If the jobs were required to pay minimum wage those industries would be uncompetitive. Do you want to start importing all our food?
What “social programs” do illegal immigrants use up? What cases of illegal immigrants voting do you know of?
The Bracero program didn’t “work.” It just documented a few thousand immigrant workers.
We don’t give Mexico money because we like them. We give them money to shore up their law enforcement programs as part of our drug policy. Less money means more cartels and more drugs.
What it does now: deport criminals, prosecute coyotes, and now worry too much about the rest.
For me or for you? I remembered the story but didn’t look it up again. You’re looking on the internet for an answer but not from an unbiased poster or source.
It’s a personal choice - but I tend to verify a story myself rather than rely on information from someone who I questioned in the first place.
There might very well be proof somewhere at that site that Americans won’t work hard labor jobs for minimum wage, but quite frankly I don’t want to dig through it to find out. Could you point me to a specific link? And I reiterate, I think it could indeed be the case, I just never see any evidence along with such claims.
It’s a whole lot of area to cover and the cost to patrol the border effectively might not be cost effective. Drones are a relatively new development and it’s entirely possible we’ll start seeing their use on the border more and more though. They can cover a wide area and are relatively inexpensive.
You want to completely eradicate illegal immigration? Easy: Make it legal. We still get our cheap vegetables, the workers aren’t breaking any laws, everyone’s happy. We depend on these people being here; it’s only honest to admit it.
Alternately, you could turn the US into such a hellhole that nobody would ever want to come here. That’d work, too, but it might not be the greatest idea.
Yes, I’d guess there is a good chance it won’t be cost effective, but of course I’m no expert on the subject.
Exactly how would drones be used though? To lookout for people coming across the border? Wouldn’t you still need a huge border patrol force to be able to respond adequately? I just don’t see how, no matter how counter-intuitive it may be, that we can stop people coming over the border by trying to stop them at the border. You have to get rid of the motivation of illegal immigrants to come here, whether that means improved economic conditions in their home countries, or stopping their incentive to work in the US.
This link is a perfect example of why I believe it might be true that, in general, Americans won’t work such jobs for the minimum wage. But it offers no proof as to why enough workers couldn’t be found to bring in the whole crop.
The military could provide some monitoring and technical assistance but could not be a part of response teams to make arrests of those crossing the border. That has to be done by law enforcement personnel in accordance with restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Of course if there was the political will to do so then the Legislative branch could amend that law and the Executive branch could enforce it. :rolleyes:
The US does not require outbound immigration clearance. It would cost money to implement and inconvenience Americans and visitors alike. And without outbound checks it really is hard to determine with any certainty who has overstayed a visa. I don’t think Americans would support outbound immigration checks. Someone would scream that Big Brother is monitoring where they are traveling to and it is too intrusive. Never mind that immigration gets at least some of that information upon the citizen’s return to the States.
The US counts illegal immigrants in the census and that affects government spending and apportionment of representatives. The US does not count Americans living abroad for the purposes of apportionment even though they can vote and thus have representation. :smack:
So from a politicians point of view, a larger population (whether illegal immigrants or citizens doesn’t matter) gets more federal dollars for his home district. More illegal immigrants may even gain a state an additional congressman or two resulting in more political clout for the state.
Neither party cares that Americans living abroad don’t count towards representation because expats are too dilute a group overall to have much political clout. They vote in every congressional district and there just are not enough in any one district to carry much power. They pay taxes but don’t consume much in the way of resources so few demands are made on their representatives. If instead American expats were treated as their own state they would be the 18th most populous state with 9 representatives in the House.
Anchor babies could be addressed. There just isn’t the political will to push it through Congress. It only takes a few Senators to bog it down. An amendment could be tackled by state convention but then its something like 37 or so state senates that could bog it down.
That there would be a flood of stateless babies if the US removed jus soli just isn’t true. Most would receive the citizenship of their parent by jus sanguinis.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in Article 15, asserts a universal right for a person not to be stateless. That is a strong incentive for a solution to be worked out.
Granting citizenship to a baby if he/she would otherwise be stateless is enough to cover the concerns over the relatively few that might otherwise slip through the cracks. Europe is not overflowing with stateless persons despite no European country permitting unrestricted jus soli citizenship.
In Georgia last year, they passed a strict, Arizona-style anti-immigrant law - and had crops rotting in the fields. They then tried having prisoners do the work - and 2/3 of the prisoners walked off the job the first day.
Migrant workers are skilled workers, there is a market for them and they are essential to our country. Unemployed Americans won’t take the jobs nor are they skilled enough to do the work quickly.
I would say that the best thing you could do to prevent illegal immigration is provide a viable legal alternative for temp workers.
Harvest work is paid piecemeal, if you are quick it pays much better than minimum wage but it is very hard work.
That will never happen due to a xenophobic fear of brown people though.
I see your point. If you didn’t mean to imply that this was evidence that Americans don’t want to work hard jobs for minimum wage, then please accept my sincere apology.
I remembered the story but didn’t look it up again. You’re looking on the internet for an answer but not from an unbiased poster or source.