We don’t dump anything on you. And whether you like it or not, your country benefits greatly from the work performed by us in your country. The money earned is ours to do whatever we wish. Just like yours.
I get the need for border security, but tell me again why do we want to get rid of all the unauthorized immigrants?
The same reason we want to get rid of anything that violates rule of law. We want legal immigrants, and our immigration policy should be in the best interests of the United States. If importing a ton of cheap labor is important to us, we should have a policy that allows us to do so legally. We do not, because the people don’t want that and last I checked, we lived in a democratic republic. So instead, our leaders just lie.
Any “thing”? I’d remind you that these are people, not things. Your choice of wording suggests there is a reason you seem much more excited about getting rid of certain people than reforming immigration policy.
At any rate, immigration violations are civil offenses, not criminal. We don’t get rid of everybody who commits a civil offense. We either demand that they come into compliance, or require that they pay a fine or damages. However I do agree if an unauthorized immigrant is convicted of a crime, they should be immediately unceremoniously dumped over the wall.
Anyway, laws exist to prevent harm to individuals and society. When Georgia and Mississippi passed harsh immigration laws a couple of years ago, crops rotted in the field because there was nobody to pick them. That’s a great illustration of why prioritizing deportation over reform is a colossally stupid idea.
Logic fail. If the labor were legal, then it wouldn’t be quite so cheap. What “the people” have collectively expressed is a desire for a permanent slave class who will work for meager wages and not make much noise about it. Maybe the leaders are lying, but the people are lying just as much.
CAn we at least agree that such a state of affairs is unacceptable?
There are lots of other laws that aren’t completely enforced. For instance, speed limits. The generally weak enforcement of sales limits doesn’t mean that there is no benefit to having speed limits. Might it be better to have higher limits that are aggressively enforced? Maybe. It maybe it is cheaper to administer what we have and it works well enough.
Or to take an example where different segments of society actively disagree, consider the drug laws. It is a serious felony under federal law to smoke pot. Yet many states have explicitly legalized it for medical purposes and some have even legalized it for recreational purposes (despite lacking the authority to contravene federal law).
I think immigration is somewhere between those two. Partly, we do want some limits on immigration, but it may be more expedient to recognize there will be some “leakage” and just live with that than to try to determine the very best level of foreign workforce and strictly enforced that. And partly, different segments of (voting, legal) society have very different ideas as to what level of immigration is desirable.
I would like to see easier immigration for farm workers. In part because while farm labor is a small part of what the consumer pays, it’s a very large fraction if what the farmer pays. And i think if we strictly enforced immigration laws we would end up importing our high-labor crops from Mexico, China, and elsewhere, rather than pay more to grow them here. And i think there are various advantages to a nation to produce a lot of its food domestically. Some of those advantages are that we have better control of domestic work conditions, even of illegals, than we do of work conditions overseas.
Other advantages of domestically produced for include that “Organic” is more likely to mean something, too. As are concepts like “milk” and “apple”, judging by news items I’ve read about Chinese apple juice (imported to the US, admittedly harmless) and milk (not imported to the US, and dangerous to babies). And, of course, if we go to war, it’s good to have access to your food.
So no. I can agree that we could have a better balance of laws and enforcement, but i don’t think what we have is unacceptable.
What I cannot accept that we have a permanent *de facto * slave class squeezed between populist demands for deportation and the lack of an accessible path to legal status. Neither of those concerns is solved by tossing them all out, so I think we have little if any common ground to agree on.
So, you find no fault with the party controlling Congress for refusing to revise a very bad law, but are happy to fault the party in the White House for not pursuing a stricter Know-Nothing policy which would foment more xenophobia, plunge the country into recession, and incidentally increase GOP chances in coming elections. :rolleyes:
One thing we can all be certain of: If the parties’ positions were reversed, so would yours. 
I’m also intrigued by time travel paradoxes. BTW, do you also blame Obama for the 2001 attacks?
What we have is widespread disrespect for the law. Wouldn’t it just be easier to have a liberal immigration policy? While of course first convincing American voters that this is the direction we should go in?
The common ground should be that employers can hire as many foreign workers as they need when they face a genuine labor shortage.
Oh wait, that’s what current law says. Apparently it’s too oppressive to expect companies to go through the system.
Honestly, I’d rather work on fixing the drug laws, first. They are broken in much more damaging ways than the immigration laws. They truly destroy lives.
While i don’t like having a regulatory underclass of underpaid workers, they are not actually slaves (except in rare cases). Most are free to leave their employment if they don’t find it worthwhile. And while their presence no-doubt decreases the wages in some unpleasant jobs, i believe that some of those jobs (like agriculture) would move out of the US if the wage were significantly improved, and thus their overall impact on US workers wage potential is minimal.
As for the OP…
Yes, the idea wold help. But really, we just need to enforce the laws on the books. Focus on the employers. Aggressively. If they knowingly are breaking the law, fine the hell out of them and have them do the perp-walk. When we come across someone who is supposed to be deported, freakin’ deport them. But we won’t be doing those things until we have the will to do them. Not a huge fan of Trump, but I do believe that he has the genuine desire to stop illegal immigration and send those here back to where they came from. And that “will” matters a lot.
I wonder if California’s very lax attitude towards illegal employment is going to affect the feasibility of their new $15/hour minimum wage? What happens if employers who currently obey the law decide that if employee eligibility laws won’t be enforced, but minimum wage laws for legal employees will be, just switch to illegal workers and pay them $5/hr?
Because they would have already done that to avoid the $10.00 minimum wage.
The incentives are obviously much greater the higher the minimum wage goes.
This would indeed be a mighty perverse incentive.
Okay, so let’s take stock of where you are. You seem to understand that employers are the ones creating incentives for illegal immigration. You probably already know that this is a criminal violation, in fact a felony in some circumstances.
Yet in the OP, your grand dragnet idea ends not with the jailing of actual felons reaping lucrative rewards for breaking the law, but rather the punishment of a bunch of civil offenders making poverty wages.
For someone with such a self-professed passion for the rule of law, your priorities seem quite backwards.
Backwards? 
Don’t forget that adaher identifies as a Republican in this post-rational America. During the mortgage crisis of 2008, Republicans(*) gleefully stripped duped Americans of their homes without jailing more than a handful of fraudster Wall St. felons, with the houses then scooped up by rich speculators who have profited hugely. Transferring wealth and income from the poor to the rich is the very essence, the sine qua non, of today’s Republicanism.
-
- Yes, yes. as everybody knows (except adaher with his simplistic “Me Tarzan You Jane, Me Republican You Democrat” approach to politics) the GOP was assisted by the Democrats in this malfeasance. The difference is that the Democratic Party is only about 35% pro-Wall St. with room for pro-Union and pro-people agenda. The Republican Party is bought and paid for 99% by rich vested interests, with the other 1% of the agenda devoted to stirring racism, homophobia, and other hatreds.
The solution provided by the OP does just one thing. It helps identify illegals. It does nothing to help remove them.
The biggest blck to depirtation of illegals is lack of documentation. The illegals deliberately do not cooperate or give false information. So foreign govts refuse to take back the illegals. Some illegals point blank refuse to state where they came from.
As for lack of jobs persuading illegals to leave…pfffft…state hand outs are the problem