The point is not that we're not taking speeding seriously in this thread. Or tax evasion. Or anything. It's not about being "soft on crime" or "not caring about illegal immigration." It's about not dehumanizing people, or villianizing to the point where you write laws based on fear instead of facts. I don't know how you're continuing to miss this point.

This is what is wrong with the process: http://lafinjack.net/images/random/immigration.jpg

It takes decades, it is incredibly expensive, and nearly impossible if you're the average person from Mexico. In the meantime, it's cheaper to pay a coyote, even if it's more dangerous, and you can find work here. If you don't fix both sides, the difficulty getting in as well as the incentives to come illegally, you won't solve the problem.

If you don't know what's wrong with immigration then you're probably not going to be able to talk about the issue of illegal immigration on any level other than "throw them out" because you're lacking the basic understanding of why they're here illegally in the first place. Most illegal immigrants aren't rampant law breakers and wouldn't just be kicking around the US with a fake ID if they had other options.

really?

people will villanize what they want to villanize. and people are entitled to villanize who and what they want. whatever they're passionate about. and just because (by your definition of dehumanization), them villanizing people is dehumanizing them, doesn't mean that it's they (by their definition of dehumanizing) think they're dehumanizing them. your definition of dehumanizing is likely different from my definition of dehumanizing.

so the us doesn't want unskilled labor. it wants people with talent. ok, so?

i understand why they're here illegally. does that mean i think the immigration process is flawed? no.

is it the process's fault that illegal immigrants choose to bypass it? no.

i also understand the process which one undertakes to become an immigrant. does that mean i think there's something wrong with the process? no.

me thinking there's nothing wrong with the process doesn't mean i don't understand the process.

being illegal is a quick fix. can it be streamlined? likely. can a lot of red tape be removed? likely.

but no matter how short you make it, coming here illegally will always be easier and quicker. we can wax philosophical on what exactly about the process needs to be changed, but the fact of the matter is that many people would rather cross the rio grande than file the paper work.

So the goal, then, is to create benefits/incentives to overcome "easier and quicker" (which are clearly NOT the only two driving forces).

Right now, this is the norm. It is NOT a universal given - there's nothing special or enticing about crossing the Rio Grande to the point where we can say the appeal simply cannot be overcome.

Will some always take the path of not filing paperwork? Sure, of course. But you can knock it down from 90% to whatever small percentage (likely 10% or less, if we use crime stats or IRS stats as a guide) - and while it's theoretical now, that's just because nobody has tried it. There is no reason theory can't convert to practice.

noted. we can make it easier, quicker, and give folks better access to this country. the crux is should we? is our process that much more difficult than our peers?

There are other ways to give incentive other than making it quicker and easier to enter - that's probably the most important thing to note in the entire conversation.

The "should we" portion is difficult - personally I view the problem as essentially 'sunk cost' at this point. From that angle, it makes little to no sense to me to increase ineffectual methods (hi fence!) that are not really making a dent in the issue. Without getting too long, I'm not sure I see the downside to easier integration, though.

Strain on social services and public education. And those aren't insignificant items.

An argument might be made for increased violent crime, but that's speculative. It is a fact that lots of crimes do go unreported in illegal communities, but to what extent is entirely speculative.

The border, and yes, even the wall, could be effectively controlled if the government actually expended the necessary resources to do so.

You mean, those social services and public schools that already exist and are already being strained (hence "sunk cost")? You mean those same services that would be largely made more efficient by increasing things like English integration, early-childhood education, parental involvement without fear of retribution, etc.? Add better-targeted funds (with an accurate 'head count') and similar improvements, and . . . well . . .

It may seem counterintuitive, but shouldn't the strain go down with a properly-implemented and accounted-for immigration process?

So the problem with easier access is cost, and the solution to immigration is to increase costs/funding?

This assumes that these "properly implemented and accounted for immigration process[es]" are able to experience any greater degree of success at solving whatever problems exist in the immigrant community that they set out to fix. From my vantage point [yes, anecdotally], government solutions to community problems are not typically successful. For every successful program, e.g., Rural Electrification, we have boondoggles like NCLB.

Your proposal is to essentially solve the problem with newer/better bureaucrats. Wouldn't money be more effectively spent at actually eliminating the problem of illegal immigration altogether (border enforcement), and THEN focusing on meeting our country's need for immigrant labor rather than focusing on meeting the immigrant labor's need for our country?

Isn't the first step to climbing out of a hole you've dug yourself into to stop digging?

Yes. Really.
It's not about that. You don't understand. And frankly I don't understand your sentence.


We need the unskilled labor, it's getting hired here all the time, and exploited. We're working against our own best interest.
The problems with the process exist whether you think they do or not.
No one is saying it's OK to break the law. But if it's broken, better to fix it.

The problems with the process exist whether you think they do or not.

You're entitled to your opinion, if there's nothing wrong with the immigration process then lets not change a thing and keep having illegal immigrants in the numbers that we have.



This isn't getting the government to solve community problems, but to solve it's own immigration laws and processes. Removing government influence doesn't make sense here.
You have to do it all at once or it will not work. The border is too big, and we USE immigrant labor. All of those jobs that hire illegal immigrants aren't going to go away, and as long as farms aren't required to pay minimum wage, Americans aren't signing up in droves either.

Not if the dirt's going to fall down on top of you if you just stop without taking other action.

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.

No. Really. She was drawing a contrast to show how society treats people who break different laws. Rather than making a comparison that it works one way with drugs so it must work that way with immigration.

But your comparison was more apt, perhaps, than you think. Society dehumanizes drug users, despite the fact that it's far more common and far less harmful, on the whole, than they think. But no, we have to fear the crackheads and protect the children and Just Say No. So instead of working on solving drug abuse we create reactionary laws that criminalize otherwise victimless crimes and cause their excessive financial burden, while putting the guy who smokes pot in prison with far more hardened criminals.

There's a problem with drug law. It's not deterring people from using drugs, it provides a black market here for the drug cartels to sell to, and it's costing us a lot of money.

Similarly there's a problem with our immigration law, it's not deterring people from crossing the border, it's created a black market, and continuing with harsher enforcement such as militarizing our border would cost a LOT of money.

In both cases "fixing" law would be better than doing more of the same.

nothing is going to deter people from crossing the border. as long as there are borders, folks will continue to cross is illegally. whether or not the process is easier. said "black market" will always exist because some people will attempt to circumvent the law. the problem is not with our immigration law, but with the people who circumvent it.

and i wonder if the families of drug users think that it's a victimless crime.

Just read this online, Senator Kyl supports measure that would eliminate birthright citizenship for those born to illegal immigrants.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6733905.shtml

Carrot and stick. You've already said this is not a priority for you, so I'm not actually sure why you're interested in discussing it.


He won't overturn it, it'll take an amendment to change. There's precedent specific to illegal immigration by the courts. He's just trying to make political hay.

because i like discussing things and this is a message board. where you discuss things.

I was just coming in to post this. lol

That wasn't a "GTFO of this thread" post. But you're said a) it's not a priority for you, b) you don't think there's a problem, c) that people would judge, villianize, and cross borders illegally no matter what.

So what's your point? What's your purpose? Is there something you want to know or something you're trying to get across? You're just spinning in circles, often repeating yourself many times without appearing to actually have a purpose and simultaneously denying any concern.

What's worse than his allegedly spinning in circles is you all jogging in place with him. Ha.

Hmmm....that Canadian-US border is just teaming with illegal crossings!:rolleyes:

It's how the 9/11 hijackers got into the US.

Yeah, but that's not exactly what we're talking about. Terrorists can go across any border, but Canadians aren't sneaking across our border in droves because there isn't an incentive to do so. Their economy is as good as or better than ours, they don't have oppressive poverty driving people across the border looking for jobs to feed their families.

LOL. i'm just commenting on illegal immmigration. i didn't say there wasn't a problem. but the answer to said problems isn't to make things easier on illegal immigrants.

ssshhhh, there are illegal canadians here.

don't tell anyone.

It's nothing like the flood of illegals from Mexico but there are some (not generally Canadians themselves) who use Canada to get here more easily.

Oh yeah, it's a huge problem...how bout we throw up a huge fence across the whole length of our border to take care of that problem?:rolleyes: