NationStates Jolt Archive

It's clear to everyone that the federal government has been thus far completely incompetent against illegal immigration. So here's what I propose: Let the state governments handle it, with funding from Washington. Thus, if Texas wants to deport all the illegals, by all means let them do so, with federal government funding, and if New Jersey (my state!) wants to give all of them instant citizenship, that too should be allowed. I think that another advantage of this is that we wouldn't have this huge battle in Congress between the hardline conservatives who want to deport all of them and the rest of the country. So, what do you think of this proposal?

Because this decision would determine whether these immigrants became United States citizens, the United States should decide what is to be done. If we were a weaker confederation or a coalition, your proposal might work, but we're a federation and that means we're too closely tied together to have states bickering and disagreeing about this issue.

What if Texas were to refuse to allow these immigrants citizenship, but New Jersey does? This changes the electoral distribution which gives some states more votes. A liberal president is elected because the NE states allowed these persons to become citizens. Can you say "Civil War II?"

What's to stop an immigrant from getting citizenship in NJ and then moving to work in Texas?

What's to stop an immigrant from getting citizenship in NJ and then moving to work in Texas?
Nothing. In the US, each state must respect the laws of other states.

Nothing. In the US, each state must respect the laws of other states.Do you think Texas would be very happy about this law then?

If the they live in house with someone, take that house away, if they drive someone's car take the car away, where they work close down that buisness.

How many people would harbor illegals then?

Because this decision would determine whether these immigrants became United States citizens, the United States should decide what is to be done. If we were a weaker confederation or a coalition, your proposal might work, but we're a federation and that means we're too closely tied together to have states bickering and disagreeing about this issue.

What if Texas were to refuse to allow these immigrants citizenship, but New Jersey does? This changes the electoral distribution which gives some states more votes. A liberal president is elected because the NE states allowed these persons to become citizens. Can you say "Civil War II?"
Ok, first of all, there are about 12 million of them, mostly in the southwest, so it wouldn't really swing the balance to the liberals. Also, the illegals tend to be conservative when it comes to different social issues, so there's another disadvantage for liberals. If anything, Texas would benefit by giving them legal status, in terms of electoral distribution.

If the states aren't bickering right now, then their represantatives are doing it for them in congress.

Nothing. In the US, each state must respect the laws of other states.
No they don't.

A state law is just that, a state law...

Why do you think that different states have different gun laws? Traffic Laws? Hell, even sodomy laws...

If the they live in house with someone, take that house away, if they drive someone's car take the car away, where they work close down that buisness.

How many people would harbor illegals then?
People who don't announce to everyone they meet that they are harbouring illegal aliens.

If the they live in house with someone, take that house away, if they drive someone's car take the car away, where they work close down that buisness.

How many people would harbor illegals then?
Probably none. But there are better ways to deal with it that are less harsh, methinks.

Do you think Texas would be very happy about this law then?
Probably not, but who wants to live in Texas? Most of them will stay in the states that they got citizenship in. Something that I left out is that the border states would also handle the borders. So they would find ways to stop the influx, unlike the federal government.

No they don't.

A state law is just that, a state law...

Why do you think that different states have different gun laws? Traffic Laws? Hell, even sodomy laws...
I think these are laws that pertain to those individual states. But if you get married in Vermont, you're also considered married in Mississippi.

It's clear to everyone that the federal government has been thus far completely incompetent against illegal immigration. So here's what I propose: Let the state governments handle it, with funding from Washington. Thus, if Texas wants to deport all the illegals, by all means let them do so, with federal government funding, and if New Jersey (my state!) wants to give all of them instant citizenship, that too should be allowed. I think that another advantage of this is that we wouldn't have this huge battle in Congress between the hardline conservatives who want to deport all of them and the rest of the country. So, what do you think of this proposal?

Deport Illegals, give businesses a 1 million dollar fine for every illegal they hire,and wall the border and turn it into a training ground for US troops. Fort Texas?

Deport Illegals, give businesses a 1 million dollar fine for every illegal they hire,and wall the border and turn it into a training ground for US troops. Fort Texas?
you want to deport 12 million people? That seems unrealistic to me. I more or less agree with everything else though.

I think what you are suggesting is more or less similar to how we do things in the EU. It's a good idea.

It's clear to everyone that the federal government has been thus far completely incompetent against illegal immigration. So here's what I propose: Let the state governments handle it, with funding from Washington. Thus, if Texas wants to deport all the illegals, by all means let them do so, with federal government funding, and if New Jersey (my state!) wants to give all of them instant citizenship, that too should be allowed. I think that another advantage of this is that we wouldn't have this huge battle in Congress between the hardline conservatives who want to deport all of them and the rest of the country. So, what do you think of this proposal?
No. Bad idea. Very bad idea. Did you ever take any kind of history class in school? That's exactly the reasoning the US took on slavery in the 1800's, and I hope we all remember how that turned out.:sniper: :mp5: :sniper:

It's clear to everyone that the federal government has been thus far completely incompetent against illegal immigration. So here's what I propose: Let the state governments handle it, with funding from Washington. Thus, if Texas wants to deport all the illegals, by all means let them do so, with federal government funding, and if New Jersey (my state!) wants to give all of them instant citizenship, that too should be allowed. I think that another advantage of this is that we wouldn't have this huge battle in Congress between the hardline conservatives who want to deport all of them and the rest of the country. So, what do you think of this proposal?

That would be incredibly expensive. The states would then need to fortify their borders with each other, thus defeating the point of being in a union at all.

If this is even came close to passing, Texas would divide itself into 5 parts to get 8 extra senators just to vote it down.

No. Bad idea. Very bad idea. Did you ever take any kind of history class in school? That's exactly the reasoning the US took on slavery in the 1800's, and I hope we all remember how that turned out.:sniper: :mp5: :sniper:
The sniper smily in your post speaks volumes of its merit.

you want to deport 12 million people? That seems unrealistic to me. I more or less agree with everything else though.

Yup. Bill the mexican government. You don't let criminals run free do you?

The sniper smily in your post speaks volumes of its merit.
Thank you. I know, I'm an artist. :cool: :) :cool:

Thank you. I know, I'm an artist. :cool: :) :cool:
Of what nature though, I shall not divulge. I'll just say, it begins with a B.

It's clear to everyone that the federal government has been thus far completely incompetent against illegal immigration. So here's what I propose: Let the state governments handle it, with funding from Washington. Thus, if Texas wants to deport all the illegals, by all means let them do so, with federal government funding, and if New Jersey (my state!) wants to give all of them instant citizenship, that too should be allowed. I think that another advantage of this is that we wouldn't have this huge battle in Congress between the hardline conservatives who want to deport all of them and the rest of the country. So, what do you think of this proposal?

It's completely unconstitutional, for starters.


The Congress shall have power...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; ...[and] to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ...to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States...



The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Clearly the powers and regulations concerning naturalization and citizenship belong to the federal government, not the individual states. According to the Constitution a citizen is one of the United States and thus cannot be denied equal treatment under the law, regardless of which individual "state" he or she happens to reside in. Thus, the scheme proposed is impossible without a great deal of ammendment and change to the Constitution as it currently exists.

Ok, first of all, there are about 12 million of them, mostly in the southwest, so it wouldn't really swing the balance to the liberals. Also, the illegals tend to be conservative when it comes to different social issues, so there's another disadvantage for liberals. If anything, Texas would benefit by giving them legal status, in terms of electoral distribution.

If the states aren't bickering right now, then their represantatives are doing it for them in congress.

It was an example. If the facts blur the principle, reverse it: What if Texas allowed them to become citizens when NJ didn't and a Conservative came into office?

I don't have the stats at my fingertips, but the principle is the same when arguing against the proposal presented in this thread.

I think these are laws that pertain to those individual states. But if you get married in Vermont, you're also considered married in Mississippi.

Not entirely true. For example, gays who get married in those few places where gays CAN get married do not have marriage rights in other states (or, for that matter, under federal law). They have the rights of being married ONLY in those states which recognize their marriage as being valid.

It's completely unconstitutional, for starters.

Clearly the powers and regulations concerning naturalization and citizenship belong to the federal government, not the individual states. Thus, the scheme proposed is impossible without a great deal of ammendment and change to the Constitution as it currently exists.
Perhaps your Constitution could do with some change then to respond to modern circumstances?

I think these are laws that pertain to those individual states. But if you get married in Vermont, you're also considered married in Mississippi.
Only because Mississippi may recognize that marriage as long as it follows their laws.

A gay marriage may be legal in Mass, but move to VA, and in the eyes of the Virginia legislature, you are no longer married.

Deport Illegals, give businesses a 1 million dollar fine for every illegal they hire,and wall the border and turn it into a training ground for US troops. Fort Texas?
Illegals are good for the economy! I enjoy having illegals who are willing to work for mimimum wage to mow my lawn! I enjoy cheap housing thanks to the slave-wages the illegal builders work for! There are places in Houston (where I live) where illegals just hang out, and whenever somebody needs some extra hands for an odd job, they just drive over and pick a couple up, and pay them 10 dollars or so for a days effort. These guys are desperate for a job, and our economy wouldn't function without them. Open the dooors!

Perhaps your Constitution could do with some change then to respond to modern circumstances?

One is welcome to try, but I would not hold my breath. The Founders already tried a highly decentralized system under the Articles of Confederation, and resorted to the more centralized federal model currently embodied in the Constitution when their experiment failed miserably. Even the centralized federal Constitution barely survived the competing interests of the individual states. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War)

Illegals are good for the economy! I enjoy having illegals who are willing to work for mimimum wage to mow my lawn! I enjoy cheap housing thanks to the slave-wages the illegals work for! There are places in Houston (where I live) where illegals just hang out, and whenever somebody needs some extra hands for an odd job, they just drive over and pick a couple up, and pay them 10 dollars or so for a days effort. These guys are desperate for a job, and our economy wouldn't function without them. Open the dooors!
Let's assume for a minute that we do open the doors...what would your position be when you get laid off from your job because a former illegal, now a full-fledged citizen (and look, all he had to do was protest) is willing to do the same work, for half the cost to your (now former) employer?

Let's assume for a minute that we do open the doors...what would your position be when you get laid off from your job because a former illegal, now a full-fledged citizen (and look, all he had to do was protest) is willing to do the same work, for half the cost to your (now former) employer?
I'm a skilled worker. No amount of immigrants can take my job from me.
Edit: Besides, if I can't compete, I deserve to lose my job. That's capitalism, baby!

One is welcome to try, but I would not hold my breath. The Founders already tried a highly decentralized system under the Articles of Confederation, and resorted to the more centralized federal model currently embodied in the Constitution when their experiment failed miserably. Even the centralized federal Constitution barely survived the competing interests of the individual states. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War)
I'll give the link a look. However, a decentralised EU isn't walking bad for the EU, at all. The opposite holds true; the more it tries to centralise, the worse it gets. It also works well for Switzerland. Maybe changes would allow for it to work in the US as well?

Illegals are good for the economy! I enjoy having illegals who are willing to work for mimimum wage to mow my lawn! I enjoy cheap housing thanks to the slave-wages the illegal builders work for! There are places in Houston (where I live) where illegals just hang out, and whenever somebody needs some extra hands for an odd job, they just drive over and pick a couple up, and pay them 10 dollars or so for a days effort. These guys are desperate for a job, and our economy wouldn't function without them. Open the dooors!
So the government should openly acknowledge and support an act that contravenes its laws? You contradict yourself. If, instead, you mean it should allow more legal immigrants, then you may be correct. Otherwise what you are suggesting is absurd.

I'm a skilled worker. No amount of immigrants can take my job from me.
They've proved it time and time again, outsourcing is cheap...

That's pretty akin to paying an illegal a shit wage to do your job.

But I'l entertain you, what, pray tell, is this skilled job that you do?

Edit: Besides, if I can't compete, I deserve to lose my job. That's capitalism, baby!
Getting laid off because the boss found someone to do the same work for much, much less is hardly competition. Now, if he offered you the chance to keep the same job, at half pay, and you didn't take it, then that right there is in keeping with the joys that is capitalism...

It's clear to everyone that the federal government has been thus far completely incompetent against illegal immigration. So here's what I propose: Let the state governments handle it, with funding from Washington. Thus, if Texas wants to deport all the illegals, by all means let them do so, with federal government funding, and if New Jersey (my state!) wants to give all of them instant citizenship, that too should be allowed. I think that another advantage of this is that we wouldn't have this huge battle in Congress between the hardline conservatives who want to deport all of them and the rest of the country. So, what do you think of this proposal?I agree. I just worry about extremists.

So the government should openly acknowledge and support an act that contravenes its laws? You contradict yourself. If, instead, you mean it should allow more legal immigrants, then you may be correct. Otherwise what you are suggesting is absurd.
I want more immigrants. If we were to open the doors, they wouldn't be illegal any more. Therefore, I want more legal immigrants. (although I honestly don't care if they check in with the government or not.)

Of course, we would have to get rid of welfare and social security first. We'd be ruined if we just let anybody come in and collect on those.

I want more immigrants. If we were to open the doors, they wouldn't be illegal any more. Therefore, I want more legal immigrants. (although I honestly don't care if they check in with the government or not.)

Of course, we would have to get rid of welfare and social security first. We'd be ruined if we just let anybody come in and collect on those.
That I concur with, entirely. The entire process of admitting immigrants would need reform.

Getting laid off because the boss found someone to do the same work for much, much less is hardly competition. Now, if he offered you the chance to keep the same job, at half pay, and you didn't take it, then that right there is in keeping with the joys that is capitalism...
Agreed.

They've proved it time and time again, outsourcing is cheap...

That's pretty akin to paying an illegal a shit wage to do your job.

But I'l entertain you, what, pray tell, is this skilled job that you do?
What I do is none of your business, although I assure you once more that no stream of immigrants could take it from me.

Getting laid off because the boss found someone to do the same work for much, much less is hardly competition. Now, if he offered you the chance to keep the same job, at half pay, and you didn't take it, then that right there is in keeping with the joys that is capitalism...
Chances are that he would ask me to work for half wages before laying me off. It's expensive to acquire and train a new worker.

People who don't announce to everyone they meet that they are harbouring illegal aliens.
I mean if the goverment discovers the illegals.

The solution is simple:

For each person that an employer employs, he is responsible for providing a proper W-4. Otherwise it is a count of tax fraud for each undocumented worker.

Tax laws have teeth. Now I ask you: If the only way to find work in this country was to be a citizen or a resident alien, why would illegal immigrants come here?

Just make hiring illegal immigrants undesirable. That's it. Cheap easy solution.

Illegals are good for the economy! I enjoy having illegals who are willing to work for mimimum wage to mow my lawn! I enjoy cheap housing thanks to the slave-wages the illegal builders work for! There are places in Houston (where I live) where illegals just hang out, and whenever somebody needs some extra hands for an odd job, they just drive over and pick a couple up, and pay them 10 dollars or so for a days effort. These guys are desperate for a job, and our economy wouldn't function without them. Open the dooors!
you must be smoking crack if you think they only get paid 10$ for an entire day's worth of work.

Just make hiring illegal immigrants undesirable. That's it. Cheap easy solution.
Also a very good idea. Right now I sort of get the impression that employers who hire illegals are almost rewarded for the act.

What I do is none of your business, although I assure you once more that no stream of immigrants could take it from me.


Chances are that he would ask me to work for half wages before laying me off. It's expensive to acquire and train a new worker.
ah... so you're a trained worker instead of a skilled worker.... so why wouldn't they hire an illegal to get your job and just train them to do it? After all, it is cheaper.

why won't you tell us what you do? are you ashamed of your job? i'm not. I'll tell you what i do if someone asks.

personally, I think it's really unfair to the mexicans who worked so hard for their id, citizenship, etc. that other mexicans come in easily and illegally

The solution is simple:

For each person that an employer employs, he is responsible for providing a proper W-4. Otherwise it is a count of tax fraud for each undocumented worker.
Yeah, but who's to say who he has working for him?

You hire an illegal and pay him cash, you don't exactly put him on the payroll...

Then there are the day laborers. They get picked up in a truck in the morning and dropped off when the job is done. No questions asked. Paid in cash.

[EDIT]

Just make hiring illegal immigrants undesirable. That's it. Cheap easy solution.
That, however, makes perfect sense.

It also works well for Switzerland.

http://www.admin.ch/ch/itl/rs/1/c101ENG.pdf


Legislation on immigration, emigration, residence and domicile of foreigners, and
on granting asylum are federal matters.
Foreigners who endanger Switzerland’s security may be removed from Switzerland by force.



The Confederation shall regulate the acquisition and the loss of citizenship through descent, marriage and adoption. Moreover, it shall regulate the loss of Swiss citizenship on other grounds, and the reinstatement of citizenship.
It shall set minimum requirements for the naturalization of foreigners by the Cantons, and grant naturalization permits.
It shall facilitate the naturalization of stateless children.



The Confederation shall encourage links amongst Swiss citizens domiciled abroad, and their links with Switzerland. It may support organizations which pursue this goal.
It shall legislate on the rights and obligations of Swiss citizens domiciled abroad, in particular on the exercise of the political rights on the federal level, the duty to render military or alternative service, assistance to needy persons, and social security.


Naturalization and citizenship appear to be well regulated at the federal level in Switzerland as well.

At any rate, one cannot automatically assume that what works in Switzerland or in the EU will necessarily work in the United States. One needs to first determine all the possible factors and variables that lead to a specific condition in Switzerland or the EU, and then one needs to determine whether these factors exist in or are even compatible with the political, cultural, economic and other conditions that exist in the United States.

What I do is none of your business, although I assure you once more that no stream of immigrants could take it from me.
I didn't realize that the CIA had a branch office in Houston.

C'mon...I'll tell you what I do if you tell me...


Chances are that he would ask me to work for half wages before laying me off. It's expensive to acquire and train a new worker.
There you have it, you're fucked if you do, and fucked if you don't.

On the one hand, you take the pay cut, but now that nice little picket fenced cottage with the 2 car garage, the 2.5 kids, and little old Spot, is no longer affordable.

On the other hand, now you're out of a job, and have to search for another one. One probably paying less than what you would have gotten if you accepted the first offer.

http://www.admin.ch/ch/itl/rs/1/c101ENG.pdf

Naturalization and citizenship appear to be well regulated at the federal level in Switzerland as well.

Thanks for the link. It is somewhat regulated indeed, but the cantons have a rather large say in the matter.


At any rate, one cannot automatically assume that what works in Switzerland or in the EU will necessarily work in the United States. One needs to first determine all the possible factors and variables that lead to a specific condition in Switzerland or the EU, and then one needs to determine whether these factors exist in or are even compatible with the political, cultural, economic and other conditions that exist in the United States.
Here you have a point. The EU or Switzerland may differ too fundamentally for them to be a good rolemodel for the US to go by.

Also a very good idea. Right now I sort of get the impression that employers who hire illegals are almost rewarded for the act.

Of course they are! That's exactly what they want! Cheap, disposable desperate labor.

They want the border tight enough where workers will be desperate enough to do any work under any conditions when they get here(at least the ones that don't die in the desert), but just porous enough to ensure a constant supply of labor.

Think about it: No minimum wage, no unemployment benefits, no insurance, no health care benefits, no occupational safety laws. Just nice cheap workers who won't say shit if they had a mouthful of it.

There are two things these employers fear:

1) Easy legal immigration
2) A border that's too secure.

That's why this National Guard thing will never last. Because if it clamps down too much on the border, the powers that be will get their political buddies to cut their funding.

Yeah, but who's to say who he has working for him?

You hire an illegal and pay him cash, you don't exactly put him on the payroll...

Then there are the day laborers. They get picked up in a truck in the morning and dropped off when the job is done. No questions asked. Paid in cash.

[EDIT]


That, however, makes perfect sense.
i'm sure that cash is tracked somehow :P

Not meaning to divert the conversation away from the US, but those who say that the EU is any better are, in my opinion, wide of the mark. For example, the UK is a bloody island, and still we get hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants swarming in. Or a common route to get into the UK is, claim asylum, get it rejected, then appeal, the refuse to be deported, or disappear into the country. What I mean is it's not only the US with such issues, and if an island cannot control what crosses its borders, then how is the US with such a long open border meant to do anything about it. Short of commiting major attrocities against immigrants, like killing on sight, and all those associated with them (which i am not advocating in any way), you just won't stop the flow of illegals.

Yeah, but who's to say who he has working for him?

You hire an illegal and pay him cash, you don't exactly put him on the payroll...

Then there are the day laborers. They get picked up in a truck in the morning and dropped off when the job is done. No questions asked. Paid in cash.

[EDIT]


That, however, makes perfect sense.

That's the nice thing about tax laws: They can sieze your property and assets until they are done with the investigation:

The IRS is the only branch of the government that can deprive you of property without due process of law. As Al Capone and Leona Helmsley can tell you: You Don't Mess With The IRS. :D

Yet that "say" is obviously not complete, as in the scheme proposed in the original post of this thread. As such, Switzerland is not necessarily a good model or example.
I can't really think of a (con)federal state off hand that would give the states that much power.

i'm sure that cash is tracked somehow :P
It's really not.

I used to work for a private contractor that paid illegals out of his own pocket. Sure, he himself earned less money while doing it, but with the larger work force, he was able to get bigger contracts, pay more people out of his pocket, and thus get himself some cheap growth out of his company.

On the one hand, you take the pay cut, but now that nice little picket fenced cottage with the 2 car garage, the 2.5 kids, and little old Spot, is no longer affordable.

On the other hand, now you're out of a job, and have to search for another one. One probably paying less than what you would have gotten if you accepted the first offer.
Such is capitalism. This is why we save money: because some of us don't trust the government to keep America economically stable. At any rate, I must go now, back to that job (let's say porn star for now). Now that is skilled work! :p

Thanks for the link. It is somewhat regulated indeed, but the cantons have a rather large say in the matter.


Yet that "say" is obviously not complete, as in the scheme proposed in the original post of this thread. As such, Switzerland is not necessarily a good model or example.

That's the nice thing about tax laws: They can sieze your property and assets until they are done with the investigation:

The IRS is the only branch of the government that can deprive you of property without due process of law. As Al Capone and Leona Helmsley can tell you: You Don't Mess With The IRS. :D
How nauseating. Evil government...

*snip*
Hopefully the Government will wake up to this then. Patting the instigators of the problem on the back is hardly the way to solve it. Neither is draining tax-payer funds for solutions that essentially are hardly solutions at all.

I can't really think of a (con)federal state off hand that would give the states that much power.

I would assume that an example would be very difficult to find, immigration, naturalization, and citizenship being extremely important functions with serious concequences for national sovereignty and security. I would be surprised if such functions were not quickly centralized to the highest levels of the government in question.

Here's my plan for the problem of illegal immigration:

Step 1: A $25,000 fine per illegal immigrant to the businesses that employ them. Say a business normally employs 100 illegal immigrants a day in a field picking fruits and vegetables. In that situation, a fine of $2.5 million would be enough to dissuade the business from hiring the illegal immigrants. Without work, the illegal immigrants probably won't want to stay (after all, they wouldn't be able to afford to).

Step 2: Negociate with the Mexican Government to place employment/training offices in the Mexican border towns/cities. If these people have a legal job waiting for them, it will be easier to legally immigrate into the US.

Step 3: Do a bit of loosening of the resrictions on legal immigration.


With my plan, illegal immigration should slow (if not stop altogether), the businesses will have the workers they need to get the job done, the immigrants will finally have the other work related benefits that the rest of the citizens enjoy (insurance, worker's comp, equal opportunity, etc), and the US economy will get an infusion of funds (from the workers paying income tax, Social Security, etc) that should help the economy.

No. Bad idea. Very bad idea. Did you ever take any kind of history class in school? That's exactly the reasoning the US took on slavery in the 1800's, and I hope we all remember how that turned out.

Exactly. I was going to say, before scrolling down, reading this guy's post, and feeling compelled to quote, that state's rights cannot be held sacrosanct simply because they put less of a strain on federal coffers. In order for any progress to ensue in the world, we need to address the issue throughout the country.

Try to also keep in mind that immigration is more of a problem in some(coughconservativecough) states, like Texas, more than others, like New Jersey.

I'm sick of nationalists who want to deport illegals. Not only is it impractical, but it implies that if you are born North of the Rio Grande, you are more entitled to a job.

It's no more that they steal jobs from us than we steal jobs from them by denying them an equal opportunity.

I personally am for the guest worker program, but am against how it is going to be run:

A) He's forcing immigrants to learn English to be endowed the benefits of the program. Clearly an unnecessary measure.

B) More importantly, people confuse the terms of his proposal. He is saying that workers will, for a period of time, not be arrested/deported for working here. He is NOT saying that their employers have to hire/keep them. The companies can fire their worker any time they like and effectively send them back to Mexico.

C) Why only a limited period of time? The problem with illegal immigration is that the immigrants are undocumented, and thus may pose a threat to national security, or avoid paying taxes. If they're already working for a program, guess what? WE CAN DOCUMENT THEM! Thus, I don't see the reason for the program's temporary status. I do also think that workers under this program should be taxed, if they can afford it.

I do rather like the idea of the promise of a legal job for immigrants proposed by the preceding post, as well.

This is only my own pinko-commie opinion, so it may come across as radical for some.

you must be smoking crack if you think they only get paid 10$ for an entire day's worth of work.
If you think they don't, you are obviously from a super-wealthy millionare White-person neighborhood with perfect lawns and three story houses and have never been to the real world.

If you think they don't, you are obviously from a super-wealthy millionare White-person neighborhood with perfect lawns and three story houses and have never been to the real world.
The majority of them do? Got any proof?