So you’re willing to sacrifice the principal of proportionality in the interest of effectiveness: The effectiveness of a protectionist labor policy which has been not only ineffective and morally offensive to a significant number of Americans, but which has taken what once were considered inoffensive migrant workers & made them, in some cases, illicitly trafficked slave labor. I can’t emphasize this enough. The rules against foreigners working in this country are recent, widely disliked, never really worked, & made things worse for both migrants & native workers.
That, or you really don’t understand the difference between migration looking for work & military invasion, in which case you are either too stupid or too ignorant to vote on anything more important than student council.
So, people can be denied citizenship because they’re ethnically Chinese? Yeah, that’s not racist at all. :rolleyes:
As someone of German descent, I wonder what you would have done to me in the 1910’s or 1940’s. Not that I would have been a member of the Bund, but if you think migrant workers are invaders, I wonder what you’d do to people with ties to foreign countries in time of war. Something tells me I’d have to be emphasizing my Scots-Irish side around you, or get some unwanted dental work at the least.
The difference, apparently, is that we want to relegalize migrant labor (which the present laws never really stopped) & you, apparently, thinking job seeking is a capital offence if it takes you across a border.
Yep, I never thought I’d say this, Weirddave, but you might be a Nazi.
You fucking fuck. You don’t know a thing about Germany, & … & … You know what Dave, never mind. You’re not a Nazi. You make Nazis look like paragons of nobility. At least they believed in the lives of their own countrymen. You’re lower than a Nazi. I dunno, man, that’s–would Pol Pot say that? Who says that?
Let me ask you a few reasonable questions then, since you feel so strongly.
What is the significance of a border? Are countries allowed to maintain sovereignty over their own territory? What steps are they allowed to take to protect their own territory? Why do you think a country is obligated to take anyone and everyone that wants in by whatever means possible?
Although I’m torn on the illegal alien issue, there are reasonable answers to your questions that don’t lead to the conclusion that they should all be jailed.
The significance of a border is to delineate between where governments have jurisdiction - what set of laws apply to this land.
Countries are allowed to maintain sovereignty.
Countries are allowed to take whatever defense steps necessary, within international rules of war, when aliens cross the border with the intent of overthrowing/replacing that territory’s government, or attacking its citizens, or taking part or all of the territory as their own. That doesn’t mean they have the right to do whatever they want with any non-citizen who comes in illegally.
foolsguinea never said a country is obligated to take anyone and everyone that wants in (and I’m not sure what the clause “by any means possible” means in the question). Therefore the question ‘why do you feel that way?’ is not reasonable.
“By any means possible” refers to those who came legally and are welcomed and those who came illegally and are not. It’s clear that people have a problem with the “shoot 'em all” approach (as they should), it’s clear that people have a problem with the “wall” approach, and it’s clear that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. So, how do we address it? We can’t keep them out by force, we can’t barricade them out, and since we have laws against illegal immigratiuon we clearly can’t allow them to stay or give everybody amnesty, because that would have the net effect of demonstrating that we can’t control our borders, which goes against the sovereignty principle.
So, we have ourselves quite a quandary. Dave has chosen one extreme, as he is wont to do, and clearly the answer lies somewhere between the two extremes, but I want to know what foolsguinea thinks we should do as an alternative.
Agh, there are so many threads on this topic. What I think I said elsewhere is that we should abandon quotas, & let any Mexican in that passes a quick screening/qualification process. Screen out the felons & those with certain infectious diseases, mostly.
It’s not like barriers stop 'em. The desert is a barrier already. If we didn’t make it so hard to get in legally, the coyotes wouldn’t be making the dough they are.
Further, I think the US would have to sink a huge chunk of its GDP into developing Mexico to stop money-seeking migration anytime soon. Many of our own private employers, states, & localities simply don’t accept the legitimacy of laws prohibiting foreign workers. The law is flouted because it is seen as a bad law–both bigoted and opposed to economic growth.
Imagine that someone had, twenty years ago, decided that only 10% of the population could legally own a gun; but–25% of the population already did, & that number increased to 34% over the ensuing 20 years. There would be all these gun-control types saying, “There are too many illegal gun owners!!![sub]fnord[/sub]” But in point of fact, it would be a stupid law. I’m for gun licensing. I’m not for saying only one household in 10 can own guns, that’s just daft.
Same thing applies here. Screen 'em, maybe track 'em in case there’s a call for extradition, encourage those who aren’t fugitives to stay above ground. The system we have now makes those just seeking work into lawbreakers & fugitives, giving real criminals a large population of the extralegal into which they can blend in. Fortunately, there hasn’t been a disproportionately huge problem with Mexican crime. But we don’t need to taunt fate, particularly not by treating poor working-class schmoes like criminals over–what, birthplace?
There’s so much freaking fnording over this issue it’s ridiculous. There has been a nativist movement in this country for years, & they are typically appeased with dribs & drabs, but largely ignored. I think Congress has latched onto this issue to distract from the corruption issue, which demands hard looks at Congressmen themselves.