Illegal Immigration help

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Okay, so on that great debate forum, Facebook, my girlfriend's sister posts something about... I don't remember, vegetarianism or something. That's not important, what is important is that the comments rapidly went on a tangent about illegal immigration and how debilitatingly horrible it is, white one commenter being quite vocal about how it's important to stop this dastardly scheme to take over the great, white state of Arizona, and how Jan Brewer is the only person who has the balls to 'stand up' to Obama and 'do something' about it by building a bigger wall.

I commented on this:

I am rather curious, exactly how much do illegals cost? It's not jobs, because they only take the jobs for rates no legal resident would, and those jobs are only available because no one in power is willing to prosecute companies who offer them to illegals at those rates. It's not taxpayer dollars because 1) illegals receive no federal benefits ... See Morelike welfare and unemployment as they aren't citizens, and 2) illegals pay the exact same sales on everything they buy, just like everyone else. It's definitely not terrorism, as it's shown that over 90% of terrorists immigrate to the US through entirely legal means (as in not hopping over the border).

Even if illegals are such a huge cost to people, exactly what is going to be done to stop them? Build a bigger, better wall? The Berlin wall is the best, most ruthlessly enforced border in recent history, yet over six hundred people a year managed to get through those several miles of concrete, barbed wire, spotlights and armed guards before the wall was taken down. Where is the several billion needed to enforce that sort of wall going to come from today? How about the several hundred billion it will take to build a wall a couple hundred times that size to cover the entirety of the border? And even then, extrapolating from Berlin's average, that's still a couple hundred thousand still getting over our border every year.

Even more pressing: What good is a wall supposed to do when over half the illegal immigrants in the US entered the country legally and merely overstayed their visas?

If we want to stop illegal immigration, why not actually go after the causes, rather than just uselessly deporting the symptoms? 1) Decriminalize and federally regulate marijuana, which will remove the incentive to run it over the border, provide a huge source of taxable revenue for the economy, and take the drug cartels' biggest source of income out from underneath them, 2) Aggressively prosecute companies that hire illegals at vastly reduced wages. If they don't hire, then illegals lose their other biggest incentive to come over here, 3) Introduce massive prison reform aimed at actually rehabilitating people, rather than simply incarcerating them. Prison is the breeding ground of gang and drug-related violence in the US, reforming it would go a long way towards solving both these problems, which also happen to be problems strongly associated with illegal immigration.

It's one thing to 'talk tough' and say you'll build a bigger wall to stop immigration. It's another to actually look at the issue and realize building a wall won't solve anything and just cost a lot of taxpayer money.

I woke up this morning to see this as a reply:

I would love to address some of the points Damien makes in his fb post.
The first question you asked was, “exactly how much do ILLEGALS cost?”
Answer: “Arizona state treasurer Dean Martin says his state loses between $1.3 billion and $2.5 billion each year on illegal immigrants. In addition to the fiscal costs of incarcerating and educating ... See Moreillegal immigrants and their families, Arizona also faces a variety of other indirect costs.”

After that there are so many inaccurate arguments, I almost don’t know where to begin.

Myth #1) “It's not jobs, because they only take the jobs for rates no legal resident would” FALSE
Studies show that as soon as employers dump their ILLEGAL employees that LEGAL citizens rush to fill the jobs that become available. Especially teens who have been all but completely replaced in the work force by ILLEGALS.
Here is a 2 minute news story to prove this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QqW9spi ... r_embedded

Myth #2) “It's not taxpayer dollars because 1) illegals receive no federal benefits like welfare and unemployment as they aren’t citizens.” FALSE
YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS!?
Do you really believe that just because they are ILLEGAL that they don’t get government handouts like food stamps, welfare and health care? WOW! So naïve and misinformed.
Here is a short 4 minute news story that will help you see just one of the ways that ILLEGALS are costing US Tax payers money. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4000446n

Also, from a news report on how much ILLEGALS cost America.
“A new report from Numbers USA, which advocates for limits on immigration into the United States, says each American paid $330 last year to provide government services for illegal aliens.
Numbers USA staffer Chad MacDonald said if an amnesty plan becomes law, allowing illegals coast-to-coast to suddenly establish citizenship, their retirement program will set U.S. taxpayers back an estimated $2.6 trillion.” Here is a link to the entire article: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=141985

In California over 30% of the inmate population is ILLEGAL! So to answer your question again, that is another way they cost the tax payers money. It isn’t cheap to incarcerate ILLEGALS. Nor is it cheap to rehabilitate them as you suggested, yet another way ILLEGALS cost our states money.
Not to mention that the ILLEGALS don’t pay income tax on the money they earn since much of it is paid in cash under the table. States lose HUGE amounts of money in lost income tax from these ILLEGAL employees.

Myth #3) “Decriminalize and federally regulate marijuana, which will remove the incentive to run it over the border.”
LOL You must have been stoned when you wrote this! LOL

So decriminalizing pot will stop the drug cartels from running it across the border?
OK, so what about the heroin, coke, meth and other ILLEGAL drugs they run across the border? I guess you are in favor of decriminalizing heroin and meth too?

Comparing the Berlin wall to a secure border wall is apples to oranges but I will engage you on this anyway. The money could come from the so called “war on terror” on which we are spending TRILLIONS in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t think it will cost several billion dollars but even if it was hundreds of millions, it is only a drop in the bucket compared to the TRILLIONS that they are spending in the middle east. If they are serious about fighting this war on terror then they should put troops on the border to stop the flow of criminals and terrorists that are just waltzing into our country unchecked.

Also, I would love to see where you got the statistic for this statement, “as it’s shown that over 90% of terrorists immigrate to the US through entirely legal means (as in not hopping over the border)”
Did they get the terrorists to respond to a poll or something?? That is just hilarious.

You stated around 600 people a year would make it over the Berlin wall. We have about 12,000 ILLEGALS per DAY entering the US and over half of those come through AZ! Extrapolate that and you get 4MILLION/YEAR!
Here is a quote from an article on the numbers, “and that up to 12,000 illegal aliens enter the United States every day, or, as Arizona Senator John McCain reports - more than 4 million per year.”
Here is a link to that article: http://www.desertinvasion.us/data/invasion_numbers.html

If we could reduce that to just 600/year it would be a HUGE reduction and worth every penny to build that wall.
Besides building the wall will put LEGAL tax paying American citizens to work and give American businesses contracts and business which is another plus.

Look, it’s not the ILLEGAL that overstayed his work visa that we are worried about. It’s not the migrant farm worker trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. They are just a small percentage of the ILLEGAL population. Sure they are draining the system and our hard earned tax money and aren’t good for our country either but, it’s the gang members, drug cartels, hardened criminals and terrorists that present the biggest immediate threat to the safety and welfare of LEGAL tax paying US citizens.

I won’t even approach the topic of amnesty right now as this is getting way longer than I wanted it to but I will say this, do you have any idea how severe the strain would be on an already floundering economy if Obama grants amnesty (basically gives citizenship) to over 12 million ILLEGALS!? Not to mention that it is completely unfair to all those who came before and EARNED their citizenship LEGALLY!

You did make one good point with regards to “aggressively prosecuting companies who hire ILLEGALS at vastly reduced wages” But what happens when they try? Look at Sheriff Arpaio and how he is ripped and ridiculed in the media when he tries to go after employers who engage in the hiring of ILLEGALS.

The bottom line is this, deportation of ALL ILLEGALS is what this country needs right now. NOT INCARCERATION! That still costs us money.
NOT AMNESTY! Amnesty is rewarding ILLEGALS for entering the country ILLEGALLY!
STOPPING THE FLOW OF ILLEGALS INTO OUR COUNTRY IS A HIGH PRIORITY AND SHOULD BE HANDLED BY THE FEDS AND STATES. (but the Feds aren’t doing it so border states like AZ have to do it on their own!)

In conclusion, “WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND!”

I STAND WITH ARIZONA! And suggest you all do too!
http://www.facebook.com/StandWithArizona

...

Oh, one more thing. Here is a short video on WHO exactly is coming across our unsecured border. I guess these terrorists didn't participate in the poll that suggests 90% of terrorists enter the US legally.

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html
It's only 3 minutes long and WELL WORTH THE WATCH!

Unfortunately I have to eat and leave for work at my new job in twenty minutes, so I don't have the time to reply yet. I was just wondering if anyone had links to some actually relevant studies handy... or if you're feeling particularly proactive, if anyone wanted to help me take this apart.

[Eleas]

Well, first suggestion is to REWRITE the CONTENT of the REPLY so that all the ILLEGAL HISTRIONICS and the USELESS RHETORIC can be WIPED CLEAN. I stand with AMERICA on this issue.

Joking aside, 'twould be beneficial to actually be able to check the information content of the points, if there is such a thing, rather than trying to sift through the slogans.

Here's my attempt.

Replying to, "exactly how much do illegal immigrants cost?" (presumably, cost the state, rather than themselves)

Answer: "Arizona state treasurer Dean Martin says his state loses between $1.3 billion and $2.5 billion each year on illegal immigrants. In addition to the fiscal costs of incarcerating and educating ... See Moreillegal [sic] immigrants and their families, Arizona also faces a variety of other indirect costs."

(What mechanism? How is this judged? The RIIA claims that any copied CD would have been sold if piracy did not exist, but that does not mean it is a factual claim. This might well be hyperbole, and there is no quote with which to verify or address the statement.)

"Myth" #1) "It's not jobs, because they only take the jobs for rates no legal resident would" FALSE I disagree, without evidence other than vaguely pointing toward "studies show". But "studies" show that as soon as employers dump their ILLEGALthe employees they themselves hired for the express reason that they knew they could treat them anyway they pleased, that LEGAL other citizens instantly rush to fill the jobs that become available, presumably because they love to work for less than minimal wage.

Wait, that sounds strange.

Especially teens who have been all but completely replaced in the work force by ILLEGALS people who are even less liked or respected by white middle class conservative assholes.

Oh, right.

Here is a 2 minute news story to prove this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QqW9spi ... r_embedded

And is CBS a reputable news organization?




et cetera. Honestly, I can't even be bothered to go through the rest of this rambling diatribe. Whoever this is that wrote the trash should go through it with an eye toward, well, not sounding like a Tourettes victim high on PCP. Only then could it possibly be deserving of any sort of response, IMO.

[Samuel]

Once more into the breach...

Studies show that as soon as employers dump their ILLEGAL employees that LEGAL citizens rush to fill the jobs that become available. Especially teens who have been all but completely replaced in the work force by ILLEGALS.

Or the jobs are exported to other countries because it would be cheaper to have foreigners do them.

Do you really believe that just because they are ILLEGAL that they don’t get government handouts like food stamps, welfare and health care? WOW! So naïve and misinformed.

Correct- you need a social security number for that. Only emergency room services are free- although they probably wouldn't get such treatment in Central America so the alternative is letting them die.

Numbers USA staffer Chad MacDonald said if an amnesty plan becomes law, allowing illegals coast-to-coast to suddenly establish citizenship, their retirement program will set U.S. taxpayers back an estimated $2.6 trillion.”

Except they have a shorter lifespan. And are paying payroll taxes (which may exceed the 2.6 trillion).

In California over 30% of the inmate population is ILLEGAL! So to answer your question again, that is another way they cost the tax payers money. It isn’t cheap to incarcerate ILLEGALS.

Damn, if only their immigration wan't illegal, they wouldn't be in prison.

Not to mention that the ILLEGALS don’t pay income tax on the money they earn since much of it is paid in cash under the table. States lose HUGE amounts of money in lost income tax from these ILLEGAL employees.

I don't think they are paid enough to fall under income taxes.

OK, so what about the heroin, coke, meth and other ILLEGAL drugs they run across the border? I guess you are in favor of decriminalizing heroin and meth too?

Bingo. Only things like PCP that make individuals ridiculously violent should be illegal. If we legalize as much as possible, the cartels die. This is exactly like the prohibition- how did we win that one?

The money could come from the so called “war on terror” on which we are spending TRILLIONS in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Actually, the money we use to pay for those wars is borrowed. So you want to borrow more money for your pet project.

Also, I would love to see where you got the statistic for this statement, “as it’s shown that over 90% of terrorists immigrate to the US through entirely legal means (as in not hopping over the border)”
Did they get the terrorists to respond to a poll or something?? That is just hilarious.

If you weren't retarded you'd get it- we take all the individuals who commited terrorist attacks and look at their papers.

Besides building the wall will put LEGAL tax paying American citizens to work and give American businesses contracts and business which is another plus.

So would paying people to dig ditches and fill them in. You haven't shown this is productive work. All the problems you complain about illegals go for poor people- should we deport them as well? What about the super rich who fill in the parasite class even better?

It’s not the migrant farm worker trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. They are just a small percentage of the ILLEGAL population.

Most illegals fit in the worker category. Or do you think the crimes commited are going up by 4 million a year?

gang members, drug cartels, hardened criminals and terrorists that present the biggest immediate threat to the safety and welfare of LEGAL tax paying US citizens.

Yeah... except most of them don't speak English and so will be hurting members of the illegal immigrant community.

, do you have any idea how severe the strain would be on an already floundering economy if Obama grants amnesty (basically gives citizenship) to over 12 million ILLEGALS!?

Recessions are caused by over production. Making them legal would increase demand which is a good thing in a recession. This is economics 101 people!

Not to mention that it is completely unfair to all those who came before and EARNED their citizenship LEGALLY!

They get the satisfaction of not having to have spent years of their lives hiding from the authorities. I'm sure they will manage to survive the disappointment.

Look at Sheriff Arpaio and how he is ripped and ridiculed in the media when he tries to go after employers who engage in the hiring of ILLEGALS.

Actually we attack him because of his attitudes towards prisoners which is barbaric.

The bottom line is this, deportation of ALL ILLEGALS is what this country needs right now. NOT INCARCERATION! That still costs us money.

Yes, deporting people is cost free.

Amnesty is rewarding ILLEGALS for entering the country ILLEGALLY!

This is just idiot. I suppose the civil rights act was wrong because it rewarded civil disobedience?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Okay, typed up a reply, thanks to Samuel for some pointers...

~~~Oh dear, there's quite a lot there to answer, or at least address. This is probably going to take up more than one comment due to length. One thing I would like to point out is that short newsclips are generally not very good sources of information. They give nice soundbites, but it's rather hard to actually follow up on any of their claims, which is why it's always better to try and provide actual studies which show their methodology.

“Arizona state treasurer Dean Martin says his state loses between $1.3 billion and $2.5 billion each year on illegal immigrants. In addition to the fiscal costs of incarcerating and educating ... See Moreillegal immigrants and their families, Arizona also faces a variety of other indirect costs.”

~~~I did a little digging and found out where Dean Martin is getting those numbers from. It was rather hilarious, he runs with the assumption that illegal immigrants are making equal pay to citizens who do the same work, pay no taxes on it, and draw full federal benefits from it. This is... well, head-shakingly wrong. First off, illegal immigrants make a fraction of what citizens would make for the same work, which is why people are so eager to hire them, there's none of those pesky Bureau of Employment regulations to worry about, like 'minimum wage' and 'benefits'. Second, while the illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, their employers still do. Third, illegal immigrants have no social security numbers, thus cannot draw on any medical benefits like medicare, unemployment, social security and what have you. In other words, Dean Martin is lying to you.

"Studies show that as soon as employers dump their ILLEGAL employees that LEGAL citizens rush to fill the jobs that become available. Especially teens who have been all but completely replaced in the work force by ILLEGALS."

~~~Which studies would these be? Do you have a link to the actual studies so we can see when and how they were conducted? Maybe it's just me being naive, but when a business reveals that it hires illegal employees (like, oh I don't know, saying it on a federal study), they usually go out of business. More to the point, why are teens being replaced in the work force by illegal immigrants? Is it because the immigrants are better workers than teens? Do they have better resumes? Or perhaps it's the fact that there are federal labor laws regarding how to pay people, and teens fall under these laws? Maybe instead of attacking illegal immigrants, you should attack the employers who fail to follow federal labor regulations?

~~~There is also ample evidence that the decline in US born teen employment is far more related to LEGAL immigration than illegal immigrants: http://www.cis.org/teen-unemployment

~~~Looking up some employment info myself, I found this: http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back206.pdf The Center for Immigrant Studies conducted research on the top 22 occupations in the US. They discovered that in NONE of these did illegals outnumber native workers. It's also worth noting that the two job categories with the highest percentage of illegal workers (farming and construction) are definitely not known for being hotspots of teen employment.

"Do you really believe that just because they are ILLEGAL that they don’t get government handouts like food stamps, welfare and health care? WOW! So naïve and misinformed."

~~~Yes, actually, I do. You see, for all of these things you need this item called a social security number. These are only granted to US citizens. If non-citizens have them, then it's not a problem of illegal immigration, it's a problem of Social Security fraud, in which case it would be far more efficient to go after the people giving out fraudulant social security numbers than just sending immigrants back so they can hop the border once more. The only service non-citizens can get for free is emergency room service, which doctors are required to provide to anyone no matter what.

“A new report from Numbers USA, which advocates for limits on immigration into the United States, says each American paid $330 last year to provide government services for illegal aliens.
Numbers USA staffer Chad MacDonald said if an amnesty plan becomes law, allowing illegals coast-to-coast to suddenly establish citizenship, their retirement program will set U.S. taxpayers back an estimated $2.6 trillion.” Here is a link to the entire article: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=141985

~~~World Net Daily? Really? You do realize that as far as outright lies, propaganda and fact-twisting is concerned, WnD is actually worse than Fox 'News', right? I'm afraid until this number appears on a source more reputable than that (say, Rueters, Associated Press, or a link to the actual study and the math they used to arrive at this conclusion), I cannot take the word of a webrag that lost credibility a long time ago.

"In California over 30% of the inmate population is ILLEGAL! So to answer your question again, that is another way they cost the tax payers money. It isn’t cheap to incarcerate ILLEGALS. Nor is it cheap to rehabilitate them as you suggested, yet another way ILLEGALS cost our states money.
Not to mention that the ILLEGALS don’t pay income tax on the money they earn since much of it is paid in cash under the table. States lose HUGE amounts of money in lost income tax from these ILLEGAL employees."

~~~So what you're saying is that illegal immigrants cost a lot of money because it's expensive to arrest them? You know what would save all that money and eliminate around thirty percent of California's already overburdened prison population? Stop arresting illegals. You know what would save even more money? Prosecute the companies that hire illegals without following federal labor laws. You know what would generate far more money for an ailing economy? Pay illegals proper wages and collect taxes on it just like anyone else.

"LOL You must have been stoned when you wrote this! LOL"

~~~Sorry, I don't use marijuana. Neither do I smoke, drink, or do any sort of drugs worse than mild painkillers. My attitude towards it is that as long as it is done in a safe environment, let people do what they want with it. Same as drinking and smoking.

"So decriminalizing pot will stop the drug cartels from running it across the border?
OK, so what about the heroin, coke, meth and other ILLEGAL drugs they run across the border? I guess you are in favor of decriminalizing heroin and meth too? "

~~~There is a world of difference between marijuana and harder drugs, both in how physically addictive they are, negative psychological effects, and deleterious effects on the human body. All that aside, a study ran in 2008 concluded that about 150 million people use marijuana, while about 1.2 million use cocaine. Cocaine's a worse drug by far, but it also accounts for less than 1% of total drug use. Similar numbers are reported for things like heroine and meth. I'm fully in favour of keeping those illegal because they are very nasty things, but the indisputable fact is that the biggest moneymaker, by far, for the Mexican drug cartels has been, and so long as prohibition remains in effect in the US, will always be marijuana. Bored, white suburban kids will always want pot, and it's far better to get it from a federally regulated source than some supplier whose sources can always be traced back to Mexican drug lords.

"Comparing the Berlin wall to a secure border wall is apples to oranges but I will engage you on this anyway. The money could come from the so called “war on terror” on which we are spending TRILLIONS in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t think it will cost several billion dollars but even if it was hundreds of millions, it is only a drop in the bucket compared to the TRILLIONS that they are spending in the middle east."

~~~A few points: 1) It will cost hundreds of billions to build, maintain, and man a wall like that across the entire US/Mexico border, and it will still fail to stop illegal immigration. 2) Technically we aren't spending trillions on the war, we're actually borrowing those trillions from future generations, but if you want to further screw the children of the US over with this wall, by all means enjoy yourself.

"If they are serious about fighting this war on terror then they should put troops on the border to stop the flow of criminals and terrorists that are just waltzing into our country unchecked."

~~~You might want to check back in history, around the time of both world wars. Isolationism is a quick path to economic ruin.

"Also, I would love to see where you got the statistic for this statement, “as it’s shown that over 90% of terrorists immigrate to the US through entirely legal means (as in not hopping over the border)”
Did they get the terrorists to respond to a poll or something?? That is just hilarious. "

~~~I didn't think I'd have to explain this: Terrorists get arrested for committing, or being found planning to commit acts of terrorism. When they are arrested, their papers and history are checked. This includes plane-tickets, green cards, citizenship status and all that. When said check takes place, how they got into the country in the first place is discovered. And this is where the statistic comes from. This has an interesting study on the subject of just how most terrorists get into the US: http://www.cis.org/HowTerroristsGetIn

"You stated around 600 people a year would make it over the Berlin wall. We have about 12,000 ILLEGALS per DAY entering the US and over half of those come through AZ! Extrapolate that and you get 4MILLION/YEAR!
Here is a quote from an article on the numbers, “and that up to 12,000 illegal aliens enter the United States every day, or, as Arizona Senator John McCain reports - more than 4 million per year.”

If we could reduce that to just 600/year it would be a HUGE reduction and worth every penny to build that wall."

~~~It would be worth every penny if those four million a year were causing that amount of damage to the US, monetary or otherwise. But taking a look at employment, economic and crime statistics over the past decade fails to bear this assumption out. Crime in particular is telling, in that criminal violence per year fails to rise in proportion to the number of illegal immigrants coming in, which can only mean that illegal immigrants aren't the main source, or even one of the main sources of crime in the US.

"Besides building the wall will put LEGAL tax paying American citizens to work and give American businesses contracts and business which is another plus."

~~~And what service would this provide? What benefit would it make to the country as a whole? You can put a million people to work digging a ditch and filling back in again, pay them minimum wage for it, and claim you're solving the unemployment problem. The problem with that is that the US is a capitalist country. In order for something to truly make money and help the economy, it has to provide a service. The government simply does not have the money to do this sort of project. You would be paying these workers out of the debt we're already incurring with the ill-thought and inter-related wars on terror, the middle-east, and drugs.

"Look, it’s not the ILLEGAL that overstayed his work visa that we are worried about. It’s not the migrant farm worker trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. They are just a small percentage of the ILLEGAL population."

~~~Do you have any statistics to back this up? It is a rather bold claim, and if it's true, it should be pretty easy to find studies verifying the percentage of illegal immigrants looking for work as opposed to those otherwise. Personally, I think the two biggest causes are looking for work and drug-running. The former is a good cause, and the latter can be largely eliminated through the legalization of marijuana, as explained earlier.

"Sure they are draining the system and our hard earned tax money and aren’t good for our country either but, it’s the gang members, drug cartels, hardened criminals and terrorists that present the biggest immediate threat to the safety and welfare of LEGAL tax paying US citizens."

~~~So how are illegal immigrants stealing our tax money, again? Not only are they unable to get any government services without a social security card, but you never addressed the fact that no matter what your residency status in the US is, whenever you buy something, anything, you pay the same sales tax everybody does.

~~~Again, do you have any statistics regarding crime among illegal immigrants? The drug-running has already been addressed, aside from that, I believe a vast majority of the crime is committed within the illegal immigrant community, or to illegal immigrants from legal citizens (such as employers not following labor laws, coyotes, the modern slave trade, etc.), and is drastically underreported because who's going to risk deportation to report a rape?

"I won’t even approach the topic of amnesty right now as this is getting way longer than I wanted it to but I will say this, do you have any idea how severe the strain would be on an already floundering economy if Obama grants amnesty (basically gives citizenship) to over 12 million ILLEGALS!?"

~~~Well, considering the massive influx of tax money we would get from them once they're legally employed, the far greater integration between communities once divided by lines of immigration would also unlock vast consumer markets. Not to mention the money saved on not incarcerating immigrants, the great deal of strain it would take from enforcing border patrols, the much reduced crime rates as immigrant communities become less insular and unwilling to approach authorities for fear of arrest or deportation. Any way you look at it granting amnesty will give the economy a huge shot in the arm and I'm all for it. Integration, widened markets, open trade, this is the stuff capitalism is made of, why would you be against that?

"Not to mention that it is completely unfair to all those who came before and EARNED their citizenship LEGALLY!"

~~~Don't worry, legal citizens are adults, not elementary school children. They aren't going to stamp their feet and scream about things being unfair. In fact, I think we'll be more than willing to forgive the recipients of amnesty when they do their part to revitalize a flagging economy.

"You did make one good point with regards to “aggressively prosecuting companies who hire ILLEGALS at vastly reduced wages” But what happens when they try? Look at Sheriff Arpaio and how he is ripped and ridiculed in the media when he tries to go after employers who engage in the hiring of ILLEGALS."

~~~Sheriff Arpaio is indeed ridiculed in the media, but it isn't for the fact that he occasionally prosecutes the employers of illegal immigrants. He's ridiculed, and rightly so, for being an inhumane monster that has a mile-long list of civil rights violations and constitutional breaches, including things such as randomly arresting people for the crime of 'looking illegal' (in other words having brown skin), massive corruption within his own police force, and torture within the Arizona jail system. There is a reason the Arizona penitentiary system has several hundred times the civil-rights violation cases pending against it than places like New York, LA and Chicago.

"The bottom line is this, deportation of ALL ILLEGALS is what this country needs right now. NOT INCARCERATION! That still costs us money."

~~~You do realize that deportation costs quite a lot of money too, right? Add to that the fact that a study concluded around 80% of deported illegal immigrants stated intentions of crossing right back over the border. Pushing your problems out of the country will not get rid of them. Removing the incentive for people to cross over illegally, on the other hand, will. Once more, things like legalizing marijuana, reforming the prison system and aggressively enforcing federal labor laws. Building a bigger wall will only drain the economy and produce more crafty illegal immigrants.

"In conclusion, “WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND!”"

~~~I wonder if the Native Americans were saying that while the Europeans were busy taking their land. What about Mexico when the US was financially encouraging their own citizens to become illegal immigrants into the Mexican owned territories that would later become Texas, Arizona and New Mexico after the Mexican-American war? Also, why do you call them just 'Illegals'? Is it easier to say these kind of things when you dehumanize your targets, living, breathing people just trying to survive like anyone else, by giving them a one-word label that basically means 'not allowed'?

[Themightytom]

I can never wrap my head around the way the term "Illegal" is twisted for convenience. Do we really consider it "unfair" that an "illegal" would dare to break our sacred laws barring him or his family from a better life? How utterly lacking in personal initaitive would I be as a Mexican NOT to take steps to escape the hell hole taht is Northern Mexico? We take offence at their utter disrespect for the laws we created to ensure the comfort and standard of living we united States citizens earned by virtue of being born?
How dare they run from thir poverty stricken martial law drug war climate into our fair country, to take the jobs we consider too menial and refuse to pay our own citizens a fair wage for, as well as provide basic safety protections such as insurance and a fricking water station. Where the hell do these people get off with their impressive work ethic and desire for self imrpovement, don't they know its illegal?
But look we made a law! What kind of depraved human being breaks laws???

[Eleas]

You guys don't understand the term used. To be an ILLEGAL is not simply a matter of committing a crime - that's just being a criminal. Nor is immigrating on false grounds and somehow gaining citizenship. No, in order to truly be an ILLEGAL, you must

1. be from over there,
2. try to come over here,
3. at some point during the process fail to perform the necessary rites of obeisance, and
4. thereafter have the temerity to exist.

The last part is the most salient and damning. From this, all else follows. Through fulfilling these simple criteria, you become an ILLEGAL. You will never be anything else after that, because once you have become an ILLEGAL, what else could possibly define you?

This is why the poster never stops to consider the issue from the viewpoint of the ILLEGALS themselves. They have none worth considering. Because they're not human.

[Kanastrous]

It's disingenuous, though, to dismiss the claim that illegal aliens are making use of public-assistance programs 'because they aren't citizens or legal residents and therefore can't have social security #s etc.' It's quite easy to acquire a fake social security number/card and there is no reason to assume that someone willing to violate immigration and employment and residency regulations won't be equally content to pick up a phony SS# and draw whatever benefits are available that way. Since, after all, as Themightytom observes their desire to better their position renders them immune to consideration of our laws and the regs against falsifying SS#s etc are merely more of our laws that are best disregarded, anyway.

Eleas, how long did you live in the USA? Or do you still spend a lot of your time here?

[Eleas]

It's disingenuous, though, to dismiss the claim that illegal aliens are making use of public-assistance programs 'because they aren't citizens or legal residents and therefore can't have social security #s etc.' It's quite easy to acquire a fake social security number/card and there is no reason to assume that someone willing to violate immigration and employment and residency regulations won't be equally content to pick up a phony SS# and draw whatever benefits are available that way.

True, but conversely, there's really no reason (in light of the contortions required to become a US citizen in the first place) to assume an illegal immigrant wanted to break the law in the first place. It may simply have been a necessary thing for that person to do. The error lies in the assumption that a person who breaks the law does so because he/she is a lawbreaker by nature, and that this is an innate or inexpugnable trait.

Even worse is when this is conflated with racism, as we can now see all too clearly.

Since, after all, as Themightytom observes their desire to better their position renders them immune to consideration of our laws and the regs against falsifying SS#s etc are merely more of our laws that are best disregarded, anyway.

Sometimes, laws ought to be changed, and sometimes, it is understandable for someone to break them. That does not mean lawbreaking should be encouraged, of course, but neither does it mean that the perpetrator is irredeemable.

Eleas, how long did you live in the USA? Or do you still spend a lot of your time here?

...I am flattered that you think so. Also a bit apprehensive. I hope I haven't somehow indicated I've lived in the US for any length of time.

My time in the USA is limited to two visits that I can recall, for a total of three weeks time (give or take a few days); first in Orlando, Florida, and then in California. Both were quite nice, although the Floridan weather was oppressively hot and humid. Other than that, my exposure is solely through media exposure; as I grew up the majority of all stuff considered cool on the telly was American. I've spent vastly more time with US broadcasts than in America itself.

So if I gave the impression of being American, my bad; it wasn't intentional. In truth, my comment wasn't country-specific so much as a general one: notions such as the ones I was describing bear strong similarities to nationalistic and/or racist movements in general.

Of course, it's even worse when it becomes accepted to voice them in public.

[Kanastrous]

Actually, I asked the question because I figured you had virtually zero first-hand knowledge of the USA, at all. Which, given that your exposure was about three weeks divided between three cities, is about right.

How's this construction: Illegal entrants to the country are just doing what's in their perceived best interest, so we won't hold anything against them balanced by US nationals wish to deal with illegal entrants in a manner perceived as being in *their* best interests, so we won't complain about what they're up to, either?

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

[Eleas]

Actually, I asked the question because I figured you had virtually zero first-hand knowledge of the USA, at all. Which, given that your exposure was about three weeks divided between three cities, is about right.

Ah, gotcha. Well, that would be a fair assumption. I must wonder, though, what the thrust of the statement above is. It looks (and I apologize if I'm misunderstanding here) that you're saying my opinion of the all-caps use of ILLEGAL (as implying some sort of Untermensch) would instantly paint me as clueless about the USA.

How's this construction: Illegal entrants to the country are just doing what's in their perceived best interest, so we won't hold anything against them balanced by US nationals wish to deal with illegal entrants in a manner perceived as being in *their* best interests, so we won't complain about what they're up to, either?

I honestly don't know what you're asking, here. The fist part ("...so we won't hold anything against them") seems utterly simplistic and detrimental to the rule of law, whereas the second appears at first a reasonable observation (US nationals want to deal with illegal entrants in ways they prefer), but then equally smacks of similar contempt for justice ("we won't complain what they're up to").

I'm slow tonight. Maybe I'm being unusually stupid, I don't know. But I'm not quite getting your meaning.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

Turned thirty years last month. In context that's an odd request, though. Am I displaying significant levels of immaturity in this thread, or something?

[Samuel]

How's this construction: Illegal entrants to the country are just doing what's in their perceived best interest, so we won't hold anything against them balanced by US nationals wish to deal with illegal entrants in a manner perceived as being in *their* best interests, so we won't complain about what they're up to, either?

The flaw in that idea is that the benefits gained by illegals and by citizens keeping them out are the same. Illegal immigrants tend to get substantially more out of immigrating that natives get keeping them out, at least in the United States.

[Kanastrous]

Actually, I asked the question because I figured you had virtually zero first-hand knowledge of the USA, at all. Which, given that your exposure was about three weeks divided between three cities, is about right.

Ah, gotcha. Well, that would be a fair assumption. I must wonder, though, what the thrust of the statement above is. It looks (and I apologize if I'm misunderstanding here) that you're saying my opinion of the all-caps use of ILLEGAL (as implying some sort of Untermensch) would instantly paint me as clueless about the USA.

No, it was just the sense I got from your earlier post. I've started asking people because I'm curious to see what generalizations - if any - I can try to draw regarding people's perspective on US policy based upon where they're from, themselves. It wasn't intended to suggest that you are clueless.

How's this construction: Illegal entrants to the country are just doing what's in their perceived best interest, so we won't hold anything against them balanced by US nationals wish to deal with illegal entrants in a manner perceived as being in *their* best interests, so we won't complain about what they're up to, either?

I honestly don't know what you're asking, here. The fist part ("...so we won't hold anything against them") seems utterly simplistic and detrimental to the rule of law, whereas the second appears at first a reasonable observation (US nationals want to deal with illegal entrants in ways they prefer), but then equally smacks of similar contempt for justice ("we won't complain what they're up to").

I'm slow tonight. Maybe I'm being unusually stupid, I don't know. But I'm not quite getting your meaning.

Just as likely I'm not conveying it clearly from my end. Since you appeared to suggest that since illegal entrants are after all just looking out for their own interests - which seems to imply that it would be wrong to stand in the way of their doing whatever it is they wish to do in the pursuit of those interests, where our borders and laws are concerned - I was curious as to whether citizens of the receiving country likewise have an equal right to do whatever it is they wish to do in the pursuit of what they see as *their* interests - which is keeping illegal entrants out. Otherwise it would appear that the interests of illegal entrants are elevated over the interests of legal residents. Which would require an explanation.

If not enforcing the law where illegal migrants are concerned - which is generally where you hear people complaining about things been 'held against' or 'done against' illegal immigrants - is simplistic and detrimental to the rule of law, why would you propose that any nation follow such a policy? You appear to first suggest that we have some kind of obligation to take any and all comers who care to enter, but then indicate that failure to enforce the rules where they're concerned "seems utterly simplistic and detrimental to the rule of law." Which is a statement with which I would agree.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

Turned thirty years last month. In context that's an odd request, though. Am I displaying significant levels of immaturity in this thread, or something?

No, I don't mean to suggest that you come off immature. As with nationalities, I've started trying to see if there are generalizations to be drawn regarding peoples' positions on the matter based upon their ages.

[Kanastrous]

How's this construction: Illegal entrants to the country are just doing what's in their perceived best interest, so we won't hold anything against them balanced by US nationals wish to deal with illegal entrants in a manner perceived as being in *their* best interests, so we won't complain about what they're up to, either?

The flaw in that idea is that the benefits gained by illegals and by citizens keeping them out are the same. Illegal immigrants tend to get substantially more out of immigrating that natives get keeping them out, at least in the United States.

Please note the use of 'perceived' to describe both parties. It's very nice and all fine and well that illegal immigrants get something substantial out of illicitly entering the country, but from the host country's end the salient question is do we get something sufficiently substantial, out of allowing them to be here?

[Samuel]

How's this construction: Illegal entrants to the country are just doing what's in their perceived best interest, so we won't hold anything against them balanced by US nationals wish to deal with illegal entrants in a manner perceived as being in *their* best interests, so we won't complain about what they're up to, either?

The flaw in that idea is that the benefits gained by illegals and by citizens keeping them out are the same. Illegal immigrants tend to get substantially more out of immigrating that natives get keeping them out, at least in the United States.

Please note the use of 'perceived' to describe both parties. It's very nice and all fine and well that illegal immigrants get something substantial out of illicitly entering the country, but from the host country's end the salient question is do we get something sufficiently substantial, out of allowing them to be here?

Not really. Some individuals in the host country gain (employers) other lose (unskilled workers). Plus, ejecting illegal immigrants and keeping them out has a cost associated with it.

[Eleas]

No, it was just the sense I got from your earlier post. I've started asking people because I'm curious to see what generalizations - if any - I can try to draw regarding people's perspective on US policy based upon where they're from, themselves. It wasn't intended to suggest that you are clueless.

Damn, I apologise. I'm hypersensitive at the moment for some damn reason, probably related to meds misfiring or this heat. But yeah - you ought definitely to put me in the "unfamiliar with the US" category. That's the danger, in fact, with living in Sweden; it's difficult to convey just how oversaturated we've been with US entertainment and media, and to a greater degree than many other countries, we internalize it, or did during the nineties anyway. We feel as if we instinctively grasp the US quite well, and we do... only viewed through the distorted lens of a million action movies and sensationalized news broadcasts.

I see I'm flattering my country yet again.

I honestly don't know what you're asking, here. The fist part ("...so we won't hold anything against them") seems utterly simplistic and detrimental to the rule of law, whereas the second appears at first a reasonable observation (US nationals want to deal with illegal entrants in ways they prefer), but then equally smacks of similar contempt for justice ("we won't complain what they're up to").

I'm slow tonight. Maybe I'm being unusually stupid, I don't know. But I'm not quite getting your meaning.

Just as likely I'm not conveying it clearly from my end. Since you appeared to suggest that since illegal entrants are after all just looking out for their own interests - which seems to imply that it would be wrong to stand in the way of their doing whatever it is they wish to do in the pursuit of those interests, where our borders and laws are concerned - I was curious as to whether citizens of the receiving country likewise have an equal right to do whatever it is they wish to do in the pursuit of what they see as *their* interests - which is keeping illegal entrants out. Otherwise it would appear that the interests of illegal entrants are elevated over the interests of legal residents. Which would require an explanation.

Well, my gut feeling - probably shaped by how we've historically handled immigration - is to be inclusive. But gut feeling is worthless in terms of policy, IMO. My main contention was with the dehumanization of illegal entrants.

I did not, however, mean to imply that immigration isn't a thorny issue at the best of times. It always is. However, in my statements above, I meant to point out that if a person would flee (for instance) a war zone or extreme poverty, that does not mean the person is an inveterate lawbreaker, even if by fleeing he or she transgresses against extant laws. It still means the person in question has broken said laws; I simply pointed out that something can be understandable without being praiseworthy, and that even if everyone of the illegal entrants mentioned were the scum of the earth, it still wouldn't justify painting them as subhuman.

Gah, can't express myself. Am I making sense here, or just rambling?

If not enforcing the law where illegal migrants are concerned - which is generally where you hear people complaining about things been 'held against' or 'done against' illegal immigrants - is simplistic and detrimental to the rule of law, why would you propose that any nation follow such a policy? You appear to first suggest that we have some kind of obligation to take any and all comers who care to enter, but then indicate that failure to enforce the rules where they're concerned "seems utterly simplistic and detrimental to the rule of law." Which is a statement with which I would agree.

Frankly? I don't think there is a blanket solution when it comes to immigration. I phrased things poorly earlier, but what I meant to attack was not the issue of how to handle immigration, but the demonizing of illegal immigrants as a whole. Because that's not a reasoned response based on a cross-sample of data. It's lynching behaviour.

I do think immigration rules ought to be lessened, but I know too little about how that works in the US to be entitled to a voice in the matter, thank God.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

Turned thirty years last month. In context that's an odd request, though. Am I displaying significant levels of immaturity in this thread, or something?

No, I don't mean to suggest that you come off immature. As with nationalities, I've started trying to see if there are generalizations to be drawn regarding peoples' positions on the matter based upon their ages.

Okay, then I understand. I've traveled a fair bit, if it helps. Sorry if I jumped down your throat.

[Kanastrous]

Hey, I've visited Sweden - and seen perhaps about as much of it as it sounds like you've seen of the USA - and what's not to like? Sweden can survive a little flattery.

Alas in the US - and from our friends abroad - there's a tendency to (a) refuse to distinguish between lawful and unlawful entrants and residents (b) demonize everyone and anyone desirous of proper border control and immigration and employment enforcement as 'racist' because having a long land border with Mexico means that we get a great number of migrants from Mexico, and if you oppose illegal immigration, and most illegal entrants in your region are Mexican, it's assumed that really your problem is with Mexicans. For some people that's definitely true but painting all tighter-borders proponents that way is dishonest (but still popular).

[Eleas]

Hey, I've visited Sweden - and seen perhaps about as much of it as it sounds like you've seen of the USA - and what's not to like? Sweden can survive a little flattery.

Not by me, it can't.

Alas in the US - and from our friends abroad - there's a tendency to (a) refuse to distinguish between lawful and unlawful entrants and residents (b) demonize everyone and anyone desirous of proper border control and immigration and employment enforcement as 'racist' because having a long land border with Mexico means that we get a great number of migrants from Mexico, and if you oppose illegal immigration, and most illegal entrants in your region are Mexican, it's assumed that really your problem is with Mexicans. For some people that's definitely true but painting all tighter-borders proponents that way is dishonest (but still popular).

Yeah, I don't doubt it for a moment. From the outside (and this is my personal and fairly uninformed opinion, mind), there's also a dimension to that situations that reminds me of the Balkans. Specifically, the fact that in the wake of the war, there's been an increased presence of criminality in the Malmö-Copenhagen area stemming from Bosnian cartels, often composed largely of immigrants. So that's a problem, and a real one - gunrunning, drug hits, trafficking.

On the other hand, reason this is happening? Well, probably because we have a lot of young men from a macho culture who recently became survivors of a war where all rules basically went out the window. Crush a man's life while at the same time urging him to commit atrocities, to hate unreservedly, and to look out for himself, and you're not going to get a healthy individual. Then give him a safe haven where the only ones to whom he will really be able to relate are his fellow refugees. Small wonder that it would engender criminal behaviour. And yet, what about those among the refugees who are law-abiding? Certainly no shortage of those. They've suffered equally, and they're not looking to do anything wrong. We obviously can't treat them as if they were criminals until they actually commit crime.

But refusing to enforce the laws when they do apply isn't going to help matters. For one, I doubt a slap on the wrist by the police would foster either understanding or respect from a nineteen-year-old who remembers bayoneting unarmed prisoners.

[Kanastrous]

Several years ago a German friend's mother was visiting here and started bitching bitterly about how lousy things were back in Germany, and the problem is those foreigners, those *fucking* foreigners!

So kind of uncomfortably I asked her, what, you mean the Turks?

And she snaps No, not the Turks, the fucking East Germans!