Is ILLEGAL Immigration a PROBLEM? Or is ILLEGAL Immigration OK With You?

[Jeffster]

Key points from both articles:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First: I agree that exploitation of migrant workers in exchange for cheap goods is despicable.
But you just can't expect smaller growers to increase their wages with the snap of a finger. They're either forced to shut down or mechanize. Mechanization in this case is a positive step, and I think it should be encouraged whenever possible. In the end, as technology advances, the vast majority of farm jobs, even those that pay more currently, may be replaced by machines, and that's probably for the better. But even current growers that can afford and do raise wages and benefits comparable to white-collar jobs aren't able to find enough American workers. You can't just expect these latter type of growers to continue increasing their wages far beyond what a retailer pays in order to cater to American citizens who still refuse to take the job. What is quantifiable as "good enough" for American workers in order to get dirty and do physical labor? A lot of younger Americans simply aren't willing to do physical jobs no matter how good the pay is.

That allows us to transition to the article you posted, which brought up the same point. Young people simply don't have the have the same sort of mentality as previous generations regarding jobs that require physical labor. According to the Vegas hirer I quoted from the article, it was excruciatingly hard to find Americans to fill even union apprenticeships in the construction industry during a construction boom, but immigrants applied readily for the job. There were tensions in the local union when the balance was thus shifted 50-50 native-born - immigrant; those already there felt that they were "under threat". It sure is interesting that they'd feel that way when it was clear that it was Americans who were unwilling to apply, even though they were union jobs. Look, I agree that the decline of organized labor in the United States is truly a shame. Union workers built this country, and the decline has only fattened the wallets of corporate CEOs and wealthy people. I also think it's a shame that nonunion hirers are taking advantage of migrants who are willing to do the job without the benefits that come from being organized because organized labor isn't prevalent in the culture of their origin. But a lot of the faux-populism from people such as Trump shifts blame towards migrant workers when it simply isn't the case; American workers have become less and less willing to to do even unionized jobs that require physical labor, not to mention nonunion jobs. Causing division and scapegoating others are not the solution. Note that a lot of the "new" generation of construction workers mentioned in the article aren't even illegal - they came here legally. The line between illegal and legal immigrant has been severely watered down; it is clear at this point that many of those who rail against illegal immigration but claim to support legal immigration are hiding their true colors. And it's quite hypocritical, considering the fact that the ancestors of those who now feel this way often suffered the same sort of discrimination from then-native born citizens, whose ancestors or themselves displaced American Indians.

They would have to raise wages above and beyond what easier jobs for the equivalent skill level would pay to entice American citizens to do the work. That's the point. Jobs that are tough on the body should compensate the worker more than other jobs of an equal skill level that aren't as harsh. Ultimately it will mean more mechanization of those jobs, and that is a good thing, but this also means demand for low skilled labor should go down as they mechanize. The availability of a constant supply of cheap labor prevents societies from that level of mechanization because they are still cheaper. So in effect you create a class of cheap exploited labor all so you can have cheaper goods.

As to the construction jobs, the article failed to even mention the words illegal or undocumented. It was the LA Times so they are biased, but they still admit that wages have stagnated and that unions have been decimated in that industry. The reason unions haven't been able to hold up is because of the flood of illegal labor that businesses could exploit. When union labor had a captive hold of the market they could set a better price for their workers. Once you flood the market with cheap labor, they no longer had that ability. Over the decades, American citizens have seen their fathers and uncles lose their good paying construction jobs, and see the share of workers being taken over by illegal labor, so they no longer see those jobs as a path into the middle class. If wages and benefits had held up over the last few decades in that industry, then a lot more American citizens would do the jobs.

Again, why does the left support what amounts to scab labor?

[Person Man]

Key points from both articles:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First: I agree that exploitation of migrant workers in exchange for cheap goods is despicable.
But you just can't expect smaller growers to increase their wages with the snap of a finger. They're either forced to shut down or mechanize. Mechanization in this case is a positive step, and I think it should be encouraged whenever possible. In the end, as technology advances, the vast majority of farm jobs, even those that pay more currently, may be replaced by machines, and that's probably for the better. But even current growers that can afford and do raise wages and benefits comparable to white-collar jobs aren't able to find enough American workers. You can't just expect these latter type of growers to continue increasing their wages far beyond what a retailer pays in order to cater to American citizens who still refuse to take the job. What is quantifiable as "good enough" for American workers in order to get dirty and do physical labor? A lot of younger Americans simply aren't willing to do physical jobs no matter how good the pay is.

That allows us to transition to the article you posted, which brought up the same point. Young people simply don't have the have the same sort of mentality as previous generations regarding jobs that require physical labor. According to the Vegas hirer I quoted from the article, it was excruciatingly hard to find Americans to fill even union apprenticeships in the construction industry during a construction boom, but immigrants applied readily for the job. There were tensions in the local union when the balance was thus shifted 50-50 native-born - immigrant; those already there felt that they were "under threat". It sure is interesting that they'd feel that way when it was clear that it was Americans who were unwilling to apply, even though they were union jobs. Look, I agree that the decline of organized labor in the United States is truly a shame. Union workers built this country, and the decline has only fattened the wallets of corporate CEOs and wealthy people. I also think it's a shame that nonunion hirers are taking advantage of migrants who are willing to do the job without the benefits that come from being organized because organized labor isn't prevalent in the culture of their origin. But a lot of the faux-populism from people such as Trump shifts blame towards migrant workers when it simply isn't the case; American workers have become less and less willing to to do even unionized jobs that require physical labor, not to mention nonunion jobs. Causing division and scapegoating others are not the solution. Note that a lot of the "new" generation of construction workers mentioned in the article aren't even illegal - they came here legally. The line between illegal and legal immigrant has been severely watered down; it is clear at this point that many of those who rail against illegal immigration but claim to support legal immigration are hiding their true colors. And it's quite hypocritical, considering the fact that the ancestors of those who now feel this way often suffered the same sort of discrimination from then-native born citizens, whose ancestors or themselves displaced American Indians.

They would have to raise wages above and beyond what easier jobs for the equivalent skill level would pay to entice American citizens to do the work. That's the point. Jobs that are tough on the body should compensate the worker more than other jobs of an equal skill level that aren't as harsh. Ultimately it will mean more mechanization of those jobs, and that is a good thing, but this also means demand for low skilled labor should go down as they mechanize. The availability of a constant supply of cheap labor prevents societies from that level of mechanization because they are still cheaper. So in effect you create a class of cheap exploited labor all so you can have cheaper goods.

As to the construction jobs, the article failed to even mention the words illegal or undocumented. It was the LA Times so they are biased, but they still admit that wages have stagnated and that unions have been decimated in that industry. The reason unions haven't been able to hold up is because of the flood of illegal labor that businesses could exploit. When union labor had a captive hold of the market they could set a better price for their workers. Once you flood the market with cheap labor, they no longer had that ability. Over the decades, American citizens have seen their fathers and uncles lose their good paying construction jobs, and see the share of workers being taken over by illegal labor, so they no longer see those jobs as a path into the middle class. If wages and benefits had held up over the last few decades in that industry, then a lot more American citizens would do the jobs.

Again, why does the left support what amounts to scab labor?

How much should people be paid then? I think the point is that there is now such a contrast in labor conditions now that in order to compensate people to jobs that have bad working conditions, you have to pay so much that you can't make any more. It's great that a lot of farmers are treating their workers fairly but Americans will only go out there if they make as much as I do. Then how much should I be paid?

[The Mikado]

I really don't believe most people here think illegal immigration is a problem.  I think they're OK with it and want it to continue.

Here's folks' chance to prove me wrong.

Illegal border crossings are at or near 40 year lows, so no, it's not really a major problem and hasn't been for over a decade. Just like murder rates are at or near half-century lows. That doesn't mean murder is suddenly OK, but it means it's legitimately less of a problem than it used to be.

Also, many/most of the immigrants coming in in the last 5 years have been refugees trying to apply for refugee status because Central America is a horrorshow, not for economic reasons. Refugee status is something you cannot apply for if you aren't on American soil. These people aren't trying to sneak by border enforcement and regularly turn themselves in at checkpoints because that's the whole point of the process, to get a court date to have your asylum status granted or denied.

[Virginiá]

I really don't believe most people here think illegal immigration is a problem.  I think they're OK with it and want it to continue.

Here's folks' chance to prove me wrong.

Illegal border crossings are at or near 40 year lows, so no, it's not really a major problem and hasn't been for over a decade. Just like murder rates are at or near half-century lows. That doesn't mean murder is suddenly OK, but it means it's legitimately less of a problem than it used to be.

Fake news statistics! Trump says it's a major problem, and he is very trustworthy!

[Jeffster]

Key points from both articles:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First: I agree that exploitation of migrant workers in exchange for cheap goods is despicable.
But you just can't expect smaller growers to increase their wages with the snap of a finger. They're either forced to shut down or mechanize. Mechanization in this case is a positive step, and I think it should be encouraged whenever possible. In the end, as technology advances, the vast majority of farm jobs, even those that pay more currently, may be replaced by machines, and that's probably for the better. But even current growers that can afford and do raise wages and benefits comparable to white-collar jobs aren't able to find enough American workers. You can't just expect these latter type of growers to continue increasing their wages far beyond what a retailer pays in order to cater to American citizens who still refuse to take the job. What is quantifiable as "good enough" for American workers in order to get dirty and do physical labor? A lot of younger Americans simply aren't willing to do physical jobs no matter how good the pay is.

That allows us to transition to the article you posted, which brought up the same point. Young people simply don't have the have the same sort of mentality as previous generations regarding jobs that require physical labor. According to the Vegas hirer I quoted from the article, it was excruciatingly hard to find Americans to fill even union apprenticeships in the construction industry during a construction boom, but immigrants applied readily for the job. There were tensions in the local union when the balance was thus shifted 50-50 native-born - immigrant; those already there felt that they were "under threat". It sure is interesting that they'd feel that way when it was clear that it was Americans who were unwilling to apply, even though they were union jobs. Look, I agree that the decline of organized labor in the United States is truly a shame. Union workers built this country, and the decline has only fattened the wallets of corporate CEOs and wealthy people. I also think it's a shame that nonunion hirers are taking advantage of migrants who are willing to do the job without the benefits that come from being organized because organized labor isn't prevalent in the culture of their origin. But a lot of the faux-populism from people such as Trump shifts blame towards migrant workers when it simply isn't the case; American workers have become less and less willing to to do even unionized jobs that require physical labor, not to mention nonunion jobs. Causing division and scapegoating others are not the solution. Note that a lot of the "new" generation of construction workers mentioned in the article aren't even illegal - they came here legally. The line between illegal and legal immigrant has been severely watered down; it is clear at this point that many of those who rail against illegal immigration but claim to support legal immigration are hiding their true colors. And it's quite hypocritical, considering the fact that the ancestors of those who now feel this way often suffered the same sort of discrimination from then-native born citizens, whose ancestors or themselves displaced American Indians.

They would have to raise wages above and beyond what easier jobs for the equivalent skill level would pay to entice American citizens to do the work. That's the point. Jobs that are tough on the body should compensate the worker more than other jobs of an equal skill level that aren't as harsh. Ultimately it will mean more mechanization of those jobs, and that is a good thing, but this also means demand for low skilled labor should go down as they mechanize. The availability of a constant supply of cheap labor prevents societies from that level of mechanization because they are still cheaper. So in effect you create a class of cheap exploited labor all so you can have cheaper goods.

As to the construction jobs, the article failed to even mention the words illegal or undocumented. It was the LA Times so they are biased, but they still admit that wages have stagnated and that unions have been decimated in that industry. The reason unions haven't been able to hold up is because of the flood of illegal labor that businesses could exploit. When union labor had a captive hold of the market they could set a better price for their workers. Once you flood the market with cheap labor, they no longer had that ability. Over the decades, American citizens have seen their fathers and uncles lose their good paying construction jobs, and see the share of workers being taken over by illegal labor, so they no longer see those jobs as a path into the middle class. If wages and benefits had held up over the last few decades in that industry, then a lot more American citizens would do the jobs.

Again, why does the left support what amounts to scab labor?

How much should people be paid then? I think the point is that there is now such a contrast in labor conditions now that in order to compensate people to jobs that have bad working conditions, you have to pay so much that you can't make any more. It's great that a lot of farmers are treating their workers fairly but Americans will only go out there if they make as much as I do. Then how much should I be paid?

Are you against raising the minimum wage? Do you think it should remain low so people don't have to pay higher prices for goods and services? For grueling outdoor farm work, that will only temporarily employ them for a season instead of year round, in a high cost of living state like California, they should be making more than a similarly skilled profession with better working conditions pays. If that means prices for those products might have to go up, then so be it. It's worth it so that people can earn a decent living and not have their bodies broken down all so you can get cheap goods. Wages should reflect the willingness of the citizens to do those dirty, dangerous, back breaking jobs, instead of just increasing the supply of labor through legal and illegal immigration so businesses can extract greater and greater amounts of profit off of desperate people. There is no surprise that the income gap between the wealthy and everyone else has coincided with the same period the immigrant share of the population has increased. I don't know what you do for work, but I wouldn't support importing millions of people who do the same job as you into the country to drive down your wages, so why do you support doing the same in other industries?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Is the fact that it’s ILLEGAL the PROBLEM? Or is it that they are brown amd don’t speak english? Something being illegal is not what makes it immoral. I break the law every time I light up a joint but I don’t care because the law is wrong. It should be easier to immigrate here legally, and the republican attack on LEGAL immigration pretty much renders this entire debate moot. Illegal immigration IS a problem, but really only for security reasons (we shoud keep track of the people entering our country). Trump said it himself, right-wingers would be fine with immigration if the immigrants were coming from “places like Norway” and not “sh!thole countries. As much as I disagree with people like Steve Bannon, I have to at least respect that they admit they oppose immigration for cultural reasons. As for the Mortimers of the forum, no we are not “full” (the native-born fertility rate is dropping) and differences in income between immigrants and natives dissipate over the course of 2-3 generations. Most Irish/Italian/German immigrants came here with nothing, but nonetheless those groups have contributed immensely to this country in the decades since.

I'll speak for myself.

When I was a young man, I was in love with a young lady who, amazingly enough, was in love with me.  She was black, but from a Caribbean Island Nation (the Cayman Islands).  She had to go back to the Caymans when her H-1 visa expired (she was a nurse, allowed to come here temporarily when nurses were in short supply).  Marrying her would not have solved the problem back then.  Needless to say, this put a damper on our relationship; she ultimately returned to her home country and I eventually met someone else (not my present wife; that happened much later).  She was a nurse, educated and literate, and she was also a committed Christian.  (It was probably best that we didn't marry at the time because at that time in my life I was NOT a committed Christian, and Scripture warns believers not to be unequally yoked to unbelievers.)

She's not the only black girlfriend I ever had, but she's the only girlfriend for whom the immigration issue was ever a factor.  I'll let this story speak for itself.

I break the law every time I light up a joint but I don’t care because the law is wrong. It should be easier to immigrate here legally, and the republican attack on LEGAL immigration pretty much renders this entire debate moot.

Ollie McClung could have asserted this when he barred blacks from Ollie's BBQ in Alabama.  Lester Maddox could have hung his had on this when he sought to keep his Pickrick Restaurant in Atlanta racially segregated.  They thought the law was wrong, and were not short on folks affirming their position.  Yet immigration law is what it is.  Why, then, should you be able to take the attitudes toward laws you take, yet deny Ollie McClung and Lester Maddox their "right" to nullify Civil Rights laws and court decisions?

Trump's comments about "s---hole" countries was crude and wrong, but the idea that immigrants coming here should not be an economic burden to us is an idea that has merit.  We DON'T have the resources to take in scores of limitless poor folks with low work skills.  I don't have a problem with the race or ethnicity of any of our legal immigrants, so long as they are amenable to liberal democracy and individual liberties.  I have a problem with those who are not amenable, and whether or not an immigrant will be an economic burden to America is a valid consideration.

And I believe that our immigration policy should be one that provides disincentive to "border crashers".  Our status as a wealthy nation bordering a much poorer nation with third world peoples marching through it to come to our border is unique; I can think of no other similar situation.  We have a right to be our own gatekeepers, and we ought to do so in a manner that is in the interest of American Citizens, period.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Thankfully, ICE stopped this dangerous criminal from her illegal entry.  It just goes to show yet another reason we need a wall; she claimed she didn't even know she'd crossed the border.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44588643

[HillGoose]

This whole "My grandpa and grandma came here from Germany/Italy/Ireland/Spain/Sweden/etc. LEGALLY!" trope is one of the biggest right-wing myths ever trotted out.

OF COURSE your great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandpa came here "legally."  THERE WAS NO IMMIGRATION LAW IN 18-whatever AS WE KNOW IT TODAY.  You didn't have thousands upon thousands upon thousands of statutes and regulations covering immigration law that rival only the US Tax Code in scope, complexity, and difficulty. 

All you really needed was to prove that you weren't carrying any dreadful diseases and that you weren't a criminal or tied to any current foreign enemy, and you were good as gold to come in.

So, the whole "legal vs. illegal" thing needs to stop.

We had no standards in the past so now we are bound to have no standards forever?

Why are we bound to have the same immigration law we had in 1900 as opposed to the immigration law we had in 1950?

Why are we bound to have the same immigration law we had in 1900 but not the same laws regarding racial segregation we had in 1950?

"We did this in the past so we have to do it this way now" is a dumb argument.

I agree with you about the distinction between illegal and legal immigration needs to go.

We're full. We shouldn't allow either.

"We're full" bruh there's too many jobs here for Americans to possibly fill, and without immigration America's population starts to decline because Americans reproduce below replacement level. Without immigration there's going to be a labor shortage and the economy is going to stagnate then in 30 years we'll probably be a third world country because our economy died of labor shortage

Labor shortages are good for workers because it causes wages to rise. You guys claim to care about working people but you support every type of policy to make their lives worse. You want to crowd their cities, schools, hospitals, and drive up the cost of housing, while at the same time you want to increase the labor supply to drive down their wages, or support free trade agreements that outsource jobs to the countries with the least amount of labor and environmental protections. It's like the left has completely lost it's mind these days. And last I checked, Japan has not become a third world country.

Also, how can you guys claim to care about the environment when you always want to grow the population forever in order to continue economic ponzi schemes?

1. I'm not remotely "on the left" I'm libertarian on social issues but that's as close as it gets. I voted for Rubio in the 2016 primary and McMullin in the 2016 general. I don't care about "workers rights" or the environment.

2. As someone else pointed out, you're only looking at one side of the situation. A decreasing population is bad economics. Entire industries are going to fail because they don't have enough workers, and it's going to create a domino effect that leads to economic collapse. "Economic Ponzi Scheme" What do you mean by that exactly? The REAL economic Ponzi Scheme is Social Security, and I'm sure you support that.

3. I don't support any form of totalitarian population control. If you want to decrease population because you believe it will create better conditions for "workers" you're no better than eugenicists who originally spread the myth of human overpopulation.

[Jeffster]

1. I'm not remotely "on the left" I'm libertarian on social issues but that's as close as it gets. I voted for Rubio in the 2016 primary and McMullin in the 2016 general. I don't care about "workers rights" or the environment.

2. As someone else pointed out, you're only looking at one side of the situation. A decreasing population is bad economics. Entire industries are going to fail because they don't have enough workers, and it's going to create a domino effect that leads to economic collapse. "Economic Ponzi Scheme" What do you mean by that exactly? The REAL economic Ponzi Scheme is Social Security, and I'm sure you support that.

3. I don't support any form of totalitarian population control. If you want to decrease population because you believe it will create better conditions for "workers" you're no better than eugenicists who originally spread the myth of human overpopulation.

1. Well at least you admit you're a piece of crap then.

2. Any system based on constant population growth is not sustainable. Japan has had sub-replacement birthrates for years, and hasn't turned into a third world country as claimed. We should allow our population to age on it's own and reduce naturally and use automation to make up the slack. Relying on immigration to increase the population all so people can take out more loans and corporations can sell more products tomorrow than yesterday is not sustainable.

3. How is my stance in any way like a eugenicist? I'm talking about not allowing in massive numbers of immigrants and allowing our population to shrink naturally, and use automation to make up the difference. I'm not talking about killing or sterilizing people. Hell, you don't even fully realize the argument you're making. You think economies can only grow by population growth, and you want to steal other counties population in order to grow your own, so in effect you want to steal economic growth from those poor countries. Labor shortages have lead to wage increases and better working conditions for the working class, and technological innovation. It was only after the end to mass immigration in the USA that the gap between the rich and everyone else began shrinking. As soon as the floodgates were opened again the income gap began growing again.

So for the person who doesn't care about workers rights or the environment, now is the time you can F### off, I'm through with you.

[Badger]

That's a multifaceted question, fuzzy, so I'll provide a multi-faceted answer.

When people come here illegally, or have lived here for years, are just trying to work and get by, then no I don't see their presence here is a problem. I do, though, see their effective inability to become legal within the space of less than a decade, or not at all 4 most such immigrants, as a serious serious problem.

I consider the fact that most people who rail against illegal immigration, such as yourself, are opposed to Legal immigration for pretty much the same reasons, such as yourself, as you previously let slip on multiple occasions.

Yes, MS-13 are scumbags. However, may I remind you as I did in a previous post that your association with latino immigrants, including the vast vast overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants, is wrong, racist, factually Incorrect, and wrong wrong wrong wrong two plus two equals five wrong.

Because you seem to go on about MS-13 and transnational gangs despite my earlier post, I will repeat it and Endeavor you to respond intelligently before bringing up that shibboleth again.

Latino. Immigrants. R. No. More. Likely. 2. B. MS-13. Members. Than. Italian. Immigrants. We're. 2. B. Mafioso.

Your railing against immigrants because a tiny percentage of them work for Trans National gangs, is equivalent to saying you don't want blacks moving in your neighborhood because a small percentage of them are Bloods or Crips. I'm sorry, man. I think at heart you try not to be racist and to be Christian to everyone, but this point you keep beating on is every bit as ignorantly racist as not wanting potential Crips to move at next door cuz that accountant and teachers teenage son that just moved in down the Block, well, you never know...

I find this administration's naked and vicious appeal to the most base and file levels of overt racism and xenophobia, such as has never been seen by our government in almost a hundred years, to be a huge and defining issue. It divides Americans bitterly and deeply and grossly

I will note yes, border security and tracking criminal dangerous illegal immigrants are an issue and an important one. However, it has been completely subsumed by the Trump administration's complete racist bull whipping and perversion of the issue. The wall is a stupid stupid idea, not merely because of the message it represents, the fact that it's Trump's self vision of a pyramid to mark his presidency, or the expense involved. Simply put, even border security advocates say that a wall is not the most effective means compared to sensors, additional border patrol agents, Etc. However, you need to realize that Trump has effectively killed the issue of border security by completely conflating it with the most base jingoistic and nativist Tendencies. No, you can't lay it on Democrats, liberals, etc for taking it the wrong way. Everybody in America is taking Trump's immigration policy the way he intends it, both opponents and supporters alike. If you really want or security, fuzzy, you better vote Democratic because it's not going to happen under trump. It has now become an issue similar to vonly Nixon could go to China". The same holds true for Effective selective deportation for actual criminal elements like the Obama Administration exercised. You didn't get constant incidents like individuals who been here for 30 years, including illegal immigrants who had a misdemeanor 20 years ago and owns a house.

Yes, MS-13 are nasty dangerous Bunch. But I am a hundred times more concerned about the threat to America pose by that criminal gang in the White House, and the way they divide this country.

[HillGoose]

1. I'm not remotely "on the left" I'm libertarian on social issues but that's as close as it gets. I voted for Rubio in the 2016 primary and McMullin in the 2016 general. I don't care about "workers rights" or the environment.

2. As someone else pointed out, you're only looking at one side of the situation. A decreasing population is bad economics. Entire industries are going to fail because they don't have enough workers, and it's going to create a domino effect that leads to economic collapse. "Economic Ponzi Scheme" What do you mean by that exactly? The REAL economic Ponzi Scheme is Social Security, and I'm sure you support that.

3. I don't support any form of totalitarian population control. If you want to decrease population because you believe it will create better conditions for "workers" you're no better than eugenicists who originally spread the myth of human overpopulation.

1. Well at least you admit you're a piece of crap then.

2. Any system based on constant population growth is not sustainable. Japan has had sub-replacement birthrates for years, and hasn't turned into a third world country as claimed. We should allow our population to age on it's own and reduce naturally and use automation to make up the slack. Relying on immigration to increase the population all so people can take out more loans and corporations can sell more products tomorrow than yesterday is not sustainable.

3. How is my stance in any way like a eugenicist? I'm talking about not allowing in massive numbers of immigrants and allowing our population to shrink naturally, and use automation to make up the difference. I'm not talking about killing or sterilizing people. Hell, you don't even fully realize the argument you're making. You think economies can only grow by population growth, and you want to steal other counties population in order to grow your own, so in effect you want to steal economic growth from those poor countries. Labor shortages have lead to wage increases and better working conditions for the working class, and technological innovation. It was only after the end to mass immigration in the USA that the gap between the rich and everyone else began shrinking. As soon as the floodgates were opened again the income gap began growing again.

So for the person who doesn't care about workers rights or the environment, now is the time you can F### off, I'm through with you.

Why exactly should I care about the fate of "workers" when everyone who has been horrible to me in my life was a blue-collar working class alcoholic who thought they were the victims at the hands of corporations, the wealthy, the police, or whatever they wanted to blame their lack of success on but themselves to avoid taking responsibility for their own lives?

I have no reason to respect the working class because I lived with them for the first 18 years of my life and experienced nothing but torment. They get what they get and shouldn't expect my support.

[Fuzzy Bear]

That's a multifaceted question, fuzzy, so I'll provide a multi-faceted answer.

When people come here illegally, or have lived here for years, are just trying to work and get by, then no I don't see their presence here is a problem. I do, though, see their effective inability to become legal within the space of less than a decade, or not at all 4 most such immigrants, as a serious serious problem.

I consider the fact that most people who rail against illegal immigration, such as yourself, are opposed to Legal immigration for pretty much the same reasons, such as yourself, as you previously let slip on multiple occasions.

Yes, MS-13 are scumbags. However, may I remind you as I did in a previous post that your association with latino immigrants, including the vast vast overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants, is wrong, racist, factually Incorrect, and wrong wrong wrong wrong two plus two equals five wrong.

Because you seem to go on about MS-13 and transnational gangs despite my earlier post, I will repeat it and Endeavor you to respond intelligently before bringing up that shibboleth again.

Latino. Immigrants. R. No. More. Likely. 2. B. MS-13. Members. Than. Italian. Immigrants. We're. 2. B. Mafioso.

Your railing against immigrants because a tiny percentage of them work for Trans National gangs, is equivalent to saying you don't want blacks moving in your neighborhood because a small percentage of them are Bloods or Crips. I'm sorry, man. I think at heart you try not to be racist and to be Christian to everyone, but this point you keep beating on is every bit as ignorantly racist as not wanting potential Crips to move at next door cuz that accountant and teachers teenage son that just moved in down the Block, well, you never know...

I find this administration's naked and vicious appeal to the most base and file levels of overt racism and xenophobia, such as has never been seen by our government in almost a hundred years, to be a huge and defining issue. It divides Americans bitterly and deeply and grossly

I will note yes, border security and tracking criminal dangerous illegal immigrants are an issue and an important one. However, it has been completely subsumed by the Trump administration's complete racist bull whipping and perversion of the issue. The wall is a stupid stupid idea, not merely because of the message it represents, the fact that it's Trump's self vision of a pyramid to mark his presidency, or the expense involved. Simply put, even border security advocates say that a wall is not the most effective means compared to sensors, additional border patrol agents, Etc. However, you need to realize that Trump has effectively killed the issue of border security by completely conflating it with the most base jingoistic and nativist Tendencies. No, you can't lay it on Democrats, liberals, etc for taking it the wrong way. Everybody in America is taking Trump's immigration policy the way he intends it, both opponents and supporters alike. If you really want or security, fuzzy, you better vote Democratic because it's not going to happen under trump. It has now become an issue similar to vonly Nixon could go to China". The same holds true for Effective selective deportation for actual criminal elements like the Obama Administration exercised. You didn't get constant incidents like individuals who been here for 30 years, including illegal immigrants who had a misdemeanor 20 years ago and owns a house.

Yes, MS-13 are nasty dangerous Bunch. But I am a hundred times more concerned about the threat to America pose by that criminal gang in the White House, and the way they divide this country.

You are correct in that I would support lower levels of LEGAL immigration, mainly along the lines of ending "chain migration".  I don't believe we need more immigrants, whether they be from Norway or Haiti or any country in the middle of that economic spectrum.  That's not something I'd make a major issue about, however.  Questions of legal immigration levels are matters of policy, which are debatable.  Questions about ILLEGAL immigration are more fundamental; they go to the issue of the rule of law, which is far more fundamental than the issue of mere policy.

The "rule of law" is sneered at here by some folks who don't care about America as a nation; their primary loyalties appear to lie elsewhere, and since they feel free to believe the worst of me, I'll just put this out there, and we can have a game of, "Well, I just KNOW . . ."  It is the rule of law that differentiates us from the failed states that are supplying us with the present huge stream of "border crashers" that our system is currently dealing with.  Indeed, it is the rule of law that is the reason the INNOCENT persons (not the criminal elements) from failed states such as El Salvador and Honduras want to come here, whether they know it or not, for it is THAT which affords them safety.

I'm not wed to "The Wall", but I'm not amenable to paying the tab for impoverished illegal aliens coming into our country illegally and negatively impacting our society, and I'm definitely against the idea that we have no moral right or authority to do something about it as unremarkable as enforcing our present laws.  And that's what many who disagree with me advocate here; the WILLFUL NON-ENFORCEMENT of laws that are perfectly constitutional and that have not been repealed or amended with regard to immigration.

The Trump Dog and Pony Shows on this issue haven't always been helpful, but the Democrats made it clear in their last campaign that their policy on immigration was, "If you can make it across the river, you're home free."  They had actual, live, ILLEGAL ALIENS on TV, in SPEAKING roles no less, at the Democratic National Convention  A speaker pointed to the group of immigrants, some of them illegally here, and said on an open mic, 'THESE ARE YOUR COUNTRYMEN!"  (I still can't wrap my mind around how someone illegally here is "my fellow countryman".)  That's no way to run a country, and it's breaking faith with the rule of law, a principal bigger than all of this.  

Now I agree, on a pragmatic note, that deporting every illegal alien isn't likely to happen, and I believe that it IS a problem to have millions of folks living in America illegally, but with no pathway to correct this situation.  And I agree that there comes a point, on a humanitarian level, that mass deportations are open to question.  But I would hope you'd agree that the amnesty given to all illegal aliens by Ronald Reagan, in an attempt to solve this problem, has given many in other lands the belief that if they can just get in, even if it's done illegally, they'll somehow get to stay.  Is that really a ridiculous conclusion?  

And if you will put the issue of Trump and his persona aside, is that something that undermines the rule of law?  The divisions in the country were not caused by Trump.  On this issue, what has stirred up controversy is that there has been a reversal of policy, one that is perfectly legal, but inconvenient to some.  I would suggest, however, that in the present controversy, it is Trump, and not his opponents, that has the law on his side.  That's not a trivial talking point.  

I would also make the point that the American victims of MS-13 and other Transnational Gangs (both living and deceased) would not have been harmed had immigration laws been enforced.  The families of the dead and the wounded from MS-13 would not be suffering, and would not be bearing the pain and burden of what they're bearing now, and may bear for the rest of their lives.  What would you tell such a victim about immigration policy?  What would you tell such a victim about Trump, the first President to acknowledge their pain and the source of it?  I'm not for policy being driven by victims's grief in general; that's provided for lots of "feel good" measures that contain unintended consequences, but what WOULD you tell THOSE people?  That they're making mountains out of molehills?  If you're advice to them is to suck it up and get on with their lives, at least be honest enough to say so.  If not, what would you tell them?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Is the fact that it’s ILLEGAL the PROBLEM? Or is it that they are brown amd don’t speak english? Something being illegal is not what makes it immoral. I break the law every time I light up a joint but I don’t care because the law is wrong. It should be easier to immigrate here legally, and the republican attack on LEGAL immigration pretty much renders this entire debate moot. Illegal immigration IS a problem, but really only for security reasons (we shoud keep track of the people entering our country). Trump said it himself, right-wingers would be fine with immigration if the immigrants were coming from “places like Norway” and not “sh!thole countries. As much as I disagree with people like Steve Bannon, I have to at least respect that they admit they oppose immigration for cultural reasons. As for the Mortimers of the forum, no we are not “full” (the native-born fertility rate is dropping) and differences in income between immigrants and natives dissipate over the course of 2-3 generations. Most Irish/Italian/German immigrants came here with nothing, but nonetheless those groups have contributed immensely to this country in the decades since.

I'll speak for myself.

When I was a young man, I was in love with a young lady who, amazingly enough, was in love with me.  She was black, but from a Caribbean Island Nation (the Cayman Islands).  She had to go back to the Caymans when her H-1 visa expired (she was a nurse, allowed to come here temporarily when nurses were in short supply).  Marrying her would not have solved the problem back then.  Needless to say, this put a damper on our relationship; she ultimately returned to her home country and I eventually met someone else (not my present wife; that happened much later).  She was a nurse, educated and literate, and she was also a committed Christian.  (It was probably best that we didn't marry at the time because at that time in my life I was NOT a committed Christian, and Scripture warns believers not to be unequally yoked to unbelievers.)

She's not the only black girlfriend I ever had, but she's the only girlfriend for whom the immigration issue was ever a factor.  I'll let this story speak for itself.

I break the law every time I light up a joint but I don’t care because the law is wrong. It should be easier to immigrate here legally, and the republican attack on LEGAL immigration pretty much renders this entire debate moot.

Ollie McClung could have asserted this when he barred blacks from Ollie's BBQ in Alabama.  Lester Maddox could have hung his had on this when he sought to keep his Pickrick Restaurant in Atlanta racially segregated.  They thought the law was wrong, and were not short on folks affirming their position.  Yet immigration law is what it is.  Why, then, should you be able to take the attitudes toward laws you take, yet deny Ollie McClung and Lester Maddox their "right" to nullify Civil Rights laws and court decisions?

Trump's comments about "s---hole" countries was crude and wrong, but the idea that immigrants coming here should not be an economic burden to us is an idea that has merit.  We DON'T have the resources to take in scores of limitless poor folks with low work skills.  I don't have a problem with the race or ethnicity of any of our legal immigrants, so long as they are amenable to liberal democracy and individual liberties.  I have a problem with those who are not amenable, and whether or not an immigrant will be an economic burden to America is a valid consideration.

And I believe that our immigration policy should be one that provides disincentive to "border crashers".  Our status as a wealthy nation bordering a much poorer nation with third world peoples marching through it to come to our border is unique; I can think of no other similar situation.  We have a right to be our own gatekeepers, and we ought to do so in a manner that is in the interest of American Citizens, period.

Fuzzy, you're getting meta to intentionally elude the issue. The difference between me and Lester Maddox is the same as the difference between American Troops on D-Day and the German troops marching through Warsaw. Yes, generally, speaking, we should respect the laws. But sometimes laws are actually unjust, and we actually should not enforce them. Responding with "What if bad people ignored the law" is missing the point.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I'd like to note that pretty much no one on this thread has mentioned the welfare of the immigrants, who are the people most affected by the policy. I think the effect on Americans is most likely only slightly negative, but for immigrants, it's very clearly enormously negative, the great bulk of the human cost of deportation, and yet it goes unnoticed.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I'd like to note that pretty much no one on this thread has mentioned the welfare of the immigrants, who are the people most affected by the policy. I think the effect on Americans is most likely only slightly negative, but for immigrants, it's very clearly enormously negative, the great bulk of the human cost of deportation, and yet it goes unnoticed.

Exactly. The concerns of the global poor are so much more important than those of less-fortunate Americans, who, despite their genuine challenges, still have Obamacare, a half-livable wage, and a variety of other benevolent institutions.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

We shouldn't be bringing any new immigrants in this country, either illegal or legal, until the government completely takes over the economy and/or corporations stop replacing us with machines.

[Famous Mortimer]

I'd like to note that pretty much no one on this thread has mentioned the welfare of the immigrants, who are the people most affected by the policy. I think the effect on Americans is most likely only slightly negative, but for immigrants, it's very clearly enormously negative, the great bulk of the human cost of deportation, and yet it goes unnoticed.

Exactly. The concerns of the global poor are so much more important than those of less-fortunate Americans, who, despite their genuine challenges, still have Obamacare, a half-livable wage, and a variety of other benevolent institutions.

At least you are admitting you consider the concerns of foreigners "so much more important" than the concerns of Americans.

I just wish all immigration advocates would be open about this.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'd like to note that pretty much no one on this thread has mentioned the welfare of the immigrants, who are the people most affected by the policy. I think the effect on Americans is most likely only slightly negative, but for immigrants, it's very clearly enormously negative, the great bulk of the human cost of deportation, and yet it goes unnoticed.

Exactly. The concerns of the global poor are so much more important than those of less-fortunate Americans, who, despite their genuine challenges, still have Obamacare, a half-livable wage, and a variety of other benevolent institutions.

I can agree with this statements of fact, to a point.  I do wish that the folks posting these two posts think about just how offensive to less fortunate working Americans the underlined portion is.

I would hope that Blairite (a pretty good poster here) would consider how he'd be viewed by less fortunate Americans who had to train their foreign replacements to do their jobs in order to receive their severance package before their employment was terminated.  If you can, person to person, express this concept to folks in that predicament, I'll give you credit for having some chops.

Just exactly whose responsibility is "The Global Poor"?  Just exactly what do these responsibilities entail?  Just exactly why to those responsibilties fall on those parties, and why do they fall on those parties in the measures you set forth?  Because from the vantage point of less fortunate Americans, they see providing for THEIR familes as primary, and they see THEIR decline in the standard of living as partially due to providing for "The Global Poor".  And to the extent that it's partially true that their standard of living has fallen for that reason, to what extend ARE their frustrations justified?  If you're making the statements about "The Global Poor" that are being made here (and they are, to be sure, reasonable statements), are they not fair and proper questions to ask?

Are less fortunate working Americans getting angry at the wrong people?  Perhaps they are.  The investor class that benefits from the low-wage labor supplied by illegal immigrants deserves a greater reaming out then they are getting.  But the "Drop Everything And Give Them Amnesty!" crowd confirms in the mind of less fortunate working Americans that there is no reward for playing by the rules and no punishment for anyone but them for breaking the rules.  That's the message being sent by the "Save the Children" contingent in this crisis.  Are America's less fortunate wrong in perceiving this as the message?  Is that the message we want American public policy to send out?

The bulk of LFWAs (Less Fortunate Working Americans) are not Utopians.  They are rightly cynical about the idea of the World ever being fair.  Those who are Christians (and many  who are not, but who are theists) place their hopes in the life to come, but they also recognize that this life is the only one they KNOW they have.  They would like to think that rules and laws mean something, because THEY have to follow them, and the price for failing to do so is swiftly brought to them when THEY screw up.

Yes, Global poverty can be devastating.  Why, however, is the solution to take massive numbers of the Globally Poor into the United States?  Why is addressing the Poverty problem with the Global Poor where they are at not a solution?  And why is this all on America?

I'm in agreement with the principle that "to whom much is given, much is required".  In that sense, there is some degree of responsibility for "The Global Poor".  But the Less Fortunate Working Americans see that entire burden being places on them; on THEIR communities and THEIR schools and THEIR places of employment.  And that burden involves bearing the pain of the actions of the worst behaved in the lot of illegal aliens.  The kids that are MS-13 members will live in THEIR communities and attend THEIR kids' schools.  Ask the folks in Brentwood, NY how that's playing out.

If someone can come up with a solution that addresses The Global Poor while being fair to Less Fortunate Working Americans, I'm all ears.

[Fuzzy Bear]

So it's 2020, and it's very likely that Joe Biden will be President on January 20, 2021.

What, specifically, will Joe Biden do to prevent the influx of illegal aliens into America, irregardless of what he may do about those already here?

[T'Chenka]

So it's 2020, and it's very likely that Joe Biden will be President on January 20, 2021.

What, specifically, will Joe Biden do to prevent the influx of illegal aliens into America, irregardless of what he may do about those already here?

Hopefully as little as possible.

[WD]

So it's 2020, and it's very likely that Joe Biden will be President on January 20, 2021.

What, specifically, will Joe Biden do to prevent the influx of illegal aliens into America, irregardless of what he may do about those already here?

Hopefully as little as possible.

Disagree. Illegal immigration should be curtailed and prevented whenever possible.

[T'Chenka]

So it's 2020, and it's very likely that Joe Biden will be President on January 20, 2021.

What, specifically, will Joe Biden do to prevent the influx of illegal aliens into America, irregardless of what he may do about those already here?

Hopefully as little as possible.

Disagree. Illegal immigration should be curtailed and prevented whenever possible.

I generally agree actually. However, there is A LOT of disinformation out there in regards to the number of immigrants coming in (net not gross) illegally, especially in regards to Mexicans. From Fuzzy's perspective, especially in regards to Mexican illegal immigration, a lot of problems exist. I see most of those problems as nothingburgers.

[Xeuma]

So it's 2020, and it's very likely that Joe Biden will be President on January 20, 2021.

What, specifically, will Joe Biden do to prevent the influx of illegal aliens into America, irregardless of what he may do about those already here?

Hopefully create pathways to allow easier legal entry, and ways for illegal immigrants who have lived here for some time to normalize their status. There's no reason we shouldn't be accepting far more immigrants than we currently do.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's a minor problem. I support a path to citizenship for those who are already here, but we should also take measures to secure our border and reform our visa programs to make illegal immigration hard and unattractive.

[SevenEleven]

Hopefully Joe Biden eliminates illegal immigration by making all immigration legal!