NationStates Jolt Archive

Illegal Immigration, whats your opinion?


"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
-- Emma Lazarus, 1883

That said, there is basically one justifiable reason to deny entry - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6706437.stm

That's not really an "immigration" issue anyway. Other than that, borders are just an excuse to keep poor people poor by keeping them unemployed or preventing them from sending money home. Wealth is supposed to flow in, not out. When it flows out, other nations/states build up their own economies and become self-dependent (i.e. economic competitors). The global capitalist order (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html) cannot stand competition.

At any rate, it has been well determined that 1) people want to cross the border legally, 2) they want to become citizens, 3) they want to shoot fireworks on the 4th and eat apple pie and love Uncle Sam (more so than natural born citizens in many cases; one loves something more when one must struggle to achieve it...). Its just that the costs in time and money of the "legal" route are punitive beyond reason. Some good sources on this topic:


Counting on the Latino Vote: Latinos as a New Electorate by Louis DeSipio (University Press of Virginia: Charlottesville, 1996)
Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican Immigrants, and the Politics of Ethnicity by David G. Gutiérrez (University of California Press: Berkeley, 1995)
De la Garza, Falcon, and Garcia. "Will the Real Americans Please Stand Up: Anglo and Mexican American Support of Core American Political Values," American Journal of Political Science 40, no. 2 (1996)


From "Will the Real Americans Please Stand Up:"

"At all levels of acculturation, Mexican-Americans are no less likely and often more likely to endorse values of individualism and patriotism than are Anglos. This finding has implicaitons for the current debates on immigration and efforts to discriminate against immigrants."

What is unjust about protecting the poorest and weakest of our society?By making it so illegal immigrants can report employer abuse without the threat of deportation, you have protected the poorest and weakest of our society.

"At all levels of acculturation, Mexican-Americans are no less likely and often more likely to endorse values of individualism and patriotism than are Anglos. This finding has implicaitons for the current debates on immigration and efforts to discriminate against immigrants."

It is not the issue that they are Mexican! It is that they are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. What the hell about this is so hard to understand? We are not talking about Mexican-Americans, we are talking about illegal immigrants wherever they come from. But apparently the only way their supporters can make their argument is to whip out the race card at every opportunity and brand the opposition as just a bunch of racists scared to death of "brown people".

It is not the issue that they are Mexican! It is that they are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. What the hell about this is so hard to understand? We are not talking about Mexican-Americans, we are talking about illegal immigrants wherever they come from. But apparently the only way their supporters can make their argument is to whip out the race card at every opportunity and brand the opposition as just a bunch of racists scared to death of "brown people".
Could be because those folks screaming about sending them all "back to Mexico" usually lace their arguments with how them Mexicans don't want to be Americans and ignore little facts like over half of all illegals are visa over stayers.

That and I've yet to hear even the most rabid Minuteman stand up and demand that the government send all the illegal Irish back for some reason.

Could be that.

The supreme court has to defend all of it's rulings with the constitution. Which part would they use to limit the number of children a person could have?


This comes from the privacy rights that are from the constitutional gloss. A bunch of garbage really.

Could be because those folks screaming about sending them all "back to Mexico" usually lace their arguments with how them Mexicans don't want to be Americans and ignore little facts like over half of all illegals are visa over stayers.

That and I've yet to hear even the most rabid Minuteman stand up and demand that the government send all the illegal Irish back for some reason.

Could be that.

Right, because those damn illegal Irish are packing in by the millions each year.

Could be because those folks screaming about sending them all "back to Mexico" usually lace their arguments with how them Mexicans don't want to be Americans and ignore little facts like over half of all illegals are visa over stayers.

That and I've yet to hear even the most rabid Minuteman stand up and demand that the government send all the illegal Irish back for some reason.

Could be that.

Yeah and for some reason I've never heard them talk about how illegal immigrants from Canada are "bringing their culture" over, or how they shit on people's lawns, or how they magically have more rights than US citizens, or how they are outbreeding "natives," or how it's a plot to commit "genocide," or how illegal immigration is an "invasion," how they "steal our jobs," how they're lazy and drain welfare.

I guess it's just because only the Mexicans are part of the invasion/genocide/job-stealing/culture-war/lawn-shitting/lazy/5th column/overthrow the US force. But that's not bigoted, it's just fact! Fact I say! No really!

"Illegal immigrants are no different to you or me. They are just people trying to make their lives better. So why cant we let them in?" <- This was said by a nine year old - no political sides, no racial prejudice, just 'pure' thought. This is how the world should be run, However, That is not how the world really is. Just like it has been said, some people do pose a threat to national security ( i.e. terrorists :sniper: ) so yes it is also important to keep security in mind. The issue about immigrants taking the jobs of others also provokes attention. However it shouldn't really because if immigrants are to be payed the same, then corporations would have no reason to hire them, unless if the current worker is fat lazy and can not do the job as well as the immigrant, in that case the immigrant obviously deserves the job.

SO in conclusion, we can say that: Illegal immigrants should be allowed citizenship if they go through a 'screening' process so that threats can be identified. If considered 'legal' they become Normal Citizens with completely equal rights to everyone else in the country.
After all, saying someone who does not belong in this country should not be given a chance is like saying that someone drowning in a well should not be helped because that person should not have been there in the first place.:(

If you agree with this then please give me your support by endorsing me, SupaSkwirrel, and we can start making real ethic (and logical) changes to the UN!:rolleyes:

I like illegal immigrants, they fill a vital role in our economy doing things like working on farms and such. We have a lot of Mexicans in Chicago and without them, who would tend to the trees and make food in just about every restaurant in the city. It sounds mean, but its better than living in Mexico for them and its good for everyone else too.

I don't think illegal immigrants should be rewarded for doing illegal stuff (and screwing over all the legal immigrants and potential legal immigrants, I am friends with a lot of both.) That said, I also don't agree with trying to stop all illegal immigration in the country.

"Illegal immigrants are no different to you or me. They are just people trying to make their lives better. So why cant we let them in?" <- This was said by a nine year old - no political sides, no racial prejudice, just 'pure' thought.

Does this 9 year old understand that the wages for these jobs that "Americans won't take" has dropped in actual dollars (no need to adjust for inflation) in the last 25 years because the supply of unskilled labor has outstripped the demand? Which means that unskilled Americans can not make a living based on those wages? Which means an economic drain on the entire economy? (Note that above in a couple posts I used the example of slaughter house jobs paying $17/hr in 1980 and $10/hr today)

Does the 9 year old understand that flooding all of the higher living level countries with a massive supply of labor will lower the living standard of the entire world? As wages at the bottom drop in the higher countries it puts wage pressure on both lower and middle jobs in those countries. Which in turn lowers the standard of living for the majority of people in those nations.

Does the 9 year old understand that massive exodus from lower living standard nations serves to keep those nations at a lower living standard because it serves as a pressure relief valve to those governments that means they don't need to reform to serve their people?

Has the negative effects been explained to the 9 year old? Or, has he been told, "Don't you think the entire world should be able to live at the same level we do?" The answer to that question is, YES. But the world isn't set up that way. Some nations have more resources. Some nations have lower birth rates. (China didn't export people, it used "one child" to start an economic boom.) Some nations have a stable government.

In order to keep the living conditions at the level they are today, (not to mention the level in 1980) there has to be control of supply and demand for labor. The alternative that the 9 year old is proposing isn't a raising of the living conditions of the advanced countries or the lower economic countries, BUT a general lowering of the living standards worldwide.

I like illegal immigrants, they fill a vital role in our economy doing things like working on farms and such. We have a lot of Mexicans in Chicago and without them, who would tend to the trees and make food in just about every restaurant in the city. It sounds mean, but its better than living in Mexico for them and its good for everyone else too.

I don't think illegal immigrants should be rewarded for doing illegal stuff (and screwing over all the legal immigrants and potential legal immigrants, I am friends with a lot of both.) That said, I also don't agree with trying to stop all illegal immigration in the country.

Since the work has to be done, the employer would raise the wage level until someone accepted his bid for the job. There is about a 25% HS drop out rate in the US. There are plenty of workers to flip burgers.

Are the illegals doing better in the US than in their home countries? YES, of course they are. BUT are those US high school dropouts doing as well as they could if there were a smaller supply of labor? NO. We raise the living standards of illegals but lower the living standards for US HS dropouts. That is the argument that is being made.

Just tighten boarder security...

WITH RAPTORS! (http://www.digital-images.net/Images/Universal/Velociraptor_6001.jpg)

It is not the issue that they are Mexican! It is that they are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.


As I tried to explain in my post, the reason why they are "illegal" is that the "legal" route is excessively costly in time and money. These individuals tend to be extremely poor and thus are unable to pay the costs associated with the legal route. This means that if the choice is between immigrating "illegally" or watching one's family starve...well, the choice is rather simple.

That many of the people who face this "choice" are Mexican is entirely relevant for three primary reasons:

1) Nationality and sociopolitical characteristics preventing the use of "legal" channels of immigration are highly correlated.

2) The author of the original post of this very thread specifically notes having "lived in the Southwest for most of my life" while directly invoking "Mexico" as a source of undesired immigration. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12717058&postcount=1) Guess where many, if not most, immigrants to the Southwest ("legal" or "illegal") come from? I'm not making race an issue; the OP did. I simply respond.

3) This history of immigration to the United States from Mexico provides an excellent case study of the economic, political and othe punative regulations, restrictions, and barriers placed against immigrants of all "races" and origins. The sheer size and scope of Mexican/Latino/Hispanic immigration throughout U.S. history means that the case provides an excellent opportunity to study economic and political issues in immigration in general. Indeed, Mexican/Latino/Hispanic immigrants often suffered under the same unreasonable and often racist policies as Chinese and even European immigrants. The Mexican/Latino/Hispanic case study also considers the common anti-immigrant rhetoric along the lines of...


But the big problem is that they bring their culture with them. And for those who haven't been to Mexico, thats not a good thing.


...and reveals it for the nonsense that it is. In the specific case of Mexican-Americans, the historical record (revealed in the two book that I cite in my post above (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12721417&postcount=251)) clearly shows many instances of pro-immigrant organizations (like the League of United Latin American Citizens, among others) actively encouraging immigrants to become citizens, learn and use english, and otherwise assimilate into American culture. The study I referenced in my post above (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12721417&postcount=251) clearly shows that this process continues recently. And again, this is relevant for providing counter-evidence to nonsense claims leveled against all immigrants. The single largest source of immigrants to the United States actively adopts American culture while also valuing their own.


But apparently the only way their supporters can make their argument is to whip out the race card at every opportunity and brand the opposition as just a bunch of racists scared to death of "brown people".




But the big problem is that they bring their culture with them. And for those who haven't been to Mexico, thats not a good thing.


*shrug*

I'm not making it a race issue. The people advocating the punitive laws and regulations make it a race issue. Although "brown people" are hardly the only victims of excessive restrictions or patently racist policy. The historical record shows that Chinese, Japanese and many Europeans fell victim as well.


What the hell about this is so hard to understand?


Good question.

Right, because those damn illegal Irish are packing in by the millions each year.
Ah, but we're getting a "We're not racists, illegal is ILLEGAL! What part of this are you not understanding?" So I'm not seeing any numbers qualifications, just a flat out statement that any illegal immigration is wrong.

And then an immediate complaint about Mexican illegals and nothing about Irish, or Canadian, or etc.

Ah, but we're getting a "We're not racists, illegal is ILLEGAL! What part of this are you not understanding?" So I'm not seeing any numbers qualifications, just a flat out statement that any illegal immigration is wrong.

For these sorts of arguments, it seems anything that is against any US law is morally wrong.

I just wonder where all their outrage is when I speed on the highway.

For these sorts of arguments, it seems anything that is against any US law is morally wrong.

I just wonder where all their outrage is when I speed on the highway.
Depends on if you cut them off or not. :D

For these sorts of arguments, it seems anything that is against any US law is morally wrong.

I just wonder where all their outrage is when I speed on the highway.

well that's not so bad, because you don't look mexican while doing it. see, it's not the fact that they are mexicans that is wrong - that's racist. and it's not the fact that they broke the laws - that's stupid. it's the fact that they broke the law and looked mexican at the time of the crime. and that's totally sensible and not racist at all.

I don't remember anyone on this thread that is against illegal immigration ever saying anything about whether they are Mexican, Irish, Canadian, or little green Martians. Those race cards are being played by those that have no answer to the logical problems caused by open borders. The race card it seems is the only card available to support illegal actions.

Do it legal and fair and I don't care where you are from, and neither does it seem anyone else that takes that position.

On the other hand I'm seeing a lot of race arguments by those that want to allow a group to break the law simply because of race.

In the land of business, there are plenty of jobs which require a class of worker that is relatively unskilled, available for hiring and firing on a very short term basis, and who don't (or can't) complain about being made to work much longer hours than most of us would consider to be humane, often for much less pay than most of us would be willing to accept.

Every society throughout history has functioned by utilising this kind of labour. This is the function that slavery used to fulfill. But the requirement for cheap labour hasn't gone away just because slavery is now outlawed. These days, immigrants fit the bill - illegal or otherwise.

Illegal immigrants don't complain about working conditions, largely because they are appreciative of any employment they can find, but also because of the threat of being reported to the authorities if they dissent.

For the most part, illegal immigrants do the work that nobody else wants to do. So the claim that they "come over here and take our jobs", while it might be true, is also irrelevant, because we didn't want those jobs in the first place.

If you really want to pin down the reasons why jobs are being lost in the USA, there are two main culprits:

1. Companies downsizing. I don't mean companies that lay people off because they have to (for example, if they would go bust unless they cut costs). I mean companies that lay people off for no reason other than to increase profits (or in some cases, to bust unions).

2. Companies moving manufacturing industries overseas. In a sense, the claim that "foreigners are taking are jobs" is true - except they no longer have to illegally immigrate to do so. The jobs are going to them, not the other way round. This is the price we are paying for allowing globalisation to continue - for abolishing tariffs and trade barriers. According to the sermons preached by the globalisation apostles, we will all benefit from this in the long run. But I hope the free-market fanatics will forgive me for wondering exactly how.

Of course, one valid argument in favour exporting jobs to developing countries is that it does them a favour. Even though they are no doubt very badly paid by our standards, it's better than not having any jobs at all. But people who make this argument seem to have no patience with the same argument being made for the sake of our own workforce who are becoming increasingly impoverished by job exports.

It's all very well downsizing your workforce and moving manufacturing overseas to cut costs and hence make cheaper products. But it's a false economy in the making. It doesn't matter how cheap stuff is if nobody has a job anymore and hence can't afford to buy stuff. You can't sell stuff without consumers, and the unemployed are not exactly great consumers.

Those race cards are being played by those that have no answer to the logical problems caused by open borders.

if there were such problems, you might have a point. luckily for us, no such problems exist.

I don't remember anyone on this thread that is against illegal immigration ever saying anything about whether they are Mexican,...

The OP kinda (that is, clearly and explicitly) did when the topic of discussion of this very thread was set:


I've lived in the Southwest for most of my life and personally cant stand illegal immigration. One reason is that they get free medical care, dont have to pay taxes, and have many more rights than true Americans that have lived here there entire lives. But the big problem is that they bring their culture with them. And for those who haven't been to Mexico, thats not a good thing.


Can someone please confirm independently that the OP says what I claim it says? I'm not hallucinating, am I? The opening to this very thread posits the problem of illegal immigration, why it is bad, while directly and specifically envoking "Mexicans" and "their culture," right?

So, is anyone "playing the race card," or are we simply responding to the prompt/question as provided by the OP?

Seriously, I'm don't understand what the confusion is here (EDIT: Well, I do, but still... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Basic_theory))

And the Bible doesnt tell you obey every civil law. If the law defies God's Law then it is not to be obeyed.



Rom 13:1-7

if there were such problems, you might have a point. luckily for us, no such problems exist.

It might help if you read a few posts.

It might help if you read a few posts.

Indeed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12727458&postcount=271)

(EDIT: Matthew 7:5 (http://bible.cc/matthew/7-5.htm) )

In the land of business, there are plenty of jobs which require a class of worker that is relatively unskilled, available for hiring and firing on a very short term basis, and who don't (or can't) complain about being made to work much longer hours than most of us would consider to be humane, often for much less pay than most of us would be willing to accept.

Every society throughout history has functioned by utilising this kind of labour. This is the function that slavery used to fulfill. But the requirement for cheap labour hasn't gone away just because slavery is now outlawed. These days, immigrants fit the bill - illegal or otherwise.

Illegal immigrants don't complain about working conditions, largely because they are appreciative of any employment they can find, but also because of the threat of being reported to the authorities if they dissent.

For the most part, illegal immigrants do the work that nobody else wants to do. So the claim that they "come over here and take our jobs", while it might be true, is also irrelevant, because we didn't want those jobs in the first place.

If you really want to pin down the reasons why jobs are being lost in the USA, there are two main culprits:

1. Companies downsizing. I don't mean companies that lay people off because they have to (for example, if they would go bust unless they cut costs). I mean companies that lay people off for no reason other than to increase profits (or in some cases, to bust unions).

2. Companies moving manufacturing industries overseas. In a sense, the claim that "foreigners are taking are jobs" is true - except they no longer have to illegally immigrate to do so. The jobs are going to them, not the other way round. This is the price we are paying for allowing globalisation to continue - for abolishing tariffs and trade barriers. According to the sermons preached by the globalisation apostles, we will all benefit from this in the long run. But I hope the free-market fanatics will forgive me for wondering exactly how.

Of course, one valid argument in favour exporting jobs to developing countries is that it does them a favour. Even though they are no doubt very badly paid by our standards, it's better than not having any jobs at all. But people who make this argument seem to have no patience with the same argument being made for the sake of our own workforce who are becoming increasingly impoverished by job exports.

It's all very well downsizing your workforce and moving manufacturing overseas to cut costs and hence make cheaper products. But it's a false economy in the making. It doesn't matter how cheap stuff is if nobody has a job anymore and hence can't afford to buy stuff. You can't sell stuff without consumers, and the unemployed are not exactly great consumers.

For the most part I have to agree. Illegal immigration is taking the place of slave labor. But I can't agree that these are jobs that won't be taken if the price were right. Most of these jobs were taken by citizens just 30 years ago. Then government policy changed to favor this pseudo-slavery. The minimum wage wasn't increased so inflation made it irrelevant. The gates were thrown open so a massive supply of labor further depressed wages to the point where many jobs don't pay a "living wage" by US standards. (When I was in college I paid the total bill and bought a brand new car on a summer job at minimum wage. Families lived on year-round minimum wage.) Unions were pressured by government policy. Owners gained all political power, workers became irrelevant to the protections of government.

One thing about owning a slave. It was a permanent investment, so the owner made sure the slave had basic food, clothing and shelter. (Just as I make sure my cattle have the basics of life.) The slave couldn't leave but only a few owners would risk the loss of an investment. (My cattle eat better than any "free" animal.) That protection doesn't exist under this system. Throw away one employee and several more are standing in line. Supply and demand have removed the basic employee protections.

Those race cards are being played by those that have no answer to the logical problems caused by open borders.

1) Race and bigotry are MAJOR issues with immigration of any kind. It is 100% natural for a social animal to fear members of its own race from another geographic region, clan or tribe.

2) "Open borders" is a strawman argument. The problems are not caused by "open borders," quite the opposite.

The race card it seems is the only card available to support illegal actions.

3) No one is "supporting illegal actions." I am simply not demonizing, discriminating, hating and fearing based on them. I am not translating, like you seem to want to, morality and law. Something that is illegal is not necessary morally wrong, and saying "BUT THEY'RE ILLEGAL" is not a valid argument for the immorality of illegal immigration.

4) If this is purely an issue of legality, why do you not seem to scream in outrage about people who violate traffic laws, or jaywalk, or smoke marijuana? Where's the dozens of threads about how jaywalkers "are illegal?"

5) If there is no racism involved and this is an issue of legality only, why does no one write threads about how jaywalkers "culture" is ruining America and how jaywalkers are "invading?" Where are the threads about how jaywalkers are outbreeding "normal" citizens?

Do it legal and fair and I don't care where you are from, and neither does it seem anyone else that takes that position.

Legal, in this case, is NOT fair. It is discriminatory, prohibitively bureacratic, expensive and time-consuming. Do some research on it. People do not illegally immigrate just for kicks. Being an illegal immigrant is NOT an easy life. They do NOT get rights citizens don't have. They only do it because legal immigration, for one of the mentioned reasons, is not an option for them.

On the other hand I'm seeing a lot of race arguments by those that want to allow a group to break the law simply because of race.

I want to change the law to make it easier to immigrate. But I don't see that happening, because of people like you. So, my response is NOT to demonize, discriminate, and hate against illegal immigrants. I feel extreme sympathy for them. They get treated like SHIT, but people like you bluster about how they're just here to drain welfare, shit on people's lawns, take our jobs, commit "genocide against white people," get "rights" citizens don't have, because they're lazy and criminal. And how we need to put fucking tanks, mines and barbed wire on the border, and deport illegal immigrants like the Nazis deported Jews. You are part of the problem.

It might help if you read a few posts.

i have. show me a single logical problem with open borders.

As a liberatarian, I crave to scrap immigration quotas, merely having checks at the border to stop terrorists and the like. That being said, those whom have illegally crossed over should be deported indiscriminantly. They can come back, but should wait in line like all of the honest immigrants.

On a side note, you know what really riles me? The US grants only 60,000 visas a year for skilled workers, the professionals from Europe and Asia who would truly grow our economy. We should expand that. They're more productive than the tons and tons of low-skilled workers who come here every year.

As a liberatarian, I crave to scrap immigration quotas, merely having checks at the border to stop terrorists and the like. That being said, those whom have illegally crossed over should be deported indiscriminantly. They can come back, but should wait in line like all of the honest immigrants.

wait wait wait - as a libertarian you demand the rigorous enforcement of flatly anti-libertarian laws?

1) Race and bigotry are MAJOR issues with immigration of any kind. It is 100% natural for a social animal to fear members of its own race from another geographic region, clan or tribe.

I would have to agree that humans are pack animals and there is some bigotry, but I don't see that as the major problem.

2) "Open borders" is a strawman argument. The problems are not caused by "open borders," quite the opposite. No strawman about it. It is simply a fact the the government has been purposely lax on the borders. This has caused obvious problems for the lower class unskilled citizens. I've seen no response to my "supply and demand" examples. What problems would tighter restrictions cause? Well, for the people coming illegally they would have less chance to increase there income. But should the first concern be with the masses of poor of the world, or with the poor citizens that find there way to the middle class blocked?

3) No one is "supporting illegal actions." I am simply not demonizing, discriminating, hating and fearing based on them. I am not translating, like you seem to want to, morality and law. Something that is illegal is not necessary morally wrong, and saying "BUT THEY'RE ILLEGAL" is not a valid argument for the immorality of illegal immigration.

4) If this is purely an issue of legality, why do you not seem to scream in outrage about people who violate traffic laws, or jaywalk, or smoke marijuana? Where's the dozens of threads about how jaywalkers "are illegal?"

5) If there is no racism involved and this is an issue of legality only, why does no one write threads about how jaywalkers "culture" is ruining America and how jaywalkers are "invading?" Where are the threads about how jaywalkers are outbreeding "normal" citizens?


Illegal is illegal and I would argue against any illegal action. However, some illegal actions have a greater negative than others. Rob a candy bar and it just doesn't seem as serious as murder. Both are wrong but one deserves more action than the other.

Legal, in this case, is NOT fair. It is discriminatory, prohibitively bureacratic, expensive and time-consuming. Do some research on it. People do not illegally immigrate just for kicks. Being an illegal immigrant is NOT an easy life. They do NOT get rights citizens don't have. They only do it because legal immigration, for one of the mentioned reasons, is not an option for them.


Immigration has not been easy. My G. Grandfather left his wife and daughter to work in the US for 7 years until he could be a citizen. Then he returned to bring his wife and daughter (my grandmother) to the US. I'm sure it wasn't fun in the days when a letter took weeks. The work was hard but it was legal. My father had an 8th grade education, but he and his siblings were able to make a good living and send their children to college. I was the first of my cousins to get a Master's, several others have passed me since. This was possible because wages for unskilled workers were fair and just. This is no longer true. A minimum wage job will not send your children to college. The price of labor at the bottom has dropped dramatically (as I have shown several times) because of a massive supply. Those who are weakest in our society no longer have a chance to dream of seeing their children and grandchildren become successful. You are arguing that it is just for those citizens at the bottom to live in poverty so that others can advance from the utter destitution of most of the world. That wages shall forever be immorally low because employers will pay the least possible, and massive supply allows then to lower the living standards of the weakest and poorest of society. I treat my cattle with more justice and compassion than employers that hire at minimum wage. This is what you define as just.


I want to change the law to make it easier to immigrate. But I don't see that happening, because of people like you. So, my response is NOT to demonize, discriminate, and hate against illegal immigrants. I feel extreme sympathy for them. They get treated like SHIT, but people like you bluster about how they're just here to drain welfare, shit on people's lawns, take our jobs, commit "genocide against white people," get "rights" citizens don't have, because they're lazy and criminal. And how we need to put fucking tanks, mines and barbed wire on the border, and deport illegal immigrants like the Nazis deported Jews. You are part of the problem.

I have never demonized, discriminated, or hated anyone. The US is not rich enough to hire all of those in the world that are living in utter destitution. I have never blustered about any of those things. What I have said is that the US should have basic living standards for anyone holding a job. The only way to do that is increase demand or limit supply. How is it more just to employ an illegal than it is to employ a citizen? How is it more just to make the poorest and weakest of our society poorer and weaker in order to benefit people who by definition chose to cause themselves problems? I have sympathy for a lot of people. I have sympathy for the smoker with cancer. But the smoker with cancer chose to live as he does. I have sympathy for the illegal, but the illegal chose to cause his own problems. Why should someone who made that choice be more sympathetic to you than the citizen who struggles under the burden caused by the mass influx of illegals. The citizen didn't choose this cancer, but has to live with it.

As a liberatarian, I crave to scrap immigration quotas, merely having checks at the border to stop terrorists and the like. That being said, those whom have illegally crossed over should be deported indiscriminantly. They can come back, but should wait in line like all of the honest immigrants.

On a side note, you know what really riles me? The US grants only 60,000 visas a year for skilled workers, the professionals from Europe and Asia who would truly grow our economy. We should expand that. They're more productive than the tons and tons of low-skilled workers who come here every year.

I agree. I would propose that anyone with a college degree be given a green card. It's crazy that US universities will train the very best of the world but not let them stay after graduation, yet open the flood gates for those that harm the living standard of our poorest and weakest. This is a sane policy?

wait wait wait - as a libertarian you demand the rigorous enforcement of flatly anti-libertarian laws?

I'm an economic and social liberatarian. I believe that the security and vitality of this nation is paramount to preserving and nurturing these freedoms.

I would have to agree that humans are pack animals and there is some bigotry, but I don't see that as the major problem.

Then you aren't looking.


No strawman about it. It is simply a fact the the government has been purposely lax on the borders.

Purposefully? Oh right, the conspiracy theory.

It's funny, how "lax" on the borders the US is, but how completely difficult it is to legally immigrate (or even just enter) to the US.

Anyway, yes it's a strawman - you said basically, that anyone opposed to your view supports "completely open borders."

This has caused obvious problems for the lower class unskilled citizens. I've seen no response to my "supply and demand" examples.

They should get skills, then. We're the largest and wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth; if people can't compete with third-world refugees and migrants, that's a bad sign. A sign not that we should start essentially enacting protectionism and subsidies for US citizens, but that we should re-learn how to compete.

What problems would tighter restrictions cause? Well, for the people coming illegally they would have less chance to increase there income. But should the first concern be with the masses of poor of the world, or with the poor citizens that find there way to the middle class blocked?

The former. Even the lower class in the US lives better than most people anywhere else.

Illegal is illegal and I would argue against any illegal action. However, some illegal actions have a greater negative than others. Rob a candy bar and it just doesn't seem as serious as murder. Both are wrong but one deserves more action than the other.

"Illegal is illegal." OK. That it is. But illegal isn't always immoral, and "illegal immigration is illegal" is NOT a compelling argument for increased border security, more quotas, or deportations. Or whatever "action" you seem to want.

Immigration has not been easy. My G. Grandfather left his wife and daughter to work in the US for 7 years until he could be a citizen. Then he returned to bring his wife and daughter (my grandmother) to the US. I'm sure it wasn't fun in the days when a letter took weeks. The work was hard but it was legal. My father had an 8th grade education, but he and his siblings were able to make a good living and send their children to college. I was the first of my cousins to get a Master's, several others have passed me since. This was possible because wages for unskilled workers were fair and just. This is no longer true. A minimum wage job will not send your children to college. The price of labor at the bottom has dropped dramatically (as I have shown several times) because of a massive supply. Those who are weakest in our society no longer have a chance to dream of seeing their children and grandchildren become successful.

Minimum wage is just as it was when set in the Fair Labor Standards Act. In most states it is rather higher than the federal laws. And there's welfare. I don't find poverty in the US a compelling reason to reject those escaping much more damaging poverty in other nations. Especially when they are willing to work, and statistically more likely to start new businesses.

And all your argument here seems to just confirm my point because it can be made against any immigration, legal or otherwise.

You are arguing that it is just for those citizens at the bottom to live in poverty so that others can advance from the utter destitution of most of the world.

Of course.

That wages shall forever be immorally low because employers will pay the least possible, and massive supply allows then to lower the living standards of the weakest and poorest of society. I treat my cattle with more justice and compassion than employers that hire at minimum wage. This is what you define as just.

Don't tell me what I define as just. The weakest and poorest of society are those trying to immigrate here. The ones you'd turn back at the door, demand thousands of dollars from (to fund the Dept. of Homeland Security) and tell them to go back to making minimum wage in *other* nations. You sit here and whine about US citizens making 5.15 an hour while they in their nations can only ever hope to make say, 2 dollars a day. Why? Because apparently justice for you is national. Americans are better, worthier and more deserving than say, Mexicans.

What I have said is that the US should have basic living standards for anyone holding a job. The only way to do that is increase demand or limit supply.

We have a minimum wage. Raise it if you must.

How is it more just to employ an illegal than it is to employ a citizen?

How is it more just to deport an illegal than make him a citizen?

How is it more just to make the poorest and weakest of our society poorer and weaker in order to benefit people who by definition chose to cause themselves problems?

Oh, those illegal immigrants chose to cause their problems. I suppose they chose their place of birth. And they just immigrated illegaly why, for shits and giggles.

I have sympathy for the illegal, but the illegal chose to cause his own problems.

Hogwash.

Why should someone who made that choice be more sympathetic to you than the citizen who struggles under the burden caused by the mass influx of illegals. The citizen didn't choose this cancer, but has to live with it.

You're still harping on this false dichotomy. Us versus Them. And now you compare immigrants with cancer. No demonizing, indeed. You can't even say "illegal immigrant," apparently that's too much WORK for you, or perhaps it just helps distance yourself emotionally by suggesting that their very existence is just plain "illegal." And we already know you equate law with morality. Silly.

It is simply a fact the the government has been purposely lax on the borders. This has caused obvious problems for the lower class unskilled citizens.As has been pointed out by others, the majority of illegal immigrants are people who came legally on work visas and overstayed. How would tighter borders help against these people?

I'm an economic and social liberatarian. I believe that the security and vitality of this nation is paramount to preserving and nurturing these freedoms.

ok, i amend my question.

wait wait wait - as an economic and social libertarian you demand the rigorous enforcement of blatantly anti-economically-and-socially-libertarian laws?

if anything, specifying has only made the ridiculousness of your position worse.

As has been pointed out by others, the majority of illegal immigrants are people who came legally on work visas and overstayed. How would tighter borders help against these people?

Obviously the government has been weak in enforcing the laws on these the easiest to find. The government, supported by the money of industry, chose to allow the influx to drive down labor prices. If the government wanted to enforce it's own laws these are the first people that it would have found. This is not conspiracy it is prima facia evidence.

Obviously the government has been weak in enforcing the laws on these the easiest to find. The government, supported by the money of industry, chose to allow the influx to drive down labor prices. If the government wanted to enforce it's own laws these are the first people that it would have found. This is not conspiracy it is prima facia evidence.But not evidence that tightening border control would do anything.

Then you aren't looking.



Purposefully? Oh right, the conspiracy theory. I can show you many plants that have majority illegal immigrants. I can show you many cafes that operate on a back room and sometimes a front room filled with illegal immigrants. If the government had a policy to control the problem they could find them easier than I can. Obviously if they can't find illegal immigrants they are making no effort to look.

It's funny, how "lax" on the borders the US is, but how completely difficult it is to legally immigrate (or even just enter) to the US.
I totally agree. But if someone is allowed to come in legally, industry must pay them and treat them at the basic standards. Someone doesn't want to do that or they would make legal immigration easier. Who do you suppose benefits from lower labor standards? Might we follow the money to find out?
Anyway, yes it's a strawman - you said basically, that anyone opposed to your view supports "completely open borders."
It wasn't me that drew that distinction. I'm all for selective immigration. Import the people that we need. People with the background that will help build industry and promote mechanization and the efficiencies there of. One of the points that hasn't been brought up is when the price of labor is artificially driven down it discourages mechanical efficiency. There are few agricultural crops that can't be harvested mechanically. But why buy a machine when you can buy a virtual slave.


They should get skills, then. We're the largest and wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth; if people can't compete with third-world refugees and migrants, that's a bad sign. A sign not that we should start essentially enacting protectionism and subsidies for US citizens, but that we should re-learn how to compete. I'm afraid that has been tried. We trained millions of communications workers about 20 years ago. They couldn't compete with those third world workers. The fact is there is a percent of every population that simply can't or won't learn enough to advance beyond basic labor. The US has a High School drop out rate of around 25%. In today's economy what do you propose these people do to feed their families? According to the arguments I'm hearing, I guess they should devolve into destitution and starve if they can't compete with the flood of the earth. Some on this thread don't seem to care if citizens starve as long as illegal immigrants are given a chance to slightly improve. There is always a cost to any action. Someone wins and someone loses. What is being proposed by some is a world wide "survival of the fittest" in a complete pseudo-jungle situation. Protect no one at the bottom. Let the physically strongest live. It matters not if citizens of the US end up living at the garbage dump if they can't compete with those that left the garbage dumps of the world to take the jobs. It would be great if no one in the world lived in a garbage dump. Show me a way for that to happen and I will be right behind you. But lowering the living conditions for a citizen in order to raise the living conditions of an illegal immigrant is a zero sum game.



The former. Even the lower class in the US lives better than most people anywhere else.
Right now, but they aren't at half the living conditions they were at 25 years ago. There seem to be no desire (at least on this thread) to reverse the downward trend. In fact many on this thread would increase the downward pressure on the living conditions of the poorest and weakest. It is really hard to reverse such a trend once it picks up inertia.



Minimum wage is just as it was when set in the Fair Labor Standards Act. In most states it is rather higher than the federal laws. And there's welfare. I don't find poverty in the US a compelling reason to reject those escaping much more damaging poverty in other nations. Especially when they are willing to work, and statistically more likely to start new businesses. In the last 27 years the minimum wage has gone from $3.10 to $5.10. During the same time fuel has gone from .30 to 3.00. Not exactly keeping up with inflation. But wages is only part of it. 30 years ago medical was almost mandatory, now it is unlikely for those at the bottom. I at least provide full medical for my cattle. And they have gone up from .50 to 1.25 per pound over the last 30 years.
Do you really want to throw out welfare as an option? Actually Wal-Mart now gives new employees a brochure advising them to apply for welfare to subsidize their wages.





Of course.
Your argument here is that if you have a bucket of mud and a bucket of clear water it is better to pour them together so twice as many people can drink, even if that means everyone gets half mud.


Don't tell me what I define as just. The weakest and poorest of society are those trying to immigrate here. The ones you'd turn back at the door, demand thousands of dollars from (to fund the Dept. of Homeland Security) and tell them to go back to making minimum wage in *other* nations. You sit here and whine about US citizens making 5.15 an hour while they in their nations can only ever hope to make say, 2 dollars a day. Why? Because apparently justice for you is national. Americans are better, worthier and more deserving than say, Mexicans.Who is defining who? I demand nothing of noncitizens beyond obeying the law.


Oh, those illegal immigrants chose to cause their problems. I suppose they chose their place of birth. And they just immigrated illegaly why, for shits and giggles. Everyone is born with problems, some more than others. Some cause additional problems then demand others to solve the problems they created.


You're still harping on this false dichotomy. Us versus Them. And now you compare immigrants with cancer. No demonizing, indeed. You can't even say "illegal immigrant," apparently that's too much WORK for you, or perhaps it just helps distance yourself emotionally by suggesting that their very existence is just plain "illegal." And we already know you equate law with morality. Silly.

Tell me how to help everyone in the world that's living in a garbage dump without taking from others that have little to lose. If your solution would bring the billionaires down to mere multimillionaires I would be willing to listen. But that isn't who you are willing to punish. You are willing to punish the weakest and poorest and call it a moral solution.

By the way, the comparison wasn't to the immigrants, it was to how they came to the problems that they have in the US. They would have no problems in the US if they didn't create them. I have sympathy for those problems just as I have sympathy for my brother-in-law and sister-in-law that are dying from emphysema. On the other hand, I don't expect others to suffer because they made the decision to smoke. I have much more sympathy for strangers that are dieing of emphysema because they live in an area of air pollution. Want another example, When you rob a bank don't complain about prison food.

But not evidence that tightening border control would do anything.

Why would we have to choose between tighter borders and expired visas? I choose both.

I can show you many plants that have majority illegal immigrants. I can show you many cafes that operate on a back room and sometimes a front room filled with illegal immigrants. If the government had a policy to control the problem they could find them easier than I can. Obviously if they can't find illegal immigrants they are making no effort to look.

Heh. And I can show you a guilty person. Obviously if the government isn't finding out who's responsible for which crimes, they are making no effort to look.

I totally agree. But if someone is allowed to come in legally, industry must pay them and treat them at the basic standards. Someone doesn't want to do that or they would make legal immigration easier. Who do you suppose benefits from lower labor standards? Might we follow the money to find out?

This is starting to smack of conspiracy. How about follow the fear. What's more common in humans, fear or desire for money? I'd say the former. It's universal. And fear of the foreigner, the strangers, the weird tribe from across the river? Rampant, especially in the "Post 9/11 World." The fact is, bureacracy is what is serving as the barrier to immigration, limiting the amount of immigrants who can legally come pollute our white gene pool.

I'm afraid that has been tried.

Not well enough to satisfy you, it seems.

We trained millions of communications workers about 20 years ago. They couldn't compete with those third world workers.

What a pity. That's what competition is, though. You want competition only when you, or people who look and talk like you, win. A very typical, gimme-gimme attitude which I find repulsive.

he US has a High School drop out rate of around 25%. In today's economy what do you propose these people do to feed their families?

I propose high school kids stop being a bunch of emo brats, dropping out of school and then complaining about it. Most of them don't even bother to vote. Most don't even try to work. They certainly don't start businesses at the same rates as immigrants do. You want me to feel sorry for them for their own stupid wasteful neglects of opportunity, while incriminating people for seizing opportunity in their stead?

According to the arguments I'm hearing, I guess they should devolve into destitution and starve if they can't compete with the flood of the earth.

And according to you, they should be given jobs they patently can't hold, based on their education they couldn't succeed in, all the while we kick out "illegals" to starve AND be repressed in third world nations. That way the World of Warcraft generation can succeed even though they don't deserve to.

Ugh.

Some on this thread don't seem to care if citizens starve as long as illegal immigrants are given a chance to slightly improve.

Ah yes, the famous starving American citizens. Yes, that's one thing we have, especially in comparison with many Latin American nations - starvation.

Next.

There is always a cost to any action. Someone wins and someone loses. What is being proposed by some is a world wide "survival of the fittest" in a complete pseudo-jungle situation. Protect no one at the bottom. Let the physically strongest live. It matters not if citizens of the US end up living at the garbage dump if they can't compete with those that left the garbage dumps of the world to take the jobs.

So, you prefer not survival of the fittest, but survival of the Americans by virtue of being "legal."

But lowering the living conditions for a citizen in order to raise the living conditions of an illegal immigrant is a zero sum game.

...and a false dichotomy. You're the one with this us versus them mentality, and your attitude seems to be - kill the illegal immigrants, so our emo kids don't have to go to school and actually learn how to compete. Shelter them, put them in a bubble, so they don't need to be competitive.

In the last 27 years the minimum wage has gone from $3.10 to $5.10. During the same time fuel has gone from .30 to 3.00. Not exactly keeping up with inflation. But wages is only part of it. 30 years ago medical was almost mandatory, now it is unlikely for those at the bottom. I at least provide full medical for my cattle. And they have gone up from .50 to 1.25 per pound over the last 30 years.

Ah, so you own cattle. And complain about starvation. Well, how about stop wasting all that land, food, energy and money raising bovine hamburgers and make it more productive? Something more necessary than meat?


Your argument here is that if you have a bucket of mud and a bucket of clear water it is better to pour them together so twice as many people can drink, even if that means everyone gets half mud.

Correct.

And your argument seems to be that illegal immigrants are the MUD PEOPLE. Who are going to pollute our fine drinking water with their impurity.

Jesus.

Everyone is born with problems, some more than others. Some cause additional problems then demand others to solve the problems they created.

Illegal immigrants, if anything, try to solve their own problems. That seems in fact, what you are so opposed to - that they take matters into their own hands. Unlike those 25% high school dropouts.

Tell me how to help everyone in the world that's living in a garbage dump without taking from others that have little to lose. If your solution would bring the billionaires down to mere multimillionaires I would be willing to listen. But that isn't who you are willing to punish. You are willing to punish the weakest and poorest and call it a moral solution.

The poorest and weakest? No darling, that's who you seek to punish. Illegal immigrants are demonstrably both the poorest and weakest living in this country.

By the way, the comparison wasn't to the immigrants, it was to how they came to the problems that they have in the US.

Same difference. "Garbage heaps" where "mud" comes to be a "cancer" in the US. You're full of bigotry and you don't seem to even realize it.

Heh. And I can show you a guilty person. Obviously if the government isn't finding out who's responsible for which crimes, they are making no effort to look.

This is starting to smack of conspiracy. How about follow the fear. What's more common in humans, fear or desire for money? I'd say the former. It's universal. And fear of the foreigner, the strangers, the weird tribe from across the river? Rampant, especially in the "Post 9/11 World." The fact is, bureacracy is what is serving as the barrier to immigration, limiting the amount of immigrants who can legally come pollute our white gene pool. Votes tend to come from fear. GW got elected on the fear of Gay marriage. But the government and the economic powers of the US run on pure money. Follow the money and you will find the guilty for nearly all of the governmental and economic problems of the US.


And according to you, they should be given jobs they patently can't hold, based on their education they couldn't succeed in, all the while we kick out "illegals" to starve AND be repressed in third world nations. That way the World of Warcraft generation can succeed even though they don't deserve to.

Just as with most of the illegal immigrants, they are limited in the jobs they can hold. And those happen to be the same jobs. We aren't talking of spoiled Yuppie kids here.


Ah, so you own cattle. And complain about starvation. Well, how about stop wasting all that land, food, energy and money raising bovine hamburgers and make it more productive? Something more necessary than meat?
What do you propose I raise on land that is too rocky to plow? Give me a product and I'll give it a try.

And your argument seems to be that illegal immigrants are the MUD PEOPLE. Who are going to pollute our fine drinking water with their impurity.
Why do you put the person in the position of the situation? The mud is extreme poverty. By mixing them you are creating more poverty, just not as thick.


The poorest and weakest? No darling, that's who you seek to punish. Illegal immigrants are demonstrably both the poorest and weakest living in this country. By choice.



Same difference. "Garbage heaps" where "mud" comes to be a "cancer" in the US. You're full of bigotry and you don't seem to even realize it.
You are the one that is seeing people in a comparison where I saw problems. All of my examples refer to problems. All your mind apparently sees is different people. I'll compare my rainbow of friends to yours any day. And that rainbow isn't just colors of skin but jobs, economic levels, geography, ages, medical conditions, lifestyles, interests, political orientation, religion, country of origin or of ancestors.........you name a category. I don't even think of skin color. I sometimes have to stop and think who they are talking about when I hear a racial remark. It's not my mind that is immediately jumping to race with each comparison.

*snippy*

holy freaking cows!

*agrees wtih Good Lifes*


*checks temperature down under (and I don't mean Australia)*

Votes tend to come from fear. GW got elected on the fear of Gay marriage. But the government and the economic powers of the US run on pure money. Follow the money and you will find the guilty for nearly all of the governmental and economic problems of the US.

Ahh, a rant. Well spoken, comrade! Workers of the world, unite! Unless you're immigrants, then you can go somewhere and die. ;)

Just as with most of the illegal immigrants, they are limited in the jobs they can hold. And those happen to be the same jobs. We aren't talking of spoiled Yuppie kids here.

No, just kids who couldn't be arsed to get an education even when one is provided at virtually no cost. Cry me a river.

What do you propose I raise on land that is too rocky to plow? Give me a product and I'll give it a try.

Oh, I don't know. Some kind of crop would work. Practically anything would be more energy efficient than meat animals.

Why do you put the person in the position of the situation? The mud is extreme poverty. By mixing them you are creating more poverty, just not as thick.

Economic status is not either dirt or water. The analogy fails because it treats like simple alchemical components a complex and dynamic socioeconomic system, down to: get the poor people away, they'll spread their poverty!

By choice.

Nope.

You are the one that is seeing people in a comparison where I saw problems.

You are the one that sees people as problems.

All of my examples refer to problems. All your mind apparently sees is different people. I'll compare my rainbow of friends to yours any day. And that rainbow isn't just colors of skin but jobs, economic levels, geography, ages, medical conditions, lifestyles, interests, political orientation, religion, country of origin or of ancestors.........you name a category. I don't even think of skin color. I sometimes have to stop and think who they are talking about when I hear a racial remark. It's not my mind that is immediately jumping to race with each comparison.

Sure sure, mud and water boy.

holy freaking cows!

*agrees wtih Good Lifes*


*checks temperature down under (and I don't mean Australia)*

Hi Smunkee, Great to see you again. I really think we have more in common than differences. But our differences are stark aren't they.

Hi Smunkee, Great to see you again. I really think we have more in common than differences. But our differences are stark aren't they.

I thought I met a kid recently who needed a spanking, but then I figured out that I had PMS and that the kid probably just needed to go away until my hormones were under control. (lest I beat him)

Oh, I don't know. Some kind of crop would work. Practically anything would be more energy efficient than meat animals. Nothing is as efficient in converting grass and other vegetation to humanly digestible food than a ruminant ungulate. And without man made chemicals.

But the comparison was to how an employer of the poorest treats those employees. Sorry you missed that comparison also.


Economic status is not either dirt or water. The analogy fails because it treats like simple alchemical components a complex and dynamic socioeconomic system, down to: get the poor people away, they'll spread their poverty!
Well I tried to explain "supply and demand" but some on this thread didn't seem to comprehend so I tried a simpler example. Now you tell me pouring together dirt and water is not complex enough...........



Sure sure, mud and water boy.
I guess you don't understand the concept of metaphor. Stay away from the Bible, you'll never get the concept of parable.

I thought I met a kid recently who needed a spanking, but then I figured out that I had PMS and that the kid probably just needed to go away until my hormones were under control. (lest I beat him)

:D LOL---literally

Why would we have to choose between tighter borders and expired visas? I choose both.Oh, I certainly wasn't trying to present a false dichotomy, but typically when people talk of stopping illegal immigration they speak of border control and not much else, which wouldn't work in this case. Since you had only mentioned border control, I lumped you in with those people.

So how do you propose the government check up on people with expired visas to make sure they renew them or leave?

I don't think undocumented workers are a bad thing. The US needs to tear down walls between Mexico and them, not build them. If Mexicans want to come to the US, they should be able to.

I'm afraid that has been tried. We trained millions of communications workers about 20 years ago. They couldn't compete with those third world workers.

sounds like a general problem with capitalism to me.

The fact is there is a percent of every population that simply can't or won't learn enough to advance beyond basic labor. The US has a High School drop out rate of around 25%. In today's economy what do you propose these people do to feed their families?

well, what they actually do is move up the economic ladder a bit since they have at least a few skills that are quite useful that the vast majority of immigrants do not. seriously, immigration doesn't correlate to unemployment and actually causes wage boosts for everybody (except earlier immigrants) in the areas where it is concentrated.

According to the arguments I'm hearing, I guess they should devolve into destitution and starve if they can't compete with the flood of the earth. Some on this thread don't seem to care if citizens starve as long as illegal immigrants are given a chance to slightly improve.

and then there are others that would guarantee food, clothing, and shelter to everyone...

But lowering the living conditions for a citizen in order to raise the living conditions of an illegal immigrant is a zero sum game.

doesn't happen. world don't work like that. i really wonder how it is that we have managed to survive any population growth at all under your conception of the world.

I propose high school kids stop being a bunch of emo brats, dropping out of school and then complaining about it. Most of them don't even bother to vote. Most don't even try to work. They certainly don't start businesses at the same rates as immigrants do. You want me to feel sorry for them for their own stupid wasteful neglects of opportunity, while incriminating people for seizing opportunity in their stead?

The scum who don't even try to find jobs and live on the streets bumming for money, or the illegal aliens who sneak across the border and mooch off of our system without giving anything back? Don't expect me to burst into tears for either one. To use your own words, cry me a river.

Do you see people streaming across the borders to Russia? China? Brazil?

Unjust laws?

Why do we need to make it easy to become a legal citizen?

Does everyone want to have 2 or 3 people just move in to their house and start to eat your food/use your medicine and than shit on your carpet? Asking them to pay for their food/medicine would be unjust? Asking them not to shit on the carpet is unjust. Asking them to learn to speak English is unjust? Not to mention READING period...they can't read spanish a lot of the time. Mexico DOES NOT offer their forms in ENGLISH.

Learn the language.

Get a legal citizenship.

Get a legal job.

Pay your share of taxes.

Clean up after yourself.

I work in an industrial section of a southwest Texas city. I can literally throw a rock and if it doesn't hit an illegal it flew past one. This part of town is littered with garbage, run down buildings, and graffiti in SPANISH!

Mexican government is corrupt. Mexico is a third world shithole. Culture? History? Pride? Why the fuck would a Mexican want to come to America if they are so fucking proud of being a Mexican?!? Or any other country for that matter...THEY are LEAVING to come to AMERICA. Become an AMERICAN, wave the Stars and Stripes, eat your fucking hot dog on the 4th of July, and shut the fuck up about whatever shithole country you left to live in AMERICA.

What happens in other countries if you are not a citizen, are illegally in the country, and get pulled over by a police officer? Does Germany just say move along? Russia? China? Mexico? What about jolly ole England?

:upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours:

Oh, I certainly wasn't trying to present a false dichotomy, but typically when people talk of stopping illegal immigration they speak of border control and not much else, which wouldn't work in this case. Since you had only mentioned border control, I lumped you in with those people.

So how do you propose the government check up on people with expired visas to make sure they renew them or leave?

How is any crime investigated?

Well, I would start with last known address. At least with visa people there is a last known address. Some computer somewhere in the government should pop up every day the people that were within 6 months, 3 months, and expires today. Send out a few notices so people can remember to renew. If expire shows up go out that day and check last known address.

Surprise fucko, all american culture is imported. Save for the culture of those tan guys withthe dark hair...the ones over on the shitty property.

Those bastards who get free college in exchange forthe continent...and umm we destroyed their culture.

If getting somemore mexicans and central Americans means that a culture that creates peple like you goes away...I need to install an airconditioner and water fountain in my trunk and start up hualing the future of America...its a new world gringo take off your white hood and deal with it like an American. not a fecking "Joe Bob" slack jaw inbred dirty barown person hater.

Heaven forbid these people cross the imaginary line looking for a job...oh no!!!

working Mexicans whatever will we do!!! Arrgghhhh tamales and picture of the Virgin Mary....stop the horror.

No please dont bring strong family ties and a strong work ethic!!! America will never be able to stand up to that...


...

Illegal Immigration... I say "Hola Senoirs y Senoiras, mi nacion es tu nacion, mi buena fortuna es tu buena fortuna" or something like that.

The problem is there are ove 400 million people in Mexico right now, and 300 million people in America. Now if we opened our borders up right now, do you think any Mexicans would think twice about coming to America? Of course not. Then you have 700 million people in America struggling to get jobs when its already hard enough to get jobs as it is. And do you think that those 400 million people would think twice about learning English? I dont think so. So then America would become a Bilingual country. Basically the entire United States would turn into New Mexico. Which is not good.

Unjust laws?

Why do we need to make it easy to become a legal citizen?You answered your own question before you asked it. It is unjust not to.

Learn the language.The United States doesn't have an official language, so there is no the language.

Get a legal citizenship.Prohibitively difficult for many.

Get a legal job.

Pay your share of taxes.

Clean up after yourself.Which is much easier to do when there's no such thing as an illegal immigrant.

I work in an industrial section of a southwest Texas city. I can literally throw a rock and if it doesn't hit an illegal it flew past one. This part of town is littered with garbage, run down buildings, and graffiti in SPANISH!Oh no! Not another language!

What happens in other countries if you are not a citizen, are illegally in the country, and get pulled over by a police officer? Does Germany just say move along? Russia? China? Mexico? What about jolly ole England?No, but they all should.

How is any crime investigated?

Well, I would start with last known address. At least with visa people there is a last known address. Some computer somewhere in the government should pop up every day the people that were within 6 months, 3 months, and expires today. Send out a few notices so people can remember to renew. If expire shows up go out that day and check last known address.I see.

How many people do you think it would take to do this?
If we have 11 million illegal immigrants, and half of these have overstayed their visas, then that's about 6 million people to check up on.

How many people do you think it would take to do this?
If we have 11 million illegal immigrants, and half of these have overstayed their visas, then that's about 6 million people to check up on.

A highway patrolman doesn't have to catch everyone, just enough to keep the others honest.

If the government busted one industry per week, one cafe per day per city, and as many overstays as possible things would tighten up fast. And if every business busted payed say $1000 per day per illegal worker the word would get around rather quickly that it would be more economical to raise the wages and hire legal workers.

If the government busted one industry per week, one cafe per day per city, and as many overstays as possible things would tighten up fast. And if every business busted payed say $1000 per day per illegal worker the word would get around rather quickly that it would be more economical to raise the wages and hire legal workers.
They do that right now, doesn't seem to be working out too well.

They do that right now, doesn't seem to be working out too well.

?????????I don't know where you live but I don't remember hearing of them busting anyone in the Kansas City-St. Joseph-Topeka area in the last 15 years. I can point out a house with 20. And a business that employs at least that many. And I'm not looking.

?????????I don't know where you live but I don't remember hearing of them busting anyone in the Kansas City-St. Joseph-Topeka area in the last 15 years. I can point out a house with 20. And a business that employs at least that many. And I'm not looking.
Perhaps if you look at the news once in a while where they have been talking abour raids nation wide on a weekly basis for the past few months.

Hate to tell you this, but the US does not start and stop in Kansas City.

okay, first illigal immagrants are americans.
there not us citizens, but every one is saying american citizen and its pissing me off, mexico is central america, and there is no american citizen.

two, this is racism, extremly close to post civil war racism, they stink, there all criminals (hard not to be, when being mexican agenst the law), there not contributing to society. My felow white people, this seems familar, and oh hell no we an't goin there agen. what the hell happened to all men were created equaly, did it only count within our own people, "all us citizens are created equal, but if not than i guess it sucks for you"? that doesnt sound quite right. people tend to frorget that other people are people too.

{
okay heres my crazy idea, 100 years from now (as long as the mayans wernt right) i see in us history textbooks talking about el ferrocarril subterráneo (spanish for the underground railroad) and how many brave men took the daring cross over the rio grand to a land of hope. Ofcource us honkys will put our spin on how we grashusly accepted them (how us white folk love our history) and then years latter jose luther king jr will make is famus speach. and eventualy us whites will learn..................agien.*sigh*

its a work in progres
}

three, in lousiana the offical language is french, dont belive me look it up, are you telling me i should learn freanch before moving there? anyway i dout any immagrant could live here and know no english

four, someone (morron) posted the worst part is they broght there culture, whats the matter man afrad of a little culture, tocos freak you out, do the not have sombraros big enofe for your huge ego, or can you still not get over the alamo (come on man)

Perhaps if you look at the news once in a while where they have been talking abour raids nation wide on a weekly basis for the past few months.

Hate to tell you this, but the US does not start and stop in Kansas City.

No, but that's the newspaper, radio, and TV that I receive. I watch the national network news every night and "News Hour" on PBS. There doesn't seem to be much press in any of these areas where anyone is enforcing the laws that are on the books. There's a lot of discussion about the problems but nothing on actual enforcement. Maybe they make a hit on one factory every several months when the politics demands it.

If you live somewhere that the government takes the law seriously, I imagine you also see change..

No, but that's the newspaper, radio, and TV that I receive. I watch the national network news every night and "News Hour" on PBS. There doesn't seem to be much press in any of these areas where anyone is enforcing the laws that are on the books. There's a lot of discussion about the problems but nothing on actual enforcement. Maybe they make a hit on one factory every several months when the politics demands it.

If you live somewhere that the government takes the law seriously, I imagine you also see change..
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Immigration+raids
Stories about the raids going on around the country:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=Immigration+raids+%2BKansas+city
About the raid that happened in your area a week or so ago. Again, they are going on nation wide all the time. Your area ain't the only place with illegals.

So in regards to your suggestion

1. There are massive raids going on right now, doesn't seem to make a difference.

2. We don't have the personel to visit every single business everywhere in the US every week.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Immigration+raids
Stories about the raids going on around the country:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=Immigration+raids+%2BKansas+city
About the raid that happened in your area a week or so ago. Again, they are going on nation wide all the time. Your area ain't the only place with illegals.

So in regards to your suggestion

1. There are massive raids going on right now, doesn't seem to make a difference.

2. We don't have the personel to visit every single business everywhere in the US every week.

A quick scan and elimination of duplicates indicates a half dozen this month nationwide. Several of those were by accident. They were looking for fugitives and stumbled on immigrants. Only one deals with a major factory. One story is about the RNC demanding that raids stop. (Funny how I wasn't surprised by that.)

I am familiar with the Kansas City case. That was really another category. A crime syndicate had imported Chinese slaves for prostitution. They had several "massage parlors" with dozens of slaves. By the way, in this case the slaves were not treated as illegal immigrants. They were given asylum and government protection.

A quick scan and elimination of duplicates indicates a half dozen this month nationwide. Several of those were by accident. They were looking for fugitives and stumbled on immigrants. Only one deals with a major factory. One story is about the RNC demanding that raids stop. (Funny how I wasn't surprised by that.)
12 per month. Let me see now, that's 4 weeks in a month and so we get 3 round ups per week. Over the last month as Google news only goes back for a month without specific instructions.

That's what you're demanding, isn't? One round up per week.

I am familiar with the Kansas City case. That was really another category. A crime syndicate had imported Chinese slaves for prostitution. They had several "massage parlors" with dozens of slaves. By the way, in this case the slaves were not treated as illegal immigrants. They were given asylum and government protection.
You missed that chicken plant, didn't you?

I've lived in the Southwest for most of my life and personally cant stand illegal immigration. One reason is that they get free medical care, dont have to pay taxes, and have many more rights than true Americans that have lived here there entire lives. But the big problem is that they bring their culture with them. And for those who haven't been to Mexico, thats not a good thing.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12733091&postcount=97


I'm a lower middle class US taxpayer.

It's hard to hate immigrants when all they are trying to do is escape a hellish life and try to improve their situation.

I can sympathize with illegal immigrants especially because they are the ones who are the poorest of the poor and couldn't afford the VERY EXPENSIVE process of becomming a legal immigrant.

Sure there may be a security risk with this whole terrorism phenom, but honestly my underpants are still dry and I don't even look over my shoulder every few seconds to see if a brown person is plotting against me.

I am also not worried about the taxes I pay that they are possibly using for medical care. I could handle an increase in taxes if it means more help for more people.

I think I will just go on being happy and accepting immigrants into my country without getting an ulcer about it.

12 per month. Let me see now, that's 4 weeks in a month and so we get 3 round ups per week. Over the last month as Google news only goes back for a month without specific instructions.

That's what you're demanding, isn't? One round up per week.


You missed that chicken plant, didn't you?

I said one MAJOR per week. And several minor raid each day in every city. Raiding a house for fugitives and stumbling of a few illegal immigrants isn't going after the problem.

I counted the chicken plant with the national raids.

I said one MAJOR per week. And several minor raid each day in every city. Raiding a house for fugitives and stumbling of a few illegal immigrants isn't going after the problem.

I counted the chicken plant with the national raids.
So in otherwords you want something that we do not have the personel for, we don't have the facilities for, we don't have the courts for, we don't have the planning for, and we don't have the money for.

Let me guess, you'd also like this done without a massive increase in taxes as well?

So in otherwords you want something that we do not have the personel for, we don't have the facilities for, we don't have the courts for, we don't have the planning for, and we don't have the money for.

Let me guess, you'd also like this done without a massive increase in taxes as well?

The reason we don't have those things is the government over the last 27 years cut funding to all of those things at the urging of business. As a part of the Federal budget, a raid of a major factory or checking out the back room of the local coffee house wouldn't be a blip. Business wanted cheap labor and they donated to the people that were able to give them a massive supply simply by ignoring the law. And they were able to get an irrelevant minimum wage simply by not raising it. At the same time, because of massive supply they have been able to cut most benefits. And because the supply can't complain they can cut basic safety and other costly business expenses like Workman's compensation and unemployment. All in all donating to the right political campaign can bring great financial gain. And you don't have to tell the voters, they're concentrating on abortion and gay marriage. (neither of which will you do anything about)

So, when Wal-Mart gives it's new employees a brochure telling them how to get government benefits because they won't be able to live on the wages. What really is happening is those government programs are subsidizing a billion dollar business. The business lets the taxpayers pay because the massive supply of labor means they don't have to pay. But I'm sure you don't mind subsidizing Wal-Mart. If we have to we can raise taxes to cover that subsidy.


The whole thing is basic business. Supply and demand. When there is a massive supply the cost goes down. Import a massive supply of labor and the cost drops.