Trying to fully close the border to end illegal immigration is like trying to eradicate drug use by fighting the drug war. It's an enormously difficult, if not impossible, solution to achieve, and due to our hopelessly ineffectual government (doesn't matter whether Democrats or Republicans hold the executive branch, its the petty infighting that stops them from getting anything done), it ends up just being an enormous waste of time and money.

As long as there is demand for drugs, people are going to use them. As long as the US appears to be a safer and better place to live than where immigrants come from, people are going to find their way here. It's not at all a recent issue. How did we all get here? Unless you are Native American, obviously.

I grew up in San Diego, and of course we have a huge country and my experience is only a drop in the ocean. But the San Diego-Tijuana border is, I believe, the most-crossed border in the world. Lots of people legally cross it every day for work. I went to high school with kids who came across from Mexico every day. In my experience, Mexican immigrants (legal or not) are on the whole an enormous plus to Southern California society. They work hard, tend to be very nice people, and often are trying very, very hard to assimilate. They work mostly crappy jobs that nobody else wants, for very little pay.

Of course we can't let the entire world in. Just like we can't start selling heroin at Walmart. But putting your Nancy Reagan face on and saying "close the border", from Massachusetts no less (which is also where I was born and live now), is not helping anything. It's a kneejerk reaction, and a ridiculously xenophobic one given not only our country's history but the increasingly global world/economy we live in.

theshrizzz wrote:Trying to fully close the border to end illegal immigration is like trying to eradicate drug use by fighting the drug war. It's an enormously difficult, if not impossible, solution to achieve, and due to our hopelessly ineffectual government (doesn't matter whether Democrats or Republicans hold the executive branch, its the petty infighting that stops them from getting anything done), it ends up just being an enormous waste of time and money.

As long as there is demand for drugs, people are going to use them. As long as the US appears to be a safer and better place to live than where immigrants come from, people are going to find their way here. It's not at all a recent issue. How did we all get here? Unless you are Native American, obviously.

I grew up in San Diego, and of course we have a huge country and my experience is only a drop in the ocean. But the San Diego-Tijuana border is, I believe, the most-crossed border in the world. Lots of people legally cross it every day for work. I went to high school with kids who came across from Mexico every day. In my experience, Mexican immigrants (legal or not) are on the whole an enormous plus to Southern California society. They work hard, tend to be very nice people, and often are trying very, very hard to assimilate. They work mostly crappy jobs that nobody else wants, for very little pay.

To quote Elizabeth Warren, "Well, good for you!"

I grew up in the suburbs of Los Angeles. I know of many illegal migrants who were hard working, honest individuals. I also know of many who scammed the system. Having worked law enforcement in Los Angeles for 20+ years, I saw many who were hard working and many who were criminals. It's a mixed bag. There are areas where many illegals live and you would not even want to walk nearby. The balance probably favors the hard-workers by a substantial margin. However, there are a few other factors to consider.

The percentage, let's say it's 10-12% who are here to either commit welfare fraud (work for cash while receiving government aid) or are engaged in drug and gang activity cost a significant amount of money. There's the harm they do, the fear they instill, and the insurance rates they drive up. Furthermore, they take resources from those who need them and deserve them. Finally, the cost of incarcerating them when they are actually caught is substantial.

Of course we can't let the entire world in. Just like we can't start selling heroin at Walmart. But putting your Nancy Reagan face on and saying "close the border", from Massachusetts no less (which is also where I was born and live now), is not helping anything. It's a kneejerk reaction, and a ridiculously xenophobic one given not only our country's history but the increasingly global world/economy we live in.

And, putting on your Michelle Obama face and saying "there's nothing we can do so we might as well make them comfy-cozy" is not helping either.

Cut out the "xenophobia" crap.

It's pretty simple. We can "close" the border, if we really want to, to all but the most determined. Right now, anyone who finds the border is welcome. We babysit them and transport them around the country.

Some basics:

1. We need more legal immigration. That's a matter for Congress to take up and pass. The problem is that both sides have their "must have" agenda and they won't negotiate. Democrats want amnesty. Republicans want to know the border is not open.

2. We can't afford an open border. Because of the increasing entitlements provided by the government, we cannot allow the unfettered immigration of anyone who can drag their carcass here.

3. It can be, effectively, closed. If we put the Guard down there and deported immediately anyone who could not prove their life was in danger or they were a legitimate refugee, we would cut the flow by nearly 100%.

4. A tamper-proof national ID card, without which one could not work, receive benefits, rent property, or vote, would end the "carrot" portion of illegal immigration. There would be no benefit to coming here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/opini ... .html?_r=0

If Sheldon Adelson is weighing in on the side of comprehensive reform, perhaps it will soon be safe for republicans to face the more extreme views in their party and produce a effective law.

I don't doubt that some illegals tap into the social welfare system, but I doubt that it has a major impact. If the theory is that illegals come for the free goodies, then why did the number of illegal immigrants decline after the Financial Crisis? Here is some statistics on illegal immigration. mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/immigrant-population-shows-signs-of-growth-estimates-show.html?_r=0

I have a bigger concern with savvy immigrant communities. Family reunification does bring over immigrants who have contributed no taxes and then (eventually) start SSI, Section 8, home care benefits, etc. But that is legal immigration. There was a large legal emigration to California in the 1970s and 1980s that created large immigrant communities that have perhaps not been assimilated, yet. But they will be. Hispanic immigration I don't worry too much about
As with drugs, the cure is worse than the problem. We are not a police state--let's not act like one.

These are all fairly good points, I think.

Doctor Fate wrote:
1. We need more legal immigration. That's a matter for Congress to take up and pass. The problem is that both sides have their "must have" agenda and they won't negotiate. Democrats want amnesty. Republicans want to know the border is not open.

Can't really argue with that. Problem is, I don't see any reasonable negotiation happening anytime soon. This is actually the heart of the issue I have with politics, and why I don't post on this forum much anymore, or follow politics that closely, or even discuss it with people in person much if I don't have to. I believe that many Americans agree on a lot more things than we think we do, but we always seem to focus on the issues with the "must have" clauses, etc. I think the media is largely at fault, particularly the 24/7 news cycle. Talking heads on CNN have to fill up 24 hours and they drum people up into a hysteria about things in doing so. But all that is probably a separate discussion.

Doctor Fate wrote:
2. We can't afford an open border. Because of the increasing entitlements provided by the government, we cannot allow the unfettered immigration of anyone who can drag their carcass here.

This one seems to me to be pretty closely tied to your 1st point.

Doctor Fate wrote:
3. It can be, effectively, closed. If we put the Guard down there and deported immediately anyone who could not prove their life was in danger or they were a legitimate refugee, we would cut the flow by nearly 100%.

Maybe, and I don't work in law enforcement, but I doubt it.

It's a long, long border with huge swaths of extremely remote and inhospitable desert terrain. The drug smugglers seem to be getting more and more across, I predict they can continue to outmaneuver whoever we send down there. Obviously this is an assumption, just my personal opinion.

Doctor Fate wrote:
4. A tamper-proof national ID card, without which one could not work, receive benefits, rent property, or vote, would end the "carrot" portion of illegal immigration. There would be no benefit to coming here.

This is a good idea, cutting out the demand obviously gets to the root of the problem, in theory. But is this realistic? Seems to me this wouldn't change the current reality that much. A lot of people are knowingly hiring and letting rooms, etc. to illegal immigrants..would this national ID card really dissuade them from continuing to do so? I think it would be tough to enforce, and hard to make it tamper-proof. People are falsifying things like passports, driver's licenses, and money all the time.

freeman3 wrote:I don't doubt that some illegals tap into the social welfare system, but I doubt that it has a major impact. If the theory is that illegals come for the free goodies, then why did the number of illegal immigrants decline after the Financial Crisis? Here is some statistics on illegal immigration. mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/immigrant-population-shows-signs-of-growth-estimates-show.html?_r=0

. . . because those who want to work were no longer interested in coming.

I have a bigger concern with savvy immigrant communities. Family reunification does bring over immigrants who have contributed no taxes and then (eventually) start SSI, Section 8, home care benefits, etc. But that is legal immigration.

This is, in part, why our immigration system needs an overhaul. We need to prioritize those who want to come here and have a demonstrated capacity to earn money. Those with technical degrees and work history, for example.

But, it's all moot if we don't find a way to curb illegal immigration. Everyone is fixated on the 50K at the border right now. Well, what about the 12-22 million already here? There needs to be a serious sorting out and a method for preventing the same thing from recurring. Reagan granted amnesty--and we were told it would not happen again.

There was a large legal emigration to California in the 1970s and 1980s that created large immigrant communities that have perhaps not been assimilated, yet. But they will be. Hispanic immigration I don't worry too much about
As with drugs, the cure is worse than the problem. We are not a police state--let's not act like one.

Hmm, I cannot agree with your last sentence until the NSA stops monitoring everything and the IRS stops acting like a private company.

I'm not so confident of assimilation. There are many signs that this is not happening--from the Mexican flags carried at immigration protests to the prominent professors at American universities clamoring for reconquista.

The main problem with illegal immigration is that we have no say in who comes in. We need more legal immigration, less illegal immigration.

And let's not overlook the cities that have declared themselves safe havens for illegal immigrants, actively not assisting ICE and unofficially helping them. I live in one of those cities, in fact.

theshrizzz wrote:3. It can be, effectively, closed. If we put the Guard down there and deported immediately anyone who could not prove their life was in danger or they were a legitimate refugee, we would cut the flow by nearly 100%.

Maybe, and I don't work in law enforcement, but I doubt it.

It's a long, long border with huge swaths of extremely remote and inhospitable desert terrain. The drug smugglers seem to be getting more and more across, I predict they can continue to outmaneuver whoever we send down there. Obviously this is an assumption, just my personal opinion.[/quote]

I think you answered your own objection. Typical workers and/or ne'er-do-wells are not going to take the risks that drug smugglers will. If we shut down all but the most treacherous routes, we will have far less illegal immigration.

Doctor Fate wrote:
4. A tamper-proof national ID card, without which one could not work, receive benefits, rent property, or vote, would end the "carrot" portion of illegal immigration. There would be no benefit to coming here.

This is a good idea, cutting out the demand obviously gets to the root of the problem, in theory. But is this realistic? Seems to me this wouldn't change the current reality that much. A lot of people are knowingly hiring and letting rooms, etc. to illegal immigrants..would this national ID card really dissuade them from continuing to do so? I think it would be tough to enforce, and hard to make it tamper-proof. People are falsifying things like passports, driver's licenses, and money all the time.

It's not that hard to make it tamper-proof. With biometric info, it would be prohibitive to even try and counterfeit.

The accompanying law would also contain draconian penalties for hiring illegals. If the cost is high enough, the practice will cease.

georgeatkins wrote:And let's not overlook the cities that have declared themselves safe havens for illegal immigrants, actively not assisting ICE and unofficially helping them. I live in one of those cities, in fact.

Kind of amazing, isn't it?

DOJ sues AZ for trying to "enforce" federal statutes, but permits cities to countermand them.

George, Are you offering for all the illegals to go to your fine city?

bbauska wrote:I can show evidence of illegals getting housing assistance from the county we are in. I will not, however, do that due to security information of the people involved. Suffice it to say, that there are illegals getting housing assistance.

I know this area. It is my business.

So you are going to report them to immigration?

If not, who is?

bbauska wrote:George, Are you offering for all the illegals to go to your fine city?

NYC couldn't really function without undocumented aliens. Who would watch our kids, deliver and make our food, keep the fashion industry humming, etc., etc?

I think pretty much everyone recognizes this, so NYC is now offering NYC ID cards, which will be legal government ID cards, addressing problems undocumented have in getting local ID, and it is against state law to check immigration status of anyone, and I don't think State or local officials cooperate with Federal immigration officials on anything.

I heard an estimate that there are 500,000 undocumented people living in NYC, which is about 7.5% of the total population. So while I'm not sure how many more we need because there is a housing crisis in the City, they are foundational to how the City functions and the economy of the City would be crushed without them. No doubt.

geojanes wrote:

bbauska wrote:George, Are you offering for all the illegals to go to your fine city?

NYC couldn't really function without undocumented aliens. Who would watch our kids, deliver and make our food, keep the fashion industry humming, etc., etc?

I think pretty much everyone recognizes this, so NYC is now offering NYC ID cards, which will be legal government ID cards, addressing problems undocumented have in getting local ID, and it is against state law to check immigration status of anyone, and I don't think State or local officials cooperate with Federal immigration officials on anything.

I heard an estimate that there are 500,000 undocumented people living in NYC, which is about 7.5% of the total population. So while I'm not sure how many more we need because there is a housing crisis in the City, they are foundational to how the City functions and the economy of the City would be crushed without them. No doubt.

So, it's fine to break Federal law as long as there is an economic reason to do so? I believe this law says it is not legal for a local government to fail to cooperate with ICE regarding immigration enforcement.

It's kind of a unique situation because the argument for violating the law sounds so much like economic argument in favor of slavery.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:I can show evidence of illegals getting housing assistance from the county we are in. I will not, however, do that due to security information of the people involved. Suffice it to say, that there are illegals getting housing assistance.

I know this area. It is my business.

So you are going to report them to immigration?

If not, who is?

I do.

Doctor Fate wrote:So, it's fine to break Federal law as long as there is an economic reason to do so? I believe this law says it is not legal for a local government to fail to cooperate with ICE regarding immigration enforcement.

Has it been tested against the Constitution? I'm thinking 9th and 10th Amendments.

It's kind of a unique situation because the argument for violating the law sounds so much like economic argument in favor of slavery.

Ironically, the main time we had the economic arguments for slavery were when it was legal.

While the American Right are having kittens about 50,000 kids, there are several times that number in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon who have fled war. I don't think the USA has the biggest problem with refugees.