Driver8, semantics might be getting in the way, as I see a policy that is both principled (applied equally across the board) and pragmatic (useful). After the borders are locked down we should be able to open them as we deem helpful, inviting in a hundred, a thousand, or a million.
And we should be able to process people for temporary or permanent residency quickly and efficiently. Snakescatlady touched on this earlier and she is right. This side of the equation also needs to be fixed.
How do you figure that there are only a few million people here legally? Besides native Americans who entered the country when there were no formal procedures (and throw in the other pre-US imigrants for the same reason), over 100 million of us are decendants of people who came through Ellis Island - which was the legal way to enter the country while it operated. Who exactly are you implying are here illegally besides those who have not followed the legal procedures at the time of their imigration?
(You’d think after what happened a few posts ago I’d have learned not to answer questions for other people, but noooooo. :))
My guess is that tom meant to imply that the European settlers’ violations of land treaties with the Indians made our assumed jurisdiction over the continent illegitimate. And therefore our setting up an immigration bureaucracy and formally allowing certain people to enter didn’t make them genuinely legal immigrants.
Just as we wouldn’t consider it legitimate if a group of illegal migrants from Mexico set up an office near the Southwestern border and awarded its own Official Aztlan Naturalization Certificates to other illegal immigrants.
That’s right. A seriously ill baby shows up at a hospital, and you want the doctors to turn it away to die in the street. I don’t have the words for the disgust I have at this attitude.
I live in California, and the reason I support licenses for illegals is purely selfish. They drive anyway. If they get into an accident, they won’t have insurance, and the uninsured motorists insurance covers it. This drives up my insurance. Why not let them pay some of their way, since they are here anyway? The point about drivers training is good also.
As mentioned, the real solution would be to crack down on the people hiring them. Not likely, as these companies can pay big bucks to the politicians who will rant on about the issue and never do anything about it. All the people who happily buy their slave made clothing will complain also, and the rich people who hire illegal maids and gardeners.
By the way, my daughter rode at a barn where all the grooms are legal, with green cards either obtained or in progress. I guess I pay more for this, but its worth it. I’m sure I benefit from illegals in the restaurants I go to, but never knowingly.
But I suppose it is always easier to go after the poor and helpless instead of the rich and powerful.
There’s always the compassion argument for some “rights.” Not treating people medically, deporting parents of legal US born children. etc. is just mean.
Cite? While I have heard of health care, education, housing promises, they tend to be made by the companies that recruit the workers in (mainly) Mexico, making them promises that only the government (local and federal) can fulfill.
Does being able to not be turned away from the emergency room count as ‘free health care’?
Reposted from a comment I made in a friend’s journal about this very topic…
Disclaimers:
Even though illegals are probably putting in a lot more than they’re getting out, given the horrible pay around here, welfare and artificially high minimum wages notwithstanding, it’s still just a bit annoying that they also have a claim to some of the same rights and priveleges as the rest of us who got here through playing by the rules.
But if one of the downsides of being a good nation is to be a sap on occasion, then I say sap away. But it’d really be better to teach someone to be (more) self-sufficient (in a legal manner) than to pay them some pittance every month to not rob people.
(On a lighter note, back in the 70’s after Carter ended normal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, there was a spate of Taiwanese patriotism where even the legal immigrants were flamed for outsourcing their talent.)
Deny them Cabinet posts!
I’ve read that if you want to play a nasty prank on a restaurant owner and/or customers in the Southwest, you should just walk into the kitchen and shout La Migra! There’ll be nobody left to cook or serve lunch.
Why, exactly, is it a problem, major or minor? Please be specific.
Good start. Now put some specifics on it. Are you advocating, specifically, amending the 14th Amendment to deny citizenship to persons born on U.S. soil to noncitizen parents? Because it would take no less than that. The proposed “Citizenship Reform Act” to which you linked, if enacted, would be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment in its present form (which the courts have repeatedly interpreted to mean that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen regardless of parentage). If so, please make a case that such an amendment (1) is necessary and (2) could be ratified by the usual process.
I don’t have a problem with all of those people being eligible to immigrate here (maybe there are some more caveats I’m not thinking of at the moment), but I think we need to control how many come in at one time. A society can only absorb so many people at once. If we literally allowed everyone in the world who wanted to come here and didn’t have a police record, it would be a nightmare. We wouldn’t have the infrastructure for that many people – the housing, the schools, the jobs. It would affect our economy, especially if all of those people were eligible for welfare benefits. So while I do think we need to simplify and expand legal immigration, we need to have some control over the numbers.
Rodgers01, I’m thinking like an economist, in that in the long term, things will even out. And like most economists’ thinking, it downplays the hardships while equilibrium is reached.
Places losing significant populations will really have to shape up, more than they are currently inclined to, in order to remain viable as a country. New opportunities will arise in these countries; standards of living will rise as human resources become scarcer.
The USA might reach a saturation point, true, and it might even become over-satured for a while as word filters back to the emigrating countries that opportunity has dried up. I believe, over time, this would be self-correcting, and would benefit the countries on both sides of the equation.
I’ll admit that mine is a globalist view. I’d like to see every country open their borders to emigration / immigration. Let people go where they want and let them try to make their livelihood where they believe their chances are best. I’ll also admit that neither the US nor the rest of the first world could sell this to their populations. It’s pie-in-the-sky thinking.
Do we have hard evidence that illegal aliens with driver’s licenses are more likely to be insured than those without?
One solution might be to eliminate the minimum wage. You save on enforcement costs, as well as removing an incentive to sneak into the country.
Regards,
Shodan
To the contrary, eliminating the minimum wage would cause illegal immigration to skyrocket, as every household could afford a domestic servant or two. No doubt that there is an unlimited supply of Mexicans willing to work for pennies per hour.
I believe immigration should be largely unrestricted (but not unregulated). Economies benefit from the free movement of information, goods and labor. Restricting immigration creates and maintains distortions in labor practices and wages.
For example, nations with labor shortages will have inflated wages which make it difficult for labor-intensive industries to remain globally competitive. The nations with labor surpluses will have deflated wages, allowing the industries to be competitive, but leaving the workers in poverty. Labor movement will relieve these imbalances.
Nations which do not allow free movement of labor (both in and out) (or information or goods) will eventually be less competitive and have a lower standard of living then nations fully participating in the global economy.
There are various checks for insurance upon registration of cars. It is hard to give a cite since they do not have licenses now. But why wouldn’t they get insurance, at least at the same rate as others in their economic class?
If you make it low enough workers here would try to sneak into Mexico, right? Do you want to see a bidding down war? What exactly do you have against unskilled American workers? Is it really advantageous for many of these people to get supported by our taxes for food stamps?
If you agree that each worker deserves a wage that he or she can actually live on (which I doubt that you do) then I’d rather have businesses rather than taxpayers pay it.
Why don’t we just crack down on the people hiring illegal immigrants, which will only target those who are breaking the law, instead of hurting all lower-income folks? But then, this would hurt corporate America’s supply of cheap near-slave labor, which is why it’s never proposed by our lawmakers.
The sad truth is that unless and until our politicians get off the corporate teat, illegal immigration is here to stay. We’re close to an ideal situation for the haves as it is: easy entry for illegal immigrants to provide cheap labor, but without any inconvenient benefits or rights to those selfsame immigrants. When your employees get uppity, just threaten to sic INS on 'em…
The sad truth is that unless and until the American public stops accepting and reelecting politicians sucking on the corporate teat, immigration and many other corporate-friendly policies are here to stay.
The Iriquois had a far more major problem with it. They actually advocated massacring aliens. You’re just a bleeding heart!
So that whole Ellis Island thing was illegal?
Lovely little smear, Poly.