Illegal Immigration!

[TK73]

We need more of this:

[TK73]

And these on the Southern border:

[RD]

i have been partial to the above.  you cannot climb it... and if you can, you are one BA mofo.

[The70RT]

i have been partial to the above.  you cannot climb it... and if you can, you are one BA mofo.

Nice....a little voltage and wah-la 

[bull]

Muslims and non-Muslims,
You're right, that might be a better analogy, but my point was only to say that I think it's pathetic to assume an entire culture/religion/race/whatever, is evil because of a minority within that group.

This makes me wonder how well the Muslims, majority or not, would tolerate a Synagogue or Cathedral being built in Mecca? How long do you think it would be before that building was flattened? Would they even get the foundation poured before every worker was slaughtered?

Reminds me of a TV show I saw a while back that basically followed an average Joe Muslim guy who drove taxi in the Middle East. All the could talk about was the Jewish pigs and how they should all be killed.

[Mike DC]

[Ben Franklin's] worries have not resolved over time, if that was true.. this thread would not have been posted:

Umm . . .  actually, the problems did resolve themselves.  He was speaking of German immigrants in the 1700s. 

I am descendant of Germans more than any other group.  Many of them came over here only 2-4 generations back.  I don't exactly speak German today.  Looking back through my family, the German speaking only lasted a few decades after they arrived.  The English started to take hold and show up in the younger people in even less time.   


 

We have different legal issues with immigrants now (and I agree it is a serious problem.)  But I'm saying the language/culture issues sound similar to Ben Franklin's today because we just have a new batch of immigrants.  In the next few generations they will dilute out into the American population just like the Germans did.


 

[RD]

In the next few generations they will dilute out into the American population just like the Germans did.

dilute = wishful thinking if you ask me.  the higher population of non-english speaking individuals will create micro-centers where english is tolerated, but not implemented as the primary source of language.  you see this in every major city with many different cultures.

if the illegal immigrants continue to flood our borders, in time, their desire or need to learn english will be unnecessary as they can communicate with every resource they will need in their native tongue.  we already have interpreters at social service agencies, bilingual positions of all facets across the United States.

dilution will not happen, i seriously believe it to be the opposite of what you say.  I would love to believe you, believe me, but the more influence non-english speakers have, the less likely they will need or want to speak english.

if you live in little china, and within 15 blocks is all you travel, and everyone speaks chinese, do you really need to learn english?  same goes with spanish, german, insert foreign language here _______________.

[superbirdtom]

What really needs t happen is a dmz along the entire southern border. if you cros theres only so many feet till you make it to the land mines.  than if you make it past there theres the machine gun towers to mow them down.  after 100 or so bite the dust  you will hear of zero illegal ALIENS crossing the southern border.  hose who popped out an anchor baby are immediatly deported.   We as Americans  have to close off the safety valve for the desperat Mexicans who can still make it here,

                                             Now  this sounds harsh until you hear hat horors await illegals who try to get nto mexico from bordering latin countries.  Hey  I like Mexicans,  If it were not for them   the housing bubble would not have happebed as it was millions of mexicans  who came over and built all those millions of homes that are now  rotting away right how..  My 75 year mother met a homeless mexican uner a bike path and has now set him up in his own cozy apt. he lied first and said he was 63 or 68 . but a lie is a lie.  hes got a sugar momma  and she just does;t see it. the whole family is agast over it.  So  I hate all of them  they are disrespectful slobs that have an entitlement attitude.  and if  you don't like my views  TOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!    .Ill bet you if my sickly mom does pas away  He will be there the next day with a laywer to try to clean her out.  It makes me sick!!!!!!   .Ive worked with plenty in bod shops too  and its anything to cut corners.  theyre always  within 4% of getting it right and too lazy to get it perfect.  Much talent there but look at the wavy body work on all the lowriders sometimes.. I could go on and on about my trips to Mexico where yur shaken down by the police and everyone. and theres the mexi price and the evil gringo price.  Its ad as I like mexican culture ,  but theyre getting desperate.  they need a revolution and kick out the bums. but will not do so because iys too easy to sneak in here.

[Mike DC]

dilute = wishful thinking if you ask me.

Why?  

I hear all the stuff you're saying.  Too much Spanish rushing in too fast, we already have interpreters for govt programs, whole pockets of cities that people can live by Spanish alone, etc.  


But what is different about this current situation that does not apply to the previous US immigration waves in the last couple centuries?

[Old Moparz]

Muslims and non-Muslims,
You're right, that might be a better analogy, but my point was only to say that I think it's pathetic to assume an entire culture/religion/race/whatever, is evil because of a minority within that group.

This makes me wonder how well the Muslims, majority or not, would tolerate a Synagogue or Cathedral being built in Mecca? How long do you think it would be before that building was flattened? Would they even get the foundation poured before every worker was slaughtered?

Reminds me of a TV show I saw a while back that basically followed an average Joe Muslim guy who drove taxi in the Middle East. All the could talk about was the Jewish pigs and how they should all be killed.

Bull, it's not a big deal since I know what I typed, but if you're going to quote me, please don't add things within the quote that I didn't have in my post, "Muslims and non-Muslims" it gets confusing & becomes a statement out of context.

Anyway, I don't think a Synagogue or Cathedral would be tolerated well over there, but then again, that's on the other side of the planet, not here in the USA. The way of life over there isn't quite the same with tradition, laws, customs, & even the way people are treated, like the women as property. Whether it's right or wrong I'm not going to debate what they do over there, it's not on topic, but I don't have any desire to go visit the Mideast.

Following Joe Muslim & listening to his opinion is no different than following some people here in the USA. It probably wouldn't be too difficult to find someone with the same ideas. I used to work with a few different people over the years who would say something once in awhile that would make you wonder, "Did he just say what I thought he said?" I also had an uncle that I recall visiting when I was around 13 or so. There was a baseball game on that day & I was bored so I asked if I could watch it. My uncle said, "No, we don't watch baseball in this house."

I asked why & didn't get an answer so I dropped it. My Dad told me later after we left that my uncle stopped watching baseball when Jackie Robinson got into the game. He also told me that he wouldn't allow his kids to ever turn a game on in the house & threatened them if they did because, as my uncle put it, "There were other nigger players just like him in the game, & I'm not having on in my house." As a kid I was shocked that this mentality was still present in the 1970's but you learn something new everyday. I never went back to my uncle's house either.

There are still hate crimes going on here in the USA, & lynchings for a fun Saturday night didn't die out that long ago.

[RD]

dilute = wishful thinking if you ask me.

Why?  

I hear all the stuff you're saying.  Too much Spanish rushing in too fast, we already have interpreters for govt programs, whole pockets of cities that people can live by Spanish alone, etc.  


But what is different about this current situation that does not apply to the previous US immigration waves in the last couple centuries?

in the past couple of centuries, we did not have the programs that we have today that are funded by the american taxpaying public.  back then, everyone was expected to work. you had to, or you and your family would starve or die.  today is different, many people today expect handouts and run to services when times are tough.  we have become too soft and have created a society that has many co-dependent citizens, let alone illegal immigrants.

the difference, we are paying for their livelihoods, whereas in the past, the immigrants "man'd up", took care of themselves, and wanted to become citizens.  They didnt have the 14th amendment from 1787 - 1867.  So they worked to become citizens then if they wanted to.  The immigration laws were totally different too.  2 centuries ago to now is comparing apples to oranges.  yes, we have the same name as a country, but we are 10 times larger, the population then was 3,929,326 and now its 100 times that.  social programs, governmental ideology, political party system platform, dress, technology.. they are all different!

dilution will not happen if there is no incentive to learning or needing to learn english.

[bull]

Muslims and non-Muslims,
You're right, that might be a better analogy, but my point was only to say that I think it's pathetic to assume an entire culture/religion/race/whatever, is evil because of a minority within that group.

This makes me wonder how well the Muslims, majority or not, would tolerate a Synagogue or Cathedral being built in Mecca? How long do you think it would be before that building was flattened? Would they even get the foundation poured before every worker was slaughtered?

Reminds me of a TV show I saw a while back that basically followed an average Joe Muslim guy who drove taxi in the Middle East. All the could talk about was the Jewish pigs and how they should all be killed.

Bull, it's not a big deal since I know what I typed, but if you're going to quote me, please don't add things within the quote that I didn't have in my post, "Muslims and non-Muslims" it gets confusing & becomes a statement out of context.

Anyway, I don't think a Synagogue or Cathedral would be tolerated well over there, but then again, that's on the other side of the planet, not here in the USA. The way of life over there isn't quite the same with tradition, laws, customs, & even the way people are treated, like the women as property. Whether it's right or wrong I'm not going to debate what they do over there, it's not on topic, but I don't have any desire to go visit the Mideast.

Ok, not trying to confuse anyone.The point I was making as addressing the "minority within that group" statement which is really difficult to prove one way or the other. I'm sure many Germans didn't really agree with the methods used by the Nazis in WWII but they didn't exactly care enough to do a whole lot about it. Some did and they paid a big price for it but by the time there was any effort it had gone too far to stop. Meanwhile the majority apparently figured that a few million Jews was a small price to pay for German land-grab success. I believe that's the way it often works in the Middle East too. It's sort of a "the ends justify the means" mentality when it comes to the killing of infidels. The government of whatever Middle Eastern country will issue a statement of regret and outrage when a non-Muslim is murdered in the name of Allah because it's the PC thing to do but deep down I believe they either don't really care or are silently glad for it.

[Tilar]

What really needs t happen is a dmz along the entire southern border. if you cros theres only so many feet till you make it to the land mines.  than if you make it past there theres the machine gun towers to mow them down.  after 100 or so bite the dust  you will hear of zero illegal ALIENS crossing the southern border. 

Sounds like a good idea to me. 

[Mike DC]

in the past couple of centuries, we did not have the programs that we have today that are funded by the american taxpaying public.  back then, everyone was expected to work. you had to, or you and your family would starve or die.  today is different, many people today expect handouts and run to services when times are tough.  we have become too soft and have created a society that has many co-dependent citizens, let alone illegal immigrants.

the difference, we are paying for their livelihoods, whereas in the past, the immigrants "man'd up", took care of themselves, and wanted to become citizens.  They didnt have the 14th amendment from 1787 - 1867.  So they worked to become citizens then if they wanted to.  The immigration laws were totally different too.  2 centuries ago to now is comparing apples to oranges.  yes, we have the same name as a country, but we are 10 times larger, the population then was 3,929,326 and now its 100 times that.  social programs, governmental ideology, political party system platform, dress, technology.. they are all different!

dilution will not happen if there is no incentive to learning or needing to learn english.[/

That's more or less what I thought you'd say.  


I'm not gonna tear into that stuff point-by-point because I'm feeling lazy and it would probably gets too political anyway.  But I will just say that there were PLENTY of people in previous centuries that had all the same complaints about their immigration waves.  

A huge example is the "Nativists" and "Know Nothing party" before the Civil War.  If you haven't looked into that, it's interesting.  It was a whole movement in the mid-1800s by existing US citizens who made the same complaints as people are making now.  They didn't think the immigrants would ever assimilate and learn english, they complained that the immigrants were a drain on society and the govt was helping them too much, they're all coming over here and spitting out too many kids they can't support, they're destroying the middle class, etc.  It's essentially the same conflict playing out 150 years ago.  

[bull]

Speaking of apples and oranges, are you talking about complaints that had to do with legal or illegal immigration back then? The difference seems to frequently get blended during these discussions.

[RD]

That's more or less what I thought you'd say. 


I'm not gonna tear into that stuff point-by-point because I'm feeling lazy and it would probably gets too political anyway.  But I will just say that there were PLENTY of people in previous centuries that had all the same complaints about their immigration waves. 

A huge example is the "Nativists" and "Know Nothing party" before the Civil War.  If you haven't looked into that, it's interesting.  It was a whole movement in the mid-1800s by existing US citizens who made the same complaints as people are making now.  They didn't think the immigrants would ever assimilate and learn english, they complained that the immigrants were a drain on society and the govt was helping them too much, they're all coming over here and spitting out too many kids they can't support, they're destroying the middle class, etc.  It's essentially the same conflict playing out 150 years ago. 

I know what you are saying mike, I have studied the antebellum and post-antebellum eras quite a bit due to my BS in Secondary Ed Social Sciences.  So I am following you mate.  BUT.. at the same time... our history during the 19th century was based upon more of a fear of culture... to the point of xenophobia.  I dont fear the spanish culture, I actually embrace it.  I know I may sound like a borderline xenophobe with some of my statements and my stance on illegal immigration, but I can assure everyone that I do not hold any grudges to any race, creed, culture or national origin of people.  I just have a very strong stance against illegal immigration and its effects on our country.  That is all, nothing more, nothing less.

Now with that being said.... I, because I am only speaking for myself, will say that the current battle with illegal immigration is different than the past because of the negative effects it has and will continue to put forth in regards to:

1) financial responsibility
2) illegal criminal activity
3) anchor babies

I feel that all the citizens are getting a big F you by the illegal immigrants.  They want a better life, I get that.  They want to live the American dream, I get that too.  BUT NOT ON MINE OR ANY OTHER AMERICAN'S DIME.  Not saying all of them do it, but at the same time there is enough of them that do that cause a strain on an already financially strained system.  Our social services system is so much more than any type of system was back then 1800's.  There really is no comparison to the amount of $$$ that are sunk into our system now, compared to the soup kitchens they had in the past. 

The drain you are speaking of from a historical perspective is the taking of jobs for lower pay.  Few Know-Nothings were wealthy: most were workers or small farmers whose jobs or ways of life were threatened by the cheap labor and unfamiliar culture of the new immigrants. The irish, after the potato famine, came over in droves to escape the terrible economic and mass starvation issues that ireland was going through.  "sound familiar"?  They came here by the shipload during a period of time where there was no such thing as illegal immigration. 

In Ireland, a working man might earn eight cents a day. In America, he could earn up to a dollar a day.

The sheer numbers of Irish pouring into the U.S. meant that Catholicism was on the verge of becoming the single largest Christian denomination in America. Many American Protestants held the simplistic view that if the numbers of Roman Catholics were increasing then the power and influence of the Papacy in America was also increasing, threatening America's political independence. Fear of the Papacy thus became fear of the Irish and resulted in outright violence.


http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/famine/america.htm

Many were impressed into service during times of war (can you say mexican-american war 1848.. Irish actually had a battalion known as the San Patricio Battalion.. they were deserters of the U.S. Army who went to the Mexican side due to Catholic religious commonality).  The irish were treated no better than the blacks during this period due to the fact that they would do the jobs for a lot cheaper.  They did it legally back then.  Still did not settle well with the nativists (which is an contradiction in terms as the only true nativists were the american indians). 

So, the main reasons for the anti-irish and german immigration were:

1) catholicism vs protestant
2) taking jobs
3) slum lifestyles (mainly brought on by the landlords, not so much the Irish)

Now, the main reasons for mexican and any other foreign national illegal immigration:

1) First and foremost.. it is ILLEGAL
2) There is a huge financial strain on the system
    a)  social services
    b)  health services
    c)  if there were no illegal immigration we would not have to spend as much money trying to keep them out
    d)  multi-language publications

3) promotes criminalistic behavior
    a) drug trafficking
    b) prostitution and black market slavery / sex slaves / etc.
    c) murders
    d) robberies
    e) fraud

4) personal property issues
    a) some have argued that certain cultural aspects and how they are implemented have adversely affected the property values of their homes due to said cultural decorations and designs  [not me mind you, that is the least of my worries, if indeed the individuals that own said property are legal citizens.. its their's they can do with it what they want.. but not everyone shares my beliefs in this regard]

I can probably brainstorm all night and come up with a huge outline as to the cons to illegal immigration now, but I am really getting kind of tired of having to explain something that is so obviously logical and clear cut.  Especially considering I know, for some odd reason, what I say here will not make those, that are empathetic to the illegals "rights", change their mind.

So.. I agree to disagree with those "citizens" who have expressed their opinions.  Ultimately, mine will never change.  I am living in the here and now, and though the past has similarities, it is NOT the same.

[Mike DC]

Speaking of apples and oranges, are you talking about complaints that had to do with legal or illegal immigration back then? The difference seems to frequently get blended during these discussions.

Yes I am comparing legal immigrants 150 years ago to illegals now.

Whether they are legal or illegal, we are eventually left with the same situation when the smoke clears.  If the USA had made immigration impractical while leaving the borders wide open 150 years ago, the vast majority of those immigrants would have come flooding in here illegally too.  

It's not that I don't care about lawbreaking, it's that I am trying to be realistic about this.  When a few people are breaking the law they are bad people, but when everyone is breaking the law it's a bad law.  

---------------------------------------

I can probably brainstorm all night and come up with a huge outline as to the cons to illegal immigration now, but I am really getting kind of tired of having to explain something that is so obviously logical and clear cut.  Especially considering I know, for some odd reason, what I say here will not make those, that are empathetic to the illegals "rights", change their mind.

So.. I agree to disagree with those "citizens" who have expressed their opinions.  Ultimately, mine will never change.  I am living in the here and now, and though the past has similarities, it is NOT the same.

I agree that the situation is not the same as it was 150 years ago.  I just don't think the differences are drastic enough to change the final result a few generatons from now.
             
As for the illegals screwing the legals, the taxpayers are already getting screwed by all kinds of people in the USA.  Rich, poor, domestic, foreign, individual, corporate, etc.  Being a middle class taxpayer is the biggest sucker-bet we could make.  The illegals are just one more group for the pile.  They're not going out of their way to harm us, they're just trying to get ahead like everyone else and our govt is making it easy for them to take from us. 

[bull]

Speaking of apples and oranges, are you talking about complaints that had to do with legal or illegal immigration back then? The difference seems to frequently get blended during these discussions.

Yes I am comparing legal immigrants 150 years ago to illegals now.

Whether they are legal or illegal, we are eventually left with the same situation when the smoke clears.  If the USA had made immigration impractical while leaving the borders wide open 150 years ago, the vast majority of those immigrants would have come flooding in here illegally too.  

It's not that I don't care about lawbreaking, it's that I am trying to be realistic about this.  When a few people are breaking the law they are bad people, but when everyone is breaking the law it's a bad law.

Did you come up with that aphorism? It's a pretty screwy one if you ask me. You're saying that if a majority of people don't want to follow a law it's a bad law, right? That thinking totally flies in the face of the US Constitution and what is known as a Representative Republic. You're talking about a pure democracy where a majority of the people decide what laws to follow and what laws to ignore with no input from a national document, courts, legislative, executive, etc. So if the majority of the people decide that murder is ok, and there's no government document telling us otherwise then viola! Murder is now legal. That is basically an anarchist view of how to run a nation.

And no, there is no logical way to compare legal immigration to illegal immigration. Legal immigration is about control, order, national security and sovereignty; the exact opposite situation that illegal immigration has put us in. We are not left in the same situation as a nation compared to the state of the union 150 years ago if we cannot dictate who enters our country. There was not a massive influx of foot-traffic border crossings by people who wanted to live here instead of Mexico. Just because there are some similarities in the thinking between then and now does not an argument make.

[Mike DC]

Did you come up with that aphorism? It's a pretty screwy one if you ask me. You're saying that if a majority of people don't want to follow a law it's a bad law, right?

No, I am saying when the majority of the people don't follow a law, it's a bad law.  Crucial difference.    

That thinking totally flies in the face of the US Constitution and what is known as a Representative Republic. You're talking about a pure democracy where a majority of the people decide what laws to follow and what laws to ignore with no input from a national document, courts, legislative, executive, etc. So if the majority of the people decide that murder is ok, and there's no government document telling us otherwise then viola! Murder is now legal. That is basically an anarchist view of how to run a nation.

The majority of the people won't decide that murder is okay.  Murder is illegal and virtually everyone (even most murders) would agree it shoud be illegal.  The vast majority of the people never commit murder.  It's a good law.  

But if your city starts using the police to generate revenue and write traffic tickets all day long instead of letting them fight real crime, then it makes a huge portion of the population into criminals at some point or another.   The majority of the people will start to view the situation as bullshit, and many of them will even start flashing their headlights at each other to help others avoid the speedtraps.  The situation with this law is not being handled right, hence I would refer to it as a "bad law" in my previous post.   (No, of course I'm not saying we should have zero traffic laws.  I'm saying this particular law/enforcment/etc needs changing somehow.)  

Of course this is not ALWAYS true, but I'm saying it often is true.  

And no, there is no logical way to compare legal immigration to illegal immigration. Legal immigration is about control, order, national security and sovereignty; the exact opposite situation that illegal immigration has put us in. We are not left in the same situation as a nation compared to the state of the union 150 years ago if we cannot dictate who enters our country. There was not a massive influx of foot-traffic border crossings by people who wanted to live here instead of Mexico. Just because there are some similarities in the thinking between then and now does not an argument make.

Legal immigration is about letting foreigners move into the country in a safe and controlled manner.  Illegal immigration fails to keep things safe and controlled.  But a few years/generations later when the smoke clears, we are left with the same thing.  An influx of a given population of immigrants.  

I have never said the illegal/open borders situation is harmless.  It is far from it, just like having zero traffic laws would be very bad.  It's completely insane to wage a "War on Terror" overseas and a "War on Drugs" at home, all without even controlling our own doors.  

I just think that in a few decades the vast majority of these illegal immigrants will have americanized, english-speaking kids or grandkids.  (And the vast majority of them already want to.)  

[bull]

Did you come up with that aphorism? It's a pretty screwy one if you ask me. You're saying that if a majority of people don't want to follow a law it's a bad law, right?

No, I am saying when the majority of the people don't follow a law, it's a bad law.  Crucial difference.    

I fail to see a difference between what you wrote and what I wrote except for the word "want." It makes no difference what a majority of people do. Until a law is changed or eliminated it's still the law, bad or not.

Aside from the symmantics of that topic though I fail to see why our immigration laws are bad simply because large numbers of offenders choose to ignore them. The law is not there to protect them and their interests it is there to protect US citizens and US interests. Because hundreds of thousands of alien offenders choose to ignore the laws does not make them invalid or bad. Moreover, a majority of US citizens want those immigration laws in place and enforced by federal and local officials so by your logic that automatically makes it a good law. I get it now. Basically what your logic is saying is that if a majority of murderers think murder is ok then laws forbidding murders are bad laws.

[bull]

Legal immigration is about letting foreigners move into the country in a safe and controlled manner.  Illegal immigration fails to keep things safe and controlled.  But a few years/generations later when the smoke clears, we are left with the same thing.  An influx of a given population of immigrants.  

I just think that in a few decades the vast majority of these illegal immigrants will have americanized, english-speaking kids or grandkids.  (And the vast majority of them already want to.)  

I agree with you to a point here but your argument ignores a couple of key issues that have been discussed before but never concluded. One issue is a higher demand for public assistance and the other being the quality of people coming in.

Public assistance, if it has to be there, is deluted when more people than can be sustained are demanding it. Simply put, a single pot pie isn't designed to feed 50 people but when 50 extra people are climbing through windows, floorboards and in through the back door to get to a dining room that seats 8, there's going to be some hungry and angry people and not enough resources available to make sure they're all fed. This is why you shut the windows, secure the floorboards and lock the back door before letting the 8 most qualified people in the front door to eat.

Second, of those 50 extra people crawling in through the windows how many of them are criminals, diseased, drug addicts or just plain useless, noncontributing zeroes? You have no way of knowing because they are not being filtered or interviewed or following the proper procedure. I seriously doubt there are very many upstanding engineers or doctors or computer programmers running across the US/Mexican border at 2 am to get here. Even if there were how would we know and how could they ever contribute to their highest potential if their credentials don't follow them here?

[Mike DC]

                              

Maybe I am not being clear on what a "bad law" is for the purposes of this discussion.  I mean it in the sense that we have a flawed legal situation overall, not that the law must always be "wrong" in the theoretical sense.  I think the immigration laws are "bad" because the situation is not working.  That's why we are having this discussion.  


Murder will only be theoretically okay if the majority of our whole population (not just the majority of murderers) starts thinking that killing is acceptable behavior even thought it tramples the rights of the killed.  That is not going to happen.  Even if it did happen, then my logic still works - murder is no longer against our value system so there's no reason to keep it illegal.  What are laws, but a way to reinforce the majority of the population's basic core value system?  (And the only reason that we respect the minority's rights over total mob rule today, is because that principle is also part of most people's core value system.)




Enforcing the longstanding immigration/border laws would be fine with me.  Cut down immigration numbers, whatever.  Or don't enforce the border laws and don't keep them technically on the books either.  But either way this situation is a problem.  

I call it a problem when the legal system renders mass numbers of decent people criminals for doing very understandable things.  IMHO we need to either make these actions less understandable, or make these actions less criminal.  

It would make illegal immigration less "understandable" if it was more difficult to do it, there were more deportations/punishments, there were fewer jobs off the books for them here, etc.  That would start the process of dealing with the core problems down south.  It would make fewer decent people try to sneak in here, and eventually help give those decent people better options in their own countries.

 

[bull]

Paragraph one: The law is not working because it is not being utilized. It's a perfectly good tool sitting in a toolbox that never gets used because the mechanic is too worried someone will get offended if he repairs the damaged car. As we all know, you have to tear things apart to fix them right. You have to break some eggs to make an omelet. You have to get dirty when making something beautiful. Sure it looks all wrong when your Charger is in pieces on the garage floor but it has to happen if anyone expects overall improvement.

Paragraph two: It is happening and has been happening for centuries. It's called infanticide and genocide and what amounts to negligent homicide by corporations, etc. And just because a majority of people in certain countries, groups or companies at certain points in history think these things are ok does not make it any more morally virtuous than if no one thought it was ok. This where your line of logic breaks down when taken to its extreme. Many of our laws are on the books because of their innate moral nature. We know it's wrong for people to take things that don't belong to them and even though many people have had little or nothing stolen from them they still feel empathy and anger for those who've suffered from it. I've never had a child taken from me (thank God) but I know it's wrong and I feel an innate empathy for those who have lost loved ones. A law against kidnapping has no direct implications for most people but we know it is wrong and the laws are in place to defend the minority. It works both ways here. If Mexico were suddenly the land of opportunity and the US were destitute the Mexicans would feel the same way most Americans feel now if millions of us were jumping their border to grab someone else's piece of the pie. If suddenly the shoe were on the other foot there would be a similar outrage spoken in Spanish and it wouldn't be anymore right if we were the ones in need. Again we're back to legal/moral relativism. It's saying it's ok to break certain laws if those laws are an inconvenience to me or if something is an inconvenience to many people it's ok to eliminate it, even if it kills those who are too weak to defend themselves. It's like saying "as long as I get mine, to hell with everyone else."

Paragraph three: See paragraph one. Enforce the immigration laws and they will work better. Nothing implemented by humans hands will ever be perfect but that does not mean we shouldn't try.

Paragraph four: It is not our problem that a large number of Mexicans are indigent and therefore wish to make their lives better. It becomes our problem when they do it at our expense and we fail to control the influx of these people into our nation which taxes our limited resources beyond workable limits. So back to paragraph one again. "Understandable" law-breaking does not exist when the morality of a given situation is reversed.

Paragraph five: I can't argue too much with that. If they had no place to go, if the grass were not viewed as being greener here, they would undoubtedly lay down good sod in their own back yards and make them a better place to live. That is one of the main motivations they need and one that would be a catalyst to improve their own situation, and therefore ours. And that is why we need to enforce the laws already on the books. It would be a win-win for everyone. How does that saying go? Nothing worth having comes easy.

[Ghoste]

I think where I have a problem with saying a law is bad or flawed in this case would be that we have to ask who the law was written for. I can accept your analogy of a traffic law being created for the sole purpose of generating revenue and then applied against citizens who live within that system.  But in this case there is a law against illegal immigration designed to protect the citizens of one nation and it is not the citizens of that nation who are breaking it.  Why should anyone care whether the citizens of a foreign nation oppose and openly violate a law that wasn't written to protect them but in fact was written about them (or at least their acitivity)?  You can call them illegal immigrants and make excuses all you want and point fingers at the legislation and say it must be bad if they continue to disobey the laws of a country that isn't theirs but at the end of the day what you really have going on here is a foreign invasion!  The immigration laws are desinged in part to protect the citizens of a nation from foreign invasion and in this cse those laws are being violated by a foreign nation.  If they were doing it in tanks you wouldn't say "Oh well then it must be a bad law", you would declare war.

[Mike DC]

  
I agree, this gets into questions of who the laws are written for.  




To my mind the practicalities of governing the land outweigh the raw moral principles behind the laws.  (Just barely)  

Therefore, if 10% of the population is not legal, and if we're not going to deport them all immediately, then we need to start writing the laws to accommodate them.  And the people in power all agree that they're not going to deport these 30 million people immediately.  

The US citizen population might want them all deported.  But the citizens don't want it badly enough to stop electing either Democrat or Republican candidates year after year, so the public's opinion doesn't matter.  (Yet)