NationStates Jolt Archive

Your thoughts on illegal immigration. I personally go with this answer:
20: What's the best way to stop people from illegally crossing our borders?

LBRT: Allow unrestricted passage across the borders.

People will talk about immigrants taking away jobs, when in reality they CREATE jobs. After all, everybody has needs and wants and sombody has to produce them, right? Also immigrants who come here(at least the ones who DON'T hop on the welfare train like some Americans also do) will do jobs most people don't want.

Not touching this one with a 20 foot pole...

Your thoughts on illegal immigration. I personally go with this answer:
20: What's the best way to stop people from illegally crossing our borders?

LBRT: Allow unrestricted passage across the borders.

People will talk about immigrants taking away jobs, when in reality they CREATE jobs. After all, everybody has needs and wants and sombody has to produce them, right? Also immigrants who come here(at least the ones who DON'T hop on the welfare train like some Americans also do) will do jobs most people don't want.

I'm with you, the freedom to travel where you will should be unristricted for all non law breakers.

If people are coming into your country illegally then the process of coming in legally is probably too complicated/difficult/expensive/etc

People like to talk ill of illegal immigration, but the fact is that capitalism needs a reserve pool of people undereducated, under-skilled, and unemployed (or informally employed in the case illegal immigrants), largely along racial and gender lines, to exert pressure on organized labor and create resentment between both groups.

No one is illegal. Open the borders!

it's retarded how Canadians can come into america freely while mexicans have to risk their lives. Also, the united states was founded on immigrants. we're just a big wad of hypocrisies.

THe pragmatist in me says, "Somebody has to pick the crops and it sure as hell isn't gonna be me."

The humanist in me blames corporate and big business for profiting massively off of poor people trying to make a better life for their family.

They both agree that the one thing the corporate interests and their unlimited lobbying power want less than a completely open border is a completely closed border.

There will always be enough illegal immigrants to exploit as cheap expendable labor without the messy problems of unemployment insurance, work safety standards, accident insurance and minimum wage laws. It's as simple as that. But at least their kids will be citizens. ...Unless assholes like Ron Paul get the power to do their corporate buddies that favor too. :p

I think that the process to legally immigrate into the US is very flawed and deliberately stacked against the people coming in illegally so demanding that they come in legally doesn't make any sense.

People like to talk ill of illegal immigration, but the fact is that capitalism needs a reserve pool of people undereducated, under-skilled, and unemployed.

Does it, I am not sure that that is actually a fact about capitalism?

Is the US education system failing by not creating enough people like that?

The process for transferring flights in the US is a huge fucking pain in the ass. I can't begin to imagine trying to emigrate there... and this is considering the flight came from outside the US and the connecting flight does outside the US.

There should be easier ways for qualified people to get into the US. If a nation wants to reduce illegal immigration, it should make the legal channels more easily accessible.

You should specify more from what perspective you're looking at this. The US perspective, the Mexican perspective, the Chinese, the French and the Polish perspectives, for example, are extremely different.

Anyway... My thoughts on illegal immigration?

Those who break the law and immigrate illegally should, as a principle rule, be expelled and deported if they refuse to leave by themselves.

There are exceptions of course.

If people are coming into your country illegally then the process of coming in legally is probably too complicated/difficult/expensive/etc
I'm not convinced of that. I mean, if we take Poland as an example, it's today relatively easy to get a work permit, yet still many people from the Ukraine pass the borders illegally and work without permits each year. The reason for which is the large shadow economy that's present in Poland, and that they don't want to pay taxes.

If a nation wants to reduce illegal immigration, it should make the legal channels more easily accessible.
What if they simply don't want that much immigration? If they want less people coming into the country?

Isn't wanting to protect the welfare system, like for the Swedish, a legitimate concern? Or wanting to avoid ethnic conflicts being transferred from the migrants home to the new country? Or the security of the new country, by not letting dangerous elements in? Etc.

There are a lot of reasons why a country wishes to restrain immigration, not all of them xenophobic and many of them legitimate.

People like to talk ill of illegal immigration, but the fact is that capitalism needs a reserve pool of people undereducated, under-skilled, and unemployed (or informally employed in the case illegal immigrants), largely along racial and gender lines, to exert pressure on organized labor and create resentment between both groups.
If true, the question is not whether this alleviates the seriousness of illegal immigration, but rather invalidates capitalism...

I'm with you, the freedom to travel where you will should be unristricted for all non law breakers.and how would you tell if the traveller is not a law-breaker if there is no checks or procedures at the borders?

it's retarded how Canadians can come into america freely while mexicans have to risk their lives. Also, the united states was founded on immigrants. we're just a big wad of hypocrisies.

not anymore. Soon Canadians and Americans will require passports to cross into each other's nation.

also, those original immigrants that came in were not illegal since at that time, there were no laws governing the enterance of immigrants to America.

What if they simply don't want that much immigration? If they want less people coming into the country?

Isn't wanting to protect the welfare system, like for the Swedish, a legitimate concern? Or wanting to avoid ethnic conflicts being transferred from the migrants home to the new country? Or the security of the new country, by not letting dangerous elements in? Etc.

There are a lot of reasons why a country wishes to restrain immigration, not all of them xenophobic and many of them legitimate.

"Easily accessible" doesn't mean opening up the flood gates, it means making the process simpler for both ends. On the applicant's side so they can enter the nation sooner and find work and on the receiver end so they can check the information.

If they have welfare concerns, then perhaps they could also work to stream like the background check on the credentials of the immigrants so the people who come to the country can work in their field where there is likely an acute shortage instead of being forced into a job that they have to do because they lack "X experience"; X being work experience in the nation in question.

People will talk about immigrants taking away jobs, when in reality they CREATE jobs. After all, everybody has needs and wants and sombody has to produce them, right? Also immigrants who come here(at least the ones who DON'T hop on the welfare train like some Americans also do) will do jobs most people don't want.

My brother-in-law's girlfriend worked in a chicken packing plant in Alabama. She got sick and when she got better and came back to work only to find out she had been replaced by an illegal immigrant. So much for illegals producing jobs and taking jobs "most people don't want." :mad:

No amnesty. Deport the fuckers! I don't mind if we open up legal immigration more or allow work visas to last longer, but illegal immigrants I cannot tolerate. There are plenty of Americans who would work the jobs they take and do a much better job. The legal ones also need to learn English if they intend to stay beyond a certain point or become a citizen.

My brother-in-law's girlfriend worked in a chicken packing plant in Alabama. She got sick and when she got better and came back to work only to find out she had been replaced by an illegal immigrant. So much for illegals producing jobs and taking jobs "most people don't want." :mad:

Ah, FoaF. Where'd we be without you?

So much for illegals producing jobs and taking jobs "most people don't want." :mad:
All due respect and sympathies to your brother-in-law's girlfriend, but chicken packing fits the category of "Jobs that most people don't want" perfectly. Why the hell don't we have machines for that sort of thing?

All due respect and sympathies to your brother-in-law's girlfriend, but chicken packing fits the category of "Jobs that most people don't want" perfectly. Why the hell don't we have machines for that sort of thing?

because... when it comes to choaking the chicken or packing meat... people want to do it themselves. :p

People! hear me! I understand that they will do the jobs we don't want to do ourselves, they want a better life, and everthing in between. but THEY BROKE THE LAW!!! if you kill someone and are convicted you are punished or if you speed and are pulled over you get a ticket! do you not? YES! yes you do! so should they not get deported or punished. they destroy our already weak welfare and Social Security programs. let it not get worse but better! please think about what you're saying. think about the future. Liberalism is dangerous! Thank you.

From a true leader...

God Bless our men and women in the Middle East!

My brother-in-law's girlfriend worked in a chicken packing plant in Alabama. She got sick and when she got better and came back to work only to find out she had been replaced by an illegal immigrant. So much for illegals producing jobs and taking jobs "most people don't want." :mad:How does she know her replacement was an illegal immigrant?

People! hear me! I understand that they will do the jobs we don't want to do ourselves, they want a better life, and everthing in between. but THEY BROKE THE LAW!!! if you kill someone and are convicted you are punished or if you speed and are pulled over you get a ticket! do you not? YES! yes you do! so should they not get deported or punished. they destroy our already weak welfare and Social Security programs. let it not get worse but better! please think about what you're saying. think about the future. Liberalism is dangerous! Thank you.

From a true leader...

God Bless our men and women in the Middle East!
Oh well. Posts in bold makes a change to the normal gun smilies, I suppose.

[B]People! hear me! I understand that they will do the jobs we don't want to do ourselves, they want a better life, and everthing in between. but THEY BROKE THE LAW!!!They broke laws that don't deserve to be followed anyway.

if you kill someone and are convicted you are punished or if you speed and are pulled over you get a ticket! do you not? YES! yes you do!Those laws should be followed.

because... when it comes to choaking the chicken or packing meat... people want to do it themselves. :p
I bet you most people would be quite happy to stick a machine on the end and let it take care of the fiddly details. (lawl)

How does she know her replacement was an illegal immigrant?

She was told by former co-workers who were still working there.

They broke laws that don't deserve to be followed anyway. too bad that 1) it's not up to you to decide what laws deserve to be followed. and 2) breaking them won't change the laws but will force drastic action like... say.. building a wall.

Those laws should be followed.as should immigration laws.

They broke laws that don't deserve to be followed anyway.

So, everyone should be able to pick and choose which laws they want to follow, right? :rolleyes:

I bet you most people would be quite happy to stick a machine on the end and let it take care of the fiddly details. (lawl)

but all the adjustments... and can you imagine if there were a serious malfunction? :eek:

She was told by former co-workers who were still working there.And how would they know?

too bad that 1) it's not up to you to decide what laws deserve to be followed.On the contrary, it is solely up to the individual to determine which laws they will follow

and 2) breaking them won't change the laws but will force drastic action like... say.. building a wall.It won't force said action, though you're right that said action will most likely occur.

as should immigration laws.You just named the best reason for obeying them - because not obeying them is likely to result in more stringent measures.
Laws against it aren't in and of themselves valid.

So, everyone should be able to pick and choose which laws they want to follow, right? :rolleyes:People do pick and choose which laws they want to follow, and accept the consequences of not following them.

And how would they know? Because they were still working there with the illegal that replaced her. :rolleyes:


People do pick and choose which laws they want to follow, and accept the consequences of not following them.

Most people obey the law and don't have to face the consequences. Otherwise, we would teeter on the brink of anarchy.

So, everyone should be able to pick and choose which laws they want to follow, right? :rolleyes:

No. The arbitrary whim of the individual is no better than the arbitrary whim of the state.

But rejecting one is no reason to accept the other.

but all the adjustments... and can you imagine if there were a serious malfunction? :eek:
Obviously, but they'll know (or have easy access to) how to do regular maintenance and simple modifications. Sure, you'll need to do regular testing on it, but I can't imagine that'd be a serious complaint. If anything, people'll treat it as a good excuse to play with their toys.

Plus, it keeps customer service in business. And greatly entertained. xD

Because they were still working there with the illegal that replaced her. :rolleyes:And are these the people who do immigration checks?

Most people obey the law and don't have to face the consequences. Otherwise, we would teeter on the brink of anarchy.Not necessarily. Accepting or rejecting the law purely because it's the law is silly. There are nonetheless many laws which are actually valid. However, this one is not one of them.

I have mixed feelings on this one.

There are about 20 million Bangladeshis illegally in border states of India, completely changing the demographics in border districts where they are now the majority. I am not exactly thrilled about that.

OTOH, I am an immigrant myself. So I would be a hypocrite to be hawkish on immigration.

I think that, ideally, people should be allowed to immigrate provided they can be productive and not be a burden. And if companies are brining in illegals to get cheap labor, it is wrong to penalise the illegals...often times they are just looking to escape poverty and feed their families.

I guess there is no easy "one size fits all" solution to this.

On the contrary, it is solely up to the individual to determine which laws they will follow and those individual who decide to ingnore any laws are caught and punished for breaking them.

It won't force said action, though you're right that said action will most likely occur. it will force a reaction and more likely than not, that reaction won't be the desired one.

You just named the best reason for obeying them - because not obeying them is likely to result in more stringent measures.
Laws against it aren't in and of themselves valid. and I am against Illegal Immigration (not immigration in general) and while I do admit that the system needs fixing, it still must be enforced.

People do pick and choose which laws they want to follow, and accept the consequences of not following them.and the problem is, people don't want to accept the consequences of not following immigration laws.

Obviously, but they'll know (or have easy access to) how to do regular maintenance and simple modifications. Sure, you'll need to do regular testing on it, but I can't imagine that'd be a serious complaint. If anything, people'll treat it as a good excuse to play with their toys.

Plus, it keeps customer service in business. And greatly entertained. xD
oh, if I could only tell you of some of the ER cases I've seen here... :p

it will force a reaction and more likely than not, that reaction won't be the desired one.Agreed.

and I am against Illegal Immigration (not immigration in general) and while I do admit that the system needs fixing, it still must be enforced.I disagree. The system should be abolished, not enforced. As long as people are registered for paying taxes, that's fine.
If people aren't registered for paying taxes (usually via a social security number), punish their employer, never the immigrant.

People! hear me! I understand that they will do the jobs we don't want to do ourselves, they want a better life, and everthing in between. but THEY BROKE THE LAW!!! if you kill someone and are convicted you are punished or if you speed and are pulled over you get a ticket! do you not? YES! yes you do! so should they not get deported or punished. they destroy our already weak welfare and Social Security programs. let it not get worse but better! please think about what you're saying. think about the future. Liberalism is dangerous! Thank you.

From a true leader...

God Bless our men and women in the Middle East!

Breaking laws we don't agree with is an American tradition as old as the nation itself. Just ask the interstate smugglers of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. :)

My thoughts on illegal immigrants tend to run along the lines of how they can be located, arrested and deported as efficiently and quickly as possible.

I disagree. The system should be abolished, not enforced. As long as people are registered for paying taxes, that's fine.
If people aren't registered for paying taxes (usually via a social security number), punish their employer, never the immigrant.

you need a new system in place when you abolish the old one and that will cost money/manpower/and time.

so you go after the employer. what happens then. you have illegals who snuck in either supporting the black market and forged documents, or unable to get jobs and unable to go home, or they work for substandard pay for crooked employers who won't care about their employees?.

add to that the fact that with no jobs and the inability to go home, they can't afford health care and education...

so what then? have the government (City/State/Fed) pay for all that?

you need a three-pronged attack. you need to stop...
1) people from hiring them
2) people who make it their business sneaking them accross the border
and
3) those who would sneak accross the border.

you need a new system in place when you abolish the old one and that will cost money/manpower/and time.There are already systems in place to register people for social security and to check employers. Abolishing border checks will save money.

so you go after the employer. what happens then. you have illegals who snuck in either supporting the black market and forged documents, or unable to get jobs and unable to go home, or they work for substandard pay for crooked employers who won't care about their employees?.No, because the employees can report their employers since the employees themselves needn't fear reprisal.

add to that the fact that with no jobs and the inability to go home, they can't afford health care and education...

so what then? have the government (City/State/Fed) pay for all that?Does the government pay that for people who live here already? Yes. What's the difference?

you need a three-pronged attack. you need to stop...
1) people from hiring them
2) people who make it their business sneaking them accross the border
and
3) those who would sneak accross the border.Nope, just the first one. The other two are unnecessary.

but all the adjustments... and can you imagine if there were a serious malfunction? :eek:

Eh, I enjoy chicken with extra pulp myself, really.

There are already systems in place to register people for social security and to check employers. Abolishing border checks will save money. and how would you catch those who are NOT registered for Social Security or are using false ID's and Numbers? Most Illegals are paid under the table or with cash. the only way to find them is to have each business audited. that will be more cumbersome and costly.

No, because the employees can report their employers since the employees themselves needn't fear reprisal. People can do that now. and we can see everyone turning them in right? you have posters on NSG saying that they would be more than happy to help hide an Illegal Immigrant. so how many more feel they can "turn a blind eye to one working with them"?

Does the government pay that for people who live here already? Yes. What's the difference? by making it harder for them to get jobs, you increase the number of people that the government and eventually, the taxpayers, pay for.

Nope, just the first one. The other two are unnecessary.that won't stop people from coming here. and so far, it won't stop the hiring process. you basically are supporting the system as it stands now.

it's retarded how Canadians can come into america freely while mexicans have to risk their lives. Also, the united states was founded on immigrants. we're just a big wad of hypocrisies.

They can't come in freely fool.

My thoughts on illegal immigrants tend to run along the lines of how they can be located, arrested and deported as efficiently and quickly as possible.
Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.
I have mixed feelings on this one.

There are about 20 million Bangladeshis illegally in border states of India, completely changing the demographics in border districts where they are now the majority. I am not exactly thrilled about that.
Yet, in my experience, if one makes this argument in America or Europe, they are branded as racist or some other flame.....

I guess there is no easy "one size fits all" solution to this.
That's true. There isn't. It's very easy to see the many problems with immigration, both legal and illegal, but it's far more difficult to list the solutions and I'll be the first to admit to that.
Breaking laws we don't agree with is an American tradition as old as the nation itself. Just ask the interstate smugglers of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. :)
Agreed in the sense that being a rugged individual and doing your own thing has always been very American, but breaking laws which put your country at risk has not been.

Agreed in the sense that being a rugged individual and doing your own thing has always been very American, but breaking laws which put your country at risk has not been.
Dude, breaking laws that put the country at risk is what the country was founded on.

I don't blame people for sneaking into the country and getting jobs because they just want a better lot in life, but it's still a problem. Employers who higher these people should be severely punished and forced to pay for them to return

Dude, breaking laws that put the country at risk is what the country was founded on.
No. Breaking laws that hurt our country was NOT what this country was founded on. No taxation without representation. Breaking laws that HURT our country was not what we were founded on.

No. Breaking laws that hurt our country was NOT what this country was founded on. No taxation without representation. Breaking laws that HURT our country was not what we were founded on.

I'm reasonably sure that armed rebellion hurts a country.

I'm reasonably sure that armed rebellion hurts a country.
Not comparable to the immigration issue. We didn't want to be taxed without adequate representation in England which hurt us. Explain how this issue is comparable to the breaking of laws by immigrating illegaly to this country?

We didn't want to be taxed without adequate representation in England which hurt us.
Actually, we didn't want to be taxed, period. We had far more representation than anyone else in the British empire. And that still doesn't nullify the point that, by attempting an armed rebellion, we hurt the country we belonged to at the time. We didn't even declare independence until after the first violent act.

Actually, we didn't want to be taxed, period. We had far more representation than anyone else in the British empire. And that still doesn't nullify the point that, by attempting an armed rebellion, we hurt the country we belonged to at the time. We didn't even declare independence until after the first violent act.
I'm well aware of our history, what I'm asking is how does this compare to an immigrant coming here illegally and breaking those laws?

I'm well aware of our history, what I'm asking is how does this compare to an immigrant coming here illegally and breaking those laws?

It doesn't. It's worse.

It doesn't. It's worse.
:confused:

No one is illegal. Open the borders!

This won't, of course, apply to Mexico's southern border, which it has walled off while simultaneously complaining about the restrictions in the north. Ah the sweet smell of hypocrisy!

:confused:

It's real simple. Which harms the country more.

1) Bob crosses the border illegally.
2) Bob starts shooting government employees. (Also illegally; treason.)

Hmm, real tough one.

It's real simple. Which harms the country more.

1) Bob crosses the border illegally.
2) Bob starts shooting government employees. (Also illegally; treason.)

Hmm, real tough one.

That isn't the question.
The question is "Which harms the country?"
The answer is(questionably) both.

Actually, we didn't want to be taxed, period. We had far more representation than anyone else in the British empire. And that still doesn't nullify the point that, by attempting an armed rebellion, we hurt the country we belonged to at the time. We didn't even declare independence until after the first violent act.

I think you'll find that the British had and have a tendency to be immune to any requests for them to vacate in any circumstances. One can confer with the Irish for clarification.

You need to increaseand enforce fines and punishment on employers and landlords that deal with illegal immigrants. Stop giveing them free healthcare and educations. Stop feeding and supporting them with welfare. Then they will deport themselves.

I have mixed feelings on this one.

There are about 20 million Bangladeshis illegally in border states of India, completely changing the demographics in border districts where they are now the majority. I am not exactly thrilled about that.

OTOH, I am an immigrant myself. So I would be a hypocrite to be hawkish on immigration.

I think that, ideally, people should be allowed to immigrate provided they can be productive and not be a burden. And if companies are brining in illegals to get cheap labor, it is wrong to penalise the illegals...often times they are just looking to escape poverty and feed their families.

I guess there is no easy "one size fits all" solution to this.

Yes, you would be a hypocrite, given there is f*** all ethnic difference between "Bangladeshis" and "Indians" across the border.

The process for transferring flights in the US is a huge fucking pain in the ass. I can't begin to imagine trying to emigrate there... and this is considering the flight came from outside the US and the connecting flight does outside the US.

There should be easier ways for qualified people to get into the US. If a nation wants to reduce illegal immigration, it should make the legal channels more easily accessible.

As an American, the list of forbidden objects is fucking ridiculous. For example, bullwhips. Who the hell carries a bullwhip on an airplane?

it's retarded how Canadians can come into america freely while mexicans have to risk their lives. Also, the united states was founded on immigrants. we're just a big wad of hypocrisies.

Yes but all those immigrants came here legally

As an American, the list of forbidden objects is fucking ridiculous. For example, bullwhips. Who the hell carries a bullwhip on an airplane?

Indiana Jones, in case there are snakes.

Actually, we didn't want to be taxed, period. We had far more representation than anyone else in the British empire. And that still doesn't nullify the point that, by attempting an armed rebellion, we hurt the country we belonged to at the time. We didn't even declare independence until after the first violent act.

oh really? that's a new one for me. can you cite your source on the American Repesentatives and their voting power in the British Parlament?

also which act of violence are you referring to?

oh really? that's a new one for me. can you cite your source on the American Repesentatives and their voting power in the British Parlament?

also which act of violence are you referring to?

The Boston Massacre, when British troops got drunk and fired into a peaceful crowd of citizens in the calm marketplace.

Yes but all those immigrants came here legally

Um...

Oh! I get it! You're saying that it should work like it did back then! The country people are emigrating from gets to say what is legal and what is illegal immigration. The country people are immigrating to don't get a say!

So all Mexico and every other nation on Earth has to do is say, 'we now declare all immigration to the US to be legal!' and it shall be so.

Problem solved!

Um...

Oh! I get it! You're saying that it should work like it did back then! The country people are emigrating from gets to say what is legal and what is illegal immigration. The country people are immigrating to don't get a say!

So all Mexico and every other nation on Earth has to do is say, 'we now declare all immigration to the US to be legal!' and it shall be so.

Problem solved!can you tell me what national laws were broken that were in effect way back then?

can you tell me what national laws were broken that were in effect way back then?

Oh gee, perhaps it was the illegal immigration into the territories of aboriginal nations? The Trail of Tears, which forcibly removed the original inhabitants from their homes, in order for the illegal immigrants to live there in their stead?

Oh no wait...right, we were godless savages who had no system of laws or governance, so clearly this was a Terra Nullius.:rolleyes:

Oh gee, perhaps it was the illegal immigration into the territories of aboriginal nations? The Trail of Tears, which forcibly removed the original inhabitants from their homes, in order for the illegal immigrants to live there in their stead?

Oh no wait...right, we were godless savages who had no system of laws or governance, so clearly this was a Terra Nullius.:rolleyes:

But you see, we didn't make the laws, so they don't apply to us.
*invades aboriginal nation*

oh man *looks around, sees everyone participating in discussion is offline*
guess I have to revive this thread.

Illegal Immigration is called that because it is just that, illegal. The reason we regulate immigration is becaused a massed assault of immigrants on the border is generally a bad thing. One only needs to think of how the Visigoths were once accepted as immigrants into the Roman Empire (we all know how that turned out) and how american immigrants were once accepted into Mexican Texas, with the only two requirements of learning spanish and accepting Roman Catholicism (yeah, that turned out real well). We need to limit immigration because of the extreme social disturbances it causes. Each immigrant group needs to be given time to assimilate. Too many immigrants, no assimilation happens, and conflict ensues.

Immigration is like beer. In good amounts it makes a party more amazing and the women so much finer. Too much and you'll wake up in an alley way throwing up.

Illegal Immigration is called that because it is just that, illegal.

Holy batshit, fatman!

The reason we regulate immigration is becaused a massed assault of immigrants on the border is generally a bad thing.

If you think of immigration as an "assault" to begin with you're clearly operating on a premise of paranoia.

One only needs to think of how the Visigoths were once accepted as immigrants into the Roman Empire

Um, no. Rome conquered their land and it was either a choice between granting them status in the Roman imperial society, or executing them all.


Immigration is like beer. In good amounts it makes a party more amazing and the women so much finer. Too much and you'll wake up in an alley way throwing up.

I think immigration is more like beer. Some people can handle it, and others are pussies who start whining about the flavor.

Oh gee, perhaps it was the illegal immigration into the territories of aboriginal nations? The Trail of Tears, which forcibly removed the original inhabitants from their homes, in order for the illegal immigrants to live there in their stead? er, that's not illegal Immigration. again, can you show me the laws those natives had that in place that "the white man" violated?

Oh no wait...right, we were godless savages who had no system of laws or governance, so clearly this was a Terra Nullius.:rolleyes: is that true? I've always believed that each tribe had their own laws governing their tribe but none for the land in general since, as far as I know, the tribes back then didn't believe in land ownership by humans, but that the Gods and Spirits owned the land.

But you see, we didn't make the laws, so they don't apply to us.
*invades aboriginal nation*er Bann... the laws exist now... so...
*stops Bann-ed and deports him to... wherevahs*

Holy batshit, fatman!



If you think of immigration as an "assault" to begin with you're clearly operating on a premise of paranoia.



Um, no. Rome conquered their land and it was either a choice between granting them status in the Roman imperial society, or executing them all.



I think immigration is more like beer. Some people can handle it, and others are pussies who start whining about the flavor.

You're knowledge of history is disgustingly weak. But I can't blame you, it's rather obscure. The Eastern Roman Emperor (whose name escapes me), in 395, admitted the Visigoths into the province of Mosea (now part of Romania/ Bulgaria) to work the land as a Roman client state. The Visigoths, for rather arbitrary reasons, revolted, slaughtered the East Roman Army at Adrianople, and proceeded to lay waste to the Balkans until they decided to storm through Italy, which they promtly did. The Romans DID NOT conquer their land and absorb them into the empire. The Roman empire was fanatically weak at this point in history and had ceased to make any time of territatorial expansion centuries before.

And while paranoid is too strong a word, I operate on the skeptical side. Real life historical examples override idealism.

And I've never heard anyone complain about the flavor of beer. That was just a bad attempt at rebuttal, and you know it.

And I've never heard anyone complain about the flavor of beer. That was just a bad attempt at rebuttal, and you know it.*raises hand*

I can't STAND the taste of beer.

and remember the old millar lite commercials? "Taste Great!" "Less Filling!"

*raises hand*

I can't STAND the taste of beer.

and remember the old millar lite commercials? "Taste Great!" "Less Filling!"

...oh...well...
*shuffles around slightly*

IT WAS STILL A BAD REBUTTAL!!

You're knowledge of history is disgustingly weak. But I can't blame you, it's rather obscure. The Eastern Roman Emperor (whose name escapes me), in 395, admitted the Visigoths into the province of Mosea (now part of Romania/ Bulgaria) to work the land as a Roman client state. The Visigoths, for rather arbitrary reasons, revolted, slaughtered the East Roman Army at Adrianople, and proceeded to lay waste to the Balkans until they decided to storm through Italy, which they promtly did. The Romans DID NOT conquer their land and absorb them into the empire. The Roman empire was fanatically weak at this point in history and had ceased to make any time of territatorial expansion centuries before
Must...resist...trivia impulse...The reason the Roman Empire was so weak at the time was because it used mercenaries instead of a well-trained regular roman army like they did before.Trivia Impulse Satisfied.

Must...resist...trivia impulse...The reason the Roman Empire was so weak at the time was because it used mercenaries instead of a well-trained regular roman army like they did before.Trivia Impulse Satisfied.

Yes. And with barbarians in their army, settling their land, and raising general hell, Rome fell, got divided into multiple states, and proceeded to descend into the Dark Ages.

There are some problems with allowing large numbers of immigrants to enter the country at one time. Just a little.

The Eastern Roman Emperor (whose name escapes me), in 395, admitted the Visigoths into the province of Mosea (now part of Romania/ Bulgaria) to work the land as a Roman client state. The Visigoths, for rather arbitrary reasons, revolted, slaughtered the East Roman Army at Adrianople, and proceeded to lay waste to the Balkans until they decided to storm through Italy, which they promtly did.

According to the history channel the Romans let the Visigoths in because the Visigoths needed protection from the Huns, but then Romans put the Visogoths in concentration camps and opressed them to the point that they were starving and were forced to revolt

I think immigration laws need to be reformed to be less restrictive, especially since most border walls can be breached in a matter of minutes with some tinsnips. I also think that those who are entering the country illegally need to be punished for their crime, it may be an unjust law but has to be obeyed until it is changed.

and how would you catch those who are NOT registered for Social Security or are using false ID's and Numbers? Most Illegals are paid under the table or with cash. the only way to find them is to have each business audited. that will be more cumbersome and costly.There are currently checks on businesses now. Increasing them slightly wouldn't hurt.

People can do that now. and we can see everyone turning them in right? you have posters on NSG saying that they would be more than happy to help hide an Illegal Immigrant. so how many more feel they can "turn a blind eye to one working with them"?Illegal immigrants now face the risk of jail time or deportation if they're found out. They can hardly report workplace abuses to the government.
Since I propose no reprisals for illegal immigrants, there's no reason for them or anyone else to not report workplace abuses.

by making it harder for them to get jobs, you increase the number of people that the government and eventually, the taxpayers, pay for.By making it harder for them to get jobs, most of them go home.
Or, alternatively, you sign them up to pay taxes, thus making it easier for them to get jobs than it is currently. The only difficulty they'd have to getting a job is the unemployment rate.

that won't stop people from coming here. and so far, it won't stop the hiring process. you basically are supporting the system as it stands now.It isn't meant to stop people from coming here, it's meant to encourage it.

Agreed in the sense that being a rugged individual and doing your own thing has always been very American, but breaking laws which put your country at risk has not been.Fortunately immigration doesn't put countries at risk.

This won't, of course, apply to Mexico's southern border, which it has walled off while simultaneously complaining about the restrictions in the north. Ah the sweet smell of hypocrisy!The U.S. has no jurisdiction over what Mexico does with its own borders.

Tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)

As an American, the list of forbidden objects is fucking ridiculous. For example, bullwhips. Who the hell carries a bullwhip on an airplane?Kinky people trying to join the mile high club?

"Easily accessible" doesn't mean opening up the flood gates, it means making the process simpler for both ends. On the applicant's side so they can enter the nation sooner and find work and on the receiver end so they can check the information.
Easily accessible can also mean that more peopl ecome simply because it's easy, even if the have no work waiting for them or any education to make use of.

Also, how do you propose to make it more easily accessible? What needs to be changed? What parts of the current system is flawed?

If they have welfare concerns, then perhaps they could also work to stream like the background check on the credentials of the immigrants so the people who come to the country can work in their field where there is likely an acute shortage instead of being forced into a job that they have to do because they lack "X experience"; X being work experience in the nation in question.
And if there's no acute shortage? If it's just attractive to work in said country, partly because of the welfare benefits?

Kinky people trying to join the mile high club?

Somehow I seriously doubt that.

Its interesting that for such an overwhelmingly left wing libertarian message board, most people are against immigration.

Its interesting that for such an overwhelmingly left wing libertarian message board, most people are against immigration.

Really? Care to explain how you've reached that conclusion based on this thread concerning illegal immigration?

They took our Jobs!!! (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1301065834)

lolz :D:D

Somehow I seriously doubt that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor

See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

Yes. And with barbarians in their army, settling their land, and raising general hell, Rome fell, got divided into multiple states, and proceeded to descend into the Dark Ages.

There are some problems with allowing large numbers of immigrants to enter the country at one time. Just a little.

Part of it WAS the Romans fault. Let's face it, they had waged war aganst the "barabarians" before,they acted all high and mighty around them(people don't like it when you act like you're better then them)and they saw their chance,and they took it. Plus the wannabe emporors were ALWAYS fighting aganst each other as soon as the old one died(somtimes before) which didn't help.

If you are one of those .....

Open your house and let them live in your home. They will paint your house,clean your house and eat the food you give to them. Buy them a house next to yours and have them move in all of their family, let your kids bring them to school and sit next them in class, bring them to your dentist and doctor if they get a cavity or get sick. You wont be able to afford the life your want to provide to your family if your have to support someone else as well.

Guest worker programs work, if illegals do jobs that no one wants why are they still standing down by the HD to get work.
It costs money to print all the drivers license tests/road signs/legal papers/insurance in other languages. Where does that money come from?
They print it up and inflation rises.

as long as it doesn't effect you then go ahead and let them in - untill your the one being jeopardized, you'll change your tune in a heartbeat (or maybe it will take your teenage daughter bringing one home and telling you she's pregnant)

Americans should support Americans - not everbody else (world support and bailouts included) just for a moment think of life in American if we spent all that money in America. Nobody wants to talk about that, why? It's not heartless,cruel or inhumane or even selfish. Once we are secure in our own homes and needs then our wants and charity. Americans go hungry and go homeless but yet you cry for illegal irrimigrants.

Stop Illegal Immigration . RON PAUL 2008 !!!!

My feelings hopefully apply to other countries country men and women also, respectively.

If you are one of those .....

Open your house and let them live in your home. They will paint your house,clean your house and eat the food you give to them. Buy them a house next to yours and have them move in all of their family, let your kids bring them to school and sit next them in class, bring them to your dentist and doctor if they get a cavity or get sick. You wont be able to afford the life your want to provide to your family if your have to support someone else as well.

Oh rrrrreally.

Tell you what, since you like this "country = private residence" analogy/paradigm. Why don't you open your house and let ME live in your home. I'll wash the dishes sometimes. Buy me a house next to yours and have me move in with your family. I could go to school with your kids, use your dentist, use your doctor, use your women! You'll be broke and destitute and ruined!

...but I'm a citizen of the United States.

Let's face it, your house isn't the US and letting people "move in" to the US is not the same as letting them move in with your family.

Americans should support Americans

Yeah yeah, so I'll see you Monday right? I look forward to meeting my new American family!

...but I'm a citizen of the United States.



You already live in the house.. p.s. it your turn to clean the bathroom.

Bring a dessert monday we are having a pot luck dinner and watching the game.

It's real simple. Which harms the country more.

1) Bob crosses the border illegally.
2) Bob starts shooting government employees. (Also illegally; treason.)

Hmm, real tough one.

Firstly, he'd probably be called Pedro, or, in the case of the UK, Mr.Mbeki.

Secondly, you totally disregard the implications of the two cases;

If the first comes to pass, Pedro drains the welfare and logistical infrastructure of the country, possibly working, though not to the extent he will repay his unwilling host. There is a probability that, at some point, Pedro will commit a crime, but having never paid taxes, his burden upon the judiciary and penal services will be doubled. At some juncture, his family, extended family, or extended social network, may join him. This case is not as immediatly distressing as a border shooting, but far more insidious in a prolonged sense.

In the second case, Pedro shoots at Border guards, probably misses, and is then turned into pate. This is far less dangerous than the other result above.

Secondly, you totally disregard the implications of the two cases;

Mostly because your paranoid assumptions aren't relevant to the comparison. One is murder. The other is not. One is treason. The other is not. Are you seriously so anti-immigrant you're going to be a treason apologist?

Mostly because your paranoid assumptions aren't relevant to the comparison. One is murder. The other is not. One is treason. The other is not. Are you seriously so anti-immigrant you're going to be a treason apologist?

I want you to adress the issues I raise, and then I'll do the same. Since I raised mine first, civility would compel you to do address them first.

As for murder, however, who cares? Given what illegal immigrants tend to amount to, and what they tend to do, I couldn't care less if one more gets splattered by border control.

I want you to adress the issues I raise

What you assume will happen after these two crimes are committed have no bearing on which crime is worse, which is the relevant issue.

As for murder, however, who cares? Given what illegal immigrants tend to amount to, and what they tend to do, I couldn't care less if one more gets splattered by border control.

Thank you for that fascinating insight into your personality, but it's clear you aren't even following the conversation at hand. No one was talking about murdering illegal immigrants - but again, thank you for showing that aspect of your psychology.

I wouldn't call it so much a house as an apartment complex with a fence around it. Everybody in the apartment complex, from the first floor to the penthouse, pays rent to live in the building, use the utilities, and get the protection that the security force provides.

Sometimes, people from the outside hop the fence and sleep in the yard. They use the hose, and sometimes some of the residents pay them to walk their dogs, wash their cars, and tend their part of the communal garden. Some of the people on the bottom floor get pissed off, because these are the exact jobs they used to do to earn a bit of extra money. Of course, they weren't willing to get paid the tiny amount the fence jumpers are, but then again the fence jumpers don't have rent to pay.

So, the people in the penthouse, who benefit most from having the jumpers in the yard, see the division in the people below them. They take the opportunity to sneak lower rent rules for themselves through the renters' association (it's a community owned building), appoint a mindless thug to security chief, and authorize stealing cable from the building next door and only giving it to those above the 90th floor.

Oh, and they prohibit gays from living together in one apartment.

So, while everybody on the bottom floors is ranting and raving about the fence jumpers stealing $5 worth of water from the hose a month and using the public toilets in the basement, the elitists on the top floor are dropping their own rent, raising everybody else's, and stealing cable from another block.

I think we have bigger fish to fry, personally.

as long as it doesn't effect you then go ahead and let them in - untill your the one being jeopardized, you'll change your tune in a heartbeat (or maybe it will take your teenage daughter bringing one home and telling you she's pregnant)Where are these people being jeapordized by immigrants?

As for murder, however, who cares? Given what illegal immigrants tend to amount to, and what they tend to do,Become productive members of society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor

See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

As stupid as people say I am I knew that.

ouch! borderline topic. Where as I would normally welcome with open arms, the issue about illegals that aren't here for the nations benefit but purely to be either a burden on that nations economy or to pursue illegal activities wilst remaining tied to their own country from which they came. I think compramise is called for, if they are here to be helpful and considerate in the neighbourhood then fair play. However if they become a pain in the arris, sod them back!!!

Not that every one of the follow statistics is getting worse every year.

Illegal immigrants displace a million citizen workers a year.

Billions is spent giving them welfare and other benefits, making exception for them in schools, and countless other places. If they were given amnesty it'd cost us billions upon billions more since they'd have access to ALL the same benefits as normal citizens do.

1/3 of our total jail population is made up of illegal immigrants, which we have to pay for with God-knows how much more money.

Billions of dollars are removed from the economy every year entirely because it is sent back to Mexico rather than recycled in our own market.

I don't remember the exact percentage, but a significant number of illegal immigrants commit felonies AFTER they illegally cross the border.

Plus plenty of other stuff.

Deport them all, I say. To round them up and get rid of them, as well as secure the border, costs a lot of money. However, compared to how much we are losing in the process of keeping them here, we'd make our money back in a matter of a few years.

Billions of dollars are removed from the economy every year entirely because it is sent back to Mexico rather than recycled in our own market.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

I don't remember the exact percentage, but a significant number of illegal immigrants commit felonies AFTER they illegally cross the border.

Yeah, I don't remember the exact percentage but a significant number of anti-immigration posters are national socialists.

Illegal immigrants displace a million citizen workers a year.

Source?

Billions is spent giving them welfare and other benefits, making exception for them in schools, and countless other places. If they were given amnesty it'd cost us billions upon billions more since they'd have access to ALL the same benefits as normal citizens do.

Maaaaaybe it'd be better if it was easier and safer for them to register? That way they could actually pay taxes, you know...

...then, if they still don't, you would have a point.

1/3 of our total jail population is made up of illegal immigrants, which we have to pay for with God-knows how much more money.

Source and, you do realize that by making immigration illegal, you are perpuating the reason that this cost on society continues?

Billions of dollars are removed from the economy every year entirely because it is sent back to Mexico rather than recycled in our own market.

How can you simultaneously complain about jobs moving overseas and money going out of the economy?

It's one or the other. Anything else requires a mercantalist policy that simply won't work in today's world. It would definitely hurt the US to adopt mercantalism.

I don't remember the exact percentage, but a significant number of illegal immigrants commit felonies AFTER they illegally cross the border.

Again, a source would be nice.

Plus plenty of other stuff.

Nice catch-all you made there. Care to back it up by mentioning this "plenty of other stuff."?

Deport them all, I say. To round them up and get rid of them, as well as secure the border, costs a lot of money. However, compared to how much we are losing in the process of keeping them here, we'd make our money back in a matter of a few years.

You have no idea how much they are a benefit to the economy, do you? Those American companies will just continue to move overseas, as it's easier and legal.

As an American, the list of forbidden objects is fucking ridiculous. For example, bullwhips. Who the hell carries a bullwhip on an airplane?

Dominatrixes :D

Become productive members of society?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I've got a family friend who's an entertainment agent. If you want, I'll TG you with his details. Comedy genius like the above shouldn't be confined to an internet forum, when it could give such laughs to millions the world over on stage.

What part of ILLEGAL don't you people understand? if they are illegal they are NOT contributing to society. Even if they are working they don't pay federal taxes and still find ways to drain our welfare system. As far as i'm concerned as long as the government won't do anything. ANYONE who goes around capping these people needs to be given public recognition and 10$ a pop.

Don't get me wrong i'm all for immigration this country was founded by immigrants. but you have to do it LEGAL! And they need to learn the language if you're going to another country learn the damn language. That way we won't have to see and hear that crap every time we go outside.

Not that every one of the follow statistics is getting worse every year.

Illegal immigrants displace a million citizen workers a year.
What's that even mean? They kick people out of their condos, and make them move to Canada?
The jobs illegal immigrants take are usually insecure ones, anyway. I'm not sure what the exactly number is, but I think that the percentage of illegal immigrants who take the jobs of lawyers, doctors, and research scientists is around 0%.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I've got a family friend who's an entertainment agent. If you want, I'll TG you with his details. Comedy genius like the above shouldn't be confined to an internet forum, when it could give such laughs to millions the world over on stage.

That's all well and good, but can you, you know, prove your statement or disprove his?

Shahram Khosravi, a swedish researcher from the university of Stockholm, has followed 28 adult illegal immigrants without IDs or other documents. Most of them have been turned down for asylum, yet have stayed in Sweden. He reports that they behave themselves as model citizens because they're afraid that the slightest infraction will cast light upon them and the government will deport them. Only three of them were unemployed, but all of the people working got paid an hourly wage that was well beneath the legal minimum wage.

There are currently checks on businesses now. Increasing them slightly wouldn't hurt.and we can see that those are working so well now. How many Illegals are there in America now?

Illegal immigrants now face the risk of jail time or deportation if they're found out. They can hardly report workplace abuses to the government. and they won't after your plan is put into effect.
Since I propose no reprisals for illegal immigrants, there's no reason for them or anyone else to not report workplace abuses.no, your plan would not have them working at all. after all, businesses won't hire them under your "punish only the businesses that hire Illegal Immigrants".

By making it harder for them to get jobs, most of them go home.how? most of them spent their money getting here. so you would have them borrow more money and get more into debt with smugglers to return home?
Or, alternatively, you sign them up to pay taxes, thus making it easier for them to get jobs than it is currently. The only difficulty they'd have to getting a job is the unemployment rate. you sign them up. thus identifying themselves as Illegals and get deported. or you sign them up and they become Legal immigrants and thus you reward those who broke immigration laws and show those going through the process that "hey America doesn't care if you follow the law, go ahead and sneak in!"

It isn't meant to stop people from coming here, it's meant to encourage it. no, your plan is meant to encourage people to come in illegally.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I've got a family friend who's an entertainment agent. If you want, I'll TG you with his details. Comedy genius like the above shouldn't be confined to an internet forum, when it could give such laughs to millions the world over on stage.'Twasn't a joke.

What part of ILLEGAL don't you people understand? if they are illegal they are NOT contributing to society. Even if they are working they don't pay federal taxes and still find ways to drain our welfare system. As far as i'm concerned as long as the government won't do anything. ANYONE who goes around capping these people needs to be given public recognition and 10$ a pop.

Don't get me wrong i'm all for immigration this country was founded by immigrants. but you have to do it LEGAL! And they need to learn the language if you're going to another country learn the damn language. That way we won't have to see and hear that crap every time we go outside.If an immigrant is working or volunteering somewhere, illegal or not, they are contributing to society.
Not all countries have official languages, such as the U.S.

I have to say, it's time to stop illegal immigration. I'm tired of those fucking Canadians crossing our borders. We need to build a really big wall between us and Canada, and it would totally work too, it's not like those Canadians can climb walls or dig tunnels. And we need to punish any business that hires those bastards! And if they're going to come here, they need to learn our language, they can't even speak English right! And all they do is drugs, they aren't contributing anything, they're just leeching the system! And it's really not even that hard to get here legally, you just gotta sign some papers and get a ticket. I mean, it's not like I have a rabid hate for Canadians, it's just that I want them to come here legally.

'Twasn't a joke.

If an immigrant is working or volunteering somewhere, illegal or not, they are contributing to society.

Or if they're buying anything, like food.

It's pretty amazing that some people seem to think that the word "illegal" means these people are socioeconomic black holes. Like committing a crime means your dollars and services suddenly relocate to an alternate universe for the rest of your life.

As stupid as people say I am I knew that.

Ah, apologies then.

my personal feeling on the subject, to put it simply, is that no soverign nation has any sort of moral right to close its borders to the free flow of otherwise law abiding unarmed civilians accross them in any direction at any time for any reason. period. nor is it in any way legitimate to call any nation 'free' that does so.

=^^=
.../\...

and we can see that those are working so well now. How many Illegals are there in America now?Dunno, they don't seem to keep count very well. ;)

and they won't after your plan is put into effect.
no, your plan would not have them working at all. after all, businesses won't hire them under your "punish only the businesses that hire Illegal Immigrants".All they'd need to do is sign up to pay taxes. Then businesses would have no problem with hiring them.

how? most of them spent their money getting here. so you would have them borrow more money and get more into debt with smugglers to return home?Most of them who can't find jobs now go back. I fail to see why this would change, especially as they wouldn't need smugglers.

you sign them up. thus identifying themselves as Illegals and get deported. or you sign them up and they become Legal immigrants and thus you reward those who broke immigration laws and show those going through the process that "hey America doesn't care if you follow the law, go ahead and sneak in!"I'm saying the laws should be overturned. Coming here isn't (or at least shouldn't be a crime). Tax evasion is.

no, your plan is meant to encourage people to come in illegally.However they come is acceptable.

Or if they're buying anything, like food.

It's pretty amazing that some people seem to think that the word "illegal" means these people are socioeconomic black holes. Like committing a crime means your dollars and services suddenly relocate to an alternate universe for the rest of your life.Indeed. Immigrants facilitate trade.

People! hear me! I understand that they will do the jobs we don't want to do ourselves, they want a better life, and everthing in between. but THEY BROKE THE LAW!!! if you kill someone and are convicted you are punished or if you speed and are pulled over you get a ticket! do you not? YES! yes you do! so should they not get deported or punished. they destroy our already weak welfare and Social Security programs. let it not get worse but better! please think about what you're saying. think about the future. Liberalism is dangerous! Thank you.

From a true leader...

God Bless our men and women in the Middle East! a true leader does not create a puppet -to hide under that one day puppet- just to say what he really thinks about the Mexicans.. a true leader stands up, and says what he has to say, like a man. Disclaimer: male gender form used for for both sexes to save time ;-)

er, that's not illegal Immigration. again, can you show me the laws those natives had that in place that "the white man" violated?

is that true? I've always believed that each tribe had their own laws governing their tribe but none for the land in general since, as far as I know, the tribes back then didn't believe in land ownership by humans, but that the Gods and Spirits owned the land.

You know very little about the different cultures that we now call First Nations or Aboriginals. Different cultures had different laws, obviously, so grouping all aboriginal cultures as believeing one thing (i.e. they didn't believe in land ownership by humans, but that the Gods and Spirits owned the land) is quaint but wrong. Here (http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/abs/vol41/3borro.pdf) is an essay that discusses using First Nations laws to resolve issues affecting First Nations in Canada. Here (http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm) is an example of such law. I picked it simply because it is the Constitution of the closest First Nations group to where I am sitting.

The fact that you were unaware that such laws existed does not mean that they were not broken.

You're knowledge of history is disgustingly weak. But I can't blame you, it's rather obscure. The Eastern Roman Emperor (whose name escapes me), in 395, admitted the Visigoths into the province of Mosea (now part of Romania/ Bulgaria) to work the land as a Roman client state. The Visigoths, for rather arbitrary reasons, revolted, slaughtered the East Roman Army at Adrianople, and proceeded to lay waste to the Balkans until they decided to storm through Italy, which they promtly did. The Romans DID NOT conquer their land and absorb them into the empire. The Roman empire was fanatically weak at this point in history and had ceased to make any time of territatorial expansion centuries before.

And while paranoid is too strong a word, I operate on the skeptical side. Real life historical examples override idealism.

Well, your historical example shows quite clearly that there were several reasons why the Roman Empire fell. And illegal immigration was not one of them.

Pedro drains the welfare and logistical infrastructure of the country, possibly working, though not to the extent he will repay his unwilling host.

Source?

There is a probability that, at some point, Pedro will commit a crime,

Source?

In the second case, Pedro shoots at Border guards, probably misses, and is then turned into pate. This is far less dangerous than the other result above.

This is funny because your post has nothing to do with the analogy being presented. Your grasp of English is quite poor, considering the fact that you claim to be English.

Illegal immigrants displace a million citizen workers a year.

Billions is spent giving them welfare and other benefits, making exception for them in schools, and countless other places. If they were given amnesty it'd cost us billions upon billions more since they'd have access to ALL the same benefits as normal citizens do.

1/3 of our total jail population is made up of illegal immigrants, which we have to pay for with God-knows how much more money.

Billions of dollars are removed from the economy every year entirely because it is sent back to Mexico rather than recycled in our own market.

I don't remember the exact percentage, but a significant number of illegal immigrants commit felonies AFTER they illegally cross the border.
....

Do you have any sources for any of this?

What part of ILLEGAL don't you people understand? if they are illegal they are NOT contributing to society. Even if they are working they don't pay federal taxes and still find ways to drain our welfare system. As far as i'm concerned as long as the government won't do anything. ANYONE who goes around capping these people needs to be given public recognition and 10$ a pop.

Don't get me wrong i'm all for immigration this country was founded by immigrants. but you have to do it LEGAL! And they need to learn the language if you're going to another country learn the damn language. That way we won't have to see and hear that crap every time we go outside.

Apparently you support extra-judicial slayings of illegal immigrants. You do realise that under US law, this would be considered murder. Consequently, you seem to be saying it is okay to murder.

The irony of your second paragraph is that you seem ignorant about two things:

1. Spanish has been spoken in the USA for longer than English has. Therefore, Spanish is a native language. They are speaking the local language. Apparently you don't.

2. You have no idea how to use adverbs or commas, yet you complain that others should learn English.

EDIT: Post 2750. JoltBot Shoeshiner

I just love all the people who say that if you're going to come to America you should learn english, as if english is the official language of the U.S.A.

That's all well and good, but can you, you know, prove your statement or disprove his?

Shahram Khosravi, a swedish researcher from the university of Stockholm, has followed 28 adult illegal immigrants without IDs or other documents. Most of them have been turned down for asylum, yet have stayed in Sweden. He reports that they behave themselves as model citizens because they're afraid that the slightest infraction will cast light upon them and the government will deport them. Only three of them were unemployed, but all of the people working got paid an hourly wage that was well beneath the legal minimum wage.

Now two crimes have been committed, the employer has opened himself up to prosecution, his court cost and fines will certainly be more than the money he is saving on the wage - does this mean that they are not cover by workers comp? - most certainly so. Now the illegal woker is harms way and again the employer will possible be personaly responsible, costing more than he expected to bargain for. (may lose his business and personal property)

My question is where are the illegal immigrants from? What is the factor they left there country for to come and be illegal. Just the fact that they are in the country illegaly doesn't change if they dont j-walk or break any laws.

Also Mr Khosravi may be possibly prosecuted in not reporting a crime, (not familiar with swedish law, meatballs yes, law no)

I just love all the people who say that if you're going to come to America you should learn english, as if english is the official language of the U.S.A.

It is the de facto language. People need to learn in order to succeed outside of immigrant communities.

I just love all the people who say that if you're going to come to America you should learn english, as if english is the official language of the U.S.A.

I am sorry, but you are typing/speaking what?

Now two crimes have been committed, the employer has opened himself up to prosecution, his court cost and fines will certainly be more than the money he is saving on the wage
Trust me... That isn't the case in Sweden ;)


- does this mean that they are not cover by workers comp? - most certainly so. Now the illegal woker is harms way and again the employer will possible be personaly responsible, costing more than he expected to bargain for. (may lose his business and personal property)
Only if he does it to a really large scale - in Sweden.


My question is where are the illegal immigrants from?
Where? In Sweden? Iraq, Pakistan, Ukraina. But they come from other Baltic states too, as well as Kosovo and Palestine, and there's a large group of Vietnamese... Of course, that's not a final list, they do come from all over.


What is the factor they left there country for to come and be illegal.
Most seek better sosio-economic conditions, I suspect.


Just the fact that they are in the country illegaly doesn't change if they dont j-walk or break any laws.
No, but it does undermine the argument that you'll be a habitual criminal or a dangerous person if you should happen to be an illegal immigant.


Also Mr Khosravi may be possibly prosecuted in not reporting a crime, (not familiar with swedish law, meatballs yes, law no)
Nah, he's just recording it, he's not aiding them in the breaking of the law. He'll be fine. :)

my personal feeling on the subject, to put it simply, is that no soverign nation has any sort of moral right to close its borders to the free flow of otherwise law abiding unarmed civilians accross them in any direction at any time for any reason. period. nor is it in any way legitimate to call any nation 'free' that does so.

=^^=
.../\...

Why? How can you claim that it's an immoral act when the state is just acting on its own legitimate means as a sovereign nation? Why would it be immoral to deny even presumed law-abiding civilians the right to pass through the country, say in a time of bloody and hateful conflict with the nation from where said civilians hail?

I am sorry, but you are typing/speaking what?

Just because [random internet person] types in english at a british forum doesn't mean that english is the official language of the US - which it isn't. ;)

People will talk about immigrants taking away jobs, when in reality they CREATE jobs. After all, everybody has needs and wants and sombody has to produce them, right?


Problem: A lot of those needs aren't in the market, they're related to public infrastructure and/or welfare. Think about it: Most illegal immigrants are paid under the table and thus do not contribute to Social Security or Taxes, yet at the same time they do send their kids to public schools, get care from hospitals which write the expenses off and are covered by Medicare. Those who commit additional crimes incur various costs to the court and possibly the correctional system. Oh yes, that may create jobs, but the money has got to come from somewhere, namely, those who are here legally, both immigrants and US Citizens.


Also immigrants who come here(at least the ones who DON'T hop on the welfare train like some Americans also do) will do jobs most people don't want.

This is a talking point. I hear that all the time and it's pretty far from the truth. There's not a single job illegals do that an uemployed American or legal immigrant can't be found to do. The REAL difference is that an American or legal immigrant won't do it for $3.00/hr. People who are here legally are protected by the minimum wage laws.

Just because [random internet person] types in english at a british forum doesn't mean that english is the official language of the US - which it isn't. ;)

Are you saying that the US doesn't have an official language, that it's other than ENglish, or that it's english but not the proper King's English?

Simply spoken, while all arguments hold some validity, they are all basically errant. For instance,

The argument that immigrants do not contribute is remiss, as they both generate resources and utilize resources, otherwise they would die.

The argument that corporations exploit cheap labor is equally remiss. Corporations provide individuals/economies with resources they would not otherwise have, unless the corporations are involved in slavery.

Obviously, the fact that they are illegal suggests that there should be repercussions. Obviously, if we encourage these illegal actions, we what kind of precedent are we setting for future issues? Basically, these individuals/families left a dysfunctional economy, in order to capitalize on a functional/less dysfunctional one, at least undoubtedly in their view.

Their seems to be a substantial difference between a nation being "free" for its citizens to pursue happiness, and "open" for illegal immigration.

Either send the illegal immigrants back, or make them pay restitution for the time that they availed themselves to our resources without legal right. If the process is wrong, fix it.

Are you saying that the US doesn't have an official language, that it's other than ENglish, or that it's english but not the proper King's English?

This one

This one

Quite.



And Random Trivia: 15-20% of the worlds migrants are illegal (irregular) migrants. That makes up roughly 30 to 40 million irregular migrants worldwide - according to the report "United Nations' Trends in Total Migrant Stock: The 2003 Revision" and http://www.iom.int.

This is a talking point. I hear that all the time and it's pretty far from the truth. There's not a single job illegals do that an uemployed American or legal immigrant can't be found to do. The REAL difference is that an American or legal immigrant won't do it for $3.00/hr. People who are here legally are protected by the minimum wage laws.[/QUOTE]

Also note that, at least in Oklahoma, the Health Department provides services and preventative medicine to illegals, such as flu shots, etc., so there are significant resources being utilized regardless of whether or not taxes are paid.

Also note that, at least in Oklahoma, the Health Department provides services and preventative medicine to illegals, such as flu shots, etc., so there are significant resources being utilized regardless of whether or not taxes are paid.

Let us assume that your claim is true.

Have you ever asked why laws are created so that illegal immigrants don't have to show proof of citizenship to receive medical treatment?

In Canada, it is required for everyone to show citizenship upon receiving medical treatment. Those who cannot show citizenship are treated then asked to pay, or treated then deported, depending on their legal status in Canada.

Why is it different in the USA? Can you guess?

In Canada, it is required for everyone to show citizenship upon receiving medical treatment. Those who cannot show citizenship are treated then asked to pay, or treated then deported, depending on their legal status in Canada.

Why is it different in the USA? Can you guess?

Interesting... You wouldn't have any links handy would you? I'm wondering why they would be deported... Surely it would be a breach of doctor-patient confidentiality if the hospital called the authorities?

Let us assume that your claim is true.

Have you ever asked why laws are created so that illegal immigrants don't have to show proof of citizenship to receive medical treatment?
In Canada, it is required for everyone to show citizenship upon receiving medical treatment. Those who cannot show citizenship are treated then asked to pay, or treated then deported, depending on their legal status in Canada.

Why is it different in the USA? Can you guess?

Obviously, there are many interacting ideals.....
1.) Preventative treatment is cheaper than responsive treatment.
2.) Democrats cannot currently convince the wealthy to vote for them, so they have spent the last thirty to forty years developing legislation that preaches entitlement and panders to the poor.
3.) Government tax and spend policies eliminate the need for proper monitoring and responsible spending.
4.) Religious leaders have developed equivalent tactics to solicit greater participation, no longer preaching the morals of honesty, integrity, and hard labor, but instead embracing the "morality" of subsidy.

They are illegals. Regardless of opinion related to access, the law currently states that they are not to be here. Just as many may preach the validity of marijuana, the argument is not rational under current law. Oklahoma chose to adopt parimutuel wagering recently. They did not release all prior violators from incarceration. Nor did the state refund speeding ticket funds for violators once the speed limit was increased to 75 in places.

Gift-of-God, don't you endorse the necessity of man following the rule of man, as demanded in the Book? I believe the illegals should be forced to "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's!"

Maybe, in light of Christian principle's, you believe that immigration should be allowed, but the law currently states otherwise.

Interesting... You wouldn't have any links handy would you? I'm wondering why they would be deported... Surely it would be a breach of doctor-patient confidentiality if the hospital called the authorities?

Not necessarily. The doctor would not have to release any medical information to the authorities, but that has nothing to do with the legal status of the individual.

Due to Canada's public healthcare system, the provincial government has to pay for all necessary medical interventions in its borders. To keep track of this, each provincial resident is issued a heath insurance card (http://www.ramq.gouv.qc.ca/en/citoyens/assurancemaladie/carte/carte.shtml) by the government. It is mandatory to show this card when getting medical help (there are exceptions).

If you don't have this card or a card from another Canadian province, you have to pay. It then becomes an administrative manner, and medical administrators are required to report illegal aliens. Also, it would be impossible for illegal aliens to receive one of these cards, as proof of citizenship is required to get one of these cards.

Obviously, there are many interacting ideals.....
1.) Preventative treatment is cheaper than responsive treatment.
2.) Democrats cannot currently convince the wealthy to vote for them, so they have spent the last thirty to forty years developing legislation that preaches entitlement and panders to the poor.
3.) Government tax and spend policies eliminate the need for proper monitoring and responsible spending.
4.) Religious leaders have developed equivalent tactics to solicit greater participation, no longer preaching the morals of honesty, integrity, and hard labor, but instead embracing the "morality" of subsidy.


Preventative treatment is not an issue for the US. If it were, you would have embraced public healthcare long ago.
Illegal immigrants can't vote, so the Democrats would have no reason to pander to them.
Not even the stupidest government would purposefully waste money.
Religious leaders do not set health care policy.


They are illegals. Regardless of opinion related to access, the law currently states that they are not to be here. Just as many may preach the validity of marijuana, the argument is not rational under current law. Oklahoma chose to adopt parimutuel wagering recently. They did not release all prior violators from incarceration. Nor did the state refund speeding ticket funds for violators once the speed limit was increased to 75 in places.

I fail to see your point here. Can you clarify what you mean?

Gift-of-God, don't you endorse the necessity of man following the rule of man, as demanded in the Book? I believe the illegals should be forced to "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's!"

First of all, do not assume that I am Christian. Secondly, even if I am, I do not think democracies should be using the Bible as a guide for setting political policy.

Maybe, in light of Christian principles, you believe that immigration should be allowed, but the law currently states otherwise.

Yes, and I asked you why the law is as it is right now.

I'll tell you why: Many powerful economic interests in the USA require the current system for their profits. They need an underclass that will work for $2.50 an hour. They also need an underclass that is healthy enough to work, but not much more, and they need to externalise the costs of keeping such an underclass relatively healthy. They do this by lobbying (or bribing) the local politicians to pass laws making it illegal for hospitals to ask for proof of citizenship.

So much becomes clear when you follow the money.

I am sorry, but you are typing/speaking what?

I am typing in english, however the United States does not have an official language, also who says I'm an American?

It is the de facto language. People need to learn in order to succeed outside of immigrant communities.

I will agree that it would be very helpful to them to learn english as it would make their integration into the whole of society easier

Preventative treatment is not an issue for the US. If it were, you would have embraced public healthcare long ago.

Not true, just as Canada is embracing privatized health care, due to quality and response time.


Illegal immigrants can't vote, so the Democrats would have no reason to pander to them.

You are making a wild assumption that pandering to this socio-economic status would not positively affect registered voters in a comparable economic status? I respectfully disagree.

Not even the stupidest government would purposefully waste money.

Are you kidding me? Are you saying that the Canadian government has zero waste? If so, we should end this discussion.

Religious leaders do not set health care policy.


Of course, Billy Graham, Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King, etc. have never attempted to manipulate or influence political decisions related to social welfare!


First of all, do not assume that I am Christian. Secondly, even if I am, I do not think democracies should be using the Bible as a guide for setting political policy.

Again, environment affects decision making, which affects politics. Whether the source is identified or not, the affect is real. Religion has been shaping politics in all countries since there has been politics. You can claim separation of church and state, but you can't claim separation of belief systems and governing.

I'll tell you why: Many powerful economic interests in the USA require the current system for their profits. They need an underclass that will work for $2.50 an hour. They also need an underclass that is healthy enough to work, but not much more, and they need to externalise the costs of keeping such an underclass relatively healthy. They do this by lobbying (or bribing) the local politicians to pass laws making it illegal for hospitals to ask for proof of citizenship.

So much becomes clear when you follow the money.

I'm confused. Corporate America, typically Republican in nature, has actually acknowledged illegal immigration as an issue. Legalizing immigrants would cause them to fall under the minimum wage rule. Exporting them would eliminate the resource. So, how is this suiting their purpose. It seems to me that it is exactly the opposite. Identifying the illegals will actually remove this class.

ILLEGAL is the key. It is in violation of law, and therefore enforcement is not only expected, it is required in any legitimate governing system.

Make it legal, we have plenty of space, and it creates new jobs!

"We" have plenty of space? I don't know where these people get the idea that only Americans use NationStates.

"We" have plenty of space? I don't know where these people get the idea that only Americans use NationStates.

<SARCASM> *GASP* there's damn foreigners on this site? KILL 'EM ALL! </SARCASM>

Ah, apologies then.

It's alright.

Dominatrixes :D

There are shops, aren't there?

There are shops, aren't there?

:confused:?
yeah, so?
:confused:

Not true, just as Canada is embracing privatized health care, due to quality and response time.
You are making a wild assumption that pandering to this socio-economic status would not positively affect registered voters in a comparable economic status? I respectfully disagree.
Are you kidding me? Are you saying that the Canadian government has zero waste? If so, we should end this discussion.
Of course, Billy Graham, Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King, etc. have never attempted to manipulate or influence political decisions related to social welfare!

I will not get into a series of mini arguments with you. I was only showing you that the reasons you gave for such laws are not logical. Mine is.

Again, environment affects decision making, which affects politics. Whether the source is identified or not, the affect is real. Religion has been shaping politics in all countries since there has been politics. You can claim separation of church and state, but you can't claim separation of belief systems and governing.

Then explain to me exactly how religious leaders in the southwest US have had a hand in influencing legislation concerning proof of citizenship in medical centers. I'll wait.

I'm confused. Corporate America, typically Republican in nature, has actually acknowledged illegal immigration as an issue. Legalizing immigrants would cause them to fall under the minimum wage rule. Exporting them would eliminate the resource. So, how is this suiting their purpose. It seems to me that it is exactly the opposite. Identifying the illegals will actually remove this class.

The reasons you just gave are why Corporate America (to use your term) wants to keep the things the way they are. Corporate America wants illegal immigrants to stay illegal so that they can pay them next to nothing. These same plutocrats do not want them deported or identified either.

ILLEGAL is the key. It is in violation of law, and therefore enforcement is not only expected, it is required in any legitimate governing system.

Again, you have to ask why these laws aren't being enforced. Care to guess?

Yes, foreigners like Americans. :p

LOL

<SARCASM> *GASP* there's damn foreigners on this site? KILL 'EM ALL! </SARCASM>

Yes, foreigners like Americans. :p

I will not get into a series of mini arguments with you.

Ok, not a problem. I like my perspective challenged, but if the emotion of an "argument" is troublesome, so be it.

Then explain to me exactly how religious leaders in the southwest US have had a hand in influencing legislation concerning proof of citizenship in medical centers. I'll wait.

Strange response. Not in proof of citizenship. In emotional need to provide health care for all.

The reasons you just gave are why Corporate America (to use your term) wants to keep the things the way they are. Corporate America wants illegal immigrants to stay illegal so that they can pay them next to nothing. These same plutocrats do not want them deported or identified either.

Not the movement we are experiencing. Actually the opposite. But, you are probably right, in many instances.

Again, you have to ask why these laws aren't being enforced. Care to guess?

They are, in Oklahoma, today. Wonder why. Care to guess? Don't take my word, google it. House Bill 1804.

Ok, not a problem. I like my perspective challenged, but if the emotion of an "argument" is troublesome, so be it.

It is not the emotion that is troublesome. I simply find that most people are incapable of arguing a claim that requires several steps of proof, as several of yours do. If you wish to argue any of these with me, feel free, but please try to be as clear as possible. Until then, I will continue to believe my simpler and more rational theory.

Strange response. Not in proof of citizenship. In emotional need to provide health care for all.

Then we would see that all these religious leaders would suport public healthcare. Do they?

Not the movement we are experiencing. Actually the opposite. But, you are probably right, in many instances.

Could you please clarify?

They are, in Oklahoma, today. Wonder why. Care to guess? Don't take my word, google it. House Bill 1804.

That does not answer my question. At all. Try again.

On an unrelated note, can you tell me how many languages you speak?

Guten Abend,

Miener name ist König Jonathan von Friekenlande. Miener country ist mixed und speaks both German und English. Miener view on Illegal Immigration es simple. Lock up any Illegal Immigrants und then deport them within the next thrity days, Then banned from coming into the country forever.

This es used in the United Arab Emirates all the time. For any crime, small or large, unless murder und then you are executed. If you want to find out more about miener countries policies, please telegram mich.

König Jonathan von Friekenlande...

Yes, foreigners like Americans. :p

Ah, bloody hell, run out the cannons and shoot them

Ah, bloody hell, run out the cannons and shoot them

Man! You brits are blood thirsty little buggers arnt ya?

They are illegals. Regardless of opinion related to access, the law currently states that they are not to be here. Just as many may preach the validity of marijuana, the argument is not rational under current law.

Maybe, in light of Christian principle's, you believe that immigration should be allowed, but the law currently states otherwise.Certainly. Of course, in order to argue that the law should be changed, typically people argue that the law is wrong.

Guten Abend,

Miener name ist König Jonathan von Friekenlande. Miener country ist mixed und speaks both German und English. Miener view on Illegal Immigration es simple. Lock up any Illegal Immigrants und then deport them within the next thrity days, Then banned from coming into the country forever.

This es used in the United Arab Emirates all the time. For any crime, small or large, unless murder und then you are executed. If you want to find out more about miener countries policies, please telegram mich.

König Jonathan von Friekenlande...You don't need to roleplay in General. ;)

[QUOTE=Jello Biafra;13230192]Certainly. Of course, in order to argue that the law should be changed, typically people argue that the law is wrong.

I don't disagree. The law is probably wrong, and should be changed. But, until it is, it should be properly enforced.

I don't disagree. The law is probably wrong, and should be changed. But, until it is, it should be properly enforced.

It won't be.

[QUOTE=Gift-of-god;13229247]It is not the emotion that is troublesome. I simply find that most people are incapable of arguing a claim that requires several steps of proof, as several of yours do. If you wish to argue any of these with me, feel free, but please try to be as clear as possible. Until then, I will continue to believe my simpler and more rational theory.

Sorry, my failure to acknowledge your authority on this site is inexcusable. I will certainly attempt to do better. Obviously, any "logical" argument you provide would be void of value statements and judgments based on your perspective. Your knowledge and insight are overwhelming. I am surprised you can spare any of your "valuable" time to enlighten the ignorant. I no longer have the desire to allow you to challenge my opinions. Have a nice day.

Sorry, my failure to acknowledge your authority on this site is inexcusable. I will certainly attempt to do better. Obviously, any "logical" argument you provide would be void of value statements and judgments based on your perspective. Your knowledge and insight are overwhelming. I am surprised you can spare any of your "valuable" time to enlighten the ignorant. I no longer have the desire to allow you to challenge my opinions. Have a nice day.

I have an idea. Why don't we both state exactly what are claims are, and then provide some sort of support for why we believe that? This way, no one's feelings will get hurt.:rolleyes:

I'll go first.

Claim: Industries and special interests lobby politicians in order to keep current immigration laws from being enforced.

Logic: Industries make a large profit when they can minimise expenses such as wage, insurance and benefits. These companies can keep doing this if immigration laws are not enforced. If this is true, we would expect to see politicians trying to stop immigration officials from doing their job.

Evidence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800613_pf.html):

Major work-site crackdowns have run into trouble in the past. A spring 1998 sweep that targeted the Vidalia onion harvest in Georgia, and Operation Vanguard, a 1999 clampdown on meatpacking plants in Nebraska, Iowa and South Dakota, provide case studies of how the government fared when confronted by a coalition that included low-wage immigrant workers and the industries that hire them, analysts said.

The Georgia raids netted 4,034 illegal immigrants, prompting other unauthorized workers to stay home. As the $90 million onion crop sat in the field, farmers "started screaming to their local representatives," said Bart Szafnicki, INS assistant district director for investigations in Atlanta from 1991 to 2001.

Georgia's two senators and three of its House members, led by then-Sen. Paul Coverdell (R) and Rep. Jack Kingston (R), complained in a letter to Washington that the INS did not understand the needs of America's farmers. The raids stopped.

For Operation Vanguard, the INS used a more sophisticated tactic. It subpoenaed personnel records from Midwestern meatpacking plants and checked them against INS and Social Security databases of authorized workers, then interviewed suspect employees. Of 24,148 employees checked, 4,495, or 19 percent, had dubious documents at about 40 plants in Nebraska, western Iowa and South Dakota. Of those workers, 70 percent disappeared rather than be interviewed. Of 1,042 questioned, 34 were arrested and deported.

Nebraska's members of Congress at first called for tougher enforcement, recalled Mark Reed, then INS director of operations. But when the result shut down some plants, "all hell broke loose," he said.

Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns (R), who was governor at the time, appointed a task force to oppose the operation. Former governor Ben Nelson (D), now a U.S. senator, was hired as a lobbyist by meatpackers and ranchers. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) pressured the Justice Department to stop.

Members of Congress at first hostile to immigrants embraced "all the same people who were so repugnant to them before," Reed said, "and they prevailed." Operation Vanguard -- which was designed to expand to four states in four months and nationwide the next year, eventually including the lodging, food and construction industries -- was killed.