Illegal Immigration

[wisedude]

To close the borders or not to... I think we should tighten borders, and allow any people already in (who are PRODUCTIVE) to stay... But I think the borders should be significantly tightened.. There's no point in having borders if we don't enforce them

[Prometheus]

Those who are not here legally have no right to be here. If they break our laws coming in, who's to say they will respect our laws once they settle inside?

Kick them out, build a wall. If you want to be here, come here legally. Plain and simple.

[Ed Jones]

Many illegal immigrants work far harder and for much less than the average American worker.

It's an employer's dream!

[Locke]

To close the borders or not to... I think we should tighten borders, and allow any people already in (who are PRODUCTIVE) to stay... But I think the borders should be significantly tightened.. There's no point in having borders if we don't enforce them

The issue isn't "protecting" the borders. The issue is that regular government inspections aren't ubiquitous for employers. If said employers were actively forced to pay the same wages to illegal immigrants as "regular" Americans, then any incentive for the illegal immigrant to cross the border or for the emplyer to provide him/her a job would be nullified. Proposed solutions here would only increase xenophobia and nationalism, which are noxious when combined.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/immigrant.gif

[Syngenetic]

Aliens should be allowed, but if they are illegal, than they should be fined and send back to the Country they belong to. We do not need more security for illegal immigrants, but we do need it for the terrorists. And not all immigrants are terrorists.

[Mitch]

We do not need more security for illegal immigrants, but we do need it for the terrorists.
I just want to make sure you're using the term "terrorist" properly.
Terrorist: violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals.
So, now that that's out of the way. You can see why I have a problem with the use of the word terrorist, especially by Georgy. Can't he be classified as a terrorist?

The problem with security for extremists is that they can harm anyone very easily, the only way to prevent extremists from getting into the US is to stop EVERYONE from getting in.
And not all immigrants are terrorists.
Duh... Of course not! I support immigrants and what the Canadian government does to help them.

LOCKE: Maddox is great ain't he!

[ShadyPolitics]

I am personally not against illegal immigration, I believe its a great thing...but the law is the law. I think that most people fear that Hispanics will gain more voting power in the US then Caucasians and eventually turn the US into a Hispanic puppet. I personally wouldn't mind having a majority Hispanic senate, I don't care what race is in power because mine surely isn't (blacks).

But, thats the issue here. The Hispanics come over and they have babies, now they are citizens and every citizen has a vote. If this continues, within 20 years, the Hispanics will be a huge majority of the vote. Hispanics already hold the second largest population in the United States, and Hispanics are going to look out for Hispanics. But, as I said...I can care less about the majority race or nationality of the Senate. I wouldn't even have a problem with a majority Muslim Senate.

[eharvester]

We should leave the immigration issue to states and eliminate federal welfare. If states want to subsidize unhealthy immigration with welfare programs, then they should take the responsibility of managing their own borders. They come here for two reasons:

1. Mexico doesn't have a middle class, over inflation wiped them out, there's only poor and wealthy
2. the federal government, here in the US, mandates states to provide free services for them, while citizens get the shaft

so let's leave it to the states to handle. Personally, I prefer open border policy, but only after you eliminate welfare

http://www.ronpaul2008.com <--- he's the guy I'm backing for this election

[Cookies]

Honestly, they don't bother me at all. I am a very responsible person, and I like to follow the laws strictly. Illegal immigrants are willing to do jobs that even Americans would not even touch. If weren't here, many Americans will have to do more far crappy jobs.

Seriously, they're humans. Give them a break. They crossed the boarder for a better life. Maybe something happened back home in Mexico, and they couldn't come here illegally. Maybe they needed to make money and send it back home.

Just don't go too far.

[bizwiz]

Illegal immigrants are doing most jobs some Americans wouldn't even touch. Although they should register themselves so they will contribute more to society on their being legal residents of the US.

[brookes]

To close the borders or not to... I think we should tighten borders, and allow any people already in (who are PRODUCTIVE) to stay... But I think the borders should be significantly tightened.. There's no point in having borders if we don't enforce them


We need to take strong action and act on this issue. We have got so many illegal immigrants from south America, Pakistan...It is happening just because of the American policies in those regions. Completely agrees with you that we should allow those who are productive. But strong action should be taken on those who are a potential threat

[hideip]

Believe it or not illegal aliens are crucial to our economy. They often work in places where most Americans (nowadays) wouldnt dream of and also for less pay. They keep the prices lower for hotels, consttuction, meat packing plants, fisheries, factories etc. I think something has to be done to change green cards etc but its also hard to find a solution.

[Cattraknoff]

Believe it or not illegal aliens are crucial to our economy. They often work in places where most Americans (nowadays) wouldnt dream of and also for less pay. They keep the prices lower for hotels, consttuction, meat packing plants, fisheries, factories etc. I think something has to be done to change green cards etc but its also hard to find a solution.

You could just come out with the truth of it and re-institute slavery. That's essentially what it is.

[bigdoglj52]

I think that we need to enforce our borers better but make sure to never make a fence on the America, Mexico border. e also need to tighten up at the Canada border because thats where terrorist etc. come in :)

[Cattraknoff]

I think that we need to enforce our borers better but make sure to never make a fence on the America, Mexico border. e also need to tighten up at the Canada border because thats where terrorist etc. come in :)

Yes, because terrorists attacks are a daily occurrence, in the United States. But why stop there? You should also strip away what remains of your democratic and human rights while you're at it. Terrorism is a massive threat, it is proven by how often the attacks happen. Especially when the government actually doesn't allow them to occur.

[Locke]

Amnesty is the only practical and morally responsible solution.

[Gwendl]

For those that advocate sending them back. How? It's easy to say "Deport them all" but in the end, the cost in both money and resources would be astronomical. Heck, they can't even enforce the law that prohibits companies from hiring illegal immigrants, so how are they going to have the manpower to rope up everyone and send them back. It doesn't make sense from a practicality point of view.

I think amnesty for those already here is the only solution, but we need to build out the fences and allow only legal immigrants in the future. Otherwise, amnesty will build over time like from Reagan's time.

[lihen]

illegal immigration is one of the problem every country is now facing, but yes i do totally agree that boder should be tightened so as to decrease immigration.
But what if one finds the way in.....
how to iradicate those people who are already in the country.... this reamins a vital question..
what can be done about it

[online.education]

I don't think anyone mentioned this in this forum.

The current immigration problem is a direct result of NAFTA. Since agriculture is heavily subsidized in US, Mexican farmers suddenly found themselves in poverty. They needed to survive somehow and millions of them flooded into US. Immigration or illegal immigration isn't exactly a problem. The devastating combination of (unfree trade) NAFTA and the heavy agriculture subsidy in US is the problem.

CAFTA is another huge problem. We do not need unfree trade like NAFTA and CAFTA; we need to have true equal free trade. Unless we have that, the (illegal) immigration will continue to be a very serious problem.

[Locke]

The total percentage of the population who write in "Farmer" on their tax returns sheet is probably miniscule. NAFTA, for the most part, has tangibly aided Mexico; living conditions have increased drastically since NAFTA was instituted, despite certain imbalances.

[online.education]

The total percentage of the population who write in "Farmer" on their tax returns sheet is probably miniscule. NAFTA, for the most part, has tangibly aided Mexico; living conditions have increased drastically since NAFTA was instituted, despite certain imbalances.

Despite promises about the benefits of NAFTA, the average Mexican did not experience these benefits after the implementation of the agreement. During the first two months of 1995, interest rates rose from 35% to 59%, reportedly causing more than $2.5 billion in investments to flee the country. The stock market dropped 24%, hundreds of companies closed down, and more than 250,000 Mexicans lost their jobs. Since the devaluation, the peso has continued to decline, moving from 3.1 pesos to the dollar in January 1994 to 8.2 pesos currently.

...

Workers to the south were no better off: wages in Mexico declined by 40%-50%. While the cost of living rose by 80%, salaries increased by only 30%. The inflation rate in 1996 rose to over 51% and 20,000 small and medium sized businesses went bankrupt due to increased competition from multinational corporations. As of 1996, more than 2.3 million Mexican people had lost their jobs since the implementation of NAFTA. Prices of basic necessities such as gasoline, electricity and tortillas rose at an unprecedented rate. One year after the crash of the peso, three-quarters of Mexican families could no longer afford the basic foods and services required to keep them above the poverty line (Garcia).

http://www.earlham.edu/~pols/17Fall97/nafta/poverty.htm

A couple of million lost jobs is not a small number.

[Cattraknoff]

A couple of million lost jobs is not a small number.

That's as of 1996. How about now? I'm fairly certain their economy has grown of late.

[online.education]

That's as of 1996. How about now? I'm fairly certain their economy has grown of late.

'Growth' is a very subjective term in this case, but you could say that the economy is stabilized. As a result, the number of immigrants crossing the border has decreased rather significantly.

But, as I mentioned already, if US keep signing unfree trade agreements like CAFTA, then there will be new immigration problems.

Building a long wall and delaying applications will do little to solve the problem. There needs to be an economic policy that is actually beneficial to all parties / countries involved; otherwise, there will be a number of social problems.

[Locke]

That's as of 1996. How about now? I'm fairly certain their economy has grown of late.
If I may cite some stats from the World Bank (whose stats are of repute, notwithstanding their other affairs) :
External debt (% of GNI) 2005 22.1
GDP (current US$) (billions) 2006 839.2
GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 2006 7,870
Life expectancy at birth, total (years) 2005 75
School enrollment, primary (% net) 2005 98.0
A HUGE improvement over pre-NAFTA conditions.

[online.education]

If I may cite some stats from the World Bank (whose stats are of repute, notwithstanding their other affairs) :

A HUGE improvement over pre-NAFTA conditions.

I don't entirely agree with the following article, but it sums up the problem.

...

Free trade raises prosperity through a principle called comparative advantage. The trouble is that comparative advantage, which forces nations into more efficient economic specialization, can also bring undesirable social changes.

Mexico has 8 million farmers. Economic forces that drive these people into crowded cities or across borders - whatever arguments of economic efficiency lie behind them - are good neither for Mexico nor America.

With their cities already crowded, most industrial nations don't want to depopulate rural areas. The European Union and United States pay farmers directly to stay put - though GDPs would rise faster if they left the land. The record 2002 farm bill pays U.S. farmers $190 billion over 10 years, with big farmers getting the biggest checks.

...

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/503.html

You can talk about GDP growth and what have you, but it doesn't alter the fact that the current immigration problem is largely a result of NAFTA.

[Locke]

I don't entirely agree with the following article, but it sums up the problem.



You can talk about GDP growth and what have you, but it doesn't alter the fact that the current immigration problem is largely a result of NAFTA.

That phenomenon is the effect of the subsidies received by farmers from the government (40 billion$ annually) that permit American agricultural goods to be sold below production costs, and not NAFTA itself. So one can argue that NAFTA has caused the influx of immigrants, yet it is not the root problem. Aside from farmers, NAFTA has largely reduced the incentive to illegally immigrate.

As far as I know, there are no stats to support the amount of illegal immigrants, as to be a census would require detection (obviously). Theoretically speaking, as education increases (an enrollment increase of 11% since the inception of NAFTA), more Mexicans will descry the fact that the bottom decentile in the U.S. (the socio-economic status they would likely occupy) makes on average roughly the same amount as a middle class Mexican (7000$ approximately), and their income might even be lower than that in the U.S. being unregistered habitants.

[Clay]

For those that advocate sending them back. How? It's easy to say "Deport them all" but in the end, the cost in both money and resources would be astronomical. Heck, they can't even enforce the law that prohibits companies from hiring illegal immigrants, so how are they going to have the manpower to rope up everyone and send them back. It doesn't make sense from a practicality point of view.

I think amnesty for those already here is the only solution, but we need to build out the fences and allow only legal immigrants in the future. Otherwise, amnesty will build over time like from Reagan's time.

Are you not familiar with the new tough on illegals laws passed in Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia and Mississippi? These laws take away the business license of repeat offender employers of illegals. It seem to work as evidenced by the mass exodus of illegals from those states. Granted, most didn't return to Mexico but just moved to a neighboring state. Still, it showed that if more states had such laws that these illegals would eventially have to return to Mexico. It's called attrition through actual enforcement of immigration laws resulting in self deportation. Novel approach huh? Cost to the American taxpayers? Zero.

[Cattraknoff]

Are you not familiar with the new tough on illegals laws passed in Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia and Mississippi? These laws take away the business license of repeat offender employers of illegals. It seem to work as evidenced by the mass exodus of illegals from those states. Granted, most didn't return to Mexico but just moved to a neighboring state. Still, it showed that if more states had such laws that these illegals would eventially have to return to Mexico. It's called attrition through actual enforcement of immigration laws resulting in self deportation. Novel approach huh? Cost to the American taxpayers? Zero.

Aside from all the jobs they don't want to fill themselves not being done.

[Clay]

Aside from all the jobs they don't want to fill themselves not being done.

What are you trying to say?

[Clay]

Aside from all the jobs they don't want to fill themselves not being done.

20 million illegals in this country and the farmers can't find anyone to pick crops is a startling statistic. It shows that the illegals are moving on from taking those jobs that Americans won't do to taking those jobs that Americans DO want.

The employers of these illegals are lining their pockets from the cheap labor and paying NO benefits, while at the same time this cheap labor is being subsidized by the American taxpayers from social services for the family, ER medical care for the family, education for the family, incarceration, anchor baby abuse, etc. So this cheap labor is actually not cheap at all.

[Locke]

The employers of these illegals are lining their pockets from the cheap labor and paying NO benefits, while at the same time this cheap labor is being subsidized by the American taxpayers from social services for the family, ER medical care for the family, education for the family, incarceration, anchor baby abuse, etc. So this cheap labor is actually not cheap at all.

So you're saying that these people are benficiaries of the American social system? An illegal immigrant, by definition, is one who does not legally belong to the country where he is living and working. To get access to the services mentioned above, one would have to be a recognized citizen.

[Clay]

So you're saying that these people are benficiaries of the American social system? An illegal immigrant, by definition, is one who does not legally belong to the country where he is living and working. To get access to the services mentioned above, one would have to be a recognized citizen.

Despite being ineligible, these illegal aliens get welfare the same way they get jobs: with identity documents falsely identifying them as U.S. citizens. In most cases it's not allowed to check citizenship status. It's a big business and not difficult to create an identity for this purpose. Illegals also get help from sympathetic case workers (especially Latino caseworkers) who show them the ropes. In addition, if they have U.S.-born children, they may legally collect welfare assistance in the name of those children.

[Cattraknoff]

Despite being ineligible, these illegal aliens get welfare the same way they get jobs: with identity documents falsely identifying them as U.S. citizens. In most cases it's not allowed to check citizenship status. It's a big business and not difficult to create an identity for this purpose. Illegals also get help from sympathetic case workers (especially Latino caseworkers) who show them the ropes. In addition, if they have U.S.-born children, they may legally collect welfare assistance in the name of those children.

If those problems were addressed, it would be far more beneficial. Illegals shouldn't be able to have citizen children.

[Clay]

If those problems were addressed, it would be far more beneficial. Illegals shouldn't be able to have citizen children.

Someday the 14th amendment will be clarified to give automatic citizenship to children born only to legal American citizens. There are too many Democratic politicians pandering for the Latino vote for it to happen anytime soon though.

[Cattraknoff]

Someday the 14th amendment will be clarified to give automatic citizenship to children born only to legal American citizens. There are too many Democratic politicians pandering for the Latino vote for it to happen anytime soon though.

And why then didn't the Republicans do anything when they had a majority?

[Clay]

And why then didn't the Republicans do anything when they had a majority?

El Presidente jorge had more control over the party then and, as he was blatantly pandering, along with the Democrats, for the Latino vote, he wasn't concerned about anything like citizenship birthright. Jorge has always been about delivering the cheap labor for corporate American while the Democratic politicians have always salivated at the prospect of gaining a new Latino voter block. Currently, Republican politicians have been more amenable to removing this anchor baby abuse magnet, while the Democratic politicians still look at anchor babies as future Democratic voters and will fight to keep them. No?

[Locke]

The current law is the law, and must be supported. Yet your opposition to immigration is illogical; as you stated, there are certain political interests in having a predominantly Hispanic population, but that is extraneous to the actual debate. There is nothing inherently wrong with this phenomenon. The American economy is entirely dependant on illegal immigrants, and extradition would not only be far too expensive but also a large blow to the economic system. This problem has arisen out of the policy which you have outlined and supported, as the influx of individuals into the richer state cannot be fully stopped by either wall or gun. It is a sort of group diffusion; a flow into a place of wealth will always be present unless the wealth itself dries up. Thus it would solve all current dilemmas to incorporate actual illegal immigrants to full citizenship; the services which they "steal" from the American system would be rightly payed for in taxes if recognized.

[Cattraknoff]

The current law is the law, and must be supported. Yet your opposition to immigration is illogical; as you stated, there are certain political interests in having a predominantly Hispanic population, but that is extraneous to the actual debate. There is nothing inherently wrong with this phenomenon. The American economy is entirely dependant on illegal immigrants, and extradition would not only be far too expensive but also a large blow to the economic system. This problem has arisen out of the policy which you have outlined and supported, as the influx of individuals into the richer state cannot be fully stopped by either wall or gun. It is a sort of group diffusion; a flow into a place of wealth will always be present unless the wealth itself dries up. Thus it would solve all current dilemmas to incorporate actual illegal immigrants to full citizenship; the services which they "steal" from the American system would be rightly payed for in taxes if recognized.

And employers would be forced to pay them more thus making them useless to hire and probably resulting in a great deal of unemployed new citizens requiring welfare.

[Clay]

And employers would be forced to pay them more thus making them useless to hire and probably resulting in a great deal of unemployed new citizens requiring welfare.

Exactly. And don't stand near the border lest you get trampled by the next wave of illegals breaking in to provide the replacement cheap labor required by the employers of illegals which resulted from the openings created by giving amnesty to the previous bunch of illegals, as well as hoping to get amnesty for themselves too.

[Clay]

The current law is the law, and must be supported. Yet your opposition to immigration is illogical; as you stated, there are certain political interests in having a predominantly Hispanic population, but that is extraneous to the actual debate. There is nothing inherently wrong with this phenomenon. The American economy is entirely dependant on illegal immigrants, and extradition would not only be far too expensive but also a large blow to the economic system. This problem has arisen out of the policy which you have outlined and supported, as the influx of individuals into the richer state cannot be fully stopped by either wall or gun. It is a sort of group diffusion; a flow into a place of wealth will always be present unless the wealth itself dries up. Thus it would solve all current dilemmas to incorporate actual illegal immigrants to full citizenship; the services which they "steal" from the American system would be rightly payed for in taxes if recognized.

Again, the only ones profiting from the cheap illegal labor are employers of these illegals who are lining their pockets from the cheap labor and paying NO benefits, while at the same time this cheap labor is being subsidized by the American taxpayers from social services for the family, ER medical care for the family, education for the family, incarceration, anchor baby abuse, etc. This cheap labor is in reality not cheap at all. So, if one is not an employer of illegals or a paid advocate why would anyone other than a marxist be so excited about illegal immigration?

[Locke]

Again, the only ones profiting from the cheap illegal labor are employers of these illegals who are lining their pockets from the cheap labor and paying NO benefits, while at the same time this cheap labor is being subsidized by the American taxpayers from social services for the family, ER medical care for the family, education for the family, incarceration, anchor baby abuse, etc. This cheap labor is in reality not cheap at all. So, if one is not an employer of illegals or a paid advocate why would anyone other than a marxist be so excited about illegal immigration?

I am in full agreement with the fact that it is detrimental. I have never debated that fulcrum. However, you propose no alternative or course for the cessation of the tide of immigrants into the United States. Forsooth, amnesty must be provided to current immigrants if you wish to end the dilemma. Yes, we can close our borders, but that would not alleviate the problem you have here delineated.

[Clay]

I am in full agreement with the fact that it is detrimental. I have never debated that fulcrum. However, you propose no alternative or course for the cessation of the tide of immigrants into the United States. Forsooth, amnesty must be provided to current immigrants if you wish to end the dilemma. Yes, we can close our borders, but that would not alleviate the problem you have here delineated.

Well, I did mention the new tough on illegals laws passed in Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia and Mississippi, which resulted in a mass exodus of illegals from those states. These laws require that an employer e-verify the legal status of any hire and also removes the business licenses of repeat offenders of employers of illegals. The result was that the jobs for illegals dried up. Without jobs the illegals left en mass. In addition, with no jobs magnet to draw them here, there will very few new breakins by illegals. Does this count as an alternative course for the cessation of the illegal Mexican invasion? Why would we want to give amnesty to anyone in this country illegally when we can just pass these laws in every state and let the illegals self deport themselves?

Giving amnesty to illegals that have broken our laws is absurd anyway. Giving amnesty to these illegal aliens will make them useless to the employers of illegals as they will then have to pay them legal wages and provide benefits, which they don't want to do. So a whole new wave of illegals will be breaking in to provide the cheap labor desired by the employer of illegals. So how did amnesty solve anything?

If these tough on illegals laws pass in all 50 states, you'll see mass self deportations out of this country back to where these illegals came from. All at little cost to the American taxpayers.

One interesting thought is that perhaps some of these illegals who are self deporting won't go all the way back to Mexico but could just break into Alberta. You could then give a try at getting amnesty for those illegals that have broken into Alberta?

[Locke]

Well, I did mention the new tough on illegals laws passed in Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia and Mississippi, which resulted in a mass exodus of illegals from those states. These laws require that an employer e-verify the legal status of any hire and also removes the business licenses of repeat offenders of employers of illegals. The result was that the jobs for illegals dried up. Without jobs the illegals left en mass. In addition, with no jobs magnet to draw them here, there will very few new breakins by illegals. Does this count as an alternative course for the cessation of the illegal Mexican invasion? Why would we want to give amnesty to anyone in this country illegally when we can just pass these laws in every state and let the illegals self deport themselves?

Giving amnesty to illegals that have broken our laws is absurd anyway. Giving amnesty to these illegal aliens will make them useless to the employers of illegals as they will then have to pay them legal wages and provide benefits, which they don't want to do. So a whole new wave of illegals will be breaking in to provide the cheap labor desired by the employer of illegals. So how did amnesty solve anything?

If these tough on illegals laws pass in all 50 states, you'll see mass self deportations out of this country back to where these illegals came from. All at little cost to the American taxpayers.

One interesting thought is that perhaps some of these illegals who are self deporting won't go all the way back to Mexico but could just break into Alberta. You could then give a try at getting amnesty for those illegals that have broken into Alberta?

I didn't quite mean to discount tough laws, but they will not get rid of all the illegal immigrants by themselves. Those policies must be enacted with amnesty for current immigrants.

[Clay]

I didn't quite mean to discount tough laws, but they will not get rid of all the illegal immigrants by themselves. Those policies must be enacted with amnesty for current immigrants.

Wow. Laws designed specifically to cause CURRENT illegal aliens to self deport must be enacted with amnesty for CURRENT illegal aliens? Are you listening to yourself?

[Locke]

Wow. Laws designed specifically to cause CURRENT illegal aliens to self deport must be enacted with amnesty for CURRENT illegal aliens? Are you listening to yourself?

The laws are in place to prevent further waves of immigrants. If you provide amnesty to current workers, and then enact a worker verification law, it would effectively eradicate a new influx of immigrants while getting rid entirely of the old, and providing the economy with a new labour pool.

And employers would be forced to pay them more thus making them useless to hire and probably resulting in a great deal of unemployed new citizens requiring welfare.

There is no lack of opportunities for workers in less-qualified fields. And, if those do not appreciate the position given, they can return to their country of origin, accomplishing what your lauded policy does in the first place while showing a bit of humanism.

One interesting thought is that perhaps some of these illegals who are self deporting won't go all the way back to Mexico but could just break into Alberta. You could then give a try at getting amnesty for those illegals that have broken into Alberta?
Fear mongering? Poor tactics. In fact, Alberta could probably benefit immensely from illegal immigrants. Bring 'em on.

[Mitch]

Alberta would LOVE illegals. Everywhere I go, there is a "Help Wanted" of sorts. Illegal Immigration isn't all that bad.
The US could also improve their general Immigration laws. They are very strict and it's really hard to get a job once you become a citizen or get a Visa. Even in Canada, I've seen doctors from India or elsewhere driving cabs and whatnot. It's not too hard to train people with your standard if they already know the complicated stuff (ie. How to do surgery...)

[Locke]

Furthermore, the American immigrant policy isn't helping to reduce the incentive for people to immigrate illegally. There are other areas in which they could first improve.

[Cattraknoff]

Furthermore, the American immigrant policy isn't helping to reduce the incentive for people to immigrate illegally. There are other areas in which they could first improve.

I don't really see a problem with them coming so long as they aren't getting any social services to speak of without paying taxes. However that isn't that case, and should change. Not that I really care, being Canadian.

[Mitch]

Not that I really care, being Canadian.
Ha! Of course you care! We're Canadians, we always meddle in American politics.

[Cattraknoff]

Ha! Of course you care! We're Canadians, we always meddle in American politics.

I only care about stuff likely to harm me.

I might care about stuff that benefits me, but nothing the Americans do ever benefits us.

[Locke]

I only care about stuff likely to harm me.

I might care about stuff that benefits me, but nothing the Americans do ever benefits us.

Heh, you sound like an American!

[Cattraknoff]

Heh, you sound like an American!

Anything that harms humanity as a whole harms me. It harms everyone. I wouldn't care as much if they kept to themselves, but they (or the people behind them) insist on attempting to gain power in every other country.

[Clay]

The laws are in place to prevent further waves of immigrants. If you provide amnesty to current workers, and then enact a worker verification law, it would effectively eradicate a new influx of immigrants while getting rid entirely of the old, and providing the economy with a new labour pool.



There is no lack of opportunities for workers in less-qualified fields. And, if those do not appreciate the position given, they can return to their country of origin, accomplishing what your lauded policy does in the first place while showing a bit of humanism.


Fear mongering? Poor tactics. In fact, Alberta could probably benefit immensely from illegal immigrants. Bring 'em on.

As I stated these tough on illegals laws are designed to force current illegal aliens to self deport back to where they came from. They will have the options of starving, turning to actual crime to support themselves, or simply going back to their 3rd world cesspools. You keep calling for giving them amnesty? Amnesty would make a mockery of our LEGAL immigration system, putting them ahead of all those applicants who have applied for citizenship in the legal way and have been waiting patiently for years, outside the US. And yet you haven't even given any valid reasons why we would want to give illegal UNINVITED border jumpers amnesty.

Since these illegals are already here ILLEGALLY working, how would giving them amnesty create a new labor pool?

The marxist anarchist solutions are always unrealistic and unworkable. Giving amnesty and citizenship to 20 million illegals, most of whom are below some poverty level, will qualify ALL of them for welfare benefits, which you MUST know that these 3rd world recipients would fully embrace, and which would then finally bankrupt the US, which is teetering on bankruptcy as it is.

No, I much prefer to send all of these self deported illegals to Canada to flood every street of every city, enough to turn Canada into a 3rd world country, just to hear liberal marxist anarchists scream bloody murder for the government to do something about the uninvited illegal border jumpers.

[Clay]

Anything that harms humanity as a whole harms me. It harms everyone. I wouldn't care as much if they kept to themselves, but they (or the people behind them) insist on attempting to gain power in every other country.

You mean like a dry drunk President trying to bring democracy to a country of 14th century wild eyed muslims, AND, of course, to protect our source of oil?

[Locke]

As I stated these tough on illegals laws are designed to force current illegal aliens to self deport back to where they came from. They will have the options of starving, turning to actual crime to support themselves, or simply going back to their 3rd world cesspools. You keep calling for giving them amnesty? Amnesty would make a mockery of our LEGAL immigration system, putting them ahead of all those applicants who have applied for citizenship in the legal way and have been waiting patiently for years, outside the US. And yet you haven't even given any valid reasons why we would want to give illegal UNINVITED border jumpers amnesty.

Since these illegals are already here ILLEGALLY working, how would giving them amnesty create a new labor pool?

The marxist anarchist solutions are always unrealistic and unworkable. Giving amnesty and citizenship to 20 million illegals, most of whom are below some poverty level, will qualify ALL of them for welfare benefits, which you MUST know that these 3rd world recipients would fully embrace, and which would then finally bankrupt the US, which is teetering on bankruptcy as it is.

No, I much prefer to send all of these self deported illegals to Canada to flood every street of every city, enough to turn Canada into a 3rd world country, just to hear liberal marxist anarchists scream bloody murder for the government to do something about the uninvited illegal border jumpers.

I am by no means Marxist, or Anarchist. I would probably rate somewhat right-wing centrist on economic and governmental policies. Marxism is solely an economic doctrine, and would be viable if conditions were ideal. Anarchism is one of the least well thought through political doctrines, yet you amalgamate both into an epithet which only displays your ignorance.

You cannot lump 20 million people into a single group. You assume that as these people broke immigration laws, they are lazy, shiftless brutes who will do nothing but take advantage of public social systems. However, the immigration system makes a mockery of itself. The current backlog of legally immigrating individuals (in Canada) is approximately 1 million, and the estimated processing time is half a decade. In the U.S., the backlog is relatively low (~320,000) yet this value has double over the past three years. Illegal immigrants have been forced into their situations by antediluvian immigration policies, and as I reiterate your claim that "America is on the verge of bankruptcy" an infusion of recognized labourers would only benefit the teetering economy. No, it is not a new labour pool, but it is one that will pay taxes. And, if the economy is in such a precarious state, I do not understand how you suppose to make up for the millions of illegal workers your policies would displace. It is, in fact, your policy that is unrealistic.

Giving amnesty and citizenship to 20 million illegals, most of whom are below some poverty level, will qualify ALL of them for welfare benefits, which you MUST know that these 3rd world recipients would fully embrace, and which would then finally bankrupt the US, which is teetering on bankruptcy as it is.
To provide for this abuse: give them provisional citizenship, enough to procure a job yet with no state-subsidized benefits. Those who do not wish to work will leave, and those who remain will only add growth to the economy.

[Clay]

I am by no means Marxist, or Anarchist. I would probably rate somewhat right-wing centrist on economic and governmental policies. Marxism is solely an economic doctrine, and would be viable if conditions were ideal. Anarchism is one of the least well thought through political doctrines, yet you amalgamate both into an epithet which only displays your ignorance.

You cannot lump 20 million people into a single group. You assume that as these people broke immigration laws, they are lazy, shiftless brutes who will do nothing but take advantage of public social systems. However, the immigration system makes a mockery of itself. The current backlog of legally immigrating individuals (in Canada) is approximately 1 million, and the estimated processing time is half a decade. In the U.S., the backlog is relatively low (~320,000) yet this value has double over the past three years. Illegal immigrants have been forced into their situations by antediluvian immigration policies, and as I reiterate your claim that "America is on the verge of bankruptcy" an infusion of recognized labourers would only benefit the teetering economy. No, it is not a new labour pool, but it is one that will pay taxes. And, if the economy is in such a precarious state, I do not understand how you suppose to make up for the millions of illegal workers your policies would displace. It is, in fact, your policy that is unrealistic.

To provide for this abuse: give them provisional citizenship, enough to procure a job yet with no state-subsidized benefits. Those who do not wish to work will leave, and those who remain will only add growth to the economy.

Do you actually think that somewhere in there you made a valid and logical case for the US to grant amnesty to 20 plus million illegals? Hardly. Granting amnesty to 20 million illegals would make them instantly undesirable to the employers who employ and exploit illegals because they wouldn't be "cheap" labor anymore. This new pool of amnestied illegals would pay little or no income taxes because the way the US taxes are structured those at the bottom pay little or no taxes. These newly amnestied illegals would, as citizens, legally qualify for all the welfare services available and which would undoubtedly bankrupt the system. Provisional citizenship is absurd. Again, why would we want to give these uninvited illegal border jumpers amnesty?

America's immigration laws must always reflect what is good for American, not what is good for so called prospective immigrants. Immigration into the US is not the "right" of billions of prospective immigrants outside the US but a privilege for the few who qualify.

Those who are VERY LIBERAL are NOT borderline marxists?

[Locke]

Those who are VERY LIBERAL are NOT borderline marxists?
Not really. Marxism has very little to do with immigration policies. Of the main doctrine, I don't agree with much. It is, as you said, unrealistic.

[Cattraknoff]

Those who are VERY LIBERAL are NOT borderline marxists?

Some might call people who are "VERY CONSERVATIVE" (copying the caps to be awesome) borderline fascists.

It works both ways.

[Clay]

Some might call people who are "VERY CONSERVATIVE" (copying the caps to be awesome) borderline fascists.

It works both ways.

Yes. I believe you are on to something. It does seem to work both ways.

[Mitch]

Please stay on topic. Use the "Extremely Opinionated" forums for this is you really want to flame at each other.
Cattraknoff, you should know better than this.

[Cattraknoff]

Please stay on topic. Use the "Extremely Opinionated" forums for this is you really want to flame at each other.
Cattraknoff, you should know better than this.

It wasn't intended as a flame, and don't think it was taken as such (correct me if I'm mistaken). You have my most humble and sincere apologies if anyone took offense.

[Clay]

It wasn't intended as a flame, and don't think it was taken as such (correct me if I'm mistaken). You have my most humble and sincere apologies if anyone took offense.

If you're thinking about me, I wasn't offended at all. I actually prefer for people to be free to fully speak their minds without having to be overly PC.

[Cattraknoff]

If you're thinking about me, I wasn't offended at all. I actually prefer for people to be free to fully speak their minds without having to be overly PC.

Indeed. Self-righteous PC proponents sicken me to no end. There are far too many people in this world going out of their way to be offended by practically anything. It results in freedom of speech being crippled.

More on topic: As I said before, why not just re-institute slave labor so the state can still benefit? They can pay taxes and have no benefits whatsoever. Everyone gains, except the immigrants.

It's no less moral that American activities in any number of other (much poorer) countries. It's also about time the US of A takes a page out of Russia's book and admits that they're as tyrannical as anyone else.

[Clay]

Indeed. Self-righteous PC proponents sicken me to no end. There are far too many people in this world going out of their way to be offended by practically anything. It results in freedom of speech being crippled.

More on topic: As I said before, why not just re-institute slave labor so the state can still benefit? They can pay taxes and have no benefits whatsoever. Everyone gains, except the immigrants.

It's no less moral that American activities in any number of other (much poorer) countries. It's also about time the US of A takes a page out of Russia's book and admits that they're as tyrannical as anyone else.

Well, you may be just talking tongue in check, but who would be the force behind re-instituting slave labor? American corporations? Hardly. The ruling elites in this country have carefully thought things out. They figured out that having enough politicians in your hip pocket to enable a 19th century workforce from a 3rd world country to invade the US is much better than having slave labor. All you have to do with 3rd world invaders is to pay them a cheap wage only and then you're done with em. They have to survive on their own when they aren't working. If they're slave labor, you own them. You don't pay them any cheap wage but then you have to provide all the benefits that American taxpayers have to pay, so that American corporations can have their cheap illegal labor, and more. You would have to feed, clothe, and house them. It would be much more expensive for American corporations to have slaves. What's more I sure wouldn't want any Canadians to have to pick cotton.

Well, I'm sick and tired of the US thinking that they need to police the world. We're going to go it alone and bomb Iran if they get nuclear capability? Why? We're probably the last country that Iran would be able to use nukes on, so I say we just sit back and let others countries, like all of Europe for instance, worry about defending themselves. Right. I'm serious. No more invading countries that don't attack us.

[Cattraknoff]

Well, you may be just talking tongue in check, but who would be the force behind re-instituting slave labor? American corporations? Hardly. The ruling elites in this country have carefully thought things out. They figured out that having enough politicians in your hip pocket to enable a 19th century workforce from a 3rd world country to invade the US is much better than having slave labor. All you have to do with 3rd world invaders is to pay them a cheap wage only and then you're done with em. They have to survive on their own when they aren't working. If they're slave labor, you own them. You don't pay them any cheap wage but then you have to provide all the benefits that American taxpayers have to pay, so that American corporations can have their cheap illegal labor, and more. You would have to feed, clothe, and house them. It would be much more expensive for American corporations to have slaves. What's more I sure wouldn't want any Canadians to have to pick cotton.

Well, I'm sick and tired of the US thinking that they need to police the world. We're going to go it alone and bomb Iran if they get nuclear capability? Why? We're probably the last country that Iran would be able to use nukes on, so I say we just sit back and let others countries, like all of Europe for instance, worry about defending themselves. Right. I'm serious. No more invading countries that don't attack us.

Nuclear weapons being used has nothing to do with why Iran might be attacked. They might be attacked because they're opposed to the American empire. This is the same reason Venezuela is in danger of an invasion (or more likely a coup/rigged election). Being opposed to mass privatization and American ownership is against international law (not really, but it may as well be). Nuclear weapons, or the threat of them getting such, are simply the needed justification for the public. All acts of such magnitude must be justified in some way, even if the reason given is not the real one. Examples of this can be seen in the US entry of both world wars, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

And yes my comment about slavery was indeed tongue-in-cheek. We in the west have more than enough slaves in Africa, Asia, and South America. We are slaves as well, aside from the ruling class. The difference being our slavery is less at gunpoint; our enslavement is slightly more subtle.

[Clay]

Nuclear weapons being used has nothing to do with why Iran might be attacked. They might be attacked because they're opposed to the American empire. This is the same reason Venezuela is in danger of an invasion (or more likely a coup/rigged election). Being opposed to mass privatization and American ownership is against international law (not really, but it may as well be). Nuclear weapons, or the threat of them getting such, are simply the needed justification for the public. All acts of such magnitude must be justified in some way, even if the reason given is not the real one. Examples of this can be seen in the US entry of both world wars, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

And yes my comment about slavery was indeed tongue-in-cheek. We in the west have more than enough slaves in Africa, Asia, and South America. We are slaves as well, aside from the ruling class. The difference being our slavery is less at gunpoint; our enslavement is slightly more subtle.

I don't think that the US is in any kind of financial position or military position to attack anyone else for a long time. We're in debt up to our eyeballs.

[Cattraknoff]

I don't think that the US is in any kind of financial position or military position to attack anyone else for a long time. We're in debt up to our eyeballs.

Military defeats have their uses sometimes. It allows them far greater leeway in selection of which types of weapons they would like to use.

Not to suggest that the US government would ever do anything inhumane or derogatory to the entire species. It is a completely benevolent institution, and to think they would ever do anything seriously wrong is sinful. This is why they must not have any ulterior motives for stripping citizens of their right to a fair trial. It's for their protection from the evil terrorists. Allowing the President to take control of any state national guard units, local law enforcement, etc. is necessary in the name of preventing civil unrest.

Why would they anticipate civil unrest to this degree? They must obviously be expecting an open revolution; This the only logical reason why they would allow as well federal troops to be deployed, and used to "police" the civilians. This is unconstitutional, or was until the Bush administration nullified this portion of it.

[Locke]

Military defeats have their uses sometimes. It allows them far greater leeway in selection of which types of weapons they would like to use.

Not to suggest that the US government would ever do anything inhumane or derogatory to the entire species. It is a completely benevolent institution, and to think they would ever do anything seriously wrong is sinful. This is why they must not have any ulterior motives for stripping citizens of their right to a fair trial. It's for their protection from the evil terrorists. Allowing the President to take control of any state national guard units, local law enforcement, etc. is necessary in the name of preventing civil unrest.

Why would they anticipate civil unrest to this degree? They must obviously be expecting an open revolution; This the only logical reason why they would allow as well federal troops to be deployed, and used to "police" the civilians. This is unconstitutional, or was until the Bush administration nullified this portion of it.

Given that American wars are almost entirely conducted by corporations under ludicrous contracts, I doubt they will ever be in a state of incapability of invasion.

[Clay]

Given that American wars are almost entirely conducted by corporations under ludicrous contracts, I doubt they will ever be in a state of incapability of invasion.

Your knowledge of American military history would be astounding if you could back up your observations with some sort of facts rather than marxist myths?

[Cattraknoff]

Your knowledge of American military history would be astounding if you could back up your observations with some sort of facts rather than marxist myths?

Even right-wing (corporate) media pretty much openly admits to this fact. It's essentially beyond dispute.

[Clay]

Even right-wing (corporate) media pretty much openly admits to this fact. It's essentially beyond dispute.

While I concede that there may be "some" half truths to these marxist myths, just what right wing corporate media would you be referring to? Moveon.com?

[Cattraknoff]

While I concede that there may be "some" half truths to these marxist myths, just what right wing corporate media would you be referring to? Moveon.com?

Yahoo, msn.com, many newspaper websites.

Much of the war is indeed conducted by private firms, and defense contractors are reaping massive profits. There is and will remain a great deal of corruption in the system, even as whistleblowers are shunned, their lives often ruined for doing what is "right".

[Clay]

Yahoo, msn.com, many newspaper websites.

Much of the war is indeed conducted by private firms, and defense contractors are reaping massive profits. There is and will remain a great deal of corruption in the system, even as whistleblowers are shunned, their lives often ruined for doing what is "right".

Well, I have to agree with you when you put it that way.

[Locke]

Well, I have to agree with you when you put it that way.

As it comes not from the mouth of a Marxist, neh?
Blackwater, indeed, accounts for a large part of the American military presence in Iraq. Halliburton has had about 20 billion in contracts thus far. Even those wars waged not with the aid of contractors in history have the ultimate goal of profit; be it sovereign or transnational.

[puffin]

Its a too complicated problem. It can't be helped locals get pissed when immigrants get benefits from their tax money. But also you cant simply remove them because they play a big role on keeping prices low. Maybe this is how those local Indians must had felt too.

[Cattraknoff]

Its a too complicated problem. It can't be helped locals get pissed when immigrants get benefits from their tax money. But also you cant simply remove them because they play a big role on keeping prices low. Maybe this is how those local Indians must had felt too.

It's only complicated because governments go out of their way to make it complicated. Illegal immigration, or rather the causes from it, is simply one piece of a larger whole, and should be dealt with as such.