Because more government influence has been effective so far? The underlying assumption in all of this is that social programs can and do work. The inner-cities of just about every major city in the U.S. would beg to differ.

Sure, but the federal government lacks credibility in enforcing the border. The people demand first that the border be secure, then after that, we can worry about making sure immigrant labor stays on the up and up--and let's face it, that's doubtful no matter what. Companies use illegal immigrant labor to avoid having to pay wages, worry about workers' compensation, etc., not necessarily because those are jobs Americans won't do.

The border is not too big to secure. We just have to install the necessary resources along the border. Remember--the Ancient Chinese were able to keep the Mongolian hordes at bay with a well-garrisoned, well fortified wall. If they could do that then, imagine what we can do with satellites, drones, helicopters, etc. There is simply no excuse to not have a secure border, and not having one is to the extreme detriment of both the U.S. and Mexico.

Yes, and this is what makes people ignorant. You are basically admitting to choosing to villainize a group of people just because you want to villainize them. There is a huge difference between wanting more skilled people in this country and deciding that the people who have come to this country illegally looking for a better life for their families are subhuman or beneath you. That makes you elitist and a bad person.

then enlighten me.

because that's not what your previous post stated.

matter of opinion. just because you think a problem exist doesnt' mean it does.

there are bigger issues to resolve vs. illegal immigration. 330 million americans. 12 million illegals. a drop in the bucket.

the fact that there are illegal immigrants doesn't mean there's a problem with the immigration process. people possess illegal narcotics. does that mean the drug laws are wrong?

So you want to keep mixing apples and oranges. There are problems with drug laws...

BTW, are you allergic to the shift key?

If illegal immigrants were legal, and all paying taxes on income - not just those who use false ID - and increase their income and eventually buy property, the amount of money going to those services in states and schools will increase. Those schools and services are already there. There doesn't need to be a government program for that, there needs to be government fixing their own system. There's no "more government" here.


They have to do all of it. Just because "the people" demand something doesn't mean that "the people" have the best idea of how policy works. "The people" are also demanding comprehensive reform too.

Some jobs are the ones Americans won't do, or won't do for the current, totally legal pay. Look at how farms are exempted from labor laws. Others are worker exploitation because they know they can get away with it. Penalizing companies more effectively is key. Right now the fines are chump change for big companies and individual restaurant franchises just go out of business with few extended effects.

If we were fighting hordes on horseback, you'd have something close to a point. Satellites and helicopters are not inherently more effective than a giant freaking wall built by peasant labor whose bodies are buried IN the wall itself.

We can have a militarized border, but I think that's a terrible idea. And one that will lead to more 15 year-old rock-throwers having their heads blown to bits. Also, we don't have the military for it. Helicopters are expensive as hell. Satellites have to be launched positioned and maintained and unless they're going to start shooting lasers are just glorified security cameras that are really. really. far away.

We won't be able to lockdown the border entirely, ever. That's why we need to fix things HERE first. Add the stick - increased security, punish companies, but add the carrot too - make the line shorter/easier, find some way to bypass the corruption in other countries so people don't have to pay bribes just to stand in line for a chance at a visa, provide a way for people here to become citizens.

We should not dehumanize people.
We should not treat people as sub-human.
Society DOES dehumanize and villianize illegal immigrants.
This is exactly what my previous post stated if you go back and read it in its entire.


Oh well then we live in a land of rainbow and ponies! Matter of opinion. The earth is flat. Matter of opinion!



We can fix multiple problems at once. If it's not a priority for you then it's totally fine.

[/quote]the fact that there are illegal immigrants doesn't mean there's a problem with the immigration process. people possess illegal narcotics. does that mean the drug laws are wrong?[/QUOTE]

It's a matter of scale. And yes, our drug laws are also pretty fucked up.

and people will villanize anyone who they want. how they want. and just because someone is villanizing them, doesn't mean they're dehumanizing them.

LOL.

some of them are. but that still doesnt' mean that narcotics should be legal.

Where are the facts/stats upon which you're basing this statement?

And best believe that undocumented residents have access to funds (and I'm not talking about drug related income). I work for a nonprofit that uses pay stubs to validate income. When you have no pay stub, you qualify for a lot. Meanwhile, some of these families are driving nicer cars than mine and carrying designer handbags. I don't fault them at all. They're just being American and, truth be told, they don't have the same liberties I do. But, wouldn't it be nice to be able to get a little of that change to pay for programs like the ones my nonprofit provides?

Yes, I do believe.

I beg to differ. Let grown folks do what grown folks wanna. And tax the HELL out of it.

i dont have an issue with punishing companies, but i don't think the line should be any easier or shorter. these people shouldn't be put at the front. should they get put ahead of those who actually have been standing in the line?

The success of government safety nets is subjective, even when based on stats, and based on what you expect the outcome to be. If you expect large populations in cities to not be impoverished when they are on government assistance (as some expect) you may see the majority of U.S. cities as evidence that such safety nets cannot and do not work.

If you expect for people to simply be better off than they would be without the safety nets (being underemployed and impoverished but thankfully having $20 to their name instead of $1 to their name because of welfare) then you may see the majority of U.S. cities as evidence that such safety nets can and do work.**

**This is simplifying the issue. There are people who truly use the safety nets as a cushion and do not remain on government assistance for longer periods of time than necessary.

Society does both to illegal immigrants. Just because "people do it" doesn't make it OK.





Jumping from "Drug laws have problems" to "Narcotics should be legal." is stupid. As is comparing drug laws to immigration.

Exactly. The vast majority want to be a part of society here, with the rights and responsibilities that entails.

This is why you fix the line at the same time. In some ways people who've been here for 20 years instead of being "in line" have contributed more to the US than the line standers have.

This is where I randomly say "I am not immigrationist! Some of my bestfriends are illegal!"

my point was that people commit crimes and break laws. that doesn't mean that the main problem is with the laws. it's about as valid as comparing speeding to immigration.

That's my charity colored glasses kicking in. I just wrote an article for my organization's newsletter about one of our youth workers who was accepted to 12 colleges/universities on full academic scholarships. He'll be going to Stanford this fall. He grew up on public assistance and his father was incarcerated throughout his youth. His mom alternately worked 2 and 3 jobs to keep them going, so he had to take care of his younger siblings. He grew up in the most wealth-depressed community in the county.

He had moral support from his mom and an incredible work ethic. He busted his ass and now volunteers to help younger kids see their potential. When I think of low-income neighborhoods, I think of people like this young man and his family. I see SO MANY people just like them who are working hard but just can't put a hand on the money to move forward - at least not without the advocacy of orgs like the place I work.

For the most part, nonprofits just act as brokers between the haves and have nots, taking generosity and turning it into on-the-ground results by giving people the tools and capital they need to get ahead.

I think the idea that mobs of people are milking the system is ludicrous.

Yep, which is the point of including the word "properly."

Subjective (and often self-serving) definitions of "success" aside, this isn't a free-market problem - the government will be involved one way or another. Obviously the government does not have a great track record, but it is the only option, so doing the right thing (in theory) then hoping for the best is not misplaced faith on any level.

Why do you expect the government to correctly secure a border in a more effective/efficient manner than they can perform "bureaucracy"? There's literally no track record of effective border security to the south - at least some bureaucratic programs have worked.

This isn't medieval times - there's too much money and too much desire for anything resembling efficient processes to work on the border . . . unless you can draw a modern parallel among Khan's hordes?

Well, you've answered this question yourself already:

First - "the people" is stupid, and the point of representative democracy is to give them what they need, not what they want on current whim.

Second and most importantly - you even identify the problem with your hole analogy! The first step to climbing out of a hole is to find the most effective path out of the hole - start from the beginning, not the end. You are essentially arguing for doing what we've always done (digging), but doing it faster and with more shovels, with the same people (corporations, INS) overseeing the effort.

I'm proposing we get rid of the shovels, and introduce tools specifically designed for creating steps out of a hole, while removing the foremen who have proven so corrupt over time.