Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You’re ignoring the fact that illegal immigration was at 50-year lows when Trump came into office. He made it worse by cutting off aid and other assistance to Central American countries.
And people keep ignoring the fact that Visa overstays dwarf illegal border crossings by a mile. But they are not all brown people, so it’s more convenient to place all the blame on the Mexican border.
I don't think giving tax payer money to Central America is any kind of solution. Why are we in a position where we are going to pay, one way or the other, for people from other countries? "How did that become "our job"? What makes us responsible for them?
I think you are wrong about the visa overstays. I don't want to argue over numbers that are not provable, but I will argue that most people who are against illegal immigration are against illegal immigration from white countries too. I don't think we should be paying for an illegal Irish kid to go to school any more than an illegal Peruvian kid. I'm a nationalist, not a white nationalist. As long as you are American, that is good enough for me. You take priority over any foreigners, no matter what color you are, or they are.
I think the "brown people" argument is kind-of played out. It is used for everything these days.
its just that we are aware that there is a way to immigrate legally but most of us dont even know what that is. people just accept that the way that the government established to legally immigrate is right and that it should be followed. are we supposed to support a process simply because a process exists? im not sure why we should assume that the legal way is appropriate for meeting the immigration needs of the country.
I think you meant to say optimum rather than appropriate, but your words are your words. Regardless, I would say the immigration system is in need of optimization, but it isn't so broken or unjust like something such as slavery or segregation that the principle of liberty simply demands it to be ignored/abolished. Every nation has the right to determine who can come to live and work within its borders, and coming to live and work in the U.S. is a privilege rather than right. Essentially, all that most of these sanctuary laws do is enable individuals who have demonstrated no regard for the laws and processes of this country. Sanctuary laws that help protect felons from deportation are especially mind-boggling. I can't think of any other country on this planet that rolls out the red carpet to the degree that the U.S. does for those who bypassed its own damn immigration laws.
As a young man, one of my uncles and his friend tried to illegally enter Germany (dunno if it was East or West, but probably West since it was probably easier to live in the shadows there) to work by stowing away on a train going through the Soviet Union. Once he got there and got caught, they gave him some food, provided place to sleep, and then put him on a plane home. There was nothing inhumane or unjust about him being politely sent home. He knew what he was doing was perfectly illegal and what the outcome would be if he was caught and decided to take the chance anyway. He laughs when telling the story in a "I don't know what I was thinking" sort of way. When people start treating deportation like some sort of crime against humanity, all they end up doing is creating more drama and unpleasantry than necessary for what should be a clear-cut and inevitable outcome.
I think you meant to say optimum rather than appropriate, but your words are your words. Regardless, I would say the immigration system is in need of optimization, but it isn't so broken or unjust like something such as slavery or segregation that the principle of liberty simply demands it to be ignored/abolished. Every nation has the right to determine who can come to live and work within its borders, and coming to live and work in the U.S. is a privilege rather than right. Essentially, all that most of these sanctuary laws do is enable individuals who have demonstrated no regard for the laws and processes of this country and to a certain degree disregard immigration powers traditionally held by the Federal government. I can't think of any other country on this planet that rolls out the red carpet to the degree that the U.S. does for those who bypassed its own damn immigration laws.
As a young man, one of my uncles and his friend tried to illegally enter Germany (dunno if it was East or West, but probably West since it was probably easier to live in the shadows there) to work by stowing away on a train going through the Soviet Union. Once he got there and got caught, they gave him some food, provided place to sleep, and then put him on a plane home. There was nothing inhumane or unjust about him being politely sent home. He knew what he was doing was perfectly illegal and what the outcome would be if he was caught and decided to take the chance anyway. He laughs when telling the story in a "I don't know what I was thinking" sort of way. When people start treating deportation like some sort of crime against humanity, all they end up doing is creating more drama and unpleasantry than necessary for what should be a clear-cut and inevitable outcome.
so im going to try to set aside my philosophical beliefs on this issue and just be practical. what difference would it make to us if we had tighter control over illegal immigration? i dont see how that would matter.
so then on the other end, who will suffer if illegals get more benefits and privileges that normally come to people going through the legal process. supposedly it would drive down wages for low income earners and reduce job availability for them. im not entirely sure how much of an impact that would make given the "safety net" that already exists for low income earners. they probably would just be in the same place anyway.
I'm not sure if you are fishing for answers that would support your own viewpoints, but I'll bite.
From a practical standpoint, there simply isn't any point in having entry and stay controls if there is no credible enforcement action against people who bypass our entry and stay controls. Additionally, there simply isn't any "quality" or quantity control for people who bypass entry and stay controls. You become stuck with either legitimizing their bypassing of entry and stay controls or forcing them to live in the shadows and having to accept the host of issues that both of these scenarios create.
Strictly on face value, there isn't much difference between an illegal or legal immigrant receiving bennies or their impact on the labor market (strictly on face value). However, a country does have the ability to decide the number and skillsets of legal immigrants, which could reduce the number who would end up needing bennies. Determining the the number of specific skills would be trickier, and lobbying would probably end up influencing the numbers heavily rather than them based on strictly independent economic assessment. Ultimately, the number is what I'm more concerned about. Some population growth is good, but not too much.
I personally wouldn't mind accepting people on a scale similar to illegal immigration to come here on work visas, making them and their employers pay FICA contributions along with other taxes, and them going home when they retire. I would say no thanks to unlimited immigration. From a practical standpoint, I simply wouldn't want to deal with all the congestion, language issues, and potential scarcity issues when it comes to services when the population could plausibly swell to a billion within a decade or two. Geo-strategically, 400 million+ (and perhaps 500 million+ in the distant future) is a nice number to eventually reach to counter the future economic might of China (whose rise presents a host of issues that I won't get into in this particular thread, but you can look into my post history to see my general thoughts on this matter).
I'm not sure if you are fishing for answers that would support your own viewpoints, but I'll bite.
From a practical standpoint, there simply isn't any point in having entry and stay controls if there is no credible enforcement action against people who bypass our entry and stay controls. Additionally, there simply isn't any "quality" or quantity control for people who bypass entry and stay controls. You become stuck with either legitimizing their bypassing of entry and stay controls or forcing them to live in the shadows and having to accept the host of issues that both of these scenarios create.
Strictly on face value, there isn't much difference between an illegal or legal immigrant receiving bennies or their impact on the labor market (strictly on face value). However, a country does have the ability to decide the number and skillsets of legal immigrants, which could reduce the number who would end up needing bennies. Determining the the number of specific skills would be trickier, and lobbying would probably end up influencing the numbers heavily rather than them based on strictly independent economic assessment. Ultimately, the number is what I'm more concerned about. Some population growth is good, but not too much.
I personally wouldn't mind accepting people on a scale similar to illegal immigration to come here on work visas, making them and their employers pay FICA contributions along with other taxes, and them going home when they retire. I would say no thanks to unlimited immigration. From a practical standpoint, I simply wouldn't want to deal with all the congestion, language issues, and potential scarcity issues when it comes to services when the population could plausibly swell to a billion within a decade or two. Geo-strategically, 400 million+ (and perhaps 500 million+ in the distant future) is a nice number to eventually reach to counter the future economic might of China (whose rise presents a host of issues that I won't get into in this particular thread, but you can look into my post history to see my general thoughts on this matter).
its unlikely that you would support my viewpoints, only a small % of the population does.
clearly there are a lot of issues that arises from having a flawed immigration system. but im not sure what a great solution would be and i dont think there is that big of a problem. its kind of regulated (in a bad way) by keeping illegals on the fringe. they are actually controlled more by the free market than most things since they need available jobs to survive. but i guess the question is, what if we normalize the people here; what good or bad will come of it. it would encourage more illegal immigration. you can always make adjustments. nobody says they have to be given bennies.
so im going to try to set aside my philosophical beliefs on this issue and just be practical. what difference would it make to us if we had tighter control over illegal immigration? i dont see how that would matter.
so then on the other end, who will suffer if illegals get more benefits and privileges that normally come to people going through the legal process. supposedly it would drive down wages for low income earners and reduce job availability for them. im not entirely sure how much of an impact that would make given the "safety net" that already exists for low income earners. they probably would just be in the same place anyway.
It matters because they have kids and those kids go to our schools. We pay for their education. In places where there are a lot of illegals, we pay for extra teachers and extra classrooms that take money away from Americans and immigrants who came legally. For the illegals who can't speak English, they have to hire special teachers so there goes more of our tax money.
It matters because they're using roads that we paid for, housing that we could be living in--although, since they are illegal, they usually don't make much money, so they create ghettos of illegals, places that no one would want to live. A legal immigrant has the right to work and to get a good job and live in a better area as soon as they can afford to.
It matters because our taxes are paying for police and fire fighters that they use. It matters because illegals don't usually have health insurance because they work under the table. So in these days of COVID, they're spreading it.
It matters because in some areas they are taking jobs that Americans used to do, such as landscaping and roofing. Not every American is educated and some would like to do those jobs. Some landscapers have been put out of business by illegals who do the work on the cheap. Same thing with house cleaners who are illegal and undercut an American who is unskilled and would like to have a house cleaning job.
Probably the only time we can use illegals is for picking crops. In that case, we should return to the visa program where they come, pick the crops, take their earnings and go home. That's a win-win because with their money they can soon build a house in their home country. They can improve the situation in their home country so they wouldn't have to come here.
It also matters because we have no idea who these people are. That's one of the benefits of legal immigration: they must produce a birth certificate, get a background check, pass an interview, and submit a lot of paperwork to prove that they are eligible to live here. I don't know of any other country that just allows people to walk in and stay, using the country's resources for free and not even being decent enough to identify themselves and pass the entry exam. Can we just walk into Canada? Or England? No, because other countries know better and they would deport us. We have national boundaries just like other countries and it's disrespectful and takes a sense of entitlement to ignore them.
It matters because they have kids and those kids go to our schools. We pay for their education. In places where there are a lot of illegals, we pay for extra teachers and extra classrooms that take money away from Americans and immigrants who came legally. For the illegals who can't speak English, they have to hire special teachers so there goes more of our tax money.
It matters because they're using roads that we paid for, housing that we could be living in--although, since they are illegal, they usually don't make much money, so they create ghettos of illegals, places that no one would want to live. A legal immigrant has the right to work and to get a good job and live in a better area as soon as they can afford to.
It matters because our taxes are paying for police and fire fighters that they use. It matters because illegals don't usually have health insurance because they work under the table. So in these days of COVID, they're spreading it.
It matters because in some areas they are taking jobs that Americans used to do, such as landscaping and roofing. Not every American is educated and some would like to do those jobs. Some landscapers have been put out of business by illegals who do the work on the cheap. Same thing with house cleaners who are illegal and undercut an American who is unskilled and would like to have a house cleaning job.
Probably the only time we can use illegals is for picking crops. In that case, we should return to the visa program where they come, pick the crops, take their earnings and go home. That's a win-win because with their money they can soon build a house in their home country. They can improve the situation in their home country so they wouldn't have to come here.
It also matters because we have no idea who these people are. That's one of the benefits of legal immigration: they must produce a birth certificate, get a background check, pass an interview, and submit a lot of paperwork to prove that they are eligible to live here. I don't know of any other country that just allows people to walk in and stay, using the country's resources for free and not even being decent enough to identify themselves and pass the entry exam. Can we just walk into Canada? Or England? No, because other countries know better and they would deport us. We have national boundaries just like other countries and it's disrespectful and takes a sense of entitlement to ignore them.
Do you know how many average families had landscapers when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s? Answer none. That was a service that was reserved for the well off. The reason that there are now landscaping company every 5 feet and the reason they have grown so much it’s because the labor has come down enough that regular people can afford to use those services. If they had to start using Americans for all their positions, 3/4 of them would probably go out of business because people would no longer be able to pay the higher prices.
All the jobs they are doing are piecemeal jobs with no benefits. They are not full-time jobs. And they contribute a lot to the economy.
Do you know how many average families had landscapers when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s? Answer none. That was a service that was reserved for the well off. The reason that there are now landscaping company every 5 feet and the reason they have grown so much it’s because the labor has come down enough that regular people can afford to use those services. If they had to start using Americans for all their positions, 3/4 of them would probably go out of business because people would no longer be able to pay the higher prices.
All the jobs they are doing are piecemeal jobs with no benefits. They are not full-time jobs. And they contribute a lot to the economy.
So, we need people to be here illegally, so that wages can remain low enough that the middle class can afford services that they once could not afford? That is a great argument for never legalizing them. After all, once they are Americans, 3/4 of the landscaping jobs would probably go out of business. So what you are saying is, a pathway to citizenship would be very bad for the economy.
Also, you need to remember that illegal aliens cost us over $100B in services, like schooling for their children, medical care, etc. So we are subsidizing the landscaping with our taxes, making it more expensive than it seems on the surface.
Alternatively, you could kick them all out, and legally bring in enough low skill workers, from 3rd world countries to keep the supply high enough to keep the wages low. Maybe give some poor Ethiopians or Hatians a chance instead of all the jobs going to illegals from south of the border. Or maybe give work visas to those people from south of the border that didn't illegally sneak into our economy?
The bottom line is, everyone wants to come here. We will never run out of people who will take the legal route, if offered. There are literally billions of people from poverty stricken countries who would all come here, given the chance. If they all just came on their own, illegally, we would have a huge fiscal problem. Thankfully, they don't.
Of the ones that do, what makes them so special that we should just ignore their transgressions, or worse, encourage them?
It matters because they have kids and those kids go to our schools. We pay for their education. In places where there are a lot of illegals, we pay for extra teachers and extra classrooms that take money away from Americans and immigrants who came legally. For the illegals who can't speak English, they have to hire special teachers so there goes more of our tax money.
It matters because they're using roads that we paid for, housing that we could be living in--although, since they are illegal, they usually don't make much money, so they create ghettos of illegals, places that no one would want to live. A legal immigrant has the right to work and to get a good job and live in a better area as soon as they can afford to.
It matters because our taxes are paying for police and fire fighters that they use. It matters because illegals don't usually have health insurance because they work under the table. So in these days of COVID, they're spreading it.
i no longer feel attached to spending that the government does an no longer care. when you spend $1 trillion+ a year on murdering innocent people, you cant pretend that the illegal kid going to school is a problem. maybe if the government actually made efforts to be a reasonable steward of our tax dollars that will change but for now i dont care what the government spends money on. if its a matter of local expenses, then local areas should sue the federal government to cover the expenses.
and just to be clear, i do not support any taxation or any government spending. so its not like im a big spending marxist that doesnt care about taxpayer money. the government has no right to any of our money.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 07-24-2020 at 09:48 AM..
i no longer feel attached to spending that the government does an no longer care. when you spend $1 trillion+ a year on murdering innocent people, you cant pretend that the illegal kid going to school is a problem. maybe if the government actually made efforts to be a reasonable steward of our tax dollars that will change but for now i dont care what the government spends money on. if its a matter of local expenses, then local areas should sue the federal government to cover the expenses.
and just to be clear, i do not support any taxation or any government spending. so its not like im a big spending marxist that doesnt care about taxpayer money. the government has no right to any of our money.
That's a symptom of how messed up this country is right now. Hopefully, after the next election, things will improve in that regard. I certainly support government spending when it's on things that benefit the majority of Americans. When you're a citizen of a country, you are one part of a large group that pulls together, contributes to the general welfare of all, and shares a belief that, together, we can make this country better than ever. Part of that responsibility is carried out by our tax money.
Our tax money, our efforts toward making this a better country, should go to Americans and anyone else who has a right to be here, not to sneaky law breakers.
As for landscapers, the average person didn't need one years ago and they don't need one now. A person can mow their own lawn and if they are unable to, they can hire a kid or even someone from a company to do it for them. No one used to hire professional landscapers to design their back yard. They can learn to do it themselves instead of paying someone or they can leave it as is. I think of landscapers (ones who are necessary) as businesses that design and construct landscape projects for commercial buildings, for apartment complexes and so on. Those places can afford to pay an honest landscaping company.
Americans got along fine before they had their own landscapers. We don't need illegals to do that. It undercuts the legal, honest landscaping companies and puts them out of business--there are many examples of that. In particular parts of the country, all landscaping seems to be done by illegals so no American can be a landscaper. In other areas, the American owners of landscaping companies that employ Americans, fear for their livelihood due to the illegals who will do the same job for peanuts. It's unfair and it's just not right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
