Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

[starang21]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Well . . . the majority of people would rather go through the arduous, expensive and dangerous process of crossing illegally instead of using the established legal process. That pretty much indicates the legal process is broken, by definition - it clearly is not working in the intended fashion.

It seems pretty clear there has to be a better way. Whether or not the process is "wrong" is irrelevant at that point (indeed, it seems that immigration policy was intended for European/Asian immigration and educational opportunity, and not low-income immigration).

As far as what needs fixing, it seems similarly clear that there are two fundamental angles of attack that need to form the basis of any reform:

1 - End the system of employers essentially enforcing immigration policy by proxy - employers have no incentive to enforce, and actually have disincentive (cheap labor, tax burden, etc.).

2 - Shift the risk/reward axis to give better incentive to legal entry rather than illegal entry, whether that is by establishing a new, "temporary worker working toward citizenship" class or whatever other method.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by starang21

but no matter how short you make it, coming here illegally will always be easier and quicker.

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

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.

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.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by starang21

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

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?

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

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

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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

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?