Immigration reform ideas.

[(SWGO)Kren]

For us in the UK the extent of net immigration from other countries will not directly benefit the economy due to the impact associated with population growth. Our government indicates immigration is a benefit to the economy however a population explosion counter acts this. Regulate the influx of migrant workers, control the borders, monitor and police immigration with enough resources is the way to achieve however reformation of existing laws is the first step in addressing this issue. As I have mentioned this is no easy and quick task and will take significant resources to make it happen. The immigration issue across Europe is much more severe than it is in America especially with it's open borders. The population across Europe is around 500+ million with the UK being the second most densely populated country.

Be aware I am also indicating that immigrants which ever way you want to document their status 'undocumented/illegal' are all good people, I am certainly not implying that. You will have a mixture of people who are willing to go to great lengths to get into a country to work however in order to survive, others to scam the state/businesses and a proportion that will be entering to commit serious crimes and/or become part of gangs/organised crime networks.

Making undocumented immigrants US Citizens is a very upstanding idea but then the population increases, more demand is placed public services, housing, environment, society and the quality of life. This opens up a whole raft of issues relating to the idea of integration of individuals into communities and given they will be classed as poor it they could find they are segregated within society due to their status.

In the US due to the historical and relaxed approach towards undocumented immigration has been the cause of the issue that exists in your country today. The gates are already open and immigration has not been controlled or regulated due to corruption and profit making. For example Walmart was fined $11 million dollars because it employed undocumented immigrants in 2005 and that's a company that was making $285 billion in worldwide sales at the time. So if a large company such as Walmart can exploit immigrants then you can be sure that significantly smaller companies would and will have been doing the same as it made sense for them to exploit cheap labour. US companies hiring illegal immigrants:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics ... rder-fence
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/busin ... wners.html
http://www.abc57.com/home/top-stories/L ... 22291.html

This is not isolated to the US, it happens over here also:

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/110 ... s/?ref=mac

In the US when an immigrant produces fake paperwork and an employer turns a blind-eye this can be due to the profits that such a business will make from such individuals. Do you really think that such companies would have cared about reforms being made or increased pressure to employ US citizens? If there are low paid jobs which are not being filled by US citizens and undocumented immigrants are being employed by companies it is because they can exploit these individuals indicates corruption is paramount to make profit. Due to cheaper labour costs, poor working conditions this equates to greater profits for business owners. Immigrants come to work in order to survive and live, corrupt businesses exploit these individuals to make profits. If you factor all the companies that exploit immigrants to make profit then it is no surprise that the reformation of immigration is slow as clearly such businesses will not make the profits that they have been making.

The downside for US citizens is that they do not or will not accept such low paid jobs whereas undocumented immigrants grab these opportunities. The businesses that employ them are aware of this fact which ultimately means they are purposely depressing the wage structure for US citizens. In addition to this those immigrants with fake ID's will not collect social security which then raises the concern where does this go? An immigrant with a fake ID pay's the money in but will never receive as they don't exist but your social security administration receives such deductions from the wages paid. But in order to crack down on this equates to resources and investigations. The US Government has been enforcing fines over the years but not to the extent where is having an impact. This demonstrates lack of commitment, resources and/or willingness to pursue businesses.

A recent news article also appears to indicate that the Government is easing penalties for businesses which hire immigrants which speaks really shows the lack of drive to pursue them:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... /?page=all

So in a way and due to the immoral nature of these business and the fact US Government has turned a blind eye and now won't actively fine them you have in place a modern day slave labour force at work across the US today. Removing it means those businesses will not make the profits they have been making and do you really think they want to make less money in favour of giving US citizens a higher paid job if they can employ low paid undocumented immigrant worker?

Perhaps rather than looking at all the immigrants with disgust and contempt it might be worth focusing this back towards the businesses which are corrupt, the administration that allows immigrants to enter the US in the first place and the fact that the businesses employing undocumented immigrants are not pursued and fined. The immigrants are not free from blame and it is likely they know there very presence in your country will cause issues for everyday Americans. To stop this from happening it needs to be addressed cohesively at the highest levels to the smallest businesses whilst regulating immigration, securing your borders and stamping out corruption associated with profit making.

It's certainly a challenge.

Kren

[Darth Crater]

I'm not disputing the money value, but manpower wise. If border patrol and DEA could focus on hard drug runners instead of illegals and pot smugglers, how much more would be saved.

I guess I got a bit off track. My main complaint was that you seemed to be whitewashing the drug cartels a bit, specifically with the "group of gangs mostly driven by sales of an herb" line. Remember that whichever drug they make money from, they spend it on assassination, corruption, and various human rights violations.

I'm really not sure how I personally feel about border security, especially since it's not even the only source of undocumented immigrants. 40% of them enter legally using temporary visas.

[Duel of Fates]

Not to mention the human trafficking.

Mandy, not sure what kind of weed you smoke, but it is addling your common sense. Securing the border means just that. Securing the Border. Gun running, drug smuggling, human trafficking, illegal entry into a sovereign nation. These are not piddly assed crimes. Serious money changes hands. You cannot cherry pick which laws to enforce and which you can ignore. That was my basis for this thread. If the borders are not secured, then it is a waste of time, effort, and money to try and come up with some "comprehensive immigration reform law". Especially when you have a president and many Washington politicians not enforcing the laws already on the books. Why bother? Other than to distract the population from the crap they promised to fix in the first place, which they haven't or won't fix.

As far as the visas go, they need to deport them when their visas expire. How many of the 9-11 terrorists had expired visas before they attacked? Maybe if some pencil pushers and budget weary managers actually did their jobs keeping track of these guys, many of those 3,000 some souls would not have been snuffed out of existence. Maybe instead of throwing money into the NSA to track our phones and emails, money into the IRS to harass tea party members, money into the VA to give bonuses out to death panels for letting vets die instead of getting the medical help they need, they should throw some money into ICE and hire more people to monitor the visa holders.

[NiteRunner81]

And yet they choose to deport a family that simply wants to keep their children out of a form of education that is geared at Social Engineering..

[Mandalore]

I'll agree I white washed the issue a little bit but that my main point in the case of drug smuggling is that in terms of the number of people involved marijuana blows everything else away, even when you combine them. When there are less people involved in the trade it becomes easier to single them out. Frankly securing such a long border in the way that Duel wants is an impracticable idea. Being a pragmatist and whose only really political ideology is Realpolitik, this seems common sense to me to strike the law from the books when it is hugely financially detrimental both in terms of lost tax revenue as well as the imprisonment of others for this drug and patrolling the border for trafficking. There wouldn't be much of a black market for foreign marijuana since domestic production would automatically be cheaper. Crossing the border immediately jumps the value of the drug by 2-3x usually.

And Duel, I don't smoke weed. Nor do I drink alcohol. While not opposed to them on any moral or ideological basis I frankly just incredibly dislike any level of loss of self control.

And see, this to me is an incredibly common sense issue to me.

Pros:

Increased tax revenue from 11 million people who are largely all in the work force and currently don't pay taxes or into social services. This would also take away a lot of the drain they take from those systems. (Although, as I highlighted in another thread this would presumably small just given their average age)

Their children almost immediately become as likely or more likely than the 'average" American to succeed in life. Here's a little study from the Pew for ya ( http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/ ... americans/) Their median income is the same as other Americans and they also have a higher chance to graduate from college. 78% of second generation Latino immigrants feel they can get ahead through hard work in contrast to 58% of average Americans. (Same study)

They create a young work force who are going to support you old [m'kay] (looking at Duel and WD here ;P) since our social service systems are pretty [m'kay] (Social Security going insolvent by 2016 at the earliest), and even more [m'kay] without young people paying into the system. This is how the entire thing is supposed to work guys. Young people pay into the system to support the old. Without the immigrants we would already be looking at a Japan like situation where they don't birth enough and thus have incredibly low demand economically and a [m'kay] up government debt level. (japan sits at 211% their GDP currently iirc).

Border patrol and security improves immensely because the average illegal immigrant no longer is "hopping the border" but legally registering. This allows the border security to really do their job when it comes to those exact things you said Duel. To give a domestic example, how much more able would the Police be able to do their job if they didn't have to write speeding tickets all day long? Not only does this present a higher level of efficiency on the front lines, it would also greatly reduce the bureaucratic stress of those agencies as those responsibilities are transported to other areas of government.

Cons:
There are a bunch of Latinos mostly centered in the South West?

There's a precedent set for immigration in a country known worldwide for immigration? A precedent that was actually set in the 1800s and beyond for mostly non-restricted immigration?

Current/potential criminals are now in the system, instead of remaining anonymous?

As for the WTC argument Duel....we both know that those guys were on multiple lists compiled by security agencies and they simply weren't followed. The problem wasn't their immigration status but the fact that protocol wasn't followed. Also, since immigration form would presumable also go with an increase in required documentation to do things (as in many countries-you need your documents to [m'kay] breathe basically) then those two men would have stuck out like a sore thumb even more if they had chosen not to register with the authorities.

Also, to fully present the facts about how they identify. It's a pretty even split among Hispanics. 38% identify with their parent's country of origin, 37% identify as American, and 20% just describe themselves as Latino/Hispanic. However this is actually better than Asian-Americans and this phenomenon decreases even more significantly by the third generation. However, even among second generation 61% of latino second generation immigrants feel that they are the "typical American." 85% of second generation speak English very well, and only 50% speak their ancestral language conversationally. (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/ ... -identity/)

I would be more than welcome to respond to rational arguments bounded by statistics, Duel and WD. I apologize for name calling WD. I have a tendency to think the worst of you since in all honesty I think you're a bit of a [quack]. I get the feeling that the reverse is also true, so i'm not too worried about it. Not only that but your original posts did smack very much of racism. Can I get a neutral third party to way in on that, just in case I was wrong? (Kren would be the only one described as such in the last few posts, I think). I would also like someone to provide some cons of illegal immigrants being legalized and a return to our old way of immigration laws (pretty much free borders) that is backed up by statistics and scholarly studies.

As for the "The law is this way, thus it should be followed to the nail." I feel in all honesty that every single person has broken at least one law or two in their life. I'm guessing the vast majority have drank underage and broken other petty laws and such. Not to mention the entire thread seems to be more dedicated to how immigration law should be changed. Have immigrants broken the law? Yes. Have the majority of their reasons been good ones? Ones that every single person can understand? Yes. If you were living in a [poo] hole country and the opportunity to move to America presented itself, I doubt you'd be concerning yourself with immigration law in that case.

[CommanderOtto]

well, I sort of understand WD... I guess.

I think he is saying something similar to what I have thought:

1. How can traditional American culture be preserved if such a huge influx of people from Mexico keep coming and coming? Of course, culture is a living thing, but you can't blame WD for wanting to bring back the good ol' days of the U.S.

2. There is so much savagery out there in the world.... and the border states of Mexico have a lot of it. The people in those northern states have had such poor education (or none at all) and have seen crime and hunger. When people live in those conditions (poor nutrition, education, and safety), people grow up being very underdeveloped. That's why when you have been to some places where there is a lot of poverty, you will see how sometimes people act like animals. No manners, difficulty to read and write, lawlessness, crazy driving, family problems... all those things are brought to the U.S when those types of people come here. It's that simple. Does that mean it is their fault? No... it is the fault of their government for being so irresponsible, but just allowing people to come here without any screening/documentation of any kind only stimulates crime in the U.S. Take another example... haven't you noticed that the majority of taxi drivers are foreigners from countries like Eritrea? Man, I have never seen such savagery in driving lol. And it is not because they want to be that way... but they are refugees coming from a nation a thousand times worse than Mexico and many of them (not all) will continue to be like this because they don't know any better. What i'm saying is (and what I think WD is saying), is that the U.S is suffering a culture shock here...and it might be better to limit the influx of some of these people or the US might get worse. Having lived in Venezuela and Brazil, I think there is some truth to that. Of course, i'm generalizing, not everyone from these countries is ignorant. There are people who come from poor countries and have studied in universities and have had a good education and have money. And sometimes some people from poor countries might have had few opportunities in life, but I have seen some people who have had ZERO education, and seem to be much more aware of the economy, world issues, and literature than some americans who have had good food, education, and safety.

so I think WD is generalizing, and sometimes I hate when he uses terms like "towel heads", but I think he has a point.

That being said, it's important to not mix people's color or national origin with the effects of poverty.

[WD-40]

Thanks Otto! You see my views well because your head isn't shoved up your ass. As far as terms I may have used like 'Towel Head' is actually 'Rag Heads with fan belts to hold them in place'. That's an old Navy term we 'who have served our Country' used to describe certain bad Middle Easterners.

See, what Mandalore doesn't understand because perhaps he's not aware and/or has never served, is that (unlike Liberals) 'prior and active duty Military' tend to be much more protective of our history, culture, freedoms, rule of law and way of life. Change doesn't come so easy and care-free, especially when the Laws are pissed on and tossed aside, especially where the Constitution is concerned. I don't spend a lot of time copying other peoples research and spewing it here as if it's all how things should be. I suppose I 'generalize' because I get busy and just speak from the heart about 'what I believe' and 'how I feel'. Mandalore saying that I'm [m'kay] up or a quack (whatever the hell that is) comes across as whining because I don't agree with his views. Again, I don't give a damn what people feel or think about me, because I won't change because someone got their feelings all hurt. Calling me a 'racist' only earns him disrespect because I said nothing racist. It reminds me of Rockefeller and others calling people 'racist' because they don't like Obamacare being forced on the nation.

Now, Due to my present job (where I'm sworn to uphold the Constitution of the US, and am a Naturalized Mexican American's Best Buddy where and when it comes to protecting their Constitutional Rights) calling me a racist makes even more laughable. I am who I am. And I don't regret a thing. Becoming a US Citizen should be 'earned' like so many have had to endure in the past. Not given out like candy as if it was 'their right' to have it just for managing the break the law sneaking across the border, and to hell with all the Laws pertaining to it. As Duel said, you can't cherry-pick which Laws you want to obey and which ones you don't because it suits you.

[NiteRunner81]

I find it disturbing lately how many judges are striking down state-voted Constitutional Amendments. A federal judge can just pound his gavel and invalidate amendments that states voted for. Judges can pound their gavels and take kids away from their parents for a year for getting a second medical opinion. Judges (both state and federal) have too much power.

I am also finding it disturbing how much we're throwing around the word "racist" in this conversation. There are many races taking advantage of our loose borders. We have Somalian people seeking asylum, we have middle easterners seeking asylum, we have latinos who are bending the rules. I don't think our economy, or the American PEOPLE (the ones born here or legally naturalized here) are FED UP!!

But there are stories like this that bring a tear to my eye.. This is what doing it right looks like:

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

I'm not going to dive into the debate of Stock Market effect vs. Immigration Reform (even though I was a Financial Planner for a few years in the 90's), but I will say that given the opportunity, newly legalized Mexican Americans will use their power base to, not only continue to influence the outcome of elections, but 'determine' the outcomes. So Latinos are now some singular organized entity with a common goal? And that goal, in your mind, involves taking over the United States? Generalization on this scale is so hilarious, I almost thought you were being sarcastic and making fun of the fundamentalists (like Stephen Colbert does every night)...almost. Democrats in the Senate and House want to protect their jobs by appeasing the Mexicans here, but they do no see the 'forest thru the trees'...ie the big picture. They will have literally voted themselves out of a job, one/two Congressional members at a time. You sound like the Pastor who predicted the rapture in 2011. "And then...they'll COME FOR US! AAAAAAHHHHH! Congressmen beware - they are the SITH!" Mexicans are crapping out 'anchor babies' left and right. I doubt you'd like to know the REAL reason birth rates in Latin America are so high, but I'll tell you anyway. The Spanish occupation enshrined a rigid social hierarchy wherein peasants, decreasing rapidly in number due to European disease, toiled in the fields for subsistence and to pay taxes to the Crown or the Viceroy. To produce enough crop, they had to have numerous children. This, coupled with the fact that Infant Mortality Rates were so high, contributed to the large families. This tradition continued, and as contraception is frowned upon by the Catholic Church, it continues today. They know there's strength in numbers, and soon enough, they will be a strong majority. You act like they are all being controlled by some computer. Like they are all sleeper agents waiting for activation. Then the will move more aggressively, especially once 'legalized', and take control of local, state and federal offices all over the U.S..Lemme guess. They'll DECLARE WAR /sarcasm. Once it's done it's done. Too late to stop it, because once they have the power, it's over, and we will be called the United States of New Mexico... Please, please, please be joking.See, what Mandalore doesn't understand because perhaps he's not aware and/or has never served, is that (unlike Liberals) 'prior and active duty Military' tend to be much more protective of our history, culture, freedoms, rule of law and way of life. Change doesn't come so easy and care-free, especially when the Laws are pissed on and tossed aside, especially where the Constitution is concerned. Except: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/op ... 0&referrer. I doubt you even know our history, or else your perspective is so skewed there's no reasoning with you.

As I am writing this, I'm pretty livid, so please understand that my derisiveness is directed at what you are saying, not you as a person. I thank you for your service as a veteran and can only hope that you didn't mean what you wrote above.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

I find it disturbing lately how many judges are striking down state-voted Constitutional Amendments. A federal judge can just pound his gavel and invalidate amendments that states voted for. Judges can pound their gavels and take kids away from their parents for a year for getting a second medical opinion. Judges (both state and federal) have too much power.

I am also finding it disturbing how much we're throwing around the word "racist" in this conversation. There are many races taking advantage of our loose borders. We have Somalian people seeking asylum, we have middle easterners seeking asylum, we have latinos who are bending the rules. I don't think our economy, or the American PEOPLE (the ones born here or legally naturalized here) are FED UP!!

But there are stories like this that bring a tear to my eye.. This is what doing it right looks like:

The 14th Amendment, ratified in the Post-Civil-War Era includes two clauses of particular interest: The Equal Protection Clause and The Due Process Clause. These precepts were eventually used to justify "Incorporation Doctrine," whereby the Bill of Rights applied to the States. Prior to this Amendment (and for a good while afterwards), States could pass laws restricting free speech, the right to bear arms, protections against search and seizures, cruel and unusual punishments, etc. This principle was best established in Barron v. Baltimore. Fortunately, in Gitlow v. New York (1925), SCOTUS overturned Barron and "incorporated" the First Amendment to the states. If state law violates the first amendment, it can be challenged by a party with legal standing and subsequently struck down. Since then, a few other Amendments have been incorporated, including portions of the 6th, etc.

The notion of "Judicial Activism" has been thrown around a lot lately. (I'm going to be non-partisan here): Funnily enough, whenever one group of people loses a court case, they blame the Courts for Judicial Activism. The Left blamed SCOTUS for JA after Citizens United, and Clinton v. New York, and the Right blamed it for the same after DOMA was struck down, etc. Point is, the Courts are unelected. I get that. But that helps prevent the tyranny of the majority that our Founding Fathers (namely Madison) feared. They are stacked by the Executive, confirmed by the Legislature, and for the most part exercise restraint. The principle of STARE DECISIS is a core aspect of our system, for better or for worse, but it is the job of the Judiciary to prevent miscarriages of justice and abuses of power by elected officials. If, hypothetically, some idiot is elected after another terrorist attack in the wake of the grief and decides to nuke the Middle East, the Courts can see to it that he is stopped. An extreme example, yes, but you get the point. The Courts are the United States' ONE great leap forward (not like Zedong's btw) in terms of government.

I'd like to add that the people seeking asylum here are not "taking advantage of our country," particularly because many of their problems stem from our intervention in Afghanistan, our CIA's efforts to topple South American socialist governments, our withdrawal of aid from the Cuban Resistance and the resulting "Bay of Pigs Catastrophe." Asylum is provided to those who need it. And these people do need it. We, as a First World Nation, have an obligation to accept them.