what to do about illegal immigration

[cyberquiet]

Even if you owned your own home and were willing to allow another family to live with you, wouldn't you still demand the right to control who comes in and on what basis? You might want to limit how many families come in so that the home does not become uncomfortable. You might be concerned if they stayed so long that they even came to have an interest in your property?

Cool, I don't know if it was intentional but this fits perfectly even if we substitute the concept of home with the concept of a state/region.

 

Anyway, this is correct, bringing tolerance at the extreme may cause serious economical and social problems, and no one will benefit from them.

But I don't think we're even close to this point Jim, there is plenty of room in our home.

We just need to arrange them more intelligently.

 

I firmly believe that the current American citizenry with all of its diversity "owns" America and has the absolute right to control who comes into the country and on what basis.

I find a bit difficult to follow this argument. For example, on what basis the english who colonized the States and their descendence could claim to "own" the country?

 

In making our decision as to who comes in and on what basis, I believe we should consider the impact on the US economy, the suffering that might be alleviated by allowing a particular immigrant group and the ability of that group to "melt" into the American pot. This last element is impacted not only by the tendencies of the group (and, yes, a group that comes from a contiguous country may be less likely to assimilate than groups from Europe, Asia or Africa) but also the numbers we are absorbing.

 

I want all of those factors to be assessed and then for the nation's policy makers to make a decision.

 

This leaves a open problem: how will you block the undesired immigrants? How can we expect poor people who can merely gain elementary education to know the correct procedure needed to enter the country?

As I said before, without intervention on the "source" countries, immigration will not stop.

[Jim]

Cool, I don't know if it was intentional but this fits perfectly even if we substitute the concept of home with the concept of a state/region.

 

I'm not sure I understand.

 

Anyway, this is correct, bringing tolerance at the extreme may cause serious economical and social problems, and no one will benefit from them.

But I don't think we're even close to this point Jim, there is plenty of room in our home.

We just need to arrange them more intelligently.

 

The point here being that property owners and nations have the right to draw boundaries. Compassion will influence how much of their wealth or country they will share but it is not all that controls.

 

I find a bit difficult to follow this argument. For example, on what basis the english who colonized the States and their descendence could claim to "own" the country?

 

The current voting citizens have the right to control this democracy and, in that sense, own the country, or at least the borders.

 

This leaves a open problem: how will you block the undesired immigrants? How can we expect poor people who can merely gain elementary education to know the correct procedure needed to enter the country?

As I said before, without intervention on the "source" countries, immigration will not stop.

 

Newt Gingrich had a good idea. Legalize immigration but require employers to deposit 10% of wages in an account that can only be accessed on proof of periodic return to the home country.

 

Enable class actions by American workers against employers with some fixed penalty for the depressed wages.

 

Send employers who willfully violate the law to jail.

 

We could get this done if we wanted. It's just politically easier to drift.

[Severian]

The article I posted is only 2 paragraphs (only enough time to present the facts) It basically is talking about how newspapers of illegal immigrants are calling for the takeover for the American Southwest' date=' in the name of Mexico. I know this is probably only a few extremists, but it's obviously having influence. At recent demonstrations, people were holding up signs, written in Spanish, calling for the same thing.

[/quote']

 

Well, if the majority of people living in a state want to leave the union, don't you think you should let them?

[cyberquiet]

The point here being that property owners and nations have the right to draw boundaries. Compassion will influence how much of their wealth or country they will share but it is not all that controls.

Don't you think if we only wait for "compassion" to take out developing countries from their misery, we may wait forever?

 

Why should a US citizen have so much rights over a cospicuos share of the global wealth simply because she is born from a legally recognized US family? Recall this:

You have housing that would be considered luxurious in many countries only because you were born in a country that provides opportunity for education and advancement. You worked hard to acquire these things but so would these people who had no such opportunities. You might be able to provide 4-5 families with housing if your family just made do in the master bedroom and shared the spare rooms. For that matter' date=' why are you entitled to the master bedroom merely because you are an American?

[/quote']

Don't you think a just system should not give so much privileges to people who only were lucky?

 

Newt Gingrich had a good idea. Legalize immigration but require employers to deposit 10% of wages in an account that can only be accessed on proof of periodic return to the home country.

This is an interesting idea. So once they have accumulated some money they can return to their home country and start developing there.

But if there are political or other kind of constraints, this may suppresss any attempt of development in their home country. Such constraints are not uncommon: think about wars, dictatorship, corruption, environmental destruction...

 

Enable class actions by American workers against employers with some fixed penalty for the depressed wages.

 

Send employers who willfully violate the law to jail.

 

We could get this done if we wanted. It's just politically easier to drift.

As I said earlier, employers strongly benefit from illegal immigrants, but regular employees suffer economically from this.

But I'm still waiting for a strong political action aimed to control those employers...

And even if such action would be taken, I think companies will instantly move their factories outside the US, increasing unemployement.

[Jim]

Don't you think if we only wait for "compassion" to take out developing countries from their misery, we may wait forever?

 

Isn't your position shaped by compassion?

 

Why should a US citizen have so much rights over a cospicuos share of the global wealth simply because she is born from a legally recognized US family? Recall this:

 

There are a variety of geographic, historical and cultural reasons which account for the United States' wealth. Academics could argue for years as to primary causes. It really has nothing to do with being fair.

 

Don't you think a just system should not give so much privileges to people who only were lucky?

 

Unfortunately, "just" systems do not produce wealth to share in the first place.

 

This is an interesting idea. So once they have accumulated some money they can return to their home country and start developing there.

But if there are political or other kind of constraints, this may suppresss any attempt of development in their home country. Such constraints are not uncommon: think about wars, dictatorship, corruption, environmental destruction...

 

I thought it was an interesting idea too.

 

As I said earlier, employers strongly benefit from illegal immigrants, but regular employees suffer economically from this.

But I'm still waiting for a strong political action aimed to control those employers...

And even if such action would be taken, I think companies will instantly move their factories outside the US, increasing unemployement,

 

My position is that we should assess the needs of our economy and then implement a program to make lawful what we need. Part of that program should be a conscious decision as to the source of the immigrants. It may well be that economics dictate that most come from S. America; however, I'd study that question with a possible goal to have a more diverse group of immigrants. Let's just make some conscious decisions for once.

 

I was very intrigued by the litigation that has been filed so far. That could be a huge incentive for employers to shape up. Nothing like the fear of a herd of hungry lawyers landing on your company's doorstep to get people to obey the law.

 

Also, cutting of the supply of workers, or at least threatening to, would put the politicians in a position where they have to finally make decisions and act.

[cyberquiet]

Isn't your position shaped by compassion?

In part it is' date=' but it's primarily motivated by the desire of economic and social equity.

My point is that politicians and the average citizen, but especially the most affluent ones, hardly make some economic sacrifice in the name of compassion...

 

There are a variety of geographic, historical and cultural reasons which account for the United States' wealth. Academics could argue for years as to primary causes. It really has nothing to do with being fair.

Indeed there is not a single factor, but I think resources are the essential basis for wealth. No civilization who lived in a desert may have produced the same wealth at the same pace, however culturally or technlogically advanced.

From this I logically deduce that if you born in a place with more resources than me, you are luckier than me.

 

Unfortunately, "just" systems do not produce wealth to share in the first place.

What do you mean? Are you arguing that a more just economic system cannot exist?

 

Also, cutting of the supply of workers, or at least threatening to, would put the politicians in a position where they have to finally make decisions and act.

It may work, but it won't be easy to make the employers behave correctly...

They will most probably respond by "emigrating" to another country where workforce is less costly (I like to insist on this, damned Michael Moore )

[Saryctos]

It's just another example of people from another country taking advantage of liberal friendliness and "tolerance", and I'm sure if ever a problem arises from the situation, they'll be the first ones to point fingers.

[zyncod]

What about a one-time lottery on a per-family basis? There is no way we can deport all illegals, and the absence of 11 million people (jobs "Americans wouldn't take" or not) would leave a gaping hole in the employment structure anyway. So we offer a lottery for citizenship where, say, 60% of people will 'win.' A 60% chance, I think, is enough that a majority of illegals would enter - for the chance at a minimum wage salary, governmental benefits, and the inability ever to be deported. The per-family basis would assure that there is no breaking up of families, and the requirement for a valid address would assure that deportation of all non-selectees would be possible.

 

It's not anybody's first choice solution, from xenophobic Minutemen to unrealistically soft liberals, but I think it could be valid (as a one-time thing).

[ecoli]

My apologies for not getting to this earlier

Me too.

 

 

 

First, illegal immigrants make up 11% of the prison population. And if overcrowding is the problem then your not making an argument against illegal immigration (who make up a minority of immigrants who come into the country), you're making an argument against any kind of immigration which undermines your later comments stressing the claim that "They broke the law to get into the country and they work illegally".

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters0b9c

 

I can throw sources at you too... According to my sources, it's 29%

 

I'm not complaining about legal immigrants, in fact, I think diversity is a good thing. But legal immigrants are making a commintment in order to be here that illegals don't have to make.

 

And, I'm not even sure I believe your numbers, source please?

 

 

I dont really have a problem with little Chinatowns or Koreatowns popping up.

 

Neither do I... it's the fact that Spanish has become more common than English in the southwest that I don't like.

 

 

You're not one of those types that calls illegal immigration a foreign invasion?

 

That is extreme... but in a few years, who knows?

 

So you wouldnt have a problem with illegal immigration if we just made them pay taxes like everyone else? So that, when you say "supporting illegals rests on the taxpayers", the people included in the group of taxpayers are the illegal immigrants themselves. This is exactly what I said in my first post.

 

nope, according to the Center for Immigration studies, legalizing illegals (and making them pay taxes) would only make things worse because they would be entitled to even more benefits then they would pay out.

 

But I'm also interested in just what taxburden you're talking about. Illegal immigrants are ineligible to recieve welfare, social security, and most public-funded healthcare.

Schools, hospitals, prisons, etc...

 

I could imagine that they are a tax burden because in the sense that employers can hire immigrant workers without being required to pay additional social security taxes because illegal immigrants would never reports those kinds of problems,

 

That too... and it's also illegal to hire an illegal immigrant, don't forget.

 

but then the tax burden is a consequence of the crackdowns on immigration itself (i.e. policies restricting immigrants are actually the cause of the tax burden associated with immigration), and this can be solved really easily by treating immigrants like legal residents and requiring them to pay taxes.

 

nope, see above comment

 

However, I can also imagine that there would be a tax burden when immigrants get hurt and require surgery, and because they are not covered by insurance the state has to pick up the tab. However, that isnt a problem with illegal immigration itself, its a problem with certain business practices. For instance, Walmart has a notorious problem of refusing to pay health benefits which forces all its workers to rely on the state to pick up health bills. That kind of unnecessary tax burden exists no matter who fills the jobs, illegal immigrants are not, so cracking down on illegal immigration doesnt solve the actual problem.

 

Nope, same comment as before. I really should find the exact article... oh well, I'll do it later.

 

 

How exactly do we go about fighting corruption in foreign countries? Should we invade, overthrow the governments, and replace them with one of our own making?

sorry... that was just a simple idealistic statement.

[ecoli]

found it!!! This is an excellent, albeit lengthy paper about the real affects of illegal immigration.

 

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.html

 

If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.

obviously this statement is proven in the article.

[Jim]

What do you mean? Are you arguing that a more just economic system cannot exist?

 

I'm sure it can if "just" means an economic system that shares whatever wealth exists without attempting to create wealth by harnessing human greed.

 

It is possible to focus too exclusively on resources. What resources does S. America lack compared to N. America?

[ecoli]

I'm sure it can if "just" means an economic system that shares whatever wealth exists without attempting to create wealth by harnessing human greed.

 

agreed... I fail to see how socialism is a 'just' system. But that's getting off topic, sorry.

[zyncod]

I fail to see how socialism is a 'just' system.

 

Well, you introduced the off topic, so.....

 

As opposed to capitalism as a 'just' system? Over the past two years, as a research lab tech, I've been making less than half of what my friends who went into business do. I've actually been making less than what the janitors who empty my trash do. I'm not complaining- I love what I do for a living, but in terms of lasting benefits to humanity, what I do is worth more than what my accountant friends or janitor colleagues do. How is that fair?

[ecoli]

Well' date=' you introduced the off topic, so.....

 

As opposed to capitalism as a 'just' system? Over the past two years, as a research lab tech, I've been making less than half of what my friends who went into business do. I've actually been making less than what the janitors who empty my trash do. I'm not complaining- I love what I do for a living, but in terms of lasting benefits to humanity, what I do is worth more than what my accountant friends or janitor colleagues do. How is that fair?[/quote']

did I say that it was?

[cyberquiet]

I'm sure it can if "just" means an economic system that shares whatever wealth exists without attempting to create wealth by harnessing human greed.

I don't want to get off topic' date=' we may open another thread for discussing this. The only thing I will say is that no one has givean a [b']proof[/b] that something better than capitalism cannot exist, do you have one?

 

agreed... I fail to see how socialism is a 'just' system. But that's getting off topic' date=' sorry.

[/quote']

Please, I don't like preconceptions about socialism. Socialism as written on paper was never realized, the so-called past socialisms were all but socialist.

 

It is possible to focus too exclusively on resources. What resources does S. America lack compared to N. America?

Unfortunately, I don't have enough knowledge to answer this question. Possibly they have the resources, but they don't have the right to use them or they don't have the technologies to extract them.

[Jim]

I have to say that these marchs are counterproductive for illegal immigrants. They do not help their case by acting as if they have the same moral standing as African Americans who were brought here in chains.

[Pangloss]

I was pondering a post along similar lines, Jim. I'm deeply sympathetic to their position, but I really think they're shooting themselves in the foot by continuing demonstrations, not to mention allying themselves with far left wing labor groups and socialists who could care less about them than they fear far-right conservatives do. They're shoving words into the mouths of demonstrators who don't even know what those words mean -- literally.

 

Senator Martinez, a Republican and an immigrant himself who has sided with Democrats on immigration reform, said yesterday that we do not need further polarization on this issue. It's time to come together, not move farther apart.

 

But I've been feeling pulled to the right on this. I'm still willing to accept the compromise, but it's clear that it will not stop illegal immigration and may (MAY) even encourage more of it. I'm VERY unhappy about the pandering to the left on this issue -- the aspect of producing millions of new partisan voters just because they're partisan, not because they're voters. That's not what *I* signed on to immigration reform for.

 

I turned on the car radio yesterday during lunch and flipped back and forth between Air America/Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh. And you know what? What I got was little different from what I'm seeing on the nightly news! One extreme position countered by the other. No compromise. No common ground. No agreement or consensus.

 

Something is rotten about all this, and the partisan shenanigans need to stop. Most people agree that the border needs to be secured. Most people agree that humane, humanitarian treatment of illegals is necessary. Most people agree that immigration is an important life blood of this country, and is necessary.

 

Why the heck can we not move forward with the stuff we agree on here?

[Jim]

I was pondering a post along similar lines' date=' Jim. I'm deeply sympathetic to their position, but I really think they're shooting themselves in the foot by continuing demonstrations, not to mention allying themselves with far left wing labor groups and socialists who could care less about them than they fear far-right conservatives do. They're shoving words into the mouths of demonstrators who don't even know what those words mean -- [i']literally[/i].

 

Senator Martinez, a Republican and an immigrant himself who has sided with Democrats on immigration reform, said yesterday that we do not need further polarization on this issue. It's time to come together, not move farther apart.

 

But I've been feeling pulled to the right on this. I'm still willing to accept the compromise, but it's clear that it will not stop illegal immigration and may (MAY) even encourage more of it. I'm VERY unhappy about the pandering to the left on this issue -- the aspect of producing millions of new partisan voters just because they're partisan, not because they're voters. That's not what *I* signed on to immigration reform for.

 

I turned on the car radio yesterday during lunch and flipped back and forth between Air America/Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh. And you know what? What I got was little different from what I'm seeing on the nightly news! One extreme position countered by the other. No compromise. No common ground. No agreement or consensus.

 

Something is rotten about all this, and the partisan shenanigans need to stop. Most people agree that the border needs to be secured. Most people agree that humane, humanitarian treatment of illegals is necessary. Most people agree that immigration is an important life blood of this country, and is necessary.

 

Why the heck can we not move forward with the stuff we agree on here?

 

Pangloss, I couldn't agree more. I heard on NPR the other day that we have just a few thousand slots for unskilled legal visas. The vast majority of legal immigrants are skilled workers or relatives of those already here legally.

 

It seems pretty simple to me that we should come to grips with the number of workers that we need in this country and then grant that number legal visas. We should then impose large penalties against employers who hire illegals since this is a national security issue. I wouldn't make illegals felons as the last thing we want to do is pay to lock them up. However, I would fingerprint them and check that fingerprint record against future applications for legal immigration. If we were offering 10 million or so legal slots and someone is caught skipping this lawful process, there should be no problem in forever banning that person from future legal status.

 

The point you mention about pandering to the group's potential votes is very well taken. I blame Bush here too.

[ecoli]

what's the most ironic thing of all, is that the demonstations are funded by big corporations - who are usually nototriously republican. But it makes sense - who would benefit the most from cheap labor then the employers of the world?

 

and it's almost surprizing that so many politicans are supporting them - even if they do gain legal status, it wouldn't happen until after November.

[scicop]

I'm amazed that academic science has not tapped into the illegal immigrants as of yet to do "slave-labor" lab routines!

 

We all know that a person does not need a college degree or even GED to do mini-preps, make buffers, split cells, or run a gel!! Hell with enough training, i'm sure you can get the illegals to do your restriction digests, and radioligand binding assays!!!!

 

We don't need no stinking ph.d's no more!!!

[Pangloss]

Er,okay....

 

Hey Ecoli, that's the first I've heard about major corporations funding the demonstrations. Do you have any further info on that? It sounds interesting.

[john5746]

I have to say that these marchs are counterproductive for illegal immigrants. They do not help their case by acting as if they have the same moral standing as African Americans who were brought here in chains.

 

Playing devil's advocate, one could say that they have a similar claim that Native Americans do. We did run their ancestors out of what is now the southwest.

 

I am in favor of doing whatever it takes to secure the borders. If we can do that effectively, we can just make the ones here that want to stay citizens. Then we can think about having a guest worker program.

[ecoli]

Er' date='okay....

 

Hey Ecoli, that's the first I've heard about major corporations funding the demonstrations. Do you have any further info on that? It sounds interesting.[/quote']

 

well... I remember hearing something on the radio. But, if they aren't directly funding, many of them are at least supporting.

 

Smithfield Foods of Virginia said Thursday it will take time Monday to help employees write to U.S. senators and representatives with demands for changes in immigration law' date=' including "a path to citizenship for those who are willing to work," according to a company press release.

Tyson Foods is shutting meatpacking plants on Monday, citing market conditions and a possible shortage of workers. Meatpacker Cargill Meat Solutions is giving 15,000 workers the day off so they can participate, The Associated Press reported.

In Los Angeles, the 7th Street produce market, which supplies thousands of Southern California restaurants and markets, will not do business on Monday. "We will not work on May 1st. We will not sell any vegetables or fruits," said Pedro Astorga of the 7th Street Market Merchants Association.[/quote']

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/28/boycott/index.html

 

I'm pretty sure there are other cases like that, companies that support them even more. I'm looking for sources...

[ecoli]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21841

[Jim]

Playing devil's advocate' date=' one could say that they have a similar claim that Native Americans do. [b']We did run their ancestors out of what is now the southwest.[/b]

 

I am in favor of doing whatever it takes to secure the borders. If we can do that effectively, we can just make the ones here that want to stay citizens. Then we can think about having a guest worker program.

 

I did no such thing.

 

Seriously, the ethnic makeup of Mexicans is complex. However, I'm not aware what tribes from the southwest we relocated to Mexico. Can you elaborate? We certainly do not have treaties with them that establish legal rights and territories in this country.