Why is the Government ignoring illegal immigration issues?

I could blame the Democrats specifically, but the Republicans play the game too, although to a lesser extent. There are an estimated 24 million illegal immigrants or about 7.7% of the US population. There are numerous issues involved in having such a large illegal immigrant population.

  1. Patrols. If we actually wanted to stop illegal immigration at the Mexican border, why can’t we? Why couldn’t the Army using patrols and drones monitor the border and respond as the coyotes come across? This has been an issueas long as I remember with the best Republican (remember I said they play the game too) solution as to build a completely ineffectual fence.

  2. Jobs. I know that illegal immigration supporter claim that these are jobs that no citizen will take but that is circular. If the jobs were required to pay minimum wage, maybe part of the 15% of American workers that are unemployed/underemployed would take them. But that’s not really the issue is it? When Sheriff Arpaio raided a politician’s office and arrest some workers that were illegal immigrants, there was outrage about racism and playing politics. Lost in the noise was the fact that these workers were illegally hired which means either the politicians office knowingly broke the law or that Everify broke down. No one on either side seemed to care about that part.

  3. Constitutional issues. As “residents”, illegal immigrants use up social and educational programs. They are counted in the apportionment of Representatives and so give more political power to states with large illegal immigrant populations. The issue of anchor babies has never really been addressed even though its ben obvious since 1898 that a Contitutional amendment is the only avenue if the government wanted to end anchor babies. Voting laws, put here because of the Supemeacy Clause, do not require anyone to actually prove that they are a citizen in order to register to vote. You simply need to state you are a citizen and I know cases of illegal immigrants voting. Think about it for a second. If all of the illegal immigrants (and legal ones too) wanted to walk in today and register to vote and are willing to lie about being a citizen, there is nothing anyone could do to stop them.

  4. Programs that worked. Anyone remember the Bracero program that ended in 1964? There are ways to have immigrants come in and work legally. Obama issued work visas to a bunch of illegal immigrants, but that more of ignoring the problem with illegal immigration rather than a solution - which was the exact same problem with Reagan’s amnesty program too.

  5. Charging Mexico (or other country of origin). Some say we can’t logistically deport 24 million people and that may be true. But why can’t we charge these countries for the costs associated with supporting THEIR nationals here illegally and paying to incarcerate them when they break the law. According to this, we give Mexico over $300M in foreign aid. Why so much when apparently they have over 12 million citizen receiving social/educational services here and sending money home. I’m sure similar arguments can be made for many Central American countries too.
    I know a lot of people on this Board are pro-illegal immigration just like I know a lot of people on this Board will ignore this paragraph and instead argue about the immigration issues. The debate is that assuming the government has a duty to enforce immigration law, the question is two-fold:
    Why do you think the US Government has a history of condoning illegal immigration.
    What do you think the government should do to enforce immigration law? If you think they should ignore the law, then explain why you think the government does not have an obligation to enforce a law that has a major impact on the US.

Anchor babies are a myth, there is no way that US citizen child could benefit their parents until they are legal adults and could sponsor them for permanent residency. Planning two decades ahead? REALLY?

The only thing eliminating jus soli will create is an underclass of stateless persons born and raised in the USA.

Presumably any fence we erected would have to be manned along its full extent for it to be effectual. Yet you say that a fence would be ineffectual. But if this is the case, then wouldn’t manning the border without a fence be even more ineffectual? I agree with the idea that a fence is a workable solution is ludicrous, but so too is the idea that we have the manpower and resources to monitor the entire border using any method, including drones or patrols.

Seems silly to ask people to not respond about whether or not they think illegal immigration is a good or bad thing when the bulk of your post is laying out reasons why you think illegal immigration is a bad thing. You’re hijacking your own thread.

I think the government has a history of not enforcing immigration law because, by and large, immigration (even illegal immigration) is (and has been) a good thing for the US.

It’s simple. Follow the money. Governments condone illegal immigration because it produces cheap labor. It’s not about requiring the minimum wage. This is back breaking labor we are talking about. Americans aren’t going to do it for minimum wage. They are going to require significantly more which will drive up wages for unskilled labor across the board. That puts profit margins at risk and since our politics are so corrupt that translates into significant political pressure to keep illegal labor.

Unfortunately there’s probably some truth in this statement.

How would you suggest we replace the $11.2 billion in revenue paid by undocumented immigrants?

Simultaneously, politicians have discovered that talking about keeping immigrants out is a good thing, for their purposes. It’s an easy sell, saying you’ll do something about creepy foreigners coming in to take your jobs, land, daughters, etc.

The government ignores a lot of laws. I’m probably breaking the law right now and I’m pretty sure I broke a state law last night with my wife (yes, bragging.) I have sort of the same question as the OP except with regards to all kinds of other laws. Why don’t they enforce the cell phone while driving laws, for example, or the federal pot laws (not that I want them too, but why don’t they?)

As for immigration, I think there is a combination of things. Most people don’t really want illegal immigration to stop except in a general sense. Businesses love it. People with yards to mow or houses to clean like to be able to hire cheap labor and they tell themselves they are different from everybody else somehow. Also, opposing immigration has a vaguely racist feeling to it that most of us don’t like, especially since many of us aren’t that long off the boat ourselves.

So the government doesn’t bother spending tons of money it doesn’t have trying to enforce a law that will only generate complaints from the citizens the law is supposed to be helping. I don’t know how law enforcement finds the right balance between doing their job of enforcing all the laws fully, their limited resources and the actual will of the people they serve.

People can argue my points all they want. This is GD after all but my point was that people would ONLY argue my talking points and ignore the overall questions about the government’s enforcement (or lack of) of immigration law.
Look at the first two responses to my OP. They argue points on illegal immigration but as predicted, completely missed the question of

Now look at Patty O’Furniture’s response. It is clear he is arguing my point on the financial impact of illegal immigration and indirectly answers the questions I raised by implying that illegal immigration is a net financial gain for the US.

So, do you think that immigration laws have the same impact on the US as cell-phone laws, pot laws and playing canasta after 9pm with your wife laws?

An “anchor baby” creates a situation where the public objects to sending a parent back to their native country and abandoning their child in the U.S… Of course, that ignores the reality that the parent(s) could take their children with them.

It’s been reported that Chinese citizens have been coming to the U.S. only to give birth. They stay long enough to establish a U.S. citizenship for their offspring and then returning to China. Whatever for? A Chinese national doesn’t need dual citizenship to go to school or get a job. Dual citizenship would allow a Chinese national to emigrate to the U.S. in 20-30-50 years.

Don’t do that, OK? If you can back it up, back it up. Otherwise, leave it be.

It’s apparent that Saint CAD is only stating his opinion and asking for yours.

Which you didn’t supply.

Follow the money - it would cost taxpayers more to get rid of them than it does to tolerate them.



Do you require more proof?

Either way, …It’s been reported… I have no personal knowledge that these authors are telling the truth so I chose to use the term “it’s been reported”.

I hear this all the time. Might be true for all I know, but I never see any proof. I would love to see the evidence.

Was that so hard?

The government also writes the law, you think the lack of strict enforcement goes unnoticed? My 2 cents, it’s all part of a cohesive immigration strategy.

Institute draconian immigration laws that restrict legal immigration to a hilarious extent. Allow, through modest border controls, illegal immigrants to come into the country in large numbers. Those immigrants do unskilled labor for very low cost. They pay state and local taxes, through rent and sales taxes. They often pay income taxes through false SSNs, and are eligible for some government provided services, but no direct money transfers.

They are held reasonably compliant due to the threat of deportation, they’re not upwardly mobile, because of their status, they just keep their heads down and pick strawberries for $5 an hour.

Strict enforcement means all these crap jobs have to be filled by Americans who won’t do them for 2x the wage. Legality means the immigrants can compete for good jobs, not just shitty jobs where they can fly under the radar.

You got to your local supermarket, to the produce aisle. You see “Iceberg Lettuce, $5 each”. Any more questions?