Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-08-2018, 04:09 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,570
Undocumented immigrants crossing border - what *should* be the response?

(Not necessarily related to the migrant caravan in Mexico)

Many Trump opponents are very vocal about opposing the building of a border wall, and about opposing the use of forces to stop migrants from entering. But - what is the proposed alternative?


Suppose (hypothetically, but surely common in real life): A number of undocumented immigrants arrive at the Mexico-US border and begin crossing over into American soil. Something has to be done. What should the protocol be?

1. Let them come in
2. Keep them in a temporary living facility until their asylum claims are processed and approved or denied
3. Turn them away, with force if need be


Those are the only three solutions that the situation presents, as a practical matter. Which should it be, or should it be another?
  #2  
Old 11-08-2018, 04:15 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,413
Wait, they're claiming asylum? You're a little unclear.
  #3  
Old 11-08-2018, 04:18 PM
nelliebly nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 899
I would assume a massive number of people would be refugees, in which case the only option that makes sense is #2. It's extremely unlikely hundreds or thousands of undocumented immigrants would come to the US en masse merely to seek employment.
  #4  
Old 11-08-2018, 04:25 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,570
OK, but not necessarily a mass group - could be as few as 1 individual or as many as a million. I am just asking what the default protocol should be - allow them in, detain them, or turn them back?
  #5  
Old 11-08-2018, 04:26 PM
Chingon Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 343
What do u think?
__________________
Children need encouragement. If a kid gets an answer right, tell him it was a lucky guess. That way he develops a good, lucky feeling.
  #6  
Old 11-08-2018, 04:30 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 830
The solution is for our government to recognize human rights.

Freedom of movement is a basic human right.

Therefore, the US government does not have the authority to tell a free human being on which side of an arbitrary line he may or may not stand.
  #7  
Old 11-08-2018, 04:38 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
The solution is for our government to recognize human rights.

Freedom of movement is a basic human right.

Therefore, the US government does not have the authority to tell a free human being on which side of an arbitrary line he may or may not stand.
Thatís not actually correct. You asset that freedom of movement is an intrinsic human right. However, the only so-called intrinsic human rights that have tremendous support are actually realized. That is because, ultimately, rights come from force.

Secondly, letís accept your axiom. Well, why canít people just set up residence in your living room? What allows you to own property and exclude other, with lethal force if necessary, free human beings?
  #8  
Old 11-08-2018, 04:47 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
rights come from force.
Wrong. Rights come from our inherent dignity as human beings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Secondly, letís accept your axiom. Well, why canít people just set up residence in your living room? What allows you to own property and exclude other, with lethal force if necessary, free human beings?
Is this a serious question? Property ownership and self-defense are also human rights. Your liberty cannot trump mine, and vice versa, obviously.
  #9  
Old 11-08-2018, 04:51 PM
Skammer's Avatar
Skammer Skammer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Music City USA
Posts: 14,161
Assuming these are refugees seeking asylum:

1. Provide them with food, water, blankets, medical attention etc. at the border.
2. If they have no place to go, put them in temporary housing (without breaking up family units) until an asylum hearing can be held.
3. If they have family/resources in the state, document their ID, contact information and where they will be staying and release them pending their asylum hearing. Experience has shown that the vast majority will show up to their hearings.
4. At such point when the court system gets its shit together, hold the asylum hearing. If asylum is granted, they stay. If denied, they are sent back (together as a family unit).

I don't know why we make it more complicated than that.

ETA: I said "if they have resources in the state" but I mean in the country.

Last edited by Skammer; 11-08-2018 at 04:53 PM.
  #10  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:00 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,165
^ I agree. But make it known that going thru this process is easier, faster, and safer than trying to sneak-in. The main reason people are trying to cross illegally is the process takes too long. If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we process people showing-up on our doorstep more efficiently? It should be no surprise that people want to come here, so why not make the process easier.

Building a wall or turning everyone away no matter what, is wrong and reeks of typical fear-mongering we see these days.
  #11  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:02 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Wrong. Rights come from our inherent dignity as human beings.



Is this a serious question? Property ownership and self-defense are also human rights. Your liberty cannot trump mine, and vice versa, obviously.
Thatís the beauty of axioms. Anyone can declare some. But if you want to test yours you can go to many places on the globe where your might and your proxiesí might wonít be sufficient to assert your so-called rights.

And yeah, itís a serious question. How can you defend your property but the nation cannot defend its territory?
  #12  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:04 PM
Llama Llogophile Llama Llogophile is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: 50% chord point
Posts: 3,828
I'll quibble with the premise of the OP by saying that I don't oppose "the wall" in the same way that I would oppose aggressive use of force against would-be immigrants. I oppose it because it's probably unnecessary and a waste of resources.

Last I looked into it, a great deal of illegal immigration resulted from overstayed visas. No physical structure is going to stop that. And weren't we at something close to net-zero immigration (at least from Mexico?) under Obama? Update me on the facts, please. But if I'm even close on this then "the wall" is a pretty stupid idea.

But taking the OP at face value, my answer is... I don't know. I went down this rabbit hole with a friend recently, and he got frustrated and accused me of being in favor of completely open borders. My response was that I'm not opposed to the idea, only because it's the least stupid proposal I've heard so far.
  #13  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:06 PM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Suppose (hypothetically, but surely common in real life): A number of undocumented immigrants arrive at the Mexico-US border and begin crossing over into American soil. Something has to be done. What should the protocol be?
You document them.

You say "welcome to the USA, you're gonna need to prove who you are while you're here, prob more than you ever have had to before." You ask to see any ID from where they are from, if they have any. You give them a temporary worker ID/SSN (if theyre here to work). You point them to the DMV so they can get a proper state ID (and get a taste of American bureaucracy). You start that oh-so-necessary paper trail. You make it unnecessary to steal someone else's identity, or create a fraudulent one.

mc
  #14  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:09 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,413
I feel I should note that if we literally catch them at the border, and they do not claim asylum, they should be turned away. Asylum is special, but we don't have open borders.
  #15  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:17 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
How can you defend your property but the nation cannot defend its territory?
We're talking about immigration. A nation's right to defend its territory is not relevant to the discussion.
  #16  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:31 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
The solution is for our government to recognize human rights.

Freedom of movement is a basic human right.

Therefore, the US government does not have the authority to tell a free human being on which side of an arbitrary line he may or may not stand.
Bullshit. The US government is a legitimate state on this side of the line. That means that it has a monopoly on the use of violence. And as a state, it derives its legitimacy from the consent of those it governs.

Therefore, I'd argue that the US government has special authority by right of being a democratic state to tell those people to bugger off (and force them, if need be) if they're not wanted in our country.

Last edited by bump; 11-08-2018 at 05:31 PM.
  #17  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:32 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
We're talking about immigration. A nation's right to defend its territory is not relevant to the discussion.
Yes it is. How is enforcing borders not protecting territory? You think itís perfectly valid if 10 million Russians want to move into Estonia?
  #18  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:34 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,096
Basically #2, except asylum is not the only option. There should be a process by which they can become legal immigrants, without having to completely send them back where they came. Granted, asylum should get priority, but our founding principle as a nation is immigration, and we should not turn our back on that.

I'm not opposed to granting them temporary visas while they apply to be full immigrants. They're only a threat if we can't keep track of them.

But this is not open borders. Our states have open borders, where they can't even stop you going between the two. This is closed borders, but without treating immigrants as some sort of threat. They are, rather, an asset. People should only not be accepted for an actual cause.
  #19  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:44 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Bullshit. The US government is a legitimate state on this side of the line. That means that it has a monopoly on the use of violence. And as a state, it derives its legitimacy from the consent of those it governs.

Therefore, I'd argue that the US government has special authority by right of being a democratic state to tell those people to bugger off (and force them, if need be) if they're not wanted in our country.
You can't really use the consent of one group of people as reason you are allowed to do something to another group. By that logic, I can give you consent to hurt my neighbor.

What actually kicks in are property rights, and a right to be protected. Both of these are rights of citizens and residents. That said, there is more than one way to enforce those rights, and it doesn't have to require having closed borders.
  #20  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:45 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 830
NM

Last edited by EscAlaMike; 11-08-2018 at 05:46 PM. Reason: NM
  #21  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:49 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
How is enforcing borders not protecting territory?
Are the immigrants intending to aggressively seize territory and claim it for their home country?

Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
You think itís perfectly valid if 10 million Russians want to move into Estonia?
I can't possibly answer that.

That's exactly how Texas was stolen from Mexico. A large wave of American immigrants illegally moved into Texas until they outnumbered the native Mexican population and became strong enough to mount an independence movement. Was this "valid"?
  #22  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:52 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,369
Send 'em on over. I need to hire more people in order to keep up with my demand.
  #23  
Old 11-08-2018, 06:02 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Are the immigrants intending to aggressively seize territory and claim it for their home country?



I can't possibly answer that.

That's exactly how Texas was stolen from Mexico. A large wave of American immigrants illegally moved into Texas until they outnumbered the native Mexican population and became strong enough to mount an independence movement. Was this "valid"?
Was it? If you are for open borders thatís your prerogative. Donít pretend itís a natural right or wonít lead to huge problems.
  #24  
Old 11-08-2018, 07:32 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
We're talking about immigration. A nation's right to defend its territory is not relevant to the discussion.
...What...?
  #25  
Old 11-08-2018, 07:33 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
You document them.

You say "welcome to the USA, you're gonna need to prove who you are while you're here, prob more than you ever have had to before." You ask to see any ID from where they are from, if they have any. You give them a temporary worker ID/SSN (if theyre here to work). You point them to the DMV so they can get a proper state ID (and get a taste of American bureaucracy). You start that oh-so-necessary paper trail. You make it unnecessary to steal someone else's identity, or create a fraudulent one.
Indeed. They come to the U.S. because there are people in the U.S. willing to hire them, and it's stupid to pretend otherwise. Keeping them "illegal", though, is a convenient excuse to keep wages and working conditions low, and feeds the whole police-state mentality slowly and perpetually creeping up on America.

So legalize them - create a special immigrant worker status not bound by minimum-wage laws and numerous other regulations in recognition that the jobs they're coming here to do are crappy jobs that Americans citizens simply won't do. Collect biometric data and keep and share records across states. Put a minimal payroll tax on their work, so people who hire them to save money at least put a few bucks into the public kitty for the privilege. Add a 1% or so tax on remittances so if the workers are here specifically to send money back to their home countries, at least the U.S. gets a cut.

Start living up that "land of the free" crap, already, America. As it is, you sure luuuurve arresting people, probably at a higher rate than King George could have imagined, even at his nuttiest.
  #26  
Old 11-08-2018, 07:38 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Indeed. They come to the U.S. because there are people in the U.S. willing to hire them, and it's stupid to pretend otherwise. Keeping them "illegal", though, is a convenient excuse to keep wages and working conditions low, and feeds the whole police-state mentality slowly and perpetually creeping up on America.

So legalize them - create a special immigrant worker status not bound by minimum-wage laws and numerous other regulations in recognition that the jobs they're coming here to do are crappy jobs that Americans citizens simply won't do. Collect biometric data and keep and share records across states. Put a minimal payroll tax on their work, so people who hire them to save money at least put a few bucks into the public kitty for the privilege. Add a 1% or so tax on remittances so if the workers are here specifically to send money back to their home countries, at least the U.S. gets a cut.

Start living up that "land of the free" crap, already, America. As it is, you sure luuuurve arresting people, probably at a higher rate than King George could have imagined, even at his nuttiest.
Some of those are workable ideas. Iím not a fan on taxing remittances though. Iím also not a fan of a minimum wage waiver.
  #27  
Old 11-08-2018, 07:44 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
(Not necessarily related to the migrant caravan in Mexico)

Many Trump opponents are very vocal about opposing the building of a border wall, and about opposing the use of forces to stop migrants from entering. But - what is the proposed alternative?


Suppose (hypothetically, but surely common in real life): A number of undocumented immigrants arrive at the Mexico-US border and begin crossing over into American soil. Something has to be done. What should the protocol be?

1. Let them come in
2. Keep them in a temporary living facility until their asylum claims are processed and approved or denied
3. Turn them away, with force if need be


Those are the only three solutions that the situation presents, as a practical matter. Which should it be, or should it be another?
Got into a HUGE argument about this a couple weeks ago when I went to a family reunion (and you have to consider the irony of a bunch of Hispanics arguing FOR Trump and stopping the illegal threat when my family originally came to this country...illegally ). I don't think there are only 3 solutions to this problem and I think the one most likely to help in the long run is one you didn't mention. I tried to mention it in my own argument with the family, but was shouted down, so I'll take this opportunity to lay it out.

Basically, the root cause of WHY illegals are coming to the US is twofold, IMHO. First, the issue is lack of good, solid jobs in Mexico and several Central American country...with emphasis on both good and solid. In Mexico's case this was actually starting to get addressed with NAFTA, though sadly corruption is still a central issue. Even with that corruption, however, I think the stats were showing that illegal immigration was down from Obama's first term onward with a slow, steady decrease in the numbers. That said, we have a major issue in Central America, and frankly, WE are a major contributor to the cause (though not completely). A lot of the nations in Central America are on the edge right now, party because of economic conditions in the region, partly because of Venezuela's total melt down, with millions of Venezuelan's fleeing their country and causing a refugee issue in neighboring states, and party because of the perennial drug wars and warlords wreaking havoc in the region. The last one is squarely on us, and it's one of the primary reasons for the first one. Venezuela is on them with the US being, at best, peripherally responsible (and I think that's pretty minimal). So, a large part of the illegal issue stems directly from our own fuckups. If we could figure out how to curb the illegal drug trade and warlords it would help. Investment in the region following that would help even more...sort of China's Belt and Road(tm), but less evil.

The second issue that isn't as central or core is our idiotic visa laws. US agriculture especially relies on (illegal) workers paid low wages and under the table. Many of these specific workers don't actually WANT to be US citizens...they just want to work and send the money back to their families, usually migrant work. Yet we throw up all sorts of barriers to this for some stupid reason, even though our businesses just wink and nod and then do it anyway. There is a need on both ends for this yet, again, we throw up barriers. Instead of barriers do it openly and legally...grant migrant work visas (sort of like the old bracero program...we HAD this, but got rid of it due to freaking racism and bigotry ...).

Do those two things and you fix this problem...assuming it IS a major issue that needs to be fixed (I think both that it isn't, and was fixing itself until our idiot in charge started to fuck with NAFTA AND that we could take the above steps to fix it so that it would be even better...AND we'd freaking make money like good capitalists should).
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #28  
Old 11-08-2018, 08:02 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,996
It IS legal to show up. It just isn't legal to stay without documents and without permission.

Ten thousand (twenty thousand? thirty thousand? whatever) new desk workers at the border, processing applications. Everyone who shows up gets their application processed within three days guaranteed.

Not a wall, a row of desks. Bureaucracy, not hostility and suspicion. If you hate Mexicans, then YOU go back where YOU came from, and a deserving Mexican will take the place you squandered.

This is not so hard.
  #29  
Old 11-08-2018, 08:07 PM
nightshadea nightshadea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 3,705
this is easy …. ive always said all you need to do is put about 5 or so ellis island type of processing centers around the country where they can stay until you do a health and back ground check and if they pass give them an tax id number or "green card" and say well welcome to the usa ….. just like 70 percent of this countries great and grandparents did

Last edited by nightshadea; 11-08-2018 at 08:08 PM.
  #30  
Old 11-08-2018, 08:10 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
It IS legal to show up. It just isn't legal to stay without documents and without permission.

Ten thousand (twenty thousand? thirty thousand? whatever) new desk workers at the border, processing applications. Everyone who shows up gets their application processed within three days guaranteed.

Not a wall, a row of desks. Bureaucracy, not hostility and suspicion. If you hate Mexicans, then YOU go back where YOU came from, and a deserving Mexican will take the place you squandered.

This is not so hard.
Not everyone south of the border is Mexican and territorial integrity is not hate.
  #31  
Old 11-08-2018, 08:27 PM
Chingon Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 343
Do you imagine Guatemala is going start claiming parts of the US now?
__________________
Children need encouragement. If a kid gets an answer right, tell him it was a lucky guess. That way he develops a good, lucky feeling.
  #32  
Old 11-08-2018, 08:44 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Some of those are workable ideas. Iím not a fan on taxing remittances though. Iím also not a fan of a minimum wage waiver.
If you don't tax remittances, how are you going to pay for Trump's wall?

The more critical element is the minimum-wage waiver - without it, there will still be the employers who will offer sub-minimum jobs because Americans simply don't want to pay more for produce and simply don't want to work, even at minimum wage, to pick produce.

I don't think you can have a fully-legalized workforce and minimum-wages for all and low prices for food. Pick two.
  #33  
Old 11-08-2018, 08:57 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
Do you imagine Guatemala is going start claiming parts of the US now?
Ask Ukraine if they are in favor of another round of annexation due to demographics.
  #34  
Old 11-08-2018, 08:59 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,044
For those who think the wall is a good idea, let me pose a question. What do you suppose would be the effect if, instead of building a wall, one with both a large capital as well as recurring cost, instead we invested the money (something like $20-40 BILLION dollars) in Mexico and US/Mexican businesses (as well as countries in central and south America)? To put it in slightly different terms, why do you suppose China invests in building factories in many lower wage countries near them? I'm not talking here of just giving those countries money to do with as they please, but focused investment to augment what US companies are already doing. What do you suppose would be the effect on what was already a slowing illegal immigration problem if we build supply chains and manufacturing centers in those low wage countries? And what do you suppose that might do for our own export markets to open up those potential expanding markets, as people in the region get jobs and have money they can spend? What do you suppose that might mean wrt stability and corruption? Again, to put this in a slightly different context, what was the effect on opening up markets, building supply chains and manufacturing capabilities and increasing the wealth of the nation as a whole on, oh, say South Korea?

This could be a huge opportunity for the US to do what China is doing but hopefully, less evil (and less stupid). Not only do we augment our own supply chains and tap into cheaper labor that is right next door to us but we open up potential expanding markets for us...AND, just as an afterthought, we solve the 'problem' of illegal immigration, or mitigate it to the point where it's an extremely minor issue. Or, we could build a huge white elephant that costs us tons of capital and is a drain on our resources and really doesn't solve anything...just makes it more difficult for some illegals to enter the country in the way they were before, but doesn't really solve anything at a fundamental level. What sounds like a better long term solution to you supposed conservatives?
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #35  
Old 11-08-2018, 08:59 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
If you don't tax remittances, how are you going to pay for Trump's wall?

The more critical element is the minimum-wage waiver - without it, there will still be the employers who will offer sub-minimum jobs because Americans simply don't want to pay more for produce and simply don't want to work, even at minimum wage, to pick produce.

I don't think you can have a fully-legalized workforce and minimum-wages for all and low prices for food. Pick two.
The wall? Print more dollars.

Iím not a fan of minimum wage but Iím less of a fan of the farce we currently have. So if I have to pick 2 Iíll pick minimum wage and legality.
  #36  
Old 11-08-2018, 09:17 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama Llogophile View Post
And weren't we at something close to net-zero immigration (at least from Mexico?) under Obama?
We were actually at net-negative immigration from Mexico in the last years of the Obama administration..
  #37  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:21 PM
harmonicamoon harmonicamoon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Posts: 2,870
Many of you don't understand Latinos. They don't want to leave their country. They are proud people. But, they are hungry. For frijoles, employment, health care. For Latinos the family is paramount. They don't want to leave their families. But they are forced to.

Americans are different. They move to other cities, states all the time. Leaving their families and loved ones. Latinos are not like that. Sure there are some that move to tourist towns to make a better wage. But most Latinos I know have never been outside their pueblito. The family is paramount!

Since 1986 the US of A has spent over 350 BILLION dollars protecting the southern border. Has it accomplished anything?

This money would be better spent investing in factories in Central America. There would be no need for a wall. Is there a wall on the northern border? No, because Canadians are happy there. This solution is so logical.

Let the 40,000 border patrol agents and ICE people plant flowers.
  #38  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:35 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
We're talking about immigration. A nation's right to defend its territory is not relevant to the discussion.
This makes zero sense. Think about it. Emigrate from where? Immigrate into where? These places have borders that define them. Is this really not known to you?
  #39  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:37 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Basically #2, except asylum is not the only option. There should be a process by which they can become legal immigrants, without having to completely send them back where they came. Granted, asylum should get priority, but our founding principle as a nation is immigration, and we should not turn our back on that.

I'm not opposed to granting them temporary visas while they apply to be full immigrants. They're only a threat if we can't keep track of them.

But this is not open borders. Our states have open borders, where they can't even stop you going between the two. This is closed borders, but without treating immigrants as some sort of threat. They are, rather, an asset. People should only not be accepted for an actual cause.
At what point to you send the letters to all those waiting patiently going through the process legally? You know th e one that starts, "Dear Sucker..."
  #40  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:39 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
What actually kicks in are property rights, and a right to be protected. Both of these are rights of citizens and residents. That said, there is more than one way to enforce those rights, and it doesn't have to require having closed borders.
How about for those whose property is on the border?
  #41  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:40 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Send 'em on over. I need to hire more people in order to keep up with my demand.
Hire people here. If you don't have enough takers, raise the wage or sweeten the pot some other way.
  #42  
Old 11-08-2018, 11:31 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
This makes zero sense. Think about it. Emigrate from where? Immigrate into where? These places have borders that define them. Is this really not known to you?
Are immigrants aggressors looking to claim territory for their home country? Of course not. Therefore the immigration question is not relevant to questions of defense.
  #43  
Old 11-08-2018, 11:57 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
At what point to you send the letters to all those waiting patiently going through the process legally? You know th e one that starts, "Dear Sucker..."
Why would people choose to come to America illegally if there was a legal way to do so? Thrill seeking?

You want to put an end to illegal immigration? Offer legal immigration. People wouldn't be sneaking across the border if they could enter the country legally.

People who wanted to come here for work or freedom or better cellphone service could show up and be processed in at some modern day version of Ellis Island. Which would make it a lot easier to screen the crowd and separate out the terrorists and criminals.

And this would make it a lot easier for the Border Patrol to guard the border from the handful of terrorists and criminals still trying to sneak across. They would no longer have a crowd of peaceful immigrants to hide in or an infrastructure set up to smuggle people across the border. So we've have much tighter security to keep out genuine threats.

It would make ICE's job a lot easier for the same reason. They'd have a much easier time tracking down a few hundred genuine criminals living here illegally if those criminals didn't have a crowd of millions of peaceful immigrants to hide in. And the peaceful immigrants wouldn't be afraid to cooperate with law enforcement if they weren't scared of being deported so they'd be an asset in identifying the criminals living in their communities.

It's a solution to all of the problems except one: the bigots who think "those people" don't belong here and hate all immigration, legal or illegal.
  #44  
Old 11-09-2018, 01:06 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Why would people choose to come to America illegally if there was a legal way to do so? Thrill seeking?

You want to put an end to illegal immigration? Offer legal immigration. People wouldn't be sneaking across the border if they could enter the country legally.

People who wanted to come here for work or freedom or better cellphone service could show up and be processed in at some modern day version of Ellis Island. Which would make it a lot easier to screen the crowd and separate out the terrorists and criminals.

And this would make it a lot easier for the Border Patrol to guard the border from the handful of terrorists and criminals still trying to sneak across. They would no longer have a crowd of peaceful immigrants to hide in or an infrastructure set up to smuggle people across the border. So we've have much tighter security to keep out genuine threats.

It would make ICE's job a lot easier for the same reason. They'd have a much easier time tracking down a few hundred genuine criminals living here illegally if those criminals didn't have a crowd of millions of peaceful immigrants to hide in. And the peaceful immigrants wouldn't be afraid to cooperate with law enforcement if they weren't scared of being deported so they'd be an asset in identifying the criminals living in their communities.

It's a solution to all of the problems except one: the bigots who think "those people" don't belong here and hate all immigration, legal or illegal.
Who hates all immigration? That sounds like a strawman.
  #45  
Old 11-09-2018, 01:19 AM
TimeWinder TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Who hates all immigration? That sounds like a strawman.
OK, fair enough. Just brown immigration.
  #46  
Old 11-09-2018, 02:24 AM
Batano Batano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
OK, fair enough. Just brown immigration.
Try telling thatvto my friends in Kazakhstan and Georgia. Not only is it virtually impossible for them to get work visas, they routinely get turned down for tourist visas. It amazed me to learn that people can't come and visit America if they want.
  #47  
Old 11-09-2018, 08:36 AM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Who hates all immigration? That sounds like a strawman.
Because it is. Part of the left's tactics is to attempt to shut down debate of issues by casting the positions they disagree with as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. When they can't win a point on the meritsóPRESTOó"Racist!"
  #48  
Old 11-09-2018, 08:42 AM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Are immigrants aggressors looking to claim territory for their home country? Of course not. Therefore the immigration question is not relevant to questions of defense.
A country has a right to secure its border sand defend them from whatever they don't want coming in. If the people of a country decide they don't want X, the government has the responsibility to keep X out. You might not like them, but laws have been passed on how to handle people who come here without our permission. You can, of course, try to get those laws changed.
  #49  
Old 11-09-2018, 09:10 AM
PoppaSan's Avatar
PoppaSan PoppaSan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Up nort'
Posts: 2,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
...
You want to put an end to illegal immigration? Offer legal immigration. People wouldn't be sneaking across the border if they could enter the country legally.
...
You mean in excess of the roughly 750,000 naturalized citizens annually? Roughly 1- 1.2 million green cards annually are handed out.
__________________
Make each day the best day of your life.

Sometimes when I'm here I just need to step back and visualize my happy space.
  #50  
Old 11-09-2018, 09:16 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppaSan View Post
You mean in excess of the roughly 750,000 naturalized citizens annually? Roughly 1- 1.2 million green cards annually are handed out.
Is that a lot? I know it sounds like a lot but serious question - would something bad happen if those numbers were doubled or tripled and if so, what and how?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017