Illegal Imigration Invasion

[Nedak]

I recently found this documentary:

WARNING: SOME VULGAR LANGUAGE IS IN THIS DOCUMENTARY

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1451035544403625746&hl=en

 

Thought it would be good topic starter.

[Totenkopf]

At 1 hour 41 minutes, you might not get too many people willing to watch it, though. Otherwise, it is a topic that should at least elicit something. Between illegal immigration, exporting of industry and the burden the former put on services in this country, it's a wonder more Americans don't end up more xenophobic then they are/might be now.

[Nedak]

Nobody has to watching it.

 

The topic doesn't need to be based around the film, however I do recommend the film.

 

Anybody's opinion on illegal immigration works. So lets start with that if you don't want to watch the film.

[Rev7]

Well, I certainly don't have the time to watch it, right now at least.

 

I have lived in a farming city that consisted of probably 95% Hispanic. I have seen some of this stuff firsthand. My opinion on the matter is, just simply come to America legally, if you want to come. It is as simple as that. To get a job you had to know how to speak English as well as Spanish. I admit that it was a little rough, but I don't live there anymore. Big change, I must tell you.

[Arcesious]

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/25/1166487.aspx

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/

 

That should about cover it for me... No need to assemble a giant rant about it all when I can just just link some interesting sources about it. Especially check the second site out.

[Malatest]

The problem I see with this video is that it seems to suggest that the reason that illegal immigrants are coming over the boarder is because they want to take back the land that Mexico lost. This idea is especially emphasized at the beginning of the video (although I haven't gone much farther than that). Personally, I think that idea is pretty stupid. A bunch of idealistic nationalist writers and speakers are spurring the Mexican people to come take back what was once there's? This theory claims that all Mexican's are patriots, and that this is a duty that they're taking on for their country! pffff...

I can tell you, having been to Mexico a couple times, and being a white male who lives in a southwestern state with a large hispanic population, this is definitely not true. The biggest reason Mexican's are coming over the boarder, and illegally, is because most want to escape the economic hardships of their country. The situation in Mexico isn't the worst in Latin America, but it certainly isn't the best either. What with the Mexican government being bought out by foreign companies and the NAFTA making the average Mexican even poorer (and of course, the poor Mexican much, much poorer). Why do you think the Zapatistas in Chiapas - the poorest Mexican state - declared war on the Mexican government? Because the damn thing is selling out it's people and their way of living. Unfortunately, the only people doing anything about this injustice are Indigenous peoples (and if you take a look at Mexican class stucture, race determines class, and the poorest Mexicans have always been indigenous peoples), and radical-political groups like the EZLN.

 

EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to reinforce is that Mexicans are immigrating (both illegally and legally) because it's mainly a matter of economics and income - the search for a more profitable life. Not because they want to take back the land "they once had".

[Ferc Kast]

I lack the time to click the links, however I will add my 2 cents before I go off for a while. If the US helped other places with their econonmy, then there would be no more illegal immigration. Though, that is a too idealistic and non-realistic solution. So, this problem will probably never be resolved for many years.

 

I dunno; But, that's just my 2 cents...

[Litofsky]

I think I'll follow the pattern-- not click the links, and give my opinion ().

 

I believe that, if you truly want to come to the United States, do so legally. However, I understand the promise of coming here without the bureaucracy. When people come here, they do so because they believe America is better than their previous home. Why else would they be leaving?

 

Either way, I don't believe that deporting people is the answer. If you're in the country illegally, fine. However, if [you] were to be granted amnesty, I would require a few things:

 

1) Learning to speak English. It's the de facto language, and it would help to speak it.

2) Pay taxes! I don't want you to live here if you're not paying for services that I'm using, but still reaping the same benefits. That's common sense, it would seem (equality, I mean).

3) Don't commit any crimes. If you've committed a series crime (i.e., murder, rape, or something other that puts our species' name to shame), you're gone. No exceptions (after the trial, and the hundreds of appeals, that is).

 

My two cents.

[Arcesious]

I lack the time to click the links, however I will add my 2 cents before I go off for a while. If the US helped other places with their econonmy, then there would be no more illegal immigration. Though, that is a too idealistic and non-realistic solution. So, this problem will probably never be resolved for many years.

 

It's to late for that. Besides, it won't help our economy at all if we start throwing MORE free money at other countries.

[Malatest]

It's to late for that. Besides, it won't help our economy at all if we start throwing MORE free money at other countries.

 

Well if you want to get down to it, our Market economics don't help the situation any, either. Free Trade makes poor people in other countries even poorer (Why? Well, their employers can decide prices of trade, and more often than not, these undermine the work of laborers and they don't get nearly as much as the should be). America benefits from such trade policies, but third world countries and previously colonised countries don't (at least the people of those countries don't). This gives the people of those countries more incentive to immigrate to countries that do benefit from current economic leanings around the world... i.e. America, Britain, France, etc.

So, we've sort of brought this upon ourselves. At least that's my opinion.

 

What I hate about the issue of immigrants and illegals is the jingoist policies of people who aren't directly subject to the situation. For example, people in Pennsylvania wanting a wall to be built at the border. They don't live down here, they don't know what the situation's like.

[Totenkopf]

Well if you want to get down to it, our Market economics don't help the situation any, either. Free Trade makes poor people in other countries even poorer (Why? Well, their employers can decide prices of trade, and more often than not, these undermine the work of laborers and they don't get nearly as much as the should be). America benefits from such trade policies, but third world countries and previously colonised countries don't (at least the people of those countries don't). This gives the people of those countries more incentive to immigrate to countries that do benefit from current economic leanings around the world... i.e. America, Britain, France, etc.

So, we've sort of brought this upon ourselves. At least that's my opinion.

 

What I hate about the issue of immigrants and illegals is the jingoist policies of people who aren't directly subject to the situation. For example, people in Pennsylvania wanting a wall to be built at the border. They don't live down here, they don't know what the situation's like.

 

Problem is......they are directly affected by illegal immigration. The 10-20 million illegals are spread across the nation, not just in the SW. People don't have to have them literally camped out in their backyards to reasonably be opposed. The illegals are often using fradualently gained SS #s and end up costing EVERYONE (taxpayers, at least) b/c the social services they consume exceed the taxes they pay.

[Astor]

I think I'll follow the pattern-- not click the links, and give my opinion ().

 

I believe that, if you truly want to come to the United States, do so legally.[/Quote]

 

And that's my plan, at least when I've got the money, a passport, and the required years experience in a career, as I only fit the criteria for employment based immigration.

 

When people come here, they do so because they believe America is better than their previous home. Why else would they be leaving?[/Quote]

 

Well, I can't speak for immigrants, illegal or otherwise, but I'm not planning on moving 'across the pond' because I don't like England. It's sort of a personal dream and goal for me, really. That, and I want to see Texas.

 

Although, if you mean people in second and third world countries, you're probably right.

 

As for actual immigration, it's getting worse in most Western countries. I don't know how bad it is in the rest of Europe, but we have a lot in the UK. I think most of them are legal, but for every 1 legal immigrant, there's probably about 4 who enter illegaly.

[Totenkopf]

Well, I can't speak for immigrants, illegal or otherwise, but I'm not planning on moving 'across the pond' because I don't like England. It's sort of a personal dream and goal for me, really. That, and I want to see Texas.

 

Well, if you plan to stay (permanently), are you saying, more or less, different but equal? Better can, and probably usually does, mean in terms of opportunities available that you don't have in your own country.

[mur'phon]

Tot:

Between illegal immigration, exporting of industry and the burden the former put on services in this country, it's a wonder more Americans don't end up more xenophobic then they are/might be now.

 

Which, for the economy at least, is a very good thing.

 

Problem is......they are directly affected by illegal immigration. The 10-20 million illegals are spread across the nation, not just in the SW. People don't have to have them literally camped out in their backyards to reasonably be opposed.

 

A solution would be to make imigration a state matter, also, keeping the fed out of places it dosen't need to be would be a nice bonus.

 

the illegals are often using fradualently gained SS #s and end up costing EVERYONE (taxpayers, at least) b/c the social services they consume exceed the taxes they pay.

 

But the jobs they do that no one else want to help the taxpayer/economy, and everything they consume help the economy/taxpayer.

 

Arc:

That should about cover it for me... No need to assemble a giant rant about it all when I can just just link some interesting sources about it.

 

Please rant, by doing so you pull out what you think is most important, and it alows your oppinions to be disected by the forumites. You learn, we learn, it's a win win:)

 

It's to late for that. Besides, it won't help our economy at all if we start throwing MORE free money at other countries.

 

Ever heard about the Marshal plan?

 

 

Malatest:

 

and the NAFTA making the average Mexican even poorer

 

How? it helps (almost) all consumers in al the afected countries, put pressure on subsides, and gives competetive producers easier acces to consumers. Mind filling me in on how that makes them poorer?

 

Well if you want to get down to it, our Market economics don't help the situation any, either. Free Trade makes poor people in other countries even poorer (Why? Well, their employers can decide prices of trade, and more often than not, these undermine the work of laborers and they don't get nearly as much as the should be).

 

Huh? Let me tel you a secret, market economy means that the market set the price, both on the goods traded, and on the work the laborer do. Employers don't decide the price og whatever is produced, nor do they decide the wages of their laborers. Not sure where you got that from. As for them getting too little, in general I agree, but there isn't much a trading partner can do about it, it's up to the local government, and the people there.

 

Now, with regards to why free trade dosen't work, you'll have to help me. Trade has alowed poor countries, particular in Asia to grow at a rapid pace, geting milions out of poverty, the same has happened in much of Africa, though slower. I recomend you compare countries who have embraced free trade with those who haven't, then I would like you to explain how the free trading ones have been doing far better.

 

This gives the people of those countries more incentive to immigrate to countries that do benefit from current economic leanings around the world... i.e. America, Britain, France, etc.

 

Current economic leanings? You mean those subsidies preventing poor countries from compeeting with rich ones when it comes to food production, and costing the western taxpayer a lot? Or how about those huge taxes preventing them from selling a lot of their goods to the rich? Just curious:)

 

 

Litofsky:

3) Don't commit any crimes. If you've committed a series crime (i.e., murder, rape, or something other that puts our species' name to shame), you're gone. No exceptions (after the trial, and the hundreds of appeals, that is).

 

Different punishments for the same crime?

 

 

AK:

As for actual immigration, it's getting worse in most Western countries. I don't know how bad it is in the rest of Europe, but we have a lot in the UK. I think most of them are legal, but for every 1 legal immigrant, there's probably about 4 who enter illegaly.

 

And yet they contribute to the economy, and act as a nice buffer as the west ages.

 

 

In case you didn't get it, I'm pro imigration. If you want to remove ilegal imigration, strike a deal to open all the borders.

[Totenkopf]

Which, for the economy at least, is a very good thing.

 

Actually, not necessarily. It hurts local economies by robbing people of jobs and placing economic burdens on local infrastructures. Why should someone hire you if illegals will work for half the price (or less, even). Don't have a doctor....that's ok, get your hangnail serviced at the local emergency room. Having a legal problem with officers trying to enforce the law...just call the ACLU and make everything that much more expensive for everyone involved.

 

 

A solution would be to make imigration a state matter, also, keeping the fed out of places it dosen't need to be would be a nice bonus.

 

I think the locals and states are beginning to realize that they have to do something b/c Washington won't. Given that they are foreign nationals violating national immigration policy, the feds do need to be involved.

 

But the jobs they do that no one else want to help the taxpayer/economy, and everything they consume help the economy/taxpayer.

 

This is, as Dev would exclaim, MARGLABARSH. Fact is, I've seen many people doing jobs here that we're constantly told Americans "won't do". Construction, carpet laying, meat packing, truck drivers, etc.. What they should really be saying is that Americans don't want them at the artificially reduced wages at which they are being offered in many cases. Often by the same people that finance the fools in govt come each election cycle. "Ya see, it's YOUR fault that you don't want to work, you lazy bums!"

[Arcesious]

The whole problem is that the economies of all countries are mostly uneven. The only way it will ever be stable is if all countries have an equal percentage of middle class, and less of the rich people, in order to get rid of poverty. The middle class, however, has to be willing to work as hard as many unfortunate people who are poor have to work. Taxes, coorporations, government, it's all a big mess, because humanity is not united as a whole.

[mur'phon]

Actually, not necessarily. It hurts local economies by robbing people of jobs and placing economic burdens on local infrastructures. Why should someone hire you if illegals will work for half the price (or less, even).

 

Because there is a rather is a good chance that you'll be caught and fined to oblivion? While I know it isn't the case in the U.S, it works well enough here.

 

I think the locals and states are beginning to realize that they have to do something b/c Washington won't. Given that they are foreign nationals violating national immigration policy, the feds do need to be involved.

 

If every state is made responsible for the people in it, I don't really see the reason Wash need to be much involved.

 

This is quite possible, as Dev would exclaim, MARGLABARSH in the U.S

 

Fixed:D

Anyway, I never said it outweights the cost.

[Totenkopf]

Well, he'd probably also see MARGLABARSH on a global scale too. Main problem with what you were saying is that you were minimizing the negative impact to almost nothing versus what you claimed as benefits. Would be interesting to see what would actually happen to prices if employers were forced by circumstances to pay a higher wage once they couldn't fall back on cheap labor. Going from paying someone $8/hr to $12/hr doesn't automatically raise the price of something 50%, b/c wages and such are only part of the equation in calculating cost to producers. Inexpensive products and services seem great on the surface, but at what ACTUAL cost? Kind of like socialized medicine. It's touted as free, but mostly b/c people aren't looking at the true cost of it (higher taxation, reduced services, etc..).

 

If all the states were as autonomous as countries in the EU, you'd have a point. However, the states form a nation, not a collection of nations. NY and Iowa are covered by the same national policy when it comes to immigration. If you take the feds out of that area, why not defense, education, commerce, etc...as well?

[Samuel Dravis]

This is, as Dev would exclaim, MARGLABARSH.

Well, he'd probably also see MARGLABARSH on a global scale too.

Technically MARGLABARSH is a word that denotes the set of all sets. This is an incoherent concept since a set cannot have itself as a member. It is generally used as a synonym for absolute infinity or the completely unknowable. The good reputation of MARGLABARSH has been tarnished by this greivous misuse of the word. >:|

[Achilles]

If every state is made responsible for the people in it, I don't really see the reason Wash need to be much involved.

If I can interject my 2 cents here...

 

Washington needs to be involved because securing the National border is the responsibility of the Federal government. It's not a state issue and it's not okay to expect the states to take care of it.

[Arcesious]

Technically MARGLABARSH is a word that denotes the set of all sets. This is an incoherent concept since a set cannot have itself as a member. It is generally used as a synonym for absolute infinity or the completely unknowable. The good reputation of MARGLABARSH has been tarnished by this greivous misuse of the word. >:|

 

That sir, is a bunch of MARGLABARSH. (jk. I saw the perfect opportunity and I had to do it.)

 

^_^

 

On topic... Capitalism requires uneven and unstable economics. Otherwise, making it perfectly even, no one would ever earn any money. Problem is, that system is prone to collapse every now and then...

[Totenkopf]

Technically MARGLABARSH is a word that denotes the set of all sets. This is an incoherent concept since a set cannot have itself as a member. It is generally used as a synonym for absolute infinity or the completely unknowable. The good reputation of MARGLABARSH has been tarnished by this greivous misuse of the word. >:|

 

Thank you.