boatin, the rule of law is what makes things work here in the U.S., albeit sometimes imperfectly. If this were Iran, I'd agree with you that the "illegal is illegal" argument doesn't wash. Our laws, on the other hand, derive from representative government by consent. It starts with the Constitution and winds down to local government, at every level laws being enacted only after a majority of the legislative body approves. When someone disagrees with a law, he or she can lobby to change it, or you can go ahead and violate the law and takes your chances.

Your examples of common illegal activity in the U.S. simply reflect how difficult it is to legislate one's inclinations to indulge in certain vices. There is a moral component to the issue of illegal immigration, but not in that sense. Even so, by the will of the majority of people in some communities, prostitution and gambling have been legalized. As for prohibition, the 18th Amendment required two thirds of the state legislatures to ratify it, as was the case some years later, with the adoption of the 21st Amendment.

In a perfect world, all the illegals would return home, and the U.S. would implement appropriate laws and regs which greatly expedite and simplify the process of allowing them legal entry back in to work. That ship obviously sailed a long time ago, and the millions of illegals aren't going back home voluntarily. Things are admittedly a bit problematic at this point. That said, I share pan's concerns and feel that any resolution of the problem needs to address them, including the "illegal is illegal" one.

Is that true about families?

A friend of my partner had a child in the US, but is apparently going to be deported (with a second due in 6wks). How she has gone about her life bothers me, but I come from a different and relatively comfortable background and have never wanted to leave it - so in truth, I don't know that it's fair to judge.

Anyways, if this is the case, then the mess that she's got herself into would be much less a problem. I would truly appreciate any info you have on the family splitup issue (a good link would do). I've had a quick look at the US laws and too be honest, they seem bloody complex.

Uhm, if this were Iran, they'd wash fine... they'd just be different laws. Just because they aren't our laws or we don't agree with them does not make them any less valid. Laws are laws and if you don't like them, work to change them or move to a place with laws that you find more agreeable. Mankind is not able to live well without laws (at least not all 6+ billion of us). I don't LIKE the argument, but it is, in fact, the truth!

Well, it's becoming more clear to me that message board communication isn't a strength for me. I hear what you're saying Logan - I even think I understand and agree.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that as long as we're on a message board, talking about these issues, there are things that are more likely to convince me and things less likely to convince me. Not that convincing *me* is the goal, but I think I'm a pretty typical target.

Laws can be changed (which is one of your points, too). Because they can be changed, arguing that something 'is what it is' because it's the law seems like a waste. Does that make any more sense?

I'll try to post a more interesting angle in my next post. I don't want Pan to think no one is bringing anything to the table... :D

I did argue along that basis but I'll give you the same argument again:

ILLEGAL Immigration supporters say that the vast majority come over to "help their families because they are poor and starving and the US gives them the oppurtunity to feed their families."


Ok using that argument let's say...... I worked for a big company made VERY good money but was downsized and found the savings went fast. I couldn't find a job, because at 40 no one wants to give you a shot.

I have a wife and 4 kids, and we are extremely hungry and poor. So I go and steal some food to feed my family.... nothing more than FOOD. There's plenty of it, Hell, Americans waste more food than most other nations will see in a week. But I get caught.

Now do you think the judge should let me go?

I increased costs, because the store and manufacturer have to make up for the loss of their goods. I burdened the taxpayers, because I am taking up courtroom time, the taxes lost on the sale, the taxes for the police that caught me, and so on.

Now let's argue this point:

You say the most cases you saw are 50 of ILLEGALS coming across murdering someone and going back across the border. I say the ILLEGALS probably have killed many more, and even just 1 is too many considering they were here illegally. But you say you can live with the just 50 you saw and don't believe there's more.

So one day your family goes out and a couple of ILLEGALS are out to rob the 7-11 your wife walked into. they get scared and blow everyone away. The police find out who they are from the surveillence cams and witnesses but cannot bring to justice those ILLEGALS because they jumped the border.

A year later, you find out that those same ILLEGALS are back in town working again, but the police can't do anything because there is no hard proof they were the ones.

They then go out again, get drunk and kill a family in an accident.

They get treated at the hospital for free..... released on "bond" paid for by a schill for the company they work for so the company's name doen't get involved in anyway. And they are back in Mexico in no time.

Yeah, it's a hypothetical here, but it has happened.

Who are you to tell the families that the crimes have happened to, that these crimes are rare and that ILLEGALS should be embraced and cared for and allowed here.

There are very small groups that are in support of ILLEGALS they are:
- Businesses who get the cheap labor and exploit them
- the unions who believe if we give them amnesty they can be unionized and bring the unions back to strength (of course the unions refuse to truly try to work hard to evolutionize and recruit on their own merits)
- some DEMS and some GOP who each believe that if they can somehow show support for the ILLEGALS and make it easier they'll get the important Hispanic voting block.

Who disagrees and sees the tax burden and the overall cost of ILLEGALS as deplorable and too expensive...... last poll I saw was 75% of the country (Both GOP and DEMS almost equally share this view. It isn't a partisan view.)

SO until the HUGE majority is overcome and changes their minds..... the government needs to respect the wishes of the people and be responsive and make it harder for ILLEGAL immigration and severely punish those that do so that fewer are tempted to cross.

Others have argued LAWS ARE LAWS and ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL.

I cannot go into court and say "Gee Judge, I admit I was doing 80 in a 35 but man that law is just wrong and I refuse to honor it because well I am a man and I can do what I want."

I can't go into court and say, "I refuse to honor and respect any law I deem is just wrong. Sure 75% think the law should be stronger but Judge, I am one who finds the law invasive and wrong."

AFter being hauled away and having the warden thrown away, maybe someone will point out: "if you don't like a law, don't break it.... work to reform it."

I'll start by admitting that I have no facts and figures for my stance on what I'm about to say. I haven't seen any of either (facts or figures) so far on this thread. I apologize if I've missed them, but here's my take:

It costs the US taxpayer some amount of money to educate, give health care, and do a number of other kinds of support. That adds up to real money, I'm sure. On the other side, we get cheaper food, cheaper houses and a number of economic positive factors for the average taxpayer.

I'm NOT talking about what's right or wrong here, just what is.

My contention is that if we could wave a magic wand, and make the border impassable, and magically remove every illegal immigrant, the average taxpayer's life would get worse economically.

If one accepts the premise that there is more economic benefit than harm, it would behoove us (the taxpayers) to find a solution that takes advantage of that, helps solve some of the real problems in the system and puts us in a better place than we currently are.

I believe amnesty could be part of that solution. Another part would be to ensure that we're not abusing immigrants and making things fair for all. There's always a middle road...


Now, if you don't accept that premise, you'll have a different take of course. I would sure be interested in seeing someone attempt to show that the costs are higher than the benefits.

Part of why I believe the benefits outweight the costs, btw, is that I know the free market system works. If we didnt' get great benefits, this wouldn't have developed the way it has...


So there's more ramble from me. Here's hoping it makes sense outside of my head...

We posted at the same time, and I just now saw your post. I'm bummed that you're still putting words into my mouth. I didn't say what you say I did. Pretty much the opposite, in fact.

Who am I??? I'm someone that's trying to have a conversation and learn something. I'm not someone saying anything like what you seem to be reading.

Nowhere am I saying we/I/you get to choose which laws to obey. I've explained as best I can that in a message board conversation, saying "it's the law, it's the law, it's the law" isn't that effective at convincing me that a position is the RIGHT position. I agree it's the law, for god's sake.

Have a nice day.

You've nailed both the issue and the problem, boatin. I (and presumably the majority of citizens) would advocate a change in existing law where it could be shown to improve our situation as a country to do so. Regrettably, it's easier said than done.

First, you need to prove that your cost-benefit analysis assumption is in fact correct. Then you need to propose a reform that would be acceptable to a majority of Americans, understanding the difficulty in changing the minds of the 75% who oppose illegal immigration, many to the point that somehow getting the 11 million plus illegals out of the U.S. is the only answer.

Personally, I would only consider the decriminalization of illegals, as opposed to full amnesty, and even then on a number of conditions. My partial list: all are subject to prosecution and punishment for violating U.S. laws; illegals must come in and register, to obtain decriminalization status, and remain illegal and without any protection until then; they would not receive the right to vote; there would be no path to citizenship, other than under current immigration laws; and they would pay a special tax to cover our regulation and enforcement costs.

The reps and dems are batting around proposed legislation, and luck to them. This is a divisive issue, and even if they can put politics aside and come up with a solution that a majority of us can accept, the result will be to polarize the minority opposing it.

You gave me the words to put into your mouth right here the BOLD and Italics were added by me but the quote is very much your words and only your words......

And there are some Catholic Priests that do have done horrible, inexcusable things. Should we kick all priests out of the country? Or do they have license to do those things because they are citizens?

My very simple point is that numbers matter. If half the illegals are raping and looting, that's a different scale of problem than if .01% does. It's still wrong, I don't like it, but the difference does matter.

Look: I'm not saying crime is ok. I'm not saying that we should be embracing murderers. F**k them. I'm TRYING to say that some small subset of horror shouldn't control the greater strategy.

If you look at what YOU are saying:

I said nothing of the sort. I don't know how you miss that you are taking my words and spinning them in the most negative way possible.

I don't understand why you would do that. If you want to get into a pissing match about minor comments from a post, have fun with that.

I'll try to have a conversation with Loganmule.

Boy, are you right on that. I'm not sure that anything can be done, frankly. Moving policy on something like this is a nightmare! My interest is coming to some conclusions for myself, so that I can feel that I'm on solid ground in my beliefs. Since the only thing I can control is me, I need to get my own house in order. Perhaps once I do, I could have some influence on those around me. That's about as high as I can aim :D

I'd just like to start with a cost-benefit analysis. I've tried to take my crappy google skills and figure something out, but I can't find a thing. Where's Host when you need him?? (that's a comment ONLY in love/respect/admiration for Host, btw).

Assuming we could definitively prove that there's a net benefit, I'm not sure that would matter for the majority of Americans. But I'd sure love to take it to a better level of understanding...

I'd like to see something like this, but I'm not clear on what's in for the illegals. Why would someone be motivated to do that? Maybe it could be supply side driven - the crime of hiring a trule illegal would be actually enforced and penalized? Without some driver to get them to register, they won't, and we'll be right where we are. Can you tell me more?

Couldn't agree more. I'm skeptical anything can actually happen on this. On a strangely connected note, check out this article:

http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html

This has nothing to do with immigration, but it discusses something called a Power-law solution that sheds some light on why it's hard to solve problems. Plus, it's written by the best non fiction writer alive :D

Have you addressed any changing of the law? Not that I have seen.

Have you argued for ILLEGALS to be in this country? Yes.

Do you believe in amnesty then? I assume, you do.

Amnesty from what? Breaking the law to enter the country ILLEGALLY?

Alright then I want amnesty on my taxes, on any speed limit laws I make break, on all peoples who steal from stores because they don't have enough money to provide for their families. I demand amnesty from medical bills.... Hell if we the taxpayers can shell out a BILLION to treat ILLEGALS we sure as Hell can afford the $25,000 bill I a taxpaying citizen raked up in October.

You are saying breaking the law is acceptable, because you do not believe there should be any retribution for ILLEGALLY entering the US. You have offered no defenses to your stance, except to say YOU dislike the law. Well, a MAJORITY disagrees with you and instead of offering some form of option or reworking of the law, you dismiss it and that's it.

I dismiss speed limits, jaywalking and grand theft. In fact, I propose that anyone who wants to test drive a new car should be able to just take it home and keep it until they tire of it and then they can go and get a new one.

I do so simply because I like none of those laws and I want a Lambourghini this week, next week I want a Hummer.

Hell, my stealing means that people work to make new cars, so I'm helping the economy through my illegal actions.

Sound absurd?

So does allowing ILLEGAL immigrants into this nation while they refuse to assimilate, learn English and use our tax dollars while putting nothing in (in bi-lingual lawsuits, in the BILLION dollar free healthcare bill, and so on). Then expecting the rest of us to gladly accept them and telling me, "they help our economy". That's absurd to me, it's a slap in my face and a slap to everyone who has come into this country and worked to assimilate and become true citizens of the US.

And what of these people:

Augustin_Cepeda
(Representing the Brown Berets de Aztlán, a paramilitary offshoot of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA), delivered during a Fourth of July rally held outside the Federal Building in Westwood, California, in 1996)

Richard_Alatorre
(Served in the California State Assembly from 1973 to 1985 and was a member of the Los Angeles City Council from 1985 to 1999)

Jose_Angel_Gutierrez
(Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas at Arlington (and a former leader of the La Raza Unida political party)

Gloria_Molina (A Los Angeles County Supervisor, at a Southwest Voter Registration Project rally in June 1996)

and what they say.

Here's the link: http://www.wtam.com/pages/frantz_page.html

Please give it a listen and hear things like this:

"Go back to Simi Valley you skunks..... Deport us? haha the only ones deported will be you white Anglo Saxons, this is our land, it has always been Mexico and it is now.... we outnumber you and our numbers grow every day.......go back to the Plymouth Rock and Boston you pigs.......the old white people need to die it is your duty.... even your leaders say they take up too much space and air...... this is our land and we claim it for Mexico and we will take it back peacefully or violently we have more people and more come join us every day."

Still want the ILLEGALS here and want to give them amnesty?

Ooooo let me guess these are just a minority...... the same minority that kill, rape, rob and create havoc then scurry like the rat pigs they are back to Mexico where they know they have NO CONSEQUENCES to pay and then come back later to do it all over again.

"But we need to open our borders and give them amnesty and you're just a racist pig...."

Yeah..... ok..... listen to the link and tell me who's racist who hates who and then tell me that.

BTW the above is not a hit or in anyway meant to be a slap towards ALL Mexicans. There are a vast majority that are good people and wish to just be happy and have enough to feed their families. To them, I say we share the same goals in life.

But the above IS very much a slap and a pointing out of the hate and anger this vocal minority has and the hate and anger that results because of their beliefs.

Is my reaction right? no.

But hatred begets hatred no matter how hard we believe we can be above it, there will be someone or a group that knows just what buttons to press.

Pan,

You asked for debate. YOU did. I have never once mentioned race. I have never once disparaged you.

You have not responded to points I have made, you have not responded to my observation that you keep putting words in my mouth. And you seem very very very angry about something.

It's none of my business, but I would suggest that hatred doesn't HAVE to beget hatred. We all make choices, and each person can be in charge of themselves. Particularly in what they write on a silly message board. Read some of the signatures on this page, there's good words here.

I'm done with this now. Have a nice life. Back to semi lurker status for me.

Pan, your posts on this thread should be entirely in upper case, instead of just the word "illegal", because the screaming comes right through your words. Whatever the problem is, I hope it gets better for you. I know from your other posts, not to mention your self-proclaimed status as "Lennonite Priest", that you understand hatred doesn't have to beget hatred.

Thanks for your respectful resonse to my post, Boatin, and for the link to the Gladwell cite. As soon as I can read and digest the rather lengthy article, I'll share my thoughts with you on it.

The anger comes from the fact that there are people in this country willing to give ILLEGAL immigrants anything and everything while there are citizens in this country that are barely making it.

Life may not be fair, but jumping jehosephat, we don't have to give our country away.

Let the ILLEGALS spend the time they do coming into this country trying to change and clean up their own country.

When I see ILLEGALS getting Billions of our dollars for FREE healthcare while I, a taxpaying BORN citizen go deeply in debt trying to pay my medical...... Yes, it pisses me off.

When I see ILLEGALS come into this country and sue because they REFUSE to learn our language and demand we become bilingual then expect us to bow down kiss their asses and wipe while they shit on us......... Yes, it pisses me off.

When I see ILLEGALS commit violent crimes and scurry back across the border, like the ratscum they are, to avoid prosecution for their actions..... Yes, it pisses me off.

When I hear the above links from "Brown Berets" saying, ...... Yes, it pisses me off.

When I see people ok with all this and not standing up and saying, "This is wrong and government, the employers and the ILLEGALS need to be held accountable and need to be taken to task for these actions." ....... Yes, it pisses me off.

How anyone can be ok with any of the above is beyond me.

And as far as hate begetting hate..... when all avenues fail, when the people who should be held responsible (the ILLEGALS, Government and the employers) are doing all they can to shirk the responsibility and allow the above injustices to continue..... then yes, the LEGAL citizens of this country should be pissed and standing up shouting "ENOUGH!".

For anyone who believes that illegals should be given amnesty, ask yourselves, should any group large enough that has broken a law be given amnesty?

I'm with you that amnesty isn't appropriate, if by that you mean all consequences are removed as to illegal status, and especially so, if illegals are given a free path to permanent residency status or citizenship. Incidentally, much of the problem seems to stem from U.S. recogition of citizenship "by right of birthplace" under the 14th Amendment:

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/citizen.htm

Part of the fixing the "illegals" issue is to limit this concept, as has been done, for example, in New Zealand:

http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.ns...s?OpenDocument

In a reply to boatin, I suggested decriminalization as a possible option. He pointed out that there would need to be an incentive for illegals to opt for that, over continued illegal status, and I'm still working on the details. That said, I was thinking about the ol' carrot and stick approach. The "carrot" would include receiving a permit granting temporary non-resident worker status (maybe we need more carrot than just this). The "stick" would be imposing and strictly enforcing laws with stiff penalties for illegals, and more importantly, for employers of them. Maybe the prices of certain goods will go up significantly, but that's a fair trade to dry up the existing demand for illegal labor. Employers are all about making a buck, and if they are held strictly liable for employing an illegal and penalized steeply enough, employers will eat the extra labor cost and pass it on to the consumer.

The other part of the "illegals" fix is to not confer citizenship status upon a child of an illegal who is born in the U.S. Since citizenship by birth is a recognized right under the 14th Amendment, however, it would take a further Constitutional amendment to change that. Generally, Constitutional amendments are a tough sell, but given the prevailing current sentiment among Americans, I think it could be done.

Evidentally, we can all take Monday off, due to the plans of pro-immigration Latino activists to shut down all the major U.S. cities. Here's an excerpt from the full article at this link:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...id=&cap=&sz=13


"LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Pro-immigration activists say a national boycott and marches planned for May 1 will flood U.S. streets with millions of Latinos to demand amnesty for illegal immigrants and shake the ground under Congress as it debates reform.

Such a massive turnout could make for the largest protests since the civil rights era of the 1960s, though not all Latinos -- nor their leaders -- were comfortable with such militancy, fearing a backlash in Middle America.

"There will be 2 to 3 million people hitting the streets in Los Angeles alone. We're going to close down Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Tucson, Phoenix, Fresno," said Jorge Rodriguez, a union official who helped organize earlier rallies credited with rattling Congress as it debates the issue."


I like to think of myself as a reasonable guy, but this offends me. It takes mega cahones of the arrogant variety to demand amnesty without consequence for illegals.

I'm wondering if the boycott will extend to visits to hospitals and government benefit offices.

Stick with it for the big finish.


<!-- message -->
<div><center><embed src="http://medialacache3.badongo.com/0599867970523523/7741126/video/2006-04-30/Apr_6_Rush.wmv?dl=y"></embed></center><br />

Why not allow them to join the military to earn their citizenship. A man or woman joining will give their spouse and children given temporary citizenship until requirements are met. Large corporations can start work/housing programs and even school programs. Given the situation in the middle east the military may need more strength and out of the 8 million or so illegals at least 2 million would qualify for service.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTEST IF YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

Wow. That's pretty harsh. I'm actually of a different mindset. I believe we should extend as many of our rights and freedoms as practiceable to non-citizens. We do hold that they should be universal, right?

I can see drawing the line at voting or consuming taxpayer funded services, but the right to assembly?

Isn't the right to protest a pre-existing right? Like lots of others that the founders claimed?

Not to mention, from a practical standpoint it's a universal right. Not many americans want to see the police knocking down a bunch of people who are holding a protest - even if they are illegal immigrants. Memories of the 60's and 70's are still too close for that.

sure it is. If you have the right to be here. They aren't here legally, they cannot do anything here legally, including protest. They can protest all they want on the other side of the border. I, as an american, support their right to protest. But I do not support their illegal entry into the United States.

I am a project manager for a construction company. We're working on a hotel refit right now, and the amount of non-english speaking latino workers on that job is staggering. This is skilled labor with a high wage. Sure doesn't seem like an agricultural job no one else wants.

Personally, I don't think big business is the cause of so many illegals gaining employment. Its the smaller businesses who don't get looked at by the government so closely getting away with under-the-table workers. It is unfortunately small business owners that need to be penalized here.

Having this take in chat yesterday was like being the target for carnival games.
Giving amnesty to people who came here illegally, put their kids in already stressed out school systems, using up resources they don't pay into at all, including ESL, medical services, etc is asinine. Because of these 8 million or so using up resources without payback, citizens are denied their tax-paid rights to the same services.
Anyone recall the young girl in NC who got a heart/lung transplant then later died? She was an illegal, her hospital costs were free. Meanwhile, someone, a citizen, was waiting for that same heart, maybe worked hard or their parents worked hard for years and suffered through the same things....and were set back because the urgency of someone not even supposed to be here to precedence. If I sound cold, sorry, but the cold facts are for every illegal that freely uses our country's resources, a rightful, LEGAL citizen gets pushed back. Now, multiply that by 8 million.
Crime: No checks and balances means anyone can come in, correct? How did the hijackers of 9/11 get in? Even what we have now has cracks in it. Examples, albeit not the major concern, but a real one: 11 rapes in New Brunswick, NJ. 3 rapes and robberies of elderly women in North Brunswick, NJ. Kidnapping of woman in Bridgwater, NJ(later found alive). Murder of two children in central NJ. One thing they all had in common-the perpetrators were all illegal aliens. And these were just the headline-grabbing stories in the past six months. Open borders mean open. To anyone.
I was told that it was 'cold hearted' that people are starving and that's why they're crossing over illegally. I'll send food.
Granting amnesty to illegals is a slap in the face to every immigrant that went throught PROPER channels to get here, pay their share of taxes and struggle like everyone else, save one glaring exception-they're contributing.
I agree with Pan on every issue he raised, especially going after those employers who hire illegals in the first place. Tax them, fine them the differences they paid to illegals to comparable legal workers. They create a lot of this problem, take total advantage of these people and create dangerous environments with no incentive to improve.
Chinese who come here illegally many times (at least in NY, anyway) live where they work, work 12-13 hour days 7 days a week for substandard wages and have to pay back their 'mules' thousands of dollars-in essence they work in servitude for years. Construction firms hire unskilled workers from Central America to bypass union wages; they also end up shortchanging the public with substandard building practices many times and creating dangerous situations for the workers. How is any of this better for anyone?
I also agree with the point of instead of coming here, work to improve conditions in the homeland. Protesting here?? Why is the US the only country to pull out its wallet? March in Mexico City, Juarez...Long-term, would it not be better to improve conditions where you live instead of going elsewhere and leaving those conditions to fester?
In response to the 'child born here so deportation is null' is false. Six months after 9/11, a Pakistani man in Texas was shot and killed in his store simply for who he was. His family lived here still and less than a year after his death, were threatened with deportation, even though the youngest child was born here. Technically, the illegals of the family can be deported; the children do not have to go. In this case, they got emergency amnesty and were all allowed to stay. A neighbor of mine was from England, her husband from Lebanon, their 3 children born here. When she went to renew her and her husband's visas, she was told there was a 6 month wait-come back. She was in a panic because during that 6 month time, they'd be 'illegal' and if the US really wanted to be a bitch, could deport them. People who are illegal and commit crimes can be deported regardless of where their kids are born-it'd be up to them what to do about those kids.
It's just that the US looks more sympathetically at some cases where the parents are illegal and the children were born here, but it does not guarantee they'll be allowed to stay.

I don't understand why the administration and others claim that it is so difficult to send illegal immigrants across the border from the U.S. to Mexico. They seem to be able to cross it from Mexico to the U.S. all the time.

The fair thing to do is to let the illegal immigrants get to the back of the line in their own country and give priority to those who follow the rules and immigrate legally. Allowing them to stay here after they broke the law and came in illegally is just another form of amnesty and unfair to all those who follow the rules.

Allowing them to stay here while they wait for citizenship also encourages others to break the law. Why should those who wish to immigrate legally wait for years in their home country when they can just come here now and work? The president's and senate bill smacks of politics and I am amazed that they can propose it with a straight face.

If I understand it correctly Reagan (our government) granted amnesty to about 3 million illegals 20 years ago and now we have about 15 million. Do we really want to have 5 times that many in another 20 years?

My thoughts?

Quite simply that immigration is much simpler when your country is an island. And labour costs are probably higher...

When 10% of one country....actually lives in another, there might be something wrong. One way or another we need to stop the migration of illegals.

A bit of perspective for everyone:

"Washington -- The current migration of Mexicans and Central Americans to the United States is one of the largest diasporas in modern history, experts say.

Roughly 10 percent of Mexico's population of about 107 million is now living in the United States, estimates show. About 15 percent of Mexico's labor force is working in the United States. One in every 7 Mexican workers migrates to the United States.

Mass migration from Mexico began more than a century ago. It is deeply embedded in the history, culture and economies of both nations. The current wave began with Mexico's economic crisis in 1982, accelerated sharply in the 1990s with the U.S. economic boom, and today has reached record dimensions. "

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...MMIGRATION.TMP

This is too funny if it's true. :lol:

I think it would be exceedingly difficult. Forcibly removing such a large number of people from a country would not be an easy undertaking. What if mistakes were made and US citizens were sent to Mexico? The effect of removing such a large labour force from the economy would also have a large impact. It's much more realistic to grant amnesty and secure the borders.

Immigration is a very important and exceedingly difficult to manage. Humanitarian (ethical) considerations must be balanced againts social and economic considerations. The mass emigrations that still took place last century do not seem to be possible anymore. The country receiving the immigrants seems to have less to gain and more to lose. If not managed correctly, a strain is placed on the social cohesion of the country, as evidenced by the riots in Paris and anectdotal accounts I have heard (from concerned as well as third parties). Nonetheless closely managed immigration can help a country by attracting needed skilled migrants.

In my mind the ethical case is much clearer when dealing with political refugees (as opposed to economic) as ethical concerns eclipse the other and the numbers involved are much lower.

Economic immigration is harder to deal with. For example, many north africans attempt to reach the EU every year. If an influx of such immigrants were to be aloud access unabated this would lead to an appreciable decrease in the standard of living of the people within the EU. Is this not what we are primarily concerned with? Even though the immigrants come and obtain a greater standard of living than in their home countries (albeit below the average standard of living of the country they now live in) their presence creates an economic, social and eventually political impact. In great enough numbers we may even imagine the country losing much of its former prosperity. In such a light immigration must, of course, be restricted. Ethically seen, however, what right do we have to deny to people to share in this prosperity?

I think this is a contradiction in the dealings of what we largely see western society (particularly the social democracies of western europe) to be, that is socially just. Of course I cannot offer a solution to this contradiction and continue to enjoy the benifits the current system gives me. (Indeed it is similar to what Peter Singer has written about obligations we have to the third world for which he did not offer any clear cut solution either).

It would be difficult but I know of no other way to be fair to the ones who follow our laws and get in line to immigrate legally sometimes waiting many years. I know that life is not fair but this is something we can have control over.

From what little I understand about the matter, I don't think our immigration laws are that unreasonable and if they are so bad that we must grant amnesty to those who break them then maybe we should change them.

People break laws all the time because they think it is in their best interests to do so (taxes comes to mind) but that is no reason to grant amnesty to those who have violated the law the longest.

I don't know, but I wonder if the ones who "get in line" are the wealthy- those that can handle waiting, aren't desperate for a job, or who have skills in demand. The ones that immigrate illegally may be the poor- who are desperate and don't have the means wait in line.

Again, I don't know if this is the case and I don't know if it makes a difference.

I consider myself liberal on social issues and conservative as far as the economy goes. As much as I want to help the poor, starving and homeless of Mexico, illegal immigration hurts our citizens at the same time, so why should I side with people of another nation before my fellow citizens????

And to everyone who says we need to change immigration laws, I agree completely. But right now, the ship is sinking. We should plug the hole before trying to figure out what to do with all the flood water. Stop the flow of illegal aliens now, and change the laws after.

And for the Mexicans who want to pull a huge street rally in the middle of a working day....

...I wonder how many of these will be illegals??? It would be a great opportunity to send a few million of them back to Mexico! Too bad the National Guard is too busy digging up WMDs in Iraq. Or breaking that link between Al-Qaeda and Sadaam. Or installing a "role model" democracy in the Middle East...
See, I really am a liberal.