Someone should tell Mexico that immigration laws don’t make sense, because they have them and enforce them.
So? Little Johnny picks his nose at the dinner table, does that mean it’s ok for little Joey to pick his nose at the dinner table? Seriously, your post is the debating equivalent of looking down and to the left, holding your hands behind your back, swaying at the hips, and kicking the dirt.
And just by the way - I thought that your side’s position was that you want to want enforce immigration laws on everyone, and Mexico in particular has nothing to do with it. At least that’s what I always hear- correct me if I’m wrong. Why are you bringing up Mexico?
Didn’t you just post:
In response to someone else bringing it up.
But I see you have no argument besides M3xic4ns R uhlegal lol. Deydookardobs hehe.
Why enforce immigration laws:
It is the law to require a work visa, and as a nation of laws we must enforce them.
Illegal workers are at the mercy of employers and as a result they often accept lower pay and worse working conditions. This affects the negotiating position of all workers.
A larger supply of workers drives down wages.
Without requiring visa we can not control whether criminals, sick people (e.g., TB), or people with no job skills are allowed into the country.
If we allow anyone to emmigrate to the US we will place a huge burden on our infrastructure.
Our first duty is to provide for citizens of the United States.
This has already been addressed extensively on this page. It would be customary to reply to what’s been posted rather than just repeating a statement that’s been hashed out already. By the way, it’s very interesting that you call us a nation of laws after (presumably) reading post #103. Not saying I disagree, just that it is very interesting.
Sounds like we need to hand out a lot more visas to me. And I think most of us would agree that our infrastructure could use a little “burdening” at this point (housing market, anyone?)
:dubious: And what of the evidence already posted that undocumented immigrants are providing quite a bit for us?
So, you would crack down on non-citizens bringing life saving medication to their children, but figure out a way to fix the law so that citizens can continue to do it? What about green card holders and tourists, can they break the law to save their children’s lives, or do their children have to die like the other non-citizens?
The point I was trying to make, which you clearly didn’t get, is that there is a reason 10 million+ people immigrated to this country to live and work. Prior to this latest economic downturn (which was NOT caused by immigrants) the majority of them, and us, had plenty of work. Yet, our laws would allow for only a fraction of a percentage of them to immigrate her legally. There is a serious disconnect between who our immigration laws allowed in and who our economy was looking to have here to work. Immigration law should reflect what our country and economy needs, not just close off the border and leave us wondering why immigrants come here anyway.
Edited to add: As in my silly example above, the law should reflect the fact that people need to bring life saving medication to their children, not ignore that fact and try to punish people for doing reasonable things for the benefit of their families. Reasonable in this case is immigrating to a country that has economic opportunity, folks will do it legally if they can, but will also do it illegally if the legal option isn’t available.
Thank you. Someone else gets it. Sometimes I feel like I’m afloat in a sea of bizarro when it comes to this topic.
I’m sure they called him a criminal though. Really, the same thing.
Actually, immigrants had plenty of work but then said work was done at artificially lower wages due to their, you know, illegal status.
This resulted in significant pain for legal workers, benefits for companies who could slash their wage bill, damage to local infrasructure due to the stress on hospitals and schools of a new class of even lower paid workers who did not pay the same amount of tax as the legall employed.
Mexico is happy, however, as it can get rid of a potentially troubling class of unemployed who may start agitating to tear down Mexico’s corrupt framework.
They also like the $25B in “remittances” that is sent home to Mexico every year.
Why does immigration argument always eventually boil down to, basically, “fuck Mexico”, or if alcohol or brutally honest people are involved, “fuck Mexicans”?
At best it reminds me of a kid who receives a valid criticism and, instead of reflecting on it, just starts hurling insults at the person offering it.
"You don’t like US immigration policy? Oh yeah? Mexico has an immigration policy! Mexicans send money home! Mexico has a “potentially troubled” class of unemployed!"
I could’ve swore we were talking about the United States.
Can’t think of one reason.
Well it doesn’t but the reality is that Mexico is currently the biggest source of illegal aliens to the United States. The reason we should discuss Mexico is because the state of Mexico as a country has a direct impact on the number of illegals entering the United State.
Tougher enforcement of immigration laws (jncluding penalizing employers for hiring illegals) coupled with a more hands on policy to improve conditions in Mexico would drastically reduce the number of illegals coming from there. In the longer term, a successful, wealthy Mexico is in everyone’s interest.
Face it, you love it when someone says something like that, because it’s the only opening you have for winning the argument. Call the person a racist and crack open a beer.
That’s why even though nobody has actually said any of those things, you helpfully reminded us that somewhere, some guy hates Mexicans. Even if he doesn’t actually post to this thread, he’s out there somewhere, probably listening to country music and chewing tobacco as he gasses up his pickup truck. Obviously, the way to counter such insolence is to open the border and wait for all the new immigrants to move to his neighborhood.
Hyperelastic, I can’t help but notice that I’ve made 15 contributing posts to this thread in which I’ve laid out my thoughts, feelings and arguments on the topic candidly and coherently (whether you agree with them or not) compared to your . . . zero. Do you have a point, or are you just here to talk shit?
A better comparison would be if you were found by the dead body with a gun in your hand. In the United States that does not make you a murderer. You might have just shown up on the scene and foolishly picked up the gun. You might have heroically fought off the attacker and wrestled the gun from his hand the moment after he shot the victim. Anything could be possible. In many countries that people flee in order to come here that could be sufficient evidence to be hung or shaken down for everything you own, or any number of other instant judgments and penalties. In the United States, however, we are innocent until proven guilty. Every person standing within our borders has specific rights under the constitution including every item in the bill of rights. It doesn’t matter how they got here, once they are here, they have specific and inalienable rights just like you and I. Simply being here without documentation is not evidence that any crime has been committed. Simply being from a foreign country is not grounds for law enforcement to interrogate you about how you got here. Thus, again, the term “undocumented immigrant” exists. “illegal immigrant” is a term to describe someone actually caught in the act of crossing the border illegally. It is kind of ironic that the America so many people think they are valiantly defending with bigotry and demands for unfair prosecutions was actually founded by our ancestors who were fleeing from such places.
He was probably called a felon though. Which is worse than just illegal.
No, I’m guessing he probably wasn’t. I have more than my share of friends an acquaintances who have been convicted of felonies and I’ve never heard someone call them a criminal or a felon. Regardless, though, it’s not worse than “just illegal.” See post 103.
Perhaps that’s because they already served their time whilst illegals, who are currently in the US illegally, are still illegal. That is, they haven’t made some sort of retribution for their breaking the law like your Uncle did.
I am sure, however, that he was still refered to (or reference was made) as a felon when he sought employment etc.
Reading this thread you seem to be getting more and more shrill. I’m not saying this as a personal attack just an observation. Fact is, illegals are here illegally. They ignored a border and continue to ignore the laws of the land. As such, they are illegal. And yes, it is a problem.