I think that obviously the closer one is to the immigration issue, the more likely one is to be in favor of some form of relaxed citizenship rules, or harder enforcement of immigration deportation rules.

On the other hand, I think it's easier for someone to fall into the anti-immigration trap for a number of reasons. Including less interaction with other cultures, which causes a number of problems. It doesn't give the person much of a chance to come to conclusions based on their own interactions. And it allows for that person to become more pliable to listening to less reliable sources.

Organizations such as the KKK get recruiting jumps when economic problems exist, such as now. As it is easy for many to blame their problems on other races.

>>>>>What kind of fluff is that?
>>I suppose you really needed to add this. It makes me feel like it doesn’t matter to you what I may answer, but here I go anyway.
>>
>>>>>Contradictory? How?
>>
>>It contradicts the spirit of the U.N. Universal Declaration Of Humans Rights and violates Article 6 which states: "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law" http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm .
>>
>>In my opinion, unauthorized migrant is the correct wording.
>>
>>Immigration laws are very different from the laws that come to mind when we think of breaking the law, an idea typically associated with crimes such as murders, thefts, rapes, drugs, etc.
>>Immigration laws create unequal rights, people who break immigration laws don’t cause harm as in drunk driving for example. As a matter of fact, people by break immigration laws are doing things that are perfectly legal for other plain-vanilla citizens, like crossing a border.
>>
>>Murder, rape, stealing, drug crimes, drunk driving etc., etc. don’t have the same parallel.
>>
>>When you call someone “illegal”, you are putting first the tag “guilty” before the “person” or “rights”.
>>
>>Bear with me on this:
>>Many households in the US include people who are citizens by birth, naturalized, on immigrant visas and/or undocumented/unauthorized.
>>
>>According to the U.S Declaration of Independence
>>"...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "
>>
>>“Unalienable rights” may be defined also as natural rights or human rights. There is a link between both Declarations then.
>>
>>So let’s analyze the following case: If an unauthorized migrant in the U.S. gives birth, she still can be deported with or without her child according to the law, despite being the mother of a U.S. citizen. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/21/usa.edpilkington
>>The “unalienable rights” of the child are clearly violated, because the child is deprived of the right to be raised by his parents in the country he was born and take full advantage of the benefits of being a citizen.
>>
>
>Nice explanation. I wonder how much of the difference in opinion on this issue comes from how close someone is to the immigrant experience. I know that my views on this subject are very much formed by my family's and the overall Holocaust experience. I exist because England opened its doors to hundreds of Jewish children.
>
>Tamar