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

The point being .. change the Law. . . .
You don't just keep breaking it . . because u don't like it

what seems to be prevailing logic here
is
12 Million people broke the law .. that makes it ok . .let's reward them with citizen ship


Rocket River

 

I honestly respect your adherance to the law, especially if you haven't been speeding since 1972, but just because a law is a law doesn't mean that it is practical.

I think most of us are in basic agreement though that we should change the immigration laws.

I'm still curious about your dedication to following the law on the basis that it is the law. Do you believe in civil disobedience and would you follow a law that you felt was unjust just because it was the law?

For example if the US went back to segregationist laws would you abide by them?

Rocket River I'm curious how you would answer that question too so please feel free to chime in.

 

I dare any United States citizen to try and gain citizenship in Mexico.

 

Breaking the law is breaking the law.

If I get caught speeding telling the cop "everyone else was speeding so I shouldn't be punished" doesn't make what I did any less illegal nor is it going to get me out of the punishment that I deserve.

This is a black and white issue. Yes, there are tons of people who would probably do the same thing in their situation. That doesn't make it legal and it's a slap in the face to people who care enough about this country to do things the right way and wait the decades that it sometimes takes to get to America from overseas.

 

No, I don't think we should change the immigration laws at all. In fact, we need to strengthen them and give them teeth -- a $10,000 employer fine for each illegal worker and a $1,000 landlord fine for every illegal resident living in his dwelling(s). With these laws we won't have to round up millions of people. They will be forced to leave of their own volition.

I didn't even believe in civil disobedience when it was fashionable in the 60s. No, if you don't like a law, you form alliances and coalitions and legally work to change them.

As far as your really bizarre example, I think I would have shed tears for my country and retired to Costa Ricaor Belize if a majority could impose such human rights violations as making segregation legal. Thank goodness, its a silly analogy and something like that would never happen.

 

What if the person has fake documents? Do you still fine the employer / landlord?

 

We have a judiciary that determines levels of culpability. If you pass a counterfeit $100 and it is discovered, it's your loss. Pass enough of them and you go to jail.

If you allow one illegal with fake documents, you'd probably never even go to trial. If you allow hundreds with fake documents, your credibility diminishes to the point you start getting fined. True?

One can "what if" scenarios ad infinitum. Laws are passed and defined with judicial precedent.

 

If a 16 year is drinking in a club . . .does not the club still get hit . .. even if they have a Fake ID??

Rocket River

 

There is a philosophical answer. Moral law is not man made.
I would think of moral law as loving God and loving my neighbor. There are many applications of those two laws. You would probably at least go with the love of one's neighbor.

Man made laws don't necessarily define moral laws and sometimes contradict them. For instance when the Jewish people were in slavery in Egypt the Pharaoh passed a law to have all the Hebrew children killed. Moses parents defied that law.

That is why the laws of immigration or border security are difficult to write and enforce. I don't personally believe or insist on dogmatic adherence to a law that is morally wrong.

If there was a law that my wife and I could only have one child and my wife became pregnant with our second child the govt. would have a hard time killing our unborn baby while I am alive.

I certainly see the immigration laws as being flawed and the enforcement ill-conceived.

From my own experience with Mexico and its society I think there is a misconception that illegal immigration originated with the Mexican people trying to escape the harsh condition and look for better opportunities.

My great grandfather wrote extensively and fought as a revolutionary during the Mexican struggle for independence. He was born in Northwest Mexico and never came to the US. We have his journals, he was very educated. During the late 1800's there was alot of Mexican families living in Texas. It has been that way. The border areas pretty much have been mixed for a long time.

Most Mexicans who came here had family or lands or reasons that go back over 100 years. There was always travel back and forth. My own experience has been that the average Mexican family even the poorest are not looking for a way to come here. Many came do to existing ties to the border states.

I think there was a dramatic increase in illegal immigration driven by profiteers who saw the opportunity to exploit workers in Mexico and bring them across. There certainly were many workers who came just to find a better life, but I believe alot of workers were encouraged to come in more significant numbers starting in the economic expansion of the late 1950's- today.

The exploitation I spoke of is that these smugglers and other labor managers were able to profit off of cheap Mexican labor by dramatically increasing the illegal entry. This is not your influx of restaurant workers but farm hands, ranch hands and construction workers. These are recruited workers.

What that started was a compounding of illegal immigration because the more workers that came across the border the more their relative and families started coming so that they could keep the families together.

I see that happening alot today in Houston. One member of a family gets settled and then brothers and uncles and cousins are coming over.

So a combination of people desparately trying to find work, workers being recruited and families coming across compounds the total number of illegal immigrants.

I believe for many years the workers who were recruited to come here illegally were exploited and paid very small cash wages.

I do see many illegals making pretty good money today at least in the Houston area.

That is why I think exploitation is overlooked. I think it was and may still be one of the basic root problems that contributed to the increase in illegal border crossings.

I know for certain that market demands for labor take care of themselves. Markets will always adjust to true supply and demand. However it is certainly true that when there is an ample supply of cheap labor for certain jobs that there is no market force to increase those wages. Thus as sure as a group whether it be immigrants or high school graduates start taking low paying jobs in large numbers then those wages are not likely to increase.

I have spent alot of time in Mexico and I just don't find this to be true. The Mexican people I know don't mind at all their lack of affluence. Most don't know any better, they are better off than their own ancestors and they live simple but happy lives.

The ones that live in the garbage dumps and I have been there, can't afford to get out or accross the border. These poorest of the poor really need deparate help right where they are at. Alot of them end up in crime, prostitution, begging or drugs. If they are coming accross the border they certainly aren't paying the smugglers and their chances of making it without that type of assistance is slim, unless smugglers are using them for labor crews and are being paid by someone else.

I support immigration. I do not believe illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans. It has happened, but I don't see it as a wide spread problem today. Things have leveled out some. Most jobs today require more education and registration than they did 25 years ago.

I am speaking to the sense of citizenship and what that means. I am not speaking of just having a temporary work permit. The reason there is a border between Mexico and the US is because they are two different nations with two different constitutions, governments and laws. I don't see much difference in the people, just the ideas and principles behind each society.

I look at immigration laws as border enforcement first and labor second.

The market place of labor could be filled by slave labor or be left to free market forces. The free flow of labor should be established in the US. The free flow of labor is a separate issue from border crossing.

I believe immigration laws should be principled on three issues.

1. Loving our neighbors.
2. Securing our borders.
3. Strengthening our communities.

So from my standpoint we should help the poor conditions in Mexico (our neighbors), accept immigrants legally as best strengthens our communities, encourage and help others find the opportunity that is America.

Instead of a fence across the Texas border, let's put up another Statue of Liberty.

 

BTW- I don't see borders as walls to keep people out, I see borders as distinctions between nations. If Mexico and America operated under the same govt., constitution, and laws then there shouldn't be any geographical borders. Nations are distinct by the ideas and principles they stand for.

Everyone in the world should be able to come to America and share in our hospitality and our principles. But there should be something that makes us Americans. I think those principles are changing, maybe they are melding into a United Nations society.

 

Courts and law enforcement do not want to be overburdened (as if they aren't already) with 12 million (even .01% is a lot) more cases on a flawed law to determine culpability inside a nation that ultimately encourages them to cross over.

 

With the fine system I suggested (how about that entendre? ), there would be fewer court cases as employers / landlords puckered their pursestrings and obeyed the law. INS and other law enforcement wouldn't be burdened with rounding up illegals. With no job and no place to live, they would simply return to their home countries.

Rhester, I too don't believe we need walls or fences to define our borders. However, we need to declare English as the principal language of our nation. Even so, people should be able to pass freely back and forth to shop, dine and visit friends and family. The laws I espouse would not discourage that.

Mexico, for example, does not look askance at non-residents tworking and living in their country as we do here. But that's a different thread.

 

My mistake for misreading your post.

Civil disobedience though plays a role in bringing attention to unjust laws. Its unlikely that he alliances and coalitions that changed the laws to end segregation would have happened without civil disobedience on the part of Rosa Parks and MLK.

My apologies for using a hypothetical but I needed an example to set the basis behind the question. That said for it being bizarre since we once had segregation and that there are many in regard to the illegal immigration (and immigration in general) issue are essentially advocating a segrationist like policies. Seperate treatment for those who are citizens and those who aren't even to the point of reinterpreting or outright doing away with parts of the 14th Ammendment equal protection caluse.

 

That said though many people still continue to speed, jaywalk and do all sorts of things that violate the laws. At the same time you don't see police rampantly enforcing those laws.

As I stated earlier there is a problem with a dogmatic approach to the law when it is out of step with the reality of the situation. For instance in prohibition and the national 55 MPH speed limit it was clear that the laws were out of touch with reality and in the case of prohibition was causing more problems than it was solving.

To argue that the law itself is justification unto itself ignores why we have the law in the first place and what are the affects of the law.

 

Speeding and prohibition are bad laws, but immigration laws are there for a reason. There are millions of people who want to come here; can we let everyone in? If the answer is no it doesn't seem fair that we let some in and not others for no other reason than proximity. That seems unjust.

 

So law-abiding business owners who have employees using fake documents (and no good way to verify them) will be dragged to court off and on and forced to defend themselves at random?

Sure - but the point of coming up with the "what if" scenarios is to determine the practical effects of a law. A law can be great in theory, but if it doesn't make sense in reality, you've got a problem. The practical effect of the above is that business owners will simply discriminate against legal American Hispanic people or immigrant-looking types in order to avoid taking any chances that they will be faced with a $10,000 fine and/or the legal fees associated with being dragged to court to fight a fine. Is that really the direction you want to go?

 

Rhester;

Thank you again for your excellent longer post and I found it really interesting to read your knowledge of the Tex-Mex border from your family history. I will respond to your post in more detail when I get more of a chance.

I don't think our opinions are that different and I'm not so much advocating flaunting the laws, that is already done, but changing the laws to bring them more in line with the reality of the immigration situation as it now is.

 

But under the current system the black market gives more benefit to proximity. For instance why is there more mar1juana grown in Mexico sold in the US than from Thailand? The immigration system is out of touch with that millions want to comer here and our economy wants them to come here. If we want more parity regarding who can come we should do away with the black market by reducing the legal barriers to immigration.

 

First, the employer/landlord would not be dragged to court at random. Investigators who examine fake documentation generally have latitude as to whether a person is duped once or twice. Where there are multiple offenses and poor fake documentation, those same investigators would smell a rat and take action...as they should.

The loss here would still be to the employer / landlord because they would have to find a legal replacement in order not to interfere with his/her revenue stream. The example of someone with a counterfeit $100 bill that I cited earlier applies here.

If the law is not an effective or fair law, we elect our legislators to have the good sense to modify or repeal said law. For example, Prohibition was the law of the land until Congress repealed it.

This is your best point because I am very much opposed to discrimination of any sort. However, all the potential employer or landlord has to do is ask for a driver's license, SSN and a copy of the last IRS return with "W" form(s). Employers even now often ask for those three items. Employers / landlords who don't care or want to circumvent the law don't ask for the latter. A legal person has no trepidation about furnishing proof. An illegal starts to sweat when additional proof is required.