Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

[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?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by starang21

really?

Yes. 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.

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

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

We need the unskilled labor, it's getting hired here all the time, and exploited. We're working against our own best interest.

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

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

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

No one is saying it's OK to break the law. But if it's broken, better to fix it.

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.

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

Well, you've answered this question yourself already:

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.

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.