Orphans at our door

[Soxbadger]

What makes you think the bolded is true?

 

The fact that is true. There is no way to stop it as long as you have an open border for your citizens.

 

Just for the sake of argument Ill use these charts (I have no idea if they are true)

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkbl...the-rise-again/

 

Even at the height of enforcement 1995-2000, illegal immigration went up exponentially. The only thing that really impacted immigration was the US financial crisis, because illegal immigration went down the years when enforcement went down. And those are just pew numbers, some believe that it still was going up at a similar percent.

 

The reason why more border enforcement wont do anything, is because people who are desperate are more willing to take risks/sacrifice than those who are not. Its simple survival.

 

[Soxbadger]

The conversation should always revolve around cutting off the incentives for illegal immigration to the US. Solve the root problem, and the rest falls into place.

 

As long as the US is (imo) the best and freest nation this will never ever happen. No where else presents a similar opportunity, unless we destroy the US. And quite frankly, I dont want to live in that world.

[StrangeSox]

Not sure that's really a fair way to look at it when they're not being told to keep people out, they're being told to look the other way. Nevertheless, border security has always been half-assed anyway. Can't really expect to control the border if you don't control the whole border.

 

Nope. Obama is going to set the deportation record some time this year (if he hasn't already). Most occur within 100 miles of the border. This is why Republican immigration policy is so ridiculous, because it's 180 degrees from reality. That's why anything short of "giant wall and deport 'em all!" is called amnesty.

 

 

 

It's important to note that many of the Obama administration's removals happen along the 100-mile border zone, and that interior deportations have dropped significantly during Obama's time in office. But still, the shift in policy from returns to removals carries significant legal implications for immigrants and has a major impact on people who get caught trying to reenter the country.

 

[StrangeSox]

The conversation should always revolve around cutting off the incentives for illegal immigration to the US. Solve the root problem, and the rest falls into place.

 

The incentives are "escaping violence and crushing poverty." Unless the violence and poverty in large parts of Latin America are suddenly gone or the US becomes equally troubled, the incentives will remain.

[NorthSideSox72]

Can we legally have active duty military patrolling the border and operating on US soil? Honest question.

 

Sure. This is not a combat operation. National Guard units are deployed for border protection in some cases anyway, and other domestic needs. What cannot be done is using the military against US citizens, which these folks are not.

 

The fact that is true. There is no way to stop it as long as you have an open border for your citizens.

 

Just for the sake of argument Ill use these charts (I have no idea if they are true)

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkbl...the-rise-again/

 

Even at the height of enforcement 1995-2000, illegal immigration went up exponentially. The only thing that really impacted immigration was the US financial crisis, because illegal immigration went down the years when enforcement went down. And those are just pew numbers, some believe that it still was going up at a similar percent.

 

The reason why more border enforcement wont do anything, is because people who are desperate are more willing to take risks/sacrifice than those who are not. Its simple survival.

 

So, how does this answer the question? It shows how we've failed before, doing different things. That means it cannot be done? I'm not following your logic here.

 

[Balta1701]

So, how does this answer the question? It shows how we've failed before, doing different things. That means it cannot be done? I'm not following your logic here.

What different things can be done? We've thrown tons of money at additional people and high-tech boondoggles like the "virtual fence" and the only thing that really impacted the flow of immigration was destroying our own economy.

[NorthSideSox72]

What different things can be done? We've thrown tons of money at additional people and high-tech boondoggles like the "virtual fence" and the only thing that really impacted the flow of immigration was destroying our own economy.

First of all, I just posted one idea.

 

Second, the "boondoggle" known as the virtual fence can and still would work as part of a larger solution.

 

Third, once you have an immigrant worker and temporary visa program in place that actually works, the flow will slow on it's own to an extent.

 

[Soxbadger]

Sure. This is not a combat operation. National Guard units are deployed for border protection in some cases anyway, and other domestic needs. What cannot be done is using the military against US citizens, which these folks are not.

 

 

 

So, how does this answer the question? It shows how we've failed before, doing different things. That means it cannot be done? I'm not following your logic here.

 

The reason you arent following my logic is because you dont want to accept that the best policy is to make legal immigration as easy as possible. You are asking me to discount my position "the best way to end illegal immigration is to make all immigration legal."

 

The only way you can stop illegal immigration is to also prevent US citizens from leaving. If you have a completely closed border, you will have the best chance of stopping illegal immigration. As soon as you let people in and out, you have a risk of illegal immigration. I can come up with countless "gimmicks" to curtail immigration, at best it will marginally slow it down, at worst it will spend govt money with little to no result.

 

Which is why the best answer to end illegal immigration is "make legal immigration easier." 2 birds, 1 stone.

[EvilMonkey]

The reason you arent following my logic is because you dont want to accept that the best policy is to make legal immigration as easy as possible. You are asking me to discount my position "the best way to end illegal immigration is to make all immigration legal."

 

The only way you can stop illegal immigration is to also prevent US citizens from leaving. If you have a completely closed border, you will have the best chance of stopping illegal immigration. As soon as you let people in and out, you have a risk of illegal immigration. I can come up with countless "gimmicks" to curtail immigration, at best it will marginally slow it down, at worst it will spend govt money with little to no result.

 

Which is why the best answer to end illegal immigration is "make legal immigration easier." 2 birds, 1 stone.

So if we can't stop 100% we should stop nobody? A 'risk' is acceptable. A sieve that catches almost no one is not.

[Soxbadger]

So if we can't stop 100% we should stop nobody? A 'risk' is acceptable. A sieve that catches almost no one is not.

 

No we can stop people, the same way we did it in Ellis Island. Criminals and people with severe illness would not be allowed to enter.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The reason you arent following my logic is because you dont want to accept that the best policy is to make legal immigration as easy as possible. You are asking me to discount my position "the best way to end illegal immigration is to make all immigration legal."

 

The only way you can stop illegal immigration is to also prevent US citizens from leaving. If you have a completely closed border, you will have the best chance of stopping illegal immigration. As soon as you let people in and out, you have a risk of illegal immigration. I can come up with countless "gimmicks" to curtail immigration, at best it will marginally slow it down, at worst it will spend govt money with little to no result.

 

Which is why the best answer to end illegal immigration is "make legal immigration easier." 2 birds, 1 stone.

You are mistaking a policy position with an answer to a question. You have no answer, because there is no answer - we don't know if it will or will not work without having tried it. You cannot know that, nor can I, with any assuredness.

 

You have to do both to succeed. Simply making legal immigration easier won't stop some people, unless you make it SO easy that EVERYONE comes in like they do now and then some, and you now have huge economic problems as a result. That would reduce deaths on the border and reduce some immigration system costs (while increasing others), but your end result is untenable.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Nope. Obama is going to set the deportation record some time this year (if he hasn't already). Most occur within 100 miles of the border. This is why Republican immigration policy is so ridiculous, because it's 180 degrees from reality. That's why anything short of "giant wall and deport 'em all!" is called amnesty.

 

 

 

Immigration wasn't really an issue until his second term, which sort of coincides with that sharp drop in deportations you see there at the end of the graph...

 

edit: and just so it's said, I wasn't really cool with Bush's lax approach on immigration or Reagan providing his blanket amnesty back in the 80's.

 

edit 2: I also find it difficult to find this graph very accurate when, for example, the Obama admn refuses to give out the numbers of people who have actually been allowed in to the country, as noted in my previous link. And how do these numbers compare to the amount of illegals trying to get in? I know there was a dip during the recession, but are more people trying to get in now than 10 years ago? If so, his numbers being more than Bush or anyone else doesn't matter as much.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[ptatc]

Ptatc,

 

The presumption is that a family wouldnt send their child alone to the US if they could also come with the child. There is no way to guarantee it, but that would be the hope.

 

As for crimes are where immigrants gather, I believe that is because immigrants are generally poorer and therefore they are likely to be in places where crime rates are already high. Research from back then is inconclusive because there are a tremendous number of factors that go into whether someone is prosecuted or not:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831353/

I can see the first point. If it's easier for the parents, they would come as well.

 

for the second point, it really doesn't matter why the crime rate is higher. Where they mass together there will be a high crime rate and thus put more of a strain on the government supported system. If it just the area because they are poor then there will just be more poor people in the high crime rate area thus more crimes.

Also, in today's society with the politicians complaining about the lack of a middle class, can you imagine the outcry when we add millions more poor people to the country?

[Soxbadger]

You are mistaking a policy position with an answer to a question. You have no answer, because there is no answer - we don't know if it will or will not work without having tried it. You cannot know that, nor can I, with any assuredness.

 

You have to do both to succeed. Simply making legal immigration easier won't stop some people, unless you make it SO easy that EVERYONE comes in like they do now and then some, and you now have huge economic problems as a result. That would reduce deaths on the border and reduce some immigration system costs (while increasing others), but your end result is untenable.

 

You are right no person in the world can predict the future. But you can look at history and try and make the best guess. Illegal immigration (in my opinion) is historically a losing cause unless you want to be a country like NK where you control the border on both sides.

 

As for the economic part, you cannot know it will hurt or help the economy. Many economic theorists agree with me, that more immigrants = better stronger American economy. So we dont know if it will work, unless we try it? Is that not the same argument you made to me.

 

 

I can see the first point. If it's easier for the parents, they would come as well.

 

for the second point, it really doesn't matter why the crime rate is higher. Where they mass together there will be a high crime rate and thus put more of a strain on the government supported system. If it just the area because they are poor then there will just be more poor people in the high crime rate area thus more crimes.

Also, in today's society with the politicians complaining about the lack of a middle class, can you imagine the outcry when we add millions more poor people to the country?

 

 

I dont care about people crying if its not right. I dont care how many southerners cried against ending slavery, I dont care how many men cried about giving woman the right to vote. When something is the best, you have to stand by it regardless of what others may say. Statistically there is no evidence that immigrants = more crime. Its a circular argument, because if that argument was valid, my family would never have been allowed to come here (much like many of yours) because at one time in history our family was "the criminal immigrants" who are going to bring crime to the US.

 

Dont you see why that is flawed? Youre family werent criminals just because they were immigrants, just like todays immigrants arent criminals merely because they are immigrants. People are people. Some are good, some are bad. In the end you hope that when you are good to people, they will do the right thing.

 

Maybe they wont, but Id rather give someone the chance. Because I cant predict who is a criminal or not, and I dont believe that immigrants are more likely to be criminals than non-immigrants. I do believe that the police and prosecutor are more likely to arrest and convict an immigrant, but that is the same for any person who is not privileged. But that is a problem for another day.

[ptatc]

The reason you arent following my logic is because you dont want to accept that the best policy is to make legal immigration as easy as possible. You are asking me to discount my position "the best way to end illegal immigration is to make all immigration legal."

 

The only way you can stop illegal immigration is to also prevent US citizens from leaving. If you have a completely closed border, you will have the best chance of stopping illegal immigration. As soon as you let people in and out, you have a risk of illegal immigration. I can come up with countless "gimmicks" to curtail immigration, at best it will marginally slow it down, at worst it will spend govt money with little to no result.

 

Which is why the best answer to end illegal immigration is "make legal immigration easier." 2 birds, 1 stone.

This is not a good answer. That's like saying the best way to end murder is to legalize murder. Just because you agree it's a good idea doesn't mean it's the best way to solve the problem. You can legalize it, but monitor it much more effectively. Maybe have non-US citizens check in and prove they are still working the way our student visa students need to do. Not a full time student, back you go. Not a working immigrant, off you go.

 

Either way if it's unrestricted there will be just too much strain on the civil services (police, fire etc.) and the medical system in the US which is already over loaded. I'm not going to bring someone here and not take care of them

[Soxbadger]

This is not a good answer. That's like saying the best way to end murder is to legalize murder. Just because you agree it's a good idea doesn't mean it's the best way to solve the problem. You can legalize it, but monitor it much more effectively. Maybe have non-US citizens check in and prove they are still working the way our student visa students need to do. Not a full time student, back you go. Not a working immigrant, off you go.

 

Either way if it's unrestricted there will be just too much strain on the civil services (police, fire etc.) and the medical system in the US which is already over loaded. I'm not going to bring someone here and not take care of them

 

 

That isnt a good correlation. You dont end murder by making it legal. There would still be murders, it just wouldnt be a crime. And I never said there cant be rules once they get here. I have no problem making their stay contingent on rules. Just because you get a chance to be here, doesnt mean it has to be carte blanche.

 

Also we just have a fundamental difference on economic policy, I believe more immigrants will increase the amount of money the US govt will have to spend on civil services, so it at worst would be a push, but likely would result in the US having more money for civil services. There is plenty of literature on this topic, I am not the one who invented it, that would be Adam Smith.

 

 

[ptatc]

You are right no person in the world can predict the future. But you can look at history and try and make the best guess. Illegal immigration (in my opinion) is historically a losing cause unless you want to be a country like NK where you control the border on both sides.

 

As for the economic part, you cannot know it will hurt or help the economy. Many economic theorists agree with me, that more immigrants = better stronger American economy. So we dont know if it will work, unless we try it? Is that not the same argument you made to me.

 

 

 

 

 

I dont care about people crying if its not right. I dont care how many southerners cried against ending slavery, I dont care how many men cried about giving woman the right to vote. When something is the best, you have to stand by it regardless of what others may say. Statistically there is no evidence that immigrants = more crime. Its a circular argument, because if that argument was valid, my family would never have been allowed to come here (much like many of yours) because at one time in history our family was "the criminal immigrants" who are going to bring crime to the US.

 

Dont you see why that is flawed? Youre family werent criminals just because they were immigrants, just like todays immigrants arent criminals merely because they are immigrants. People are people. Some are good, some are bad. In the end you hope that when you are good to people, they will do the right thing.

 

Maybe they wont, but Id rather give someone the chance. Because I cant predict who is a criminal or not, and I don't believe that immigrants are more likely to be criminals than non-immigrants. I do believe that the police and prosecutor are more likely to arrest and convict an immigrant, but that is the same for any person who is not privileged. But that is a problem for another day.

I don't think you are looking at it the right way. You are assuming that all of the immigrants will come here idealistic and righteous and be productive members of society. They aren't criminals because they are immigrants. However, because they are poor and will live in high crime areas, they will place more of a burden on the system and thus will contribute to the problem. They will be some that become desparate enough to turn to crime but hopefully not many. But I think you can agree that if you innundate the already high crime rate areas with even more poor people, crime will increase.

 

You cannot equate the turn of the century US with the growing economy with the US of today. The economic condition isn't the same unrestricted poor workers will add to great of a burden on the government without much benefit, as someone said because they will not be paying taxes. Migrant workers are needed for the economy but to restrcit the number who stay here permanaetly would be the best of both worlds.

[StrangeSox]

because they will not be paying taxes.

 

Payroll, gas, sales and property taxes are all things that are damn-near inescapable. State income taxes are often pretty regressive as well. The only real tax that low-income immigrants wouldn't be paying into would be federal income tax.

Edited June 24, 2014 by StrangeSox

[ptatc]

That isnt a good correlation. You dont end murder by making it legal. There would still be murders, it just wouldnt be a crime. And I never said there cant be rules once they get here. I have no problem making their stay contingent on rules. Just because you get a chance to be here, doesnt mean it has to be carte blanche.

 

Also we just have a fundamental difference on economic policy, I believe more immigrants will increase the amount of money the US govt will have to spend on civil services, so it at worst would be a push, but likely would result in the US having more money for civil services. There is plenty of literature on this topic, I am not the one who invented it, that would be Adam Smith.

your immigration policy would be the same as the people would still becoming into the country but instead of being illegal they are now legal there really wouldn't be a change. I've seen the ideas of no net change in the economy and I've seen other that dispute it. I just makes more sense to me that many more poor people not paying taxes in the current economic environment would put too much of a strain on the system.

 

i guess it's just a different view point. With the way the current politics are going I don't think either option will ever get a true chance to work.

[Soxbadger]

I don't think you are looking at it the right way. You are assuming that all of the immigrants will come here idealistic and righteous and be productive members of society. They aren't criminals because they are immigrants. However, because they are poor and will live in high crime areas, they will place more of a burden on the system and thus will contribute to the problem. They will be some that become desparate enough to turn to crime but hopefully not many. But I think you can agree that if you innundate the already high crime rate areas with even more poor people, crime will increase.

 

You cannot equate the turn of the century US with the growing economy with the US of today. The economic condition isn't the same unrestricted poor workers will add to great of a burden on the government without much benefit, as someone said because they will not be paying taxes. Migrant workers are needed for the economy but to restrcit the number who stay here permanaetly would be the best of both worlds.

 

We just have a fundamental difference of opinion. I am a free market capitalist, I ultimately believe that the freer the society is, the more prosperous it will become. You can google hundreds (if not thousands) of free market thinkers who come to similar conclusions. For example, many would argue the reason the US is not growing like it did at the turn of the 20th century was because of the restraint on immigration.

 

I have no problem if you do not subscribe to free market ideas. Its just like arguing whether sausage or cheese pizza is better, it comes down to taste.

[ptatc]

Payroll, gas, sales and property taxes are all things that are damn-near inescapable. State income taxes are often pretty regressive as well. The only real tax that low-income immigrants wouldn't be paying into would be federal income tax.

Since it's acknowleged they will be among the poor as they will work for low wages, these will not amount to much. most will not own property so there will not much property tax.

 

I should amend the "will not pay taxes" to they will pay very little in taxes.

 

Again, I'm not against the idea of immigrant workers. I think they are necessary. I just think the open borders and unrestricted policy would work.

[StrangeSox]

Since it's acknowleged they will be among the poor as they will work for low wages, these will not amount to much. most will not own property so there will not much property tax.

 

I should amend the "will not pay taxes" to they will pay very little in taxes.

 

Property taxes are baked into the cost of rent. Even if they're not paying the property tax bill directly, their landlord is. The tax incidence may not be 100% pass-through to tenants, but it's not going to be nothing.

 

Again, I'm not against the idea of immigrant workers. I think they are necessary. I just think the open borders and unrestricted policy would work.

 

I am ideologically in favor of open borders but don't think it's practical either politically or realistically given the way the world currently functions.

[ptatc]

We just have a fundamental difference of opinion. I am a free market capitalist, I ultimately believe that the freer the society is, the more prosperous it will become. You can google hundreds (if not thousands) of free market thinkers who come to similar conclusions. For example, many would argue the reason the US is not growing like it did at the turn of the 20th century was because of the restraint on immigration.

 

I have no problem if you do not subscribe to free market ideas. Its just like arguing whether sausage or cheese pizza is better, it comes down to taste.

Agreed. I have read many of them and do I agree with many of the points, I think there are too many restrictions on some things.

 

I think it's like communism, everyone sharing everything sounds like a good idea, until people get in the way.

[ptatc]

I am ideologically in favor of open borders but don't think it's practical either politically or realistically given the way the world currently functions.

Exactly. In the ideal world it would work. however, that is not the climate in which we currently live.

[Soxbadger]

Oh and I dont believe that in the next 10 years we will have anything close to the legal immigration I am talking about.

 

That being said, its always better to argue for the most extreme position and then settle on a middle position. Thus I hope by convincing people to even entertain the idea of the most extreme position, they will be more amenable to the smaller changes that will bring society closer to my position.