From the article that you cite it says that out of the 392,862 that were deported in 2010 that out of that 19,000 where counted from a change in accounting and another 25,000 from a voluntary repatriation program. That still leaves. 348,862 who were deported without the change. Further it says that the year before, 2009, had been a record year of 389,834 deportations without relying upon accounting changes or voluntary deportation figures and last I checked Obama was president in 2009. Next considering that the voluntary deportation figures by passed the lengthy judicial process it likely saved a lot of money from using the usual process.
Yes, they are different from the people who come with status, but saying someone who came illegally is different than someone who immigrated legally is circular at least if you are only differentiating between the two groups based on what is legal and illegal. They are different only because they are forced to be different. If they could come here legally they would. Pointing out that they are different is akin to saying that someone who breaks the law and commits sodomy is different than someone who has sex the right way or that someone who commits the grave crime of interracial marriage is different from someone who marries the right way. Such a distinction is irrelevant to the larger issue of whether the system should be that way. If you are anti-uncontrolled immigration you have a couple of choices that operate to curb uncontrolled immigration. 1) Spend the money to help these countries get their rampant crime, corruption, and poverty under control - make them desirable places to live so people stop trying to come in an uncontrolled manner. 2) Provide legal status to everyone that makes it here (much like how we treat Cubans) and allow them to petition to bring their children legally so that when they decide to come they are controlled. Or you could keep trying idea 3) Continue to pursue restrictionist immigration policies that make it harder to get legal status in this country and keep trying to put up barriers on our physical land and in our laws to stop people from coming. Since 1986, all we have really done is option 3 absent a few bright notes like DACA, which is not even a law. People who say they are anti-uncontrolled immigration insist on what has failed over an over again, they insist on trying to put up walls and pursuing policies to keep people in the shadows and not registered. IIRAIRA in 1996, REAL ID Act of 2005, SCOMM in 2008 are part and parcel of this strategy. None of these laws and policies did anything to stop the uncontrolled flow of people - all they did was make it harder to get an exact idea of who was here and make it harder for many people to get status in this country. Isn't 30 years enough to say that option 3 has failed? Option 3 is not something that has succeeded anywhere except in the most inhumane of circumstances. What distinguishes the exercise of option 3 in the present from all those times in which it has failed in the past?
So our options are 1. Fix their countries for them 2. Give the instant citizenship or 3. try to restrict them from coming here? You sure these are our only three options? Rocket River
Great post. The immigration situation is akin to to things like Prohibition where the laws are out of touch with reality and further make the situation worse by empowering the underground economy of smugglers rather than addressing better ways of allowing people to come here legally.
Kind of an important distinction, what's legal and what's illegal. There are excellent reasons for a country to protect its borders and have documentation on who is entering the country. Every country in the world has such laws. You make it sound like these people are jaywalking, where the impact of their behavior is non-existent. How ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous is that Mexico, the prime origin of this illegal flood, has much stricter immigration laws than the United States while they enable and pretty much encourage their own citizens to break into this country illegally. It's a sham, a swindle. Wake up. No, it's like saying that someone that murders someone is a murderer and someone who doesn't isn't. We pretty much agree killing is wrong much like we agree trespassing is wrong and illegally sneaking into a sovereign nation is wrong. These are universal wrongs on this planet. I'm not really interested in a kumbaya, there are no borders nonsense argument. This is about how we as a country are a nation of laws and when someone chooses to intentionally violate that law that there are consequences to that and not rewards. The reason why all these kids are at the border is because their parents anticipate an amnesty agreement in Congress. They're not idiots. Freaking please with your restrictionist immigration policies. Immigration isn't a right. You have no right to come here anymore than I have right to break into your house. As of 2012 there's something like $40 million immigrants in the US. That's more than 10% of the population here. We are about as friendly to immigrants as it gets. LOL at spend the money to fix every poor country in the world so they don't want to come here. That's pretty funny man. I'm thinking I'd rather spend that money on American infrastructure, American health care, American education, and then when we've fixed those things we can start saving the rest of the world.
Those are the 3 general policy options that I see if your goal is to stop uncontrolled immigration. I am open to other suggestions.
What is legal and what is illegal is not an important distinction except when it comes to things that are malum in se, evil in themselves. It is a almost meaningless distinction when it comes to all other acts. I agree with your second point that there are excellent reasons for a country to protect its borders and have documentation on who is in the country. Providing people with status is a way to get documentation of who is in the country which is why I am for it. And yes, there are universal wrongs in this planet and crossing a border to avoid harm, avoid grinding poverty or simply to be with your parents aren't them. I am pretty aware of the impact of their behavior. They will be taking a lot of resources out of our schools because undocumented families tend to be poorer and poorer people pay in less than they take out of education. They will be adding tons into our Social Security system. They will be taking a little bit more than they will pay in in terms of healthcare. They will be providing labor we need to fulfill the needs of an aging country. Many will be avoiding death, forced gang recruitment, or grinding poverty. You seem to be off in your numbers. Most Unaccompanied Alien Children come from Honduras. Additionally, Mexican children are not the ones that are actually making it to families in the United States because almost 98% are voluntarily repatriated under the direction of CBP and the Mexican Government. Also who cares if Mexico has strict immigration laws or not? We are pretty friendly. That doesn't mean than when we put walls up on our border or pass 1996 IIRIRA and create unlawful presence bars making it so that more spouses of United States Citizens or parents of United States Citizen Children of age 21 cannot get status in this country that we aren't being restrictionist. Immigration isn't a right, but when you have a large mass of children who are living in grinding poverty, in fear for their lives, or simply alone and without their parents, and you do nothing to alleviate the situation, you would have to be a dunce not to expect them to try to enter. I agree, I think it is dumb. We cannot really fix the mess of these countries. We cannot even undue our portion of the mess that we created. We could throw tons of money at them and get nothing because we cannot change the fact that we supported dictators who exterminated their people, or that we supported the wealthy few who had the rest live like serfs for years, we also cannot change the fact that we exported transnational gangs to them, or seemingly change our insatiable demand for drugs that fuels the corruption and violence already endemic to the area. We should focus on our own infrastructure, human and physical. We should be the best we can be. Part of that is welcoming more immigrants and bringing people out of the shadows.
Baumer, I am not sure if I follow. I apologize but pictures are sometime ambiguous and hard to understand. Could you provide a written explanation of whatever it was you were trying to say?
What happened to the FEMA camps? Is it a government/google conspiracy to keep them off of the satellite maps? Alex Jones is in Austin, Glenn Beck is in Dallas, Dan Patrick is in Houston/Austin....if Rush Limbaugh relocates to Texas the resulting singularity of nutbaggery will destroy the universe as we know it.
Interesting research that might impact immigration. Mexico 2012 pop 120 million GDP/person $9748 murder rank(world)21 El Salvador " 6.2 million" $ 3789 murder 4 Guatemala 15.08 million $ 3330 murder 5 Honduras 7.9 million $ 2322 murder 1 Nicaragua 5.99 million $ 1753 murder approx 40 Theories: 1) Nicaraguans might be too poor to trek up. However, they seem to have less violence than El Salvador and Honduras. 2) My googled stats show violence probably more important than poverty 3) Our coup started the 1960-1996 Guatmalan War with 200 k killed; our support kept the dictatorship in El Salvador Civil War from losing quickly in the war from 1979-92 with 75 k killed; our support of the 2009 coup in Honduras has increased the violence. Essentially you could view it as we are paying reparations in an informal manner by involuntary immigration from those countries. Perhaps this should be made more formal? 4) It is true that we have started so many wars that we cannot make such amends through immigration for all that we have done.
Especially good reporting from Guatemala on the various factors that drive the kids to come. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24757-more-than-rumors-drive-central-american-youths-toward-us
You've got to be kidding. See I thought you and I were discussing current world events as they apply to the United States and you're talking about your own far off world view of reality. It's a pointless discussion I see. When you are interested in discussing the real world and the effects of the events happening in real time on the United States, let me know. You can wax poetic with glynch over a Starbucks coffee if you want to talk about this world you think you live in where there are no borders and how only some laws really matter.
It's pointless discussing how the law should be set up with someone who doesn't understand that laws don't justify themselves. I am talking about real life while you are just repeating the tired mantra of what part of illegal don't you understand. If you are not willing to engage on what the law should be and the policy considerations that undergird law, you have no reason to comment at all on any topic. With that said, I would prefer you to actually engage on this topic but if you can't get past the initial barrier, maybe it is best or you to just bow out and ignore the thread altogether.
