Illegal Immigration

[Jane2d]

I wasn't the one who introduced the subject of criminality by undocumented immigrants.

I did not claim you were. But you kept deflecting with the group-think mentality so, you got grouped in with the rest of 'em.

If you've got so many potential immigrants trying to evade the rules, maybe the rules need changing.

It is the rule changes (like Reagans Ammensty) that keeps the law/rule breaking active. There are many illegals who think (and lobby for) another amnesty.

Has it occurred to you that drugs, as opposed to immigration, might be the real issue there?

That has not been an issue with the legal immigrants I know.  Just joking around "did you say cocaine?" [on a mis-heard *it's OK*] brings up a response every time.  The response?  "I dont do drugs, I could be deported".  See that is one of  the big differences between the legal immigrants and the illegals.  Those who did things within the boundries of rule/law, start their new life valuing that prospect.  They wont do things to jeopardize their legal status.  That is not to say legal immigrants dont ever do drugs.  Its just not MY real life experiences.  And my real life experiences trump any kiwi projections from half a world away (and no liability in outcome).

Not as such, no. But I've been a citizen of three different countries, and I've know native-borns who work illegally and commit all manner of criminal offenses.  You seem to be more concerned with crimes committed by undocumented immigrants than by natives.  Why is that, I wonder?

I am going to assume you immigrated LEGALLY. So your point is what?  You did things the way you are supposed to therefore others do not have to? That would be a very weird logic.  Or does it just show nothing makes you happy?

Native borns working illegally...  explain.  Practicing medicine without a license?  Not paying taxes?   Are you arguing these people should be deported to mexico?  OR are we being grifted by another logical fallacy produced by lefty reasoning...  Strawman or Red Herring??  Can one have two different fallacies in the same statement?  I believe you can!

BTW I ignore lefty pointing to the CATO papers after watching so many howl like monkeys [chose not to use dog] over other CATO positions. More of the flexible fact gathering of lefties.  Long as the paper agrees with what I wanna believe! -- says the typical lefty --

Oh and in closing... Thank you so much for your username!

[onlinebiker]

I'm betting if you can come up with a bazooka, they can build a trebuchet.

The difference being I can buy a bazooka RIGHT NOW and get it shipped to my home in 2 days.  If the Palestinians in Gaza start putting together a trebuchet, the Israelis are going to bomb them into dust, whether they use it or not.

Boru

I'm betting if you can come up with a bazooka, they can build a trebuchet.

The difference being I can buy a bazooka RIGHT NOW and get it shipped to my home in 2 days.  If the Palestinians in Gaza start putting together a trebuchet, the Israelis are going to bomb them into dust, whether they use it or not.
P
Boru

No.

You can' t.


Unless you have an FFL,. or even a C & R license - you can't get a measly firearm sent to your home -let alone a destructive device. Not to mention a " bazooka" hasn' t been produced since the 1940's, and was never sold to the public - or FFL holders.


On the other hand - I could easily whip out a trebuchet in under 24 hours.

Fuck - my nephew built one in high school for history class - and he doesn' t know a ripsaw from a beer fart....

[bennyboy]

Laws are laws.  Anyone who comes in a spirit of law-breaking shouldn't expect to be welcomed into the society.

Nope laws that are irrational and cruel should be ignored

What's cruel about not opening doors? If a homeless man knocks on my door, do I have a moral obligation to invite him in, feed him, and let him take space on my property?

The question is simple-- does the US have enough people, or would it like to have more people? I think it has enough people. Therefore, it should invite those who fill roles which are under-represented.

[SteelCurtain]

If you have a country that is objectively in a better state than many others near it, you are going to have illegal immigration. It is a fact of reality.

We can spend a trillion dollars manning every inch of the southern border, but in the long run, it's just throwing money at a "problem" that actually causes a net positive for our economy.

Immigrants are traditionally the scapegoat for all the ills of society. People don't like change, and because societies change by fits and starts as a rule, the people who like the way it is now always look to blame someone for the fact that things aren't staying exactly the way they are.

As far as sanctuary cities/states, California is exercising that thing that apparently only red states are allowed to do, eschewing the federal government's reach into local matters.

As a liberal person, I am 100% for border security, but I also recognize that people are people, and they all have their stories, and while there are plenty of people who will break the law, by a good margin, immigrants, illegal or no, are less likely to commit crimes. They do the jobs that most Americans don't want to do. Sanctuary cities are simply an acknowledgement that every major city has a illegal immigrant population, and that everyone is safer if they can interact with law enforcement without fear of being deported.

[bennyboy]

The law is an ass in this case.  It is every moral person's duty to actively disobey the ass of a law.

There are lots of laws I personally disagree with. However, they are laws, and as a citizen I have a duty to obey them.

There's nothing wrong with fighting against laws, or voting for someone you think is likely to remove or improve them. But when every citizen becomes arbitrator of which laws should / shouldn't be followed, then the idea of the rule of law has little meaning.

---

As a liberal person, I am 100% for border security, but I also recognize that people are people, and they all have their stories, and while there are plenty of people who will break the law, by a good margin, immigrants, illegal or no, are less likely to commit crimes. They do the jobs that most Americans don't want to do. Sanctuary cities are simply an acknowledgement that every major city has a illegal immigrant population, and that everyone is safer if they can interact with law enforcement without fear of being deported.

There are many unemployed people, and yet most of them don't want these jobs.  Are they lazy?

This is what happens-- cheap-working immigrants drive wages down.  Nobody wants the shit-wage jobs, but employers have no compelling reason to pay more, because there's an endless lineup of new immigrants willing to work for less and less.

Who benefits from this?  The immigrants who are happy just to be in the US, and the rich fuckers who get near-slave labor.  Who does not benefit from this?  The many poor people who ALREADY live in the supposed land of opportunity but have no opportunity.

Letting in little Manuel from Mexico looks good on a newsreel.  But it also means that many blacks and hispanics who are dreaming of a fair wage for an honest day's work are very unlikely to see those dreams fulfilled.

[SteelCurtain]

Letting in little Manuel from Mexico looks good on a newsreel.  But it also means that many blacks and hispanics who are dreaming of a fair wage for an honest day's work are very unlikely to see those dreams fulfilled.

Except that's not quite the case in practice. Remember how states are the laboratories of democracy? Alabama HB 56 is expected to shrink the state's economy by 6%. Farmers can't get people to perform labor at the wages they can pay. It's not that Americans are missing out on jobs, they are literally unwilling to do some jobs.

Also, the net positive of immigrants in a community living, paying rent, and spending money are far more than the cost in jobs. Again, I'm all for immigration laws, but we've gone too far towards the side where there's joyful glee of punishing people for doing what any of us would do.

[Losty]

But - as I understand it - you DO have immigration controls, isn't that right?

Boru

Yeah, but they're being ignored, especially in California.  Thousands sneak in every day and when ICE tries to locate and send them back California ignores the law and protects them.  Another problem is that our borders are so large, it's a huge task to monitor them well - the main reason Trump wants to build a wall.

Thousands sneak in every day? I wonder how accurate that is

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope laws that are irrational and cruel should be ignored

What's cruel about not opening doors?  If a homeless man knocks on my door, do I have a moral obligation to invite him in, feed him, and let him take space on my property?

Yes.  Thank goodness it's not a legal obligation...right?  

The question is simple-- does the US have enough people, or would it like to have more people?  I think it has enough people.  Therefore, it should invite those who fill roles which are under-represented.

The natives are below the pop replacement rate.  It's not an issue of whether or not we'd like* more people  We simply have to have them. Immigration is inextricably linked to our gdp. We have two choices. Fuck a whole lot more and have a few million more kids, yearly...or shrink.

[onlinebiker]

Yeah, but they're being ignored, especially in California.  Thousands sneak in every day and when ICE tries to locate and send them back California ignores the law and protects them.  Another problem is that our borders are so large, it's a huge task to monitor them well - the main reason Trump wants to build a wall.

Thousands sneak in every day? I wonder how accurate that is

Estimates say about 400,000 tried in 2018 (fact check.org) so a bit over one thousand a day.

[Brian37]

Nope laws that are irrational and cruel should be ignored

What's cruel about not opening doors?  If a homeless man knocks on my door, do I have a moral obligation to invite him in, feed him, and let him take space on my property?

The question is simple-- does the US have enough people, or would it like to have more people?  I think it has enough people.  Therefore, it should invite those who fill roles which are under-represented.

China has far more citizens than we do. And try escaping from North Korea into China. China treats "illegals" far worse than we do. I don't think China is a good example of valuing human rights. I don't want America to emulate their laws. 

This is an over simplification of human behavior. In an ideal world sure, we want people to wait in line and wait their turn. But in reality, desperate and innocent people migrate to where they think they will have a better opportunity to survive. 

You cannot treat national boarders like your personal house. In reality humans migrate to survive. It is inhumane to slam that door shut at all costs and never open it up. If you were one of the Jews on the boat we turned away in WW2 sent back to Europe, whom ended up in concentration camps, I doubt you'd say there is nothing wrong with closed doors.

Nobody is expecting you to literally invite someone into your personal house. But a nation is a construct, an ideal, not a physical thing. And the idea in America is we welcome diversity, we welcome the downtrodden, the oppressed to give them the opportunity to have a better life.

"Bring me your tired huddled masses"..... Humn, I do remember reading that somewhere. 

I have no obligation to be forced to let others live in my personal physical house, no. But I do have a moral obligation to my fellow humans to know the difference between violent individuals, and innocent humans merely wanting to come here to survive.

None of what I typed is saying never deport. I am saying how we deal with our fellow humans, letting them stay or go, has to be an individual case by case issue, not an all or nothing solution.

I'd rather default to protecting innocent non violent humans, than to risk deporting those same non violent individuals back to where they could starve or die from crime or war. Immigration laws without compassion are not laws, but merely based on fear and tribalism.