What If We Kicked All Illegal Aliens Out of the US...

explain please?

 

Do you really need me to explain the difference between someone working in a field or the back of a restaurant and someone dealing crack?

Really?

 

0% unemployment is impossible, and would probably hurt the economy.

I'll ask you the same questions I asked stripperboy:

Some people aren't as ambitious or as money hungry or as capable as others.

And again, they don't have to communicate with mono-lingual English only speakers if they don't want to.

No, the best way is to enforce the law, but that's not the case nor will it ever be the case, unless there's some sort of economic collapse, but in that case the poor will be the first to be blamed and you and the rest of the "rule followers" can then get your justice.

When has drug dealing ever been pardoned? Never.

When has illegally entry ever been pardoned? Periodically.

They fine people big bucks and imprison them for a long time for that, for illegal entry? They just deport you to come back another day.

At any rate, the people who break that law are never labeled illegal.

In that case, everyone is illegal. You're illegal.

Of course I do. It's an issue of national sovereignty and maintaining some sort of national identity, however the US and Mexico are like two dogs that are stuck together - the US is the pitcher-, have you ever tried to separate two dogs that are stuck together? It's practically impossible, the US and Mexico have that sort of symbiotic relationship and it's not going to change unless it has to, and only an economic collapse will bring about that need to change - or a revolutionary change in the government of Mexico.

An open or closed border isn't really the issue. You can close it and build a 50ft wall, but so long as there is such great inequality between the US and Mexico and every other Latin-American country coupled with an open-labor market, there will always be illegal-immigration.

I guess you don't open the border up, because you don't have to.

 

Hard to say...


Good - Medical, social, and security (like Ice and Homeland) programs wouldn't be overburden and would see a decrease in annual debt/spending.
Bad - Less funding, not as many people.

Good - Less people, more space
Bad - Temporary voids in some business and occupation, and possibly to the point of being permanently out of business with less workers and the possiblity to dish out more dollars for realistic salaries.

Good - No more heavily-pushed bilingual agendas for the time being, at least to speak spanish.
Bad - ?????????... I'll have to ask how that could possibly hurt...anyway.

Good - No more fulfilled unpromised about cracking down illegal immigration.
Bad - Other unfulfilled promises from these b@stards concering economic, social, and civil issues.

Bad - People who have established themselves in good position in certain industries and pillars of society as law-abiding citizens.

Good - Those who haven't so much....the ones that are in out of your local county jail or state prisons.

 

No, I'm not that dogmatic. I'm for moving on from these laws that shape our immigration policy, specifically. Nothing more and nothing less.

No...I'm suggesting there are desperate people looking for work. I realize there are desperate people who sell drugs. What they do...the nature of their actions...is entirely different from my viewpoint.

 

Between Rocket River and ilovestrippers hitting you from either extreme you remain unflappable. I admire you for even dignifying them with replies. Kudos to you sir.

 

Rocket River is just asking questions and clarifying, not attacking anyone.

While I've always admired Madmax as a poster, he is an attorney helping criminals -- maybe not hardcore criminals -- subvert U.S. laws because he deems them either outdated or inappropriate.

When extrapolated, he is saying laws have no meaning. Attorneys can pick and choose among the laws. Of course, they're are so many laws, it's relatively easy to find a contradictory law to judicially delay the court process and therefore negate the laws of the land. Sometimes...not all the time, but enough disturbing sometimes ...these delays result in rapes and murders and burglars who get shot.

I'm not making Madmax out to be a villain, but apparently his philosophy is damaging our very existence as a sovereign nation.

Change the laws, but don't break or bend them....or even advocate or abet breaking or bending them.

 

I understand how you feel, I agree.

I believe laws do not change character they reveal character. Bad laws do neither.

It's the abortion is wrong- criminalize the mothers syndrome
Or abortion is right- then it's the that's not a baby it's an unwanted cell-tissue (fetus) syndrome.

Instead of looking for a root cause of unwanted pregnancies we go for fighting over the ridiculous notion of a mother should be able to kill an unborn child because it is in her body. If every pregnancy was wanted and appreciated there would not be any abortion (unless their were extreme health dangers). Why we can't think in those terms is so unreasonable and illogical. There are solutions when we think rightly.

It's easy to see our perspective, it's hard to see bigger ones.There are many illegal immigrants here working hard, wanting to assimilate and there is no easy way because they broke laws to get here and the system makes it next to impossible to stay legally.

I think from a loving compassionate perspective we are big enough as Americans to find a way to assimilate these people into the fabric of American society and welcome them as our neighbors. We can be good samaritans, forgive their 'crime' and give them a second chance to do it within better laws.

I don't call that amnesty, I call it a program to enrich our ideals of opportunity and liberty.

Yes, laws were broken, but consider the bigger picture of how much exploitation takes place and can forgiveness be given to decent people who are trying to add value to the American society. I really think alot of immigrants from Mexico are rationalizing the legal aspect because they are talked into it or they have come to disregard the law out of peer acceptance.

If we can take in 1 million or 5 million immigrants annually that add value and love to our society let's go ahead and plan for this.

If there are good reasons to limit that number or increase it then lets think it through carefully and plan.

An open border can place an undo burden on border states, allow opportunities to overwhelm our own broken social systems and yes, even give criminals an access to thrive here.

Immigration is a valuable way that we can offer the world, especially the less fortunate hope.

That is what we could do better when we were a more noble nation.

Unfortunately our inner cities are desparate in their own ways, the poor and displaced in America are increasing in number and it would be to our benefit to do far better in restoring compassion and respect to our own; give ourselves successful systems to be a nation of opportunity for all people especially our neighbors.

I don't think the current situation calls for the letter of the law.
It calls for new thinking and a better strategy to assimilate valuable immigrants and secure an effective border.

Borders are not there to close the door of opportunity, borders are there to reflect the commitment of shared ideas.

Americans used to share the ideas of the US constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It was the idea of personal freedom, individual responsibility and limited government intervention so that love, industry and opportunity could flourish.

Love must be of a free will. Laws and programs cannot instill or impart love.
Industry rewards righteousness.
Opportunity speaks of man's love for his fellow man.

I can see Jesus in that.

 

If I can defend Madmax, not that he isn't doing an excellent job as always arguing his position, the real issue is whether our immigration laws are in touch with the reality of the current immigration system. I hear many posters arguing that "well the law is the law" yes the law is the law but what does it mean to have a law that is almost impossible to fully enforce and goes against the reality that the market and geography are working against those laws?

The problem with a law out of touch with reality is that it produces a lot of unintended consequences that are generally bad. Consider Prohibition the truth was that most Americas still wanted to drink and without a legal means to do it it encouraged the black market to take over leading to a creation of a criminal infrastructure. Once alchohal was legalized though that infrastructure dried up because why take the risk of the black market when you can legally buy alchohal. IMO the same thing is happening with immigration and things like the exploitation of workers, coyotes and our porous border have more to do with that there is such an impetus to by pass the legal means of immigration since the restrictions placed by those doesn't match the reality that our economy wants more workers and there are workers over the border who want to work here.

The problem that I see with the argument advocating enforcement is that it is out of touch with reality. Merely saying we are going to crack down on illegal immigration without making it easier to legally immigrate here will never solve the problem as long as the economic and geographic realities exist as they are.

 

1. I'm not an immigration lawyer. I don't practice in this area. That I'm an attorney is incidental to this discussion.

2. I'm nowhere near as important as your post makes me out to be.

 

If I can riff off of your example I think the abortion issue is one where the law was changed to meet reality. Prior to 1972 there were abortions happening. Lots of them. Since abortion was illegal they were happening in an unregulated black market that led to a lot of women getting hurt. Now whether you think abortion is morally right or wrong the fact is that abortion was happening quite a bit and if it is going to happen should it happen in back alleys or should it happen in clinics where the conditions can be controlled and regulated? The problem with just prohibiting it though is that it fails to understand why women will seek abortions in the first place and until that is addressed there will always be women who seek abortions whether legal or not.

Here's a philosophical question. Is something not a crime even though it violates the law? If we are to say that crime is that which violates the law then all of us who have speeded, jay walked, or shown videos of Rockets games to others are criminals. The problem I see with a dogmatic insistence upon the law where in the law because a justification to itself, ignores many other issues.

I think you are saying that but am raising the issue as I think this philosophical distinction is an important point.

I've noticed you've raised the issue of exploitation a few times in this thread. Are immigrants exploited? Certainly they are but this is the nature of having so much of immigration forced into a black market. IMO if the laws better reflect the market demand for labor and the willing supply we could address much of the exploitation, especially by smugglers.

Many have raised the point that immigrants are being exploited since they come here and work for much lower wages and at menial jobs than Americans will. That is true but as you noted you have to consider the flip side and why would they be willing to do so. The problem is that if we look at the work and wages that immigrants do is that even though from our own standards it seems exploitative it is better than the situation that they face in their own country. To me it seems that it is both impractical but even cruel then to say that we aren't going to allow you come here and work for low wages at menial jobs even though you want to since we think you are being exploited and you are better off living where you are. I mean how do you tell that to people living off of garbage dumps in the Third World or stuck in an a barely above subsistence level agrarian lifestyle? To me that is the height of arrogance for us to say that we are going to shut our borders to those who want to work because we believe we know what is best for them.

How does limiting immigration do that? People talk about immigrants coming in to take jobs from Americans yet wouldn't it make more sense for those Americans willing to take those jobs even if it means working at a low wage? If a Guatamalan is willing to clean a toilet at $5 hour why not a poor American?

I agree we have a lot of problems of our own but just shutting off immigration doesn't seem like the answer.

I agree and I'm not necessarily arguing with you just riffing off of your post since you raise a lot of important issues.

Leaving apart Jesus for the moment the idea of we need to enforce our border to enforce our ideals is that the US wasn't a country founded upon a cultural or ethnic ideal it was a country founded upon philosophical ideals. In the Declaration of Independence it talks about these ideals being endowed to all men. Now I don't read that as saying all men of European descent or all men that have come here legally but as something that all men have. An immigrant coming here to work I think is just as entitled to those ideals no matter where they are or what language they speak. Further the US as a culture is an evolving culture and to say that we need to protect our borders to preserve our culture ignores that our culture is constantly changing and that change has proven to be one of our strengths.

Finally you raise the issue of government intervention. To me immigration laws are government intervention in the market place of labor. It makes no sense to me on one hand that people say that we need to get government out of the marketplace and then on the otherhand say we need government to throw up impediments to the free flow of labor and strictly enforce that.

 

My Good Friend ANDYMOON says the same thing about the Drugs Laws!
I am sure several others have a few Laws they would want to add to the Pile.
I mean . .. Now You can shoot two people in the back without consequence!
Why don't we make list of Laws we'd rather ignore. . that we think are 'out fo touch'

Rocket River

 

Then work to change the laws.

I love the last line in the Costner movie, "The Untouchables." After the long fight with liquor violators, Ness is asked what he is going to do about the end of prohibition and he responds, "I think I'll go out and get a drink." Perfect.

Change the laws. Don't break them or bend them or abet either of those actions.

 

RR -

We've already ignored immigraton law. That ship has sailed. The question is what to do now. Do we spend tons of money on a new enforcement plan?? Or do we change the laws and the policy? Those are the questions to be considered. That's what the debate centers around. You can lament that we didn't enforce these laws earlier....but no one is really having that discussion at this point.

 

spend tons of $ on a new enforcement plan, by that you mean deportation or raids?

what do you advocate as far as changing the laws/policy? Easier for people to come in this country and easier to become a citizenship and less severe punishment for illegals caught in this country already?

 

I happen to agree with Andymoon that our drug laws are seriously out of touch with reality. I might not go as far as he would regarding decriminalization but I totally agree that our drug laws have probably caused more problems than they solved.

Not every law is out of touch with reality but there are many and in that case it makes sense to rethink them. The nationwide 55 MPH speed limit was a law that very few actually obeyed and given the average speed of traffic in many cases was dangerous to obey. It made sense to drop it and allow states to set their own speed laws. I would say the immigration law is clearly a situation where the law is so heavily flaunted and enforcement creates so many problems that it is out of touch.

Now I'm not sure how the Joe Horn case has to do with this as there is a Texas law on the books making what Joe Horn is doing is legal. That isn't a case of a law that is blocking a market or societal demand and leading to a black market as I'm not aware of rampant vigilantism over a desire of citizens to fight crime.

 

Let me ask you do you always drive at or below the speed limit? Do you always cross the street at legal crosswalks? The truth is most of us are bending or breaking the laws all the time and in turn the police aren't enforcing them constantly either as there is an understanding that draconian enforcement of many laws isn't practical and will end up causing a host of other problems.

In this case I would say the best solution would be to change the laws but when laws are out of touch with reality don't expect consistent enforcement or universal compliance. If anything expect the opposite.

 

1. Yes, I always drive at or below the speed limit. I haven't had a ticket since 1972 (you know, the reckless 70s).
2. I don't have any crosswalks nearby and I generally drive to the stores. When I run, it's out at the lake near the house.
3. If the laws aren't being enforced by general consensus, should those laws be repealed or modified? Of course.
4. As I said earlier in this thread, there are too many contradictory laws -- so many that we are immune to people breaking them.
5. Does this mean that you can choose which laws to break and which to uphold? Apparently that is your thinking....and you are not alone. However, I am on the other side of the line.

 

I just want to point out that Costner's character in the film did break the laws, and far worse ones that having a drink. He murdered a man in that film.

 

The rest of the movie is not germane to my point.

However, in the movies police officers always get away with shooting one to 500 people without filling out any paperwork. In real life, he'd would be weeks filling out paperwork and getting clear with the Internal Affairs Division. However, on a side note, the ease and carefree attitude of movieland killing people makes it easier for impressionable people to be copycats.