Step 1: Broad amnesty for currently-illegal immigrants
Step 2: Modification of laws so that future immigrants do not have to sneak into the U.S., i.e. rapid-check work visas and such.
I don’t know where foot-stomping enters into it. Sure, I’ll recognize the need for refinement, i.e. don’t just casually declare an amnesty for everyone sight-unseen, but grant it quickly to anyone who steps forward and meets reasonable criteria, i.e. employment history and/or school enrollment.
Or just recognition of reality.
Well, not this Congress. You might have to go through two or three new Congrii before getting one that can manage this.
Then don’t do amnesty alone, as I have suggested (indeed, opened with).
I propose a “snopes test”, where anyone who repeats an outrageous story about a president be compelled to check snopes.com first or… I dunno, some kind of internet punishment, I guess. A dick picture on their facebook page, or something.
NAFTA did it for money. Adam Smith and John Locke helped end our feudalistic attitudes toward capital, but we maintain our feudalistic attitudes toward humans.
It’s possible to focus on keeping out criminals without having the sort of insanely draconian attitudes toward otherwise law-abiding folks that we currently have.
No, but if you really really love your wild leaps, then for the purposes of this discussion I’ll say “sure” just to see your reaction. Sure, dismantle the borders, that’s EXACTLY what I’m proposing. In fact, I’m 100% absolutely no-joke utterly and eternally serious (well, for the purposes of this discussion) in proposing that all national borders everywhere be dissolved.
Your move, Sherlock.
It’s been more than a decade since last I touched a bit of code but I remain convinced one day, very soon, I shall become immensely rich by inventing a way to dope slap people through the Internet. Although I would settle for remotely installing a “random goatse” backdoor (heh).
Yup. The most basic Intro Econ class will make it clear that human capital is capital, but all of our policymaking is oriented toward other forms. If we can open up our economic borders with our neighbors, we can open our physical borders.
'Course, that begs the question that NAFTA was a net positive…
I just asked a question. Your post sure sounded like you wouldn’t have any limits. You said you’d make legal entry easier “so people wouldn’t have to sneak in.” That doesn’t seem to leave much room for barring entry. Get over yourself.
Now, I’ll try one more time - what kind of measures, if any, would you propose that would result in people who are NOT authorized to enter the country not being able to sneak in?
Good. You’re making a ridiculous thing out of a legitimate question and you aren’t willing to try to understand it. Let’s end this. It’s off topic anyway.
LHOD used NAFTA as an example. Implicit in that example was the assumption that NAFTA was a positive thing. That appears to be a begged question. Please advise.
