Oh, it's this again.....

[Marc and Olga 0]

The instance I mention is for the current cream of the crop here already...

It is obvious that taking the cheaper route in that regards will allow us to tighten the border intelligently, thereby reducing the future incoming side on our end.

Then its begged, as I've stated countless times here, that to put a cork in the problem for good you'd have to invest in changing the dynamics- the reasons, why people come here legally or illegally. There, my friend, is the goal we should be going for but unfortunately, many that oppose illegal immigration are completely unwilling in their isolationist glory to fathom preventing the problem from the root all the while sponsoring a system that directly and indirectly maintains a wealth and policy gap that disfavors citizens in the countries the illegals come from.

like it was suppose to in '86?

[HAL 9000 96]

The instance I mention is for the current cream of the crop here already...

It is obvious that taking the cheaper route in that regards will allow us to tighten the border intelligently, thereby reducing the future incoming side on our end.

Then its begged, as I've stated countless times here, that to put a cork in the problem for good you'd have to invest in changing the dynamics- the reasons, why people come here legally or illegally. There, my friend, is the goal we should be going for but unfortunately, many that oppose illegal immigration are completely unwilling in their isolationist glory to fathom preventing the problem from the root all the while sponsoring a system that directly and indirectly maintains a wealth and policy gap that disfavors citizens in the countries the illegals come from.

like it was suppose to in '86?

I dunno. Perhaps we can improve upon past mistakes?

[kaydee457 13]

I see that as a great opportunity for the police to arrest them all. It'll be thousands less illegal immigrants to deal with.

A lovely sight that would be. I figure you'd be willing to also pay for the detention and deportation costs?

Seeing as how our federal tax dollars would be spent to legalize these illegal aliens and give them green cards (some of whom might go even further and acquire citizenship), I don't see what the real difference would be. I'd rather have my collected tax money used on rounding up and deporting the illegals, rather than giving them a "free ride" through the system that so many of us (and others not even on here) have to work hard to get through.

OK.

Somehow, I think in terms of dollars to dollars, the cost of legislation plus collected fees and penalties from legitimizing the population would end up being loads less than actively seeking, investigating, proving, housing, and deporting them, but maybe people involved in the entire process can do all that pro bono out of the goodness of their harts.

If done right this entire fiasco can turn into a cash cow for USCIS, speeding up the people at the front of the line. And by becoming citizens (thanks for reminding us), they can also contribute legally to the US Treasury like the rest of us do. Make it conditional... contribute or leave within a certain time frame- use ICE for that kind of logical, sensical stuff.

Of course, I do not support amnesty. It just makes better $ense to give the ones already here a real guarantee to self deport and a place at the back of the line where they are, of course, given a real chance at legal immigration. Which is where the Stateside crux of the problem lies.

I agree with you that, on the surface, it makes more sense (in terms of dollars) to give amnesty to illegals. It's a much greater hassle anyway, even if it cost less, to round up the illegals and I doubt USCIS would feel like doing it. Plus the ACLU and other groups would be hounding them the entire time.

But here's my issue with that...

If illegals know they'll gain amnesty in the U.S., what's to stop more from coming in after the current crop is given a green card? If more and more illegals stream in, knowing they'll be handed permanent residency by the U.S. government, that'll only encourage them and more to do so, plus it'll end up costing us far more in the long run than it ever would to round up and deport them.

In addition, if it becomes standard practice to hand out green cards to illegals, what would be the incentive to go through immigration legally? To say you did that way? If you have the choice of getting your green card by choosing to pay lots of money, wait months or even a year and spend most of that time apart from your spouse... or come into the U.S. right away, spend very little money at all, and be with your spouse immediately, which one do you think people are going to choose?

The instance I mention is for the current cream of the crop here already...

It is obvious that taking the cheaper route in that regards will allow us to tighten the border intelligently, thereby reducing the future incoming side on our end.

Then its begged, as I've stated countless times here, that to put a cork in the problem for good you'd have to invest in changing the dynamics- the reasons, why people come here legally or illegally. There, my friend, is the goal we should be going for but unfortunately, many that oppose illegal immigration are completely unwilling in their isolationist glory to fathom preventing the problem from the root all the while sponsoring a system that directly and indirectly maintains a wealth and policy gap that disfavors citizens in the countries the illegals come from.

Well that's an interesting strategy. Unfortunately, I can't see anyway to implement such a strategy without shooting ourselves in the foot.....

Interfering in Mexican politics would be disastrous for us. They are a major trading partner and we get a good amount of oil from them, not to mention the obvious, and that's the contiguous border we share.

These governments are mostly corrupt and I'm not an apologist for the way they treat their own citizens, but believe me we do business with much worse regimes- and yes in practical terms, and in the real world we must continue to do so or that "isolationism" you speak of that we supposedly are engaged in will be imposed on us rather than having the option of snubbing those that we really don't like.

It's not incumbant on the USA to ask why they're coming here, it's only our responsibilty to stop them at our border.

Edited May 1, 2008 by kaydee457

[SMOKE 1,426]

The instance I mention is for the current cream of the crop here already...

It is obvious that taking the cheaper route in that regards will allow us to tighten the border intelligently, thereby reducing the future incoming side on our end.

Then its begged, as I've stated countless times here, that to put a cork in the problem for good you'd have to invest in changing the dynamics- the reasons, why people come here legally or illegally. There, my friend, is the goal we should be going for but unfortunately, many that oppose illegal immigration are completely unwilling in their isolationist glory to fathom preventing the problem from the root all the while sponsoring a system that directly and indirectly maintains a wealth and policy gap that disfavors citizens in the countries the illegals come from.

like it was suppose to in '86?

I dunno. Perhaps we can improve upon past mistakes?

yes we can. roundem' up, auction their belongings off & fine the hell out of people assisting them to provide funding, greyhound the arses to the border.

[HAL 9000 96]

I see that as a great opportunity for the police to arrest them all. It'll be thousands less illegal immigrants to deal with.

A lovely sight that would be. I figure you'd be willing to also pay for the detention and deportation costs?

Seeing as how our federal tax dollars would be spent to legalize these illegal aliens and give them green cards (some of whom might go even further and acquire citizenship), I don't see what the real difference would be. I'd rather have my collected tax money used on rounding up and deporting the illegals, rather than giving them a "free ride" through the system that so many of us (and others not even on here) have to work hard to get through.

OK.

Somehow, I think in terms of dollars to dollars, the cost of legislation plus collected fees and penalties from legitimizing the population would end up being loads less than actively seeking, investigating, proving, housing, and deporting them, but maybe people involved in the entire process can do all that pro bono out of the goodness of their harts.

If done right this entire fiasco can turn into a cash cow for USCIS, speeding up the people at the front of the line. And by becoming citizens (thanks for reminding us), they can also contribute legally to the US Treasury like the rest of us do. Make it conditional... contribute or leave within a certain time frame- use ICE for that kind of logical, sensical stuff.

Of course, I do not support amnesty. It just makes better $ense to give the ones already here a real guarantee to self deport and a place at the back of the line where they are, of course, given a real chance at legal immigration. Which is where the Stateside crux of the problem lies.

I agree with you that, on the surface, it makes more sense (in terms of dollars) to give amnesty to illegals. It's a much greater hassle anyway, even if it cost less, to round up the illegals and I doubt USCIS would feel like doing it. Plus the ACLU and other groups would be hounding them the entire time.

But here's my issue with that...

If illegals know they'll gain amnesty in the U.S., what's to stop more from coming in after the current crop is given a green card? If more and more illegals stream in, knowing they'll be handed permanent residency by the U.S. government, that'll only encourage them and more to do so, plus it'll end up costing us far more in the long run than it ever would to round up and deport them.

In addition, if it becomes standard practice to hand out green cards to illegals, what would be the incentive to go through immigration legally? To say you did that way? If you have the choice of getting your green card by choosing to pay lots of money, wait months or even a year and spend most of that time apart from your spouse... or come into the U.S. right away, spend very little money at all, and be with your spouse immediately, which one do you think people are going to choose?

The instance I mention is for the current cream of the crop here already...

It is obvious that taking the cheaper route in that regards will allow us to tighten the border intelligently, thereby reducing the future incoming side on our end.

Then its begged, as I've stated countless times here, that to put a cork in the problem for good you'd have to invest in changing the dynamics- the reasons, why people come here legally or illegally. There, my friend, is the goal we should be going for but unfortunately, many that oppose illegal immigration are completely unwilling in their isolationist glory to fathom preventing the problem from the root all the while sponsoring a system that directly and indirectly maintains a wealth and policy gap that disfavors citizens in the countries the illegals come from.

Well that's an interesting strategy. Unfortunately, I can't see anyway to implement such a strategy without shooting ourselves in the foot.....

Interfering in Mexican politics would be disastrous for us. They are a major trading partner and we get a good amount of oil from them, not to mention the obvious, and that's the contiguous border we share.

These governments are mostly corrupt and I'm not an apologist for the way they treat their own citizens, but believe me we do business with much worse regimes- and yes in practical terms, and in the real world we must continue to do so or that "isolationism" you speak of that we supposedly are engaged in will be imposed on us rather than having the option of snubbing those that we really don't like.

It's not incumbant on the USA to ask why they're coming here, it's only our responsibilty to stop them at our border.

Trust me K- if we are capable of squandering billions a month on lies in Iraq, we should be perfectly capable of spending MUCH less in strengthening democracies that are friendly with us. That is the way we should pitch it- not the Iraq part (everyone outside the US along with the majority in the US feel that way!), but rather the part where we "man up" to our relationships around our neck of the woods.

Yes... immediate government reactions are bound to be unfavorable... until they realize they stand to gain democratically from having a happier, more prosperous citizenship.

Lets call it being more civilized. The end result is that what we'd invest in tightening the borders simultaneously would have, in retrospect, turned out to be a project to abandon... eventually. As we'd have a more stable region to deal with instead of the current socioeconomical climate we cringe when we go spend out tourist dollars down there.

Those governments just happen to be our allies and are strongly in place thanks in no part to our own support from Washington. Food for thought.

[mawilson 2,133]

the dynamics- the reasons, why people come here legally or illegally.

It's not incumbant on the USA to ask why they're coming here, it's only our responsibilty to stop them at our border.

Bravo!

[mawilson 2,133]

As we'd have a more stable region to deal with instead of the current socioeconomical climate we cringe when we go spend out tourist dollars down there.

More stable = more expensive

The only reason people go vacationing in Mexico is because it's cheap.

[HAL 9000 96]

the dynamics- the reasons, why people come here legally or illegally.

It's not incumbant on the USA to ask why they're coming here, it's only our responsibilty to stop them at our border.

Bravo!

And they'll keep coming given that logic.

As we'd have a more stable region to deal with instead of the current socioeconomical climate we cringe when we go spend out tourist dollars down there.

More stable = more expensive

The only reason people go vacationing in Mexico is because it's cheap.

Convenient for us while they starve. Gotta love humanity right?

[jundp 191]

"Where's George Bush! Where's George Bush"

ooppps wrong protest..

Well, actually, there's quite an extensive and lovely anti-war protest in Seattle today. And a dock workers walk-out too.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's not really a question of whether it's the US responsibility to ask the question as to why people migrate, it's a question of the US recognising why people migrate to the US in order to take decisions that reflect the reality of that answer as apposed to pretending that somehow the status quo is a successful policy.

Regarding solutions; to maintain a secure border one could of course construct a fence which would be successful, at least in so far as maintaining an impenetrable structure over several thousand miles is ever completely successful. However, there is a question of cost. Not everyone will consider the costs of such a venture commenserate with the problems created by illegal immigrants.

However, I know there are those who think it's more important to keep people out whatever the cost cost, up to and including rather extreme methods such as land mines and shooting migrants, but the politicians aren't likely to adopt these extreme solutions. On top of the financial cost, there is a 'perceptions' cost and the US does like to portray itself as a humanitarian nation, a role model nation, a nation that other nations should emulate and aspire to and adopting these strategies is not compatible with that image.

Annoying as it may be to know that there are these people who flout laws and behave dishonerably, they are going to be in the US for some time to come as I am not aware of any practical measures that are going to effectively deal with the suspected number of illegal migrants that are here already.

The most sensible solutions are of course increasing enforcement of employment laws and penalising those firms that ignore the regulations. However, not only is that going to be slow and costly, it is also highly likely to create an underclass of illegals who can't find employment and who have no financial means to return to their country of origin and no insentive to get back there without the savings that they hoped to make when they came to the US for work. These people will always be given a certain amount of aid because again, the US is a humanitarian nation and it does not (visibly) allow people to starve to death on its streets, or allow children to grow up without access to an education not to mention the interspersion of those pesky 'anchor babies' or legal US citizens within the families of illegal migrants. This will allow this underclass to remain in the US draining resources, somewhat of a catch 22 situation.

That some feel that some form of acceptance of their presence in the US enabling them to become US citizens or at least legal migrant workers is the least worst scenario isn't really surprising.

Edited May 1, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[HAL 9000 96]

Too much logic in one post!

[mawilson 2,133]

Strangely enough, I actually agree with

[kaydee457 13]

the dynamics- the reasons, why people come here legally or illegally.

It's not incumbant on the USA to ask why they're coming here, it's only our responsibilty to stop them at our border.

Bravo!

And they'll keep coming given that logic.

As we'd have a more stable region to deal with instead of the current socioeconomical climate we cringe when we go spend out tourist dollars down there.

More stable = more expensive

The only reason people go vacationing in Mexico is because it's cheap.

Convenient for us while they starve. Gotta love humanity right?

They have their own democratically elected government and it's not our place to intervene as an advocate on their behalf, particularly given that this isn't political but rather economic.

They're not exactly oppressed to the point where they're starved, and if they can't subside in their own country then it's time for they, themselves to change their government, its' absolutely not our place to do so.

[HAL 9000 96]

the dynamics- the reasons, why people come here legally or illegally.

It's not incumbant on the USA to ask why they're coming here, it's only our responsibilty to stop them at our border.

Bravo!

And they'll keep coming given that logic.

As we'd have a more stable region to deal with instead of the current socioeconomical climate we cringe when we go spend out tourist dollars down there.

More stable = more expensive

The only reason people go vacationing in Mexico is because it's cheap.

Convenient for us while they starve. Gotta love humanity right?

They have their own democratically elected government and it's not our place to intervene as an advocate on their behalf, particularly given that this isn't political but rather economic.

They're not exactly oppressed to the point where they're starved, and if they can't subside in their own country then it's time for they, themselves to change their government, its' absolutely not our place to do so.

Precisely why we CAN... interact, not intervene. Who's going to be opposed to our lending hands? Isolationists, that's who.

And, its not a matter of changing governments that are already allied to ours- which, in case you haven't paid attention to history, get overthrown through our own support in favor of the same corrupt governors that ruled previously. That is your Catch-22.

Besides, if its a problem for us in terms of protecting our borders, then it IS our problem. Not to mention our benefit from the present day relationship we carry with those friend nations, and the greater benefit we'd enjoy as a region in being able to TRULY have free trade zones that benefit all member nations. Want progressive, forward-moving economics? Invest then.

All they (the citizens of those countries) need are the right educational, financial, and upwards-mobile strengths to be able to stabilize, not radicalize their nations. They've tried to bring about social and economic change in many places at different times- by radical means. And most have failed because, yes, WE in Washington oppose them out of economical ideology before any social change can effectively raise the populations. Result? They go where they can go to subside.

If we WANT to bring about democratic progress in this region, AND have a healthy relationship with these nations, THEN it is only logical to spend a fraction of the cost it runs to blockade an entire border on a daily basis on the prevention of the necessity to come here illegally (by our definitions, anyway). Problem *solved*.

[Jack and Barbara 0]

They have their own democratically elected government and it's not our place to intervene as an advocate on their behalf, particularly given that this isn't political but rather economic.

They're not exactly oppressed to the point where they're starved, and if they can't subside in their own country then it's time for they, themselves to change their government, its' absolutely not our place to do so.

I think in some cases it is the duty of a country with the means to help out those without. This is not to say Mexico would fit that list, but others around the world (especially in Africa). U.S. support for AIDS work and food for regufees, among others withou basic clean water and sanitation I think is comendable and necessary regardless of whether or not the U.S. will benefit from it economically or politically down the line.

Even Bush wants $770 million for global food aid

Bus wants $770 million more for global food aid