My personal feeling is that when people are born, they never signed on to the laws of any person or government. Why should they be necessarily subject to the laws of any of them just because they happened to be born in a particular place? Why shouldn’t they have the right to live anywhere they might want, as a citizen of the world? Obviously, this view would cause a lot of problems, but still I can’t help but feel this way. The concept of a “country” seems somewhat like an outdated construct to me.
Really? You really think that calling someone a name = enforcing immigration law?
Mu understanding is that non-Mexican nationals can not individually buy property within a certain distance from the coast for their own homes. There are various shady schemes to get around this by using a national, but it is technically illegal. On the other hand, foreign companies can buy coastal properties to develop commercially.
Cite.
Also, I was under the impression that Salvadorians, Guatamelans, and others are crossing illegally into Mexico through the southern border. If there were no restrictions on immigration I don’t know why they would do it illegally.
Wiki:
If I am wrong on these points I’d like to know, especially since I really like Mexico and have considered living there.
No asshole, I think that equating calling someone “illegal” to calling them a “nigger” is saying that those using the term “illegal” are racists.
Funny that’s not even remotely close to what you said.
And while those who call people illegals may not necessarily be racists (though I have no problem saying the vast majority of them probably are), they’re doing the same thing that the people who use the other term are doing: they’re belittling, dismissing, and dehumanizing with language. Is that really so complex and mystical to you that you have to simplify it down into something it’s not in order to argue with it?
But by equating someone who uses the term “illegal” with “nigger” you are not “belittling, dismissing, and dehumanizing with language”.
In an attempt to get this thread back on track.
Why do those suppport ILLEGAL immigration, why are you using the fallacy of the excluded middle. Most of you act like there are two alternatives: not coming to the US or immigrating illegally. What about H-2A work visas?
Oh, and if borders mean nothing to you illegal immigrant supporters, I’ll be moving in with you after the first of the year if I can’t find a house. Leave lots of Diet Dr. Pepper in the refrigerator please. Hey, Diet Dr. Pepper is cheaper than minimum wage isn’t it?
I am pretty damn sure the “costs” of having illegals here in the USA costs me more than the 2.25 a month I save on lettuce.
Heck.
I’d pay that much every month just to never have to press 1 for English ever again!
So someone born to someone who has no tax liability shouldn’t have citizenship? Don’t be foolish. No one paid for your citizenship, you had it as a matter of where your mother’s uterus was when you dwelt in it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Which doesn’t justify the shorthanding of illegal. Illegal is not a noun.
And cease, immediately, to speak on the behalf of black people. You don’t have the right.
You tell em illegal! 
Would border challenged be more PC correct?
I just don’t buy the argument that open borders mean an entire country would just up and move somewhere else.
The only thing between New Zealanders and a new life in Australia is a $120 plane flight, and whilst there are a lot of NZers moving to Australia, it’s not like the entire country has shifted here.
Similarly, even in the EU, the entire population of Poland hasn’t (yet) moved elsewhere.
So, one would think that opening the borders between the US and Mexico would initally cause a rush of immigrants, but eventually things would settle down and you’d have a happy equilibrium that might improve the lot of both countries- the US gets a hardworking blue collar workforce, and the people still in Mexico get money from their families legally working in the US.
See that’s the thing. I understand why immigration needs to be controlled on some level, but that doesn’t mean workers without immigration status are bad people. They’re just average Joes like you and me trying to make it in a harsh world.
As I acknowledged. I feel it’s fine to take the liberty, as it still remains clear who we are talking about. Here are a few examples:
• One of the reasons hospitals are having a hard time is that the illegals use the emergency rooms as clinics, and pay nothing.
• One of the problems with the illegals sneaking in over the border is that we can’t test them for infectious diseases.
• Because illegals are willing to work for less money, they take jobs away from Americans, particularly those in the African-American communities.
• The more we crack down on employers, the more likely that illegals will go back to their home countries.
• Granting amnesty to illegals is a slap in the face of every would-be immigrant who is waiting in line, respecting our laws, and playing by the rules.
Were you confused about who is being referred to by “illegals” in any of those examples? If so, what was your interpretation?
That’s why I didn’t do it. That’s why I said, well, here it is again, with bolding, just to make it easy:
See what I did there? First I said that “I wonder” what black people would think. Then I offered what they might think. Then, I offered what I think. So, nowhere did I claim to know what black people think, or claim what they do or would think.
I hope that annotation helps your reading comprehension.
Well, we agree on that. The illegals I have met have been very polite and very hard workers. They seem to be good family people, too. But I don’t think that gives anyone license to ignore our laws.
This.
I believe in a right to migrate & a right to work, unless you can show a way in which that migration or that work does harm.
The burden of proof shouldn’t be on the open-borders side. Why is this particular line in the dust uncrossable without permission, while a man can move from South Florida to the Oregon coast without restriction?
If you want to keep everyone in local districts, without free internal migration, & have some good reason economic, cultural, or environmental–then let’s hear it. But if you think it’s OK to let Okies move to California, then letting a Guatemalan take a job in Montana doesn’t seem wrong either.
To get things back on track:
I don’t think (although I really only speak for myself) that anyone is arguing for the practicallity of totally open borders. What the citizenship argument is aimed to do is to shoot down the premise that you can make an argument about how to treat undocumented immigrants based on a sense of self-entitlement.
“They’re taking our jobs” - irrelevant (not to mention not true). Since when did you have a right to a job that they don’t share.
“They’re placing demand on services” - just like any working population, they pay tax and use services. Where’s the wrong?
Yes, an argument can be made for border/immigration control. It has to start with reasonable objectives, and finish with humane treatment of individuals. Unless you are an island state or lock down the border, people will cross it with economic motives. No one in this threat has given any reason but self-entitlement for denying them humane treatment, including protection of labor law.
It would appear to me that the onus on you is prove that our current legal immigration process does not have reasonable objectives and that legal immigrants are not treated humanely and protected by labor law.
The US has a system for legal immigration that prioritizes those with needed skills and family members of current residents. Both of those are reasonable objectives. To the degree that illegal immigrants arrive in large numbers, they place pressure on our policies to limit legal immigration. As for being treated humanely, immigrants who are legally permitted to work are covered by all the same labor laws as citizens. The same applies to all of our laws and constitutional rights, with the exception that non-citizens can be repatriated if they break our laws.
Most other countries treat immigrants far shabbily than the United States. Children born here are automatically US citizens. That is not true in many other countries. Some countries have generations of people who have lived there without the ability to become citizens.