"N2EY" wrote:

Then what's the answer? Shall we eliminate all immigration,
or just the illegals? Who gets to decide who should be kept
out and who should be admitted, other than obvious threats
to security? (snip)

(snip) Almost 100 years ago, my grandparents came to the
United States from Italy. They left in part because of the 1906
earthquake, but mostly because they wanted a better life than
they could get in Italy at that time.


Times change. Years ago, there were great open spaces throughout America
just waiting for new immigrates to settle. Those shopkeepers, craftsmen,
farmers, laborers, and so on, clearly benefited a new nation. The benefits
today are subtle and the problems (job shortages and so on) more pronounced.
Because of that, we have to cut back on immigration at some point. We can't
have the entire world's population, or even a significant portion of it,
living here. I think we've reached that point - the point where we cut back
on immigration except for the very most extreme cases. And when I say
extreme cases, I mean extreme cases. Economic considerations would not
qualify. Those facing persecution or death in their home country would only
be allowed to stay only as long as those threats exist, after which they
must leave. To fill labor shortages here, we should retrain those already
here.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/