Mexico has 100 million people. Mexico City has almost 9 million people; 22 million in the greater metropolitan area.
I’m sorry, but that simply is not correct. No matter how steadfastly you might believe it, or want to believe it, simply believing it does not make it so.
This question is getting a lot more debate than it really should. (Maybe that’s why it’s in Great Debates!).
Here is the bottom line. It is not “illegal” to be in the United States without proper immigration documentation. Period. It’s that simple. There is no law against it. The means used to enter might or might not have violated a law but once here, no law is being broken to remain. Hereis a relevant quote from a decision of the Kansas Court of Appeals, made during a case this month, which echoes the decisions many other courts have held over many years:
The reporter I heard on TV said Mexico city, apparently he was wrong, but even 22 million is an awful lot of people for one city to sustain!
If it is legal for any one to come to the USA without proper papers then why all the border guards etc.? Just let them come, and worry about the need to support them later! Why spend money on fences etc.? Why make it hard for them to get in and have so many die in the attempt to get here?
It’s not possible. There are too many of them here, and they play too large a role in our economy to just “send them back”. (And to expand on what Hyperelastic said, it’s between 8 million to 20 million. 12-15 million seems the most likely figure) Among other problems, we don’t have the capacity to deport 12-15 million people. We don’t have the infastructure or money for it. And if we did, what do you think would happen to the economy?
What if your aunt had had testicles? Would she be your uncle? Can you provide a cite for any speeding law that has a “really good reason” exception?
You are completely missing the point. I’ll be generous and assume it is on purpose. The point is, if a person violates a law, he has committed an illegal act, whether or not he is ever accused, arrested, prosecuted, or punished. Is that really so hard to understand?
No, but I can point to the immigration laws of the U.S. which have a hell of a lot of “really good reason” exceptions. It is no where NEAR as simple as you think it is.
And if a person does not violate the law, he has not committed an illegal act, right? The INA (Immigration and Naturalization Act) is, in fact, very hard to understand, and there’s nothing in it that makes undocumented presence a crime.
Even straight up border jumpers may be engaged in a legal act under the circumstances. Is THAT so hard to understand?
Question: if an individual enters the U.S. on a tourist visa, violates it by living and working for 10 continues years in the U.S. undocumented, then marries a U.S. citizen and adjusts their status by marriage to that of a Legal Permanent Resident (green card) is that person, at the end of that process, a legal immigrant? Please, for the rest of the class, tell us how you would know for a fact whether that person was legal or illegally present, based only on the fact “she overstayed her visa.” (Which is NOT a crime. Only a civil infraction)
Uh, yeah.
What’s a border jumper?
I wouldn’t. Can you point to anywhere I said that I could?
Two types of people are undocumented. People who entered with some kind of a visa that was valid at the time, and overstayed their visa. Also called “visa violators.”
On the other hand, you have people who have never been admitted to the U.S. in any status. They have “jumped” the border.
Yes.
I said you need more facts to know if an undocumented person is illegally present, and that it is a legal determination made by a judge. You replied:
I then gave an example of someone who has had many statuses, some legal and some illegal, over a period of years. You agreed that you cannot tell whether an person is illegal by looking solely at one particular fact - that they violated their visa.
Thus, it is not true that “people who are here illegally are here illegally whether or not anyone says so.”
Because it is illegal to try to cross the border without papers. It is not illegal to already be within the border without papers. This is the most direct and accurate answer that can be provided to the original question, ‘why do people refer to illegal aliens as undocumented’. This apparent conflict of logic might be irreconcilable to you but it is the truth. Not all immigrants, documented or not, need us to “support them” later. You might recall much of our country was built with immigrant labor. Generally people want to come here to work, not to commit crimes or live on welfare. By in large these are people who took extreme risks including to their lives, left their families and ways of life, to try to seek out a better life for themselves. This is a founding principle of our nation and while economic realities make it easy to look for someone to blame, the fact is without immigrants, documented and undocumented alike, our economy would probably collapse because too many of us are unwilling to do the work. There is a sure fire way to solve the ‘immigrant problem’ - every citizen who is on unemployment or welfare right now just get out there at 5:00 AM and meet the bus to the construction site or fruit fields, and get to work! For much less pay than you are used to with much longer hours and fewer benefits, yes, but that is an opportunity others are willing to risk their lives just to have access to.
Thus? Huh? That’s a bit of a non sequitor. Whether I can determine the status of an immigrant has fuck-all to do with what that status is.
I stand by my statement. Let me amplify. If a person murders someone, is he only a murderer if the court says so, or did he in fact commit a murder? How about a thief? Tax cheat? Rapist?
Guilty folks go free and innocent ones are convicted, and vice versa. That has no bearing on whether they actually committed the crimes they were accused of.
People who are here illegally are here illegally, regardless of what anyone says. I am having a hard time understanding how you can argue with that. Some cases may be harder to figure out than others, but that doesn’t change the meaning of my statement.
I suppose there are a non-zero number of folks who actually are illegal, but are mistakenly declared legal by the powers that be. They would then be legal. If you could point out any significant numbers of such cases I would be very surprised.
As has been noted many times on this board, illegal immigrants who pay in to Soc Sec./Medicare but will never draw it themselves, are a net gain to the system, to the tune of $7 billion a year for Social Security, $1.5 billion for Medicare.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html?pagewanted=all
I don’t know. Murder is a crime, meaning it is an act with a legal definition, and punishment set out in advance. In our legal code, Killing someone is permitted within certain justifications. (ie, self defense). In our moral code, killing a person under certain circumstances is not even morally wrong. (ie, war).
If all you know is that I killed someone, you don’t know if it was murder.
Good lord! That isn’t all you know. You know it was murder, because it is *stipulated *that it is murder. Let me quote myself – *“If a person murders someone” *–
I cannot think of a more simple way to put it. It appears that I was being too generous in attributing your misunderstanding to deliberate intent.
I understand how I can know if I committed murder without the court saying so, I just don’t understand how YOU can know. How can you know what was in my mind when I killed the dude? (the mental state must be purposeful AND without justification for murder to occur, in most states).
So, when you see someone who is undocumented, I ask, HOW do you know they are illegal? Based only on the fact that they are undocumented?
Ummmm, raises hand. Why should a person have to live inside an imaginary line drawn around them at birth? Fuck that. The Declaration of Independence says All men are created equal. Not “all men born here or lucky enough to make it in through layers of bureaucracy and years of effort and sacrifice but, statistically, none of their friends or family will make it, at least in their natural lifespans-- are created equal.” Open the borders and let freedom ring.
Ok, most people aren’t saying that.
Who said I knew anyone’s state of mind? What I do know is that someone who commits murder is a murderer Do you have a counter argument for that? Can you defend the position that someone who commits a murder is not a murderer?
When did I say that? Point out where I said that or stop making that claim. You really need to stop inventing positions for me that I never held.
Isn’t that true of murderers too? Once they have killed someone they are not violating any laws. They just broke the law in the past.
I think you hit it on the head. If one objects to a person being called “illegal” then there is a perfectly good term to use instead: “criminal”.