That is actually half credit. All persons in the United States have the freedom to travel. There are restricted areas where people cannot travel. Such as Area 51, or National Parks that have pay areas. Prisons, government buildings, etc. All persons have the freedom to travel unimpeded by the states until stopped in accordance with the law. The presumption is that people are obeying the law.
And the Federal Government’s Constitution guarantees that right to travel. And it allows Congress to set the laws on immigrants to the exclusion of the states if Congress wants to.
Except it’s not that black and white. Returning back to the point re: education, and more specifically the decision of Plyler v Doe. I guess Epstein’s hand was blocking your view of the chalkboard during that lesson.
Plyler v Doe is relevant but only for K-12 students while they are attending public school. The idea is that children shouldn’t be denied an education for something that their parents did while the courts sort out what to do with all of them. The whole family may eventually be deported. It doesn’t give any special rights to illegal aliens overall regardless of age. It just works out the contradictory laws that say that illegal aliens can be held legally accountable and eventually deported but minor children can’t be deprived of compulsory education while that is being worked out.
I didn’t want to bring politics into this but Obama is surprisingly big on deporting illegal immigrants and I think that is a good thing. The number of deportations has skyrocketed under his administration (over 400,000 last year alone although that is still just a drop in the bucket overall). I am not sure why that is but unqualified illegal alien supporters don’t have many allies at the highest levels of government.
I am still interested in hearing what people who appear to be pro-illegal immigrant actually think should be done about this problem at a detailed level. You mostly just hear the hippie/anarchist mumbling that sounds to me like ‘Man, most of them aren’t hurting much so just leave them alone’. This isn’t the 1960’s anymore and I don’t think you can run a country that way. That is de facto open borders with no controls.
A more honest response would call for officially open borders. That is philosophically defendable from a few different political viewpoints. I don’t think it is a good idea because a defining trait of any sovereign is the right to control its own borders but maybe an extreme libertarian/progressive/anarchist can convince me otherwise.
Let’s hear the ultimate goal here with no bullshit. I heard amnesty mentioned. Does that mean just forgive everyone who came here illegally and give them a path to citizenship or maybe just give them all citizenship extremely quickly with just some token steps? That is a very serious question by the way and I expect an answer.
Once you deal with ones that are already here, what do you do with the next wave that comes. Successive waves of amnesty at irregular intervals aren’t the best way to handle that in my opinion but maybe you have another idea.
Don’t bullshit us and don’t hold back. This isn’t a freshmen year college dorm room pot party with fuzzy ideas and no solutions. Some of you are strong in your opinions so you must know more that I do. What is it and what is the plan 2,5, 10, 20 and 100 years in the future in detail?
From previous threads on the subject, I gather the consensus is we should start prosecuting the employers of undocumented workers. IMHO, though, things are more or less okay as they are.
Open borders is control of the borders, assuming that they are open because you want them that way.
As long as they aren’t dangerous* criminals, let people enter or leave as they want.
That would be fine with me. Just make sure they aren’t wanted for murder, rape, etc.
Just let them become citizens.
*As in, murderers, rapists, thieves, etc; people who prey on others. As opposed to illegally crossing borders, or being guilty of homosexuality someplace that’s illegal.
Thanks for the responses so far especially Der Trihs. I believe it is much more productive and honest to talk about concrete plans and ultimate goals rather than the implied meaning of specific words even if I don’t agree with the ideas. I encourage everyone else to say what you really believe and what your ultimate plans would be on this issue in detail like Der Trihs just did.
That is the problem with this type of argument in general. I am all for prosecuting the employers of illegal aliens too. In the left corner, we have certain businesses that depend on them and I know them personally. In the right corner, we have the bleeding hearts that can’t understand the idea of sovereign nations and think that the U.S. should adopt the entire world at anyone else’s discretion even though their other ideas about military intervention and other types of intervention contradict that. It is an intellectual and philosophical cluster-fuck and I don’t have a lot of intellectual respect for most of the posters in this thread because they refuse to be honest about what they really want and believe. I could be proven wrong at any time on that and would welcome it.
You have to disassociate yourself from this problem and figure out what you personally would actually DO about it if you had full control. Only people that would respond in that way should be taken seriously. Everyone else is just fighting for recreational purposes.
A few centuries ago, a defining trait of any sovereign was the right to control the flow of capital across its borders. Because it makes people rich, we’ve largely done away with limits on the flow of goods and capital. But we’ve inexplicably kept the limits on the flow of people.
In a few centuries, our laws against people crossing borders will be seen as antiquated and wrong-headed, in the same way we see medieval protectionist laws today.
Are you kidding? The subject is illegal aliens, not citizens born here. Now children born elsewhere, and anchor babies are a different matter - there is this, or this for starters. Shoot, if you just lived in an area with a decent illegal population, you would be able to see this first hand. The adults can’t speak English, so the first opportunity their kids get to learn it is in school.
:rolleyes: The subject isn’t “the poor”, its the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of people here that take a lot out of the system and don’t pay much if anything back. That “here” is the state of California, where I pay unreal taxes to support all of them and it isn’t solving anything. Why don’t you get that? It’s the reality of economics - if you keep taking money to hand it to people who don’t pay into the system, the money is going to run out.
And there always will be, it’s the nature of man. What you aren’t seeing is those “abused, exploited underclass” people have it much better here than they do in Mexico. That’s why they are here and it’s why they chose to come. They aren’t slaves, they made the choice because it’s a vast improvement in their lives.
I’m not. My neighbors aren’t. Who all is exploiting them? And how? You keep throwing that word around - define it.
Oh sure - we treat white poor people so much better…
The problem with Der Trihs’s plan is he made no comments on how we are going to deal with a huge flood of flat poor, uneducated people, who tend to have large families and who do not speak English. That is the whole problem with people who think we should have an open border with Mexico - they just don’t get how damaging that would be, most likely to the point that S Cal would end up looking exactly like Mexico does now.
The better plan would be to get tough on illegals and their anchor babies so we can use the money we spend supporting them on doing something about the poverty and filth in Mexico. Work on changing their belief they must have a pile of children, beginning at a young age. Get them to quit giving most of the money to the church. Educate them so they can get a job and create jobs, do something about their corrupt government and police.
Der Trihs - have you even been to Mexico?
That was a bizarre article. He deplores abortion and infanticide by the mothers, and then goes on to suggest the babies be fatten and slaughtered for food?
Such a claim would certainly seem to most people to include either children born in the US to illegal immigrants or who came to the US at a very young age.
I can assure you from personal experience that young children learn languages exceptionally quickly.
The idea that someone who came over to the US when they were say 4 or 5 having a problem speaking English when they are 15 or 16 is asinine.
For the record, I came to the US when I was a young child.
Are you really so embarrassingly ignorant of Western history that you didn’t recognize one of the West’s most famous example of satire or were you just playing along?
If the first is true then perhaps it’s the native-born Americans we should worry about educating.