Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

[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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You don't understand.

then enlighten me.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

She's saying that treating illegal or undocumented immigrants as universally criminals and nigh subhuman is the problem.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It's about not dehumanizing people.

because that's not what your previous post stated.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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

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

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by starang21

then enlighten me.

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?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by starang21

then enlighten me.


because that's not what your previous post stated.

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.

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

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

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

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.

[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.