I’d like to read that but the link seems to be broken.
This was evidence that Americans don’t want to work hard jobs and it has been dependent on immigrants to do so for them for well over a century.
Thus the Irish in the coal mines etc…
So if the big argument is that we need immigrants to do the lowly jobs that Americans won’t do, then why can’t it be done with a worker documentation program, which is why I brough up the Bracero program.
Also, do you think that 24 million illegal immigrants are needed to do all of those jobs?
And to answer Little Nemo. Yes I think that the US government should pay for the incarceration of our nationals in their country. What should the other country have to pay when our citizen fucks up?
Xenophobia, pure and simple.
WOOT! I could have some fun with that one! 
Oh. Wait. I thought you were saying I could charge my illegal acts to the US government. Like a credit card or something? 
Oops, sorry. That’s what I get for typing it in instead of copy-pasting.
Without some more powerful citation than the act, I’ll have to call BS on this one. Posse Comitatus says that for the military to perform domestic law enforcement duties, there must be some constitutional basis for local authorities using Federal military in that way, or it must be the result of a direct act of Congress.
However, I would argue that even after 1878 our military forces did actually patrol the borders. We don’t have militarized borders with Canada or Mexico right now, but we have since the act was passed in 1878 used military forces to patrol the Mexican border, we still use the military to patrol our borders at sea and etc. So I am highly skeptical that the PCA of 1878 means we can’t use the military to essentially patrol a border wall–that’s actually a pretty traditional military function in fact. It’s only a quirk of our relatively good relations and low threat level from our two land neighbors that we don’t have a militarized border.
Most of our food would not be imported if you removed all undocumented workers. Especially the big agribusiness crops like corn, soybeans etc. What would suffer would be crops that are still harvested in fairly labor intensive methods (tree fruits are one stereotypical industry in which you have a lot of undocumented workers.) It’s also highly unlike much if any of our meat production would suffer. No country with vast arable land in the world leaves it unproductive because of cost of labor. Further, our supply of global food is so great that I just simply can’t imagine a scenario in which we would actually be importing all of our food. We are one of the biggest (maybe the biggest?) raw producer of food in the world; and the other big producers like India and China use almost all of the food they produce domestically (at least some years in the not too distant past, China actually did not produce enough to feed itself) so we are definitely too big of a player in the food export business for us to stop making all of our own food and importing it all without ridiculous outcomes globally.
I hope this isn’t a hijack, but I was considering an illegal immigration thread after reading the most recent issue of Time magazine. The cover story is written by an “out” illegal immigrant who is visible and active. He’s practically dangling himself out there, daring the INS to deport him. Why don’t they go for this low-hanging fruit?
And speaking of fruit, re: the subject of illegal immigrant labor being necessary for farm work - if we need them to work at jobs that Americans can’t or won’t do, why can’t the H1B visa program be applied to them? I realize that asparagus-picking doesn’t meet the currently-defined standards of that category, but the essence of the situation is the same. Do the politicians have a particular objection to letting American employers make hires from other nations if they’ve proven they can’t find American workers to do those jobs?
I respectfully disagree that the article provides real evidence. The last two quotes are from your link and seem to contradict each other. But in any case they are worthless for showing in and of themselves how Americans feel about hard work. A sample size of two is obviously not proof of anything. I think I’ll give this a rest though. It’s really got nothing to do with government’s role in illegal immigration issues.
Thanks for reposting this. I think I’ll stick to what I just said about giving this a rest, though.
I always figured it wasn’t enforced religiously because it isn’t worth it. Enforcing immigration does take resources and marginally more expensive resources as you try to enforce more and more strictly. What is the benefit? Some argue immigrants are more likely to commit violent crimes, but even if that was true, it doesn’t mean resources wouldn’t be better spent going after criminals as opposed to illegal immigrants.
Taking our jobs? The truth is that even if they are taking a job, if, they are still providing a valuable service to society. But chances are they are not really taking jobs.
What about the argument that it is ILLEGAL! So what, lots of things are illegal but hardly worth enforcing? March Madness pools in your office, going 5 miles over the speed limit, tearing the tag off a pillow (ok, I know that isn’t true).
The real reason not to enforce it is because it is not worth it. EOS.
Because then we couldn’t abuse and exploit them to the same extent. We want them here, and we want them here illegally so we can abuse and exploit them while feeling morally superior about it. We don’t want to have to pay them what citizens would demand, and we don’t want to have to treat them as if their lives and health matters. If they were legal we’d have to actually worry about them being crippled or killed by the job, we’d have to treat them like they are human.
Three big reasons:
- Big government (the Democratic big city machines) see their salvation in the (eventual) legalization of the aliens. There will be a lobby for big cities to have senate seats-so the Democratic Party will have a lock on Congress
- Big labor sees immigrants as its salvation-union membership has been declining for years-new immigrants would restore the power of the corrupt union bosses
- The big city mayors are dependent upon Federal Funds-so they need nhigh poipulation growth, to keep the $$ flowing from Washington. Cities like Detroit are insolvent-but if they can pull in illegals 9soon to be citizens) tha cash flow/graft from Washington can be restored.
That’s not “low hanging fruit.” That’s a politically motivated prosecution. We frown on those in this country. It’s not as though USCIS has trouble finding people to deport or something.
As to the latter, the H-1B program is expensive to administer. Extending it to cover an additional ~12 million people might even outstrip the alleged Democratic passion for bureaucracy.
The United States government is powerful enough to enforce its will internationally. When it doesn’t enforce its own laws, you can be sure that it’s doing so for a reason, and the reason is to set a precedent for open immigration, and ultimately, the North American Union over the long run.
It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s the United States government speaking softly because it can afford to, as it is carrying a big stick.
By not enforcing the border, the United States has given something to Mexico that it doesn’t claim for itself; in other words, there’s a double standard in that Mexicans can immigrate to the U.S. and stay without undue harassment, but Americans cannot do the same without facing far steeper penalties. In exchange for this double standard and special treatment of Mexican citizens, the United States government can win concessions from the Mexican government that in the long run, will lead to United States citizens being allowed to migrate to Mexico. But if the US were to do what Mexico is doing at such, then Mexicans would feel affronted and their sense of sovereignty violated; by having the Mexicans “invade” the U.S. first, and in such a big and unenforced way, when the U.S. does the same later, it will be seen as the natural and somewhat fair deal, and the precedent of open migration will naturally evolve into an open border system.
What will happen with Mexico will also happen with Canada; the key is that the de jure North American Union needs to be prefaced by a de facto North American Union, and the first step toward a de facto North American Union is a long-term experience that unenforced borders becomes a fact of life that becomes less alarming and ultimately becomes accepted because it has been going on for so long that we really forget that it’s actually a border.
So Mexico has Americans sneaking in to mooch off their health care system, too?
Makes you wonder if the Native Americans let us have the whole country because they were secretly annexing us the whole time.
Not a chance. America is far too bigoted to want a “North American Union” even if that was anything other than conspiracy theory nonsense. And Canada isn’t going to want to be dragged down to our level. Nor does either Canada or Mexico want to be conquered and oppressed by America, which is what such a “Union” would really amount to.
Few Americans want to, and we constantly harass and abuse immigrants; even legal ones are often treated badly.
The reason Obamacare was passed was in order to initiate a process of regulatory harmonization with Canada’s health care system. Mexico is the test case for free movement of labor and people, but not necessarily that of healthcare, Canada is.
Think about it. Why are “Obamacare” and “Romneycare” so similar, when the parties are supposed to be diametrically opposed ideologically? The simple fact is that the latter was a state-level implementation that would make a national extension by the former unable to be attacked as “socialism” by the Republican base without being exposed for rank hypocrisy. Imagine if the GOP hadn’t implemented the plan at the state level. Then it could very well have credibly seen as socialism by the GOP base; even when faced with the obvious near identical plan at Massachusetts, they STILL call it socialism.
When the Canadians look at a possible first step toward a more nationalized healthcare system, they become somewhat pleasantly surprised, and those who like America but feel its healthcare is much worse than Canada’s system now look up and think, hmm, if the system were to become more similar, then maybe America isn’t that bad? The conservative Canadian and the liberal American, these political descriptions being oversimplifications, of course, are the key to establishing a harmony of political sentiment, and regulatory harmonization is the “siren song” that will hopefully set off the first step toward the ultimate goal of continental unity.
Immigration is less of an issue between the U.S. and Canada because there are less language barriers, cultural differences, etc. that could potentially lead to sticky situations like ethnic nationalism and xenophobic reactions. The key in the Canada-US relation isn’t harmonizing cultural differences, it’s harmonizing institutional differences, as opposed to Mexico with whom cultural differences need to be ironed out and sensitively dealt with. Our politicians aren’t as stupid, evil, or incompetent as they might seem. This is not your average run of the mill country, it’s a one that looks years ahead and has a long-term vision, but is bad at implementing day-to-day policy.
That sound you here in the distance is millions of Canadians laughing.
Because Obama is a right winger who didn’t really want to pass anything, but had to be seen as doing something. So he passed a Republican designed program that was designed from the beginning to be a joke and a means of handing money to insurance companies. And they aren’t “diametrically opposed ideologically”; they are the right wing, and the loony right wing. American politics are very narrow.
Oh, please; this is standard conspiracy theory nonsense where even their incompetence is “in reality” evidence of a deep laid plot.