTABLE position to take, and more than enough justification for barring immigration.

And that's just the ANTI-immigration crazy-ass-mofos.  Then you have to deal with the nutjobs on the pro- side.  

**  Absolutely ;-P  On a related note, I happened to stumble upon a thread somewhere with people 'debating' (read arguing) the immigration issue.  At one point a pro-immigration writer expounded something along the lines of "well next week [May 5th] we're going to be celebrating our independence and waving our flag on your soil, so ha!" (the sad part is that May 5 celebrates Mexico's defeat of a far superior invading French force - their independence is September 16 - it just amazes me how people will speak so passionately on the subject of culture when they don't even know their own history)

There's ignorant people involved in most widely-and-heatedly-discussed topics.  I prefer them, though, to the malicious and deceitful.  But yes, it is fun to point and laugh at the rock-stars of stupid once in a while.

[LucasJamison]

I am all for Legal Immigration. I would happily see all the immigration numbers be increased. The problem with illegal immigration is that there is no way of integrating them into society. Many illegals form whole communities that resemble their home countries with just a better financial system.

Poor integration isn't by any means limited to illegal immigrants.  Surely you've heard of at least one major city with a "China Town"?  I might point out, also, "Little Italy" as a possible example.  Human social organization traditionally centers on a familial/tribal organization, for a lot of reasons, so people who share the same history and culture and all that tend to group together into communities for support.  Groups with a vastly different cultural or linguistic history than the predominant US culture(s) at the time of their immigration are less likely to integrate.  Honestly, for immigrants?  Not so big a deal.  It's their kids we need to get.

The goal of putting quotas on legal immigration is to hopefully keep track of those in our borders and to help them integrate by insisting that they learn at least the basics of our language and culture.

Putting quotas on legal immigration has only one purpose: limiting the number of people to emigrate to the US.  Given that overall population growth is still desirable, but needs to be held in check at least a little bit, I can see this making sense.  Also, there must be structures in place to help process and naturalize immigrants - we don't want "permanent residents", we want more citizens!  If that system can only handle so many people, then we can only responsibly allow that many people into it.  I might suggest that if we are simply unable to enforce these limits (and I think time will show that we are), that the capacity of these systems needs to be increased to the level where we CAN enforce the limits.

Many of the people that are trying to get into our country that are turned away are highly educated people that could contribute quite a bit, but they are turned away becaue many feel we are over what we can handle mostly because of the huge amounts of illegals.

Anyone who is turned away due to a quota?  Is not being turned away due to the number of illegal immigrants, but rather the number of legal immigrants already processed in that time period.  We really don't seem to turn away THAT many high-skilled, well-educated people.  Do you have any numbers for how many high-skilled people get turned down for visas each year in the US?

When you have so many from one country trying to come in, you threaten to change the culture. Already our country is forced to be bilingual and in many cases multilingual. Some change to our culture is good. The melting pot ideal is what this country has been about for years.

Threaten to change?  You do change it, necessarily, and I don't see that that's ever a significant problem.  Our country has been multilingual since the French, Dutch, Spanish, and English all colonized it at the same time, much less those who got here before the European colonial era.  Again, I don't see a problem with that.

When you have so many from one culture, you change it and make it so we have to adapt instead of those coming here. I think this is wrong. If someone wants to come here to add to our country, I say I am all for it. If someone wants to come in and change it to fit their ideals, then I say it is wrong.

If you were at all uncertain: this is why some people call those who are against immigration racist or xenophobic.  While those labels may not be always or entirely accurate, on a case by case basis, your arguments here are based privilege and sense of entitlement.  I suppose we could discuss whether or not your sense of entitlement is justifiable, but let me ask you: why is it unfair to ask you to grow and adapt?  I don't think the taquería will ever push out the pizzeria entirely, certainly not in the NY-metro area, so I think we have little to fear from a change in the fondue mix.

But I'd say that if certain cultural values are constant across all US history, and ARE a necessary core element to make the US a good place to live, AND those corest of core values are somehow undermined, it's worth addressing that.  Which values, and how, are being undermined in this way, that we should be so concerned?

[Frigemall]

Poor integration isn't by any means limited to illegal immigrants.  Surely you've heard of at least one major city with a "China Town"?  I might point out, also, "Little Italy" as a possible example.  Human social organization traditionally centers on a familial/tribal organization, for a lot of reasons, so people who share the same history and culture and all that tend to group together into communities for support.  Groups with a vastly different cultural or linguistic history than the predominant US culture(s) at the time of their immigration are less likely to integrate.  Honestly, for immigrants?  Not so big a deal.  It's their kids we need to get.

During the 20s and 30s many of these areas grew up, one of the major differences between then and now was that the school systems taught in english, and each new citizen was required to take a test for citizenship where they had to demonstrate at least a small amount of knowledge of American history, some english language skills, etc. also we at least knew who was in our country and why. Legal immigration changes the culture some, but not as drastically as the current illegal immigration wave has.

Putting quotas on legal immigration has only one purpose: limiting the number of people to emigrate to the US.  Given that overall population growth is still desirable, but needs to be held in check at least a little bit, I can see this making sense.  Also, there must be structures in place to help process and naturalize immigrants - we don't want "permanent residents", we want more citizens!  If that system can only handle so many people, then we can only responsibly allow that many people into it.  I might suggest that if we are simply unable to enforce these limits (and I think time will show that we are), that the capacity of these systems needs to be increased to the level where we CAN enforce the limits.

On this point I agree. I am not usually for the expansion of government, but in the case of law enforcement, the military, and the safety of our borders, I would be willing to see them increase some. I do however believe that the money should be taken from other programs that are over bloated and filled with pork projects made for the sole purpose of rewarding cronies.

Anyone who is turned away due to a quota?  Is not being turned away due to the number of illegal immigrants, but rather the number of legal immigrants already processed in that time period.  We really don't seem to turn away THAT many high-skilled, well-educated people.  Do you have any numbers for how many high-skilled people get turned down for visas each year in the US?

No, I do not have those numbers. It only stands to reason however that if we had less of a burden on the economy due to so many illegals, there would be more willingness by the people and hopefully their representatives to increase the immigration numbers. When this is done, naturally you would get more skilled workers. These are the ones who typically go about obtaining proper permits to be in this country legally. They are also more apt to contribute to society in a positive way.

If you were at all uncertain: this is why some people call those who are against immigration racist or xenophobic.  While those labels may not be always or entirely accurate, on a case by case basis, your arguments here are based privilege and sense of entitlement.  I suppose we could discuss whether or not your sense of entitlement is justifiable, but let me ask you: why is it unfair to ask you to grow and adapt?  I don't think the taquería will ever push out the pizzeria entirely, certainly not in the NY-metro area, so I think we have little to fear from a change in the fondue mix.

As a citizen of the United States, and a taxpayer, a part of a representative Democracy and so forth I am entitled the right of my opinion, and the impact my opinion has on my local community is what it is. If someone comes into that community in a legal manner and works to obtain the same rights I have, then they are entitled to have the same impact that I do on the community, whether I agree or disagree. If the community changes too drastically, then I have the choice of moving, or adapting to it, since it is the will of the majority of the legal citizens of that community. I do not fear change, Many who hold my opinion just grow sick of people who are illegally here causing (in my opinion and that of those in question) negative changes to the area in which they live, they and I, are being branded (fairly or unfairly) as racists or xenophobes. I am all for cultural diversity and learning new cultures. When I was stationed in Germany, I tried to learn some of the language and culture. I was not a citizen of Germany and would never expect them to adapt to my needs. If I did ask for something I paid for the inconvenience I caused them. I had my healthcare, and everything else I needed through the military so I was not a burden on their community.
  I think one of the things that makes this whole bill and the new bill being proposed is that it is being proposed by legislators who are not even from the areas involved. Last I checked Massachusetts did not have a big problem with illegals, nor does NY. One of the reasons for wanting amnesty is that it increases the voting block eventually, and those who supported it hope to win a large voting block to their party. Perhaps the reason I have not done all my homework on the issue is because it is not a big problem yet in NJ either. I do know many who live in Texas, California and Arizona. These friends tell me constantly about how negatively their area is impacted. It is hard for me living here to get all of the facts you are asking for without giving my mostly second hand opinion. You and I are not going to solve this issue, however labeling me, and those who hold a similar opinion to me, a racist or xenophobe because I disagree with this bill is hardly productive.

But I'd say that if certain cultural values are constant across all US history, and ARE a necessary core element to make the US a good place to live, AND those corest of core values are somehow undermined, it's worth addressing that.  Which values, and how, are being undermined in this way, that we should be so concerned?

There is a movement amongst some Mexican fringe groups to try to take back several portions of the US because they feel we unfairly took their territories. They do not respect our laws and in some cases incite violence, or try through intimidation to influence others that would not normally be prone to violence. This is just one example. The rights of Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of happiness are pretty basic. When whole communities are being pressured to accomodate to the illegals that have moved in, that is a problem.