Decriminalizing Illegal Immigration

About that fine. What is the point of that? It’s not a deterrent. It doesn’t compensate the treasury for the trouble of dealing with immigrants. The immigrants don’t have the money. All the fine does is placate Americans who want their pound of flesh.

The same goes for the criminalization of illegal entry. Why? We’re criminalizing something that we all would want to do if we lived in Tijuana. It’s not bank robbery. I don’t get it. I mean, other than to placate Americans who want their pound of flesh, as above.

It would make me proud if we removed the criminalization and fine.

I respectfully disagree. I'll be honest: I'm very uncomfortable with tax dollars spent on illegal migrants in any manner, and I'm culturally and racially biased. I understand that under international law, more likely than not we're required to let them apply for asylum.

I understand they pay taxes after they get settled, but we have so many people coming in who aren't acculturating. I still believe in the melting pot, and it disturbs me when I get into a Lyft and the driver doesn't speak English.

I want immigrants to come, but I want only highly skilled, educated, and high-IQ immigrants who've learned English. Millions could come over a few years and I'd welcome that. I'd prefer some South Asians, East Asians, and Caucasians to make up the bulk, because from my experience and observations, generally they're peaceful, have high IQs, and are productive. They generally try to fit in, instead of becoming part of a resentful, unassimilable subculture. The first generation that's born in America is usefully fully acculturated.

I know this is offensive, but I'm being honest. I'd like us to be more like Switzerland or Singapore in managing our borders and awareness of who's here. I understand America is huge, but I prefer order and control and that's just how I'd like border control to be. I admire Japan's methods of controlling illegal immigration. Yes, I know they're an island nation with a vitually homogeneous and rapidly aging and shrinking population.

The video I'm sharing is what got me thinking about this and forming a point of view. Yes, I know that there are white people and Asian people in the crowd. And yes, I know African-American people and Latino (not a race, I know) people have been here longer than most whites. I know none of them are illegal immigrants. The video still impacted me and I made some inferences in relation to immigration.

I don't think I'm alone, but I'm not too concerned either way. There are innumerable angles from which to attack my views, but I'm not trying to argue. I'm just sharing my honest opinion.

Sorry, I forgot to say that I know the question is about illegal entry and that asylum-seekers aren't entering illegally. And I know that it costs money to prosecute them, etc. But you get the point. I'm racist, etc.

Fuck you OP, r1 & r2.

I understand your point r3. So many people are in their own little enclaves and bubbles and don't even bother to try to assimilate. And then you have the ones who resent the US and are only here for the money and benefits. It's not a situation that any good can come out of.

R3: I’m halfway through the video as I type.

But what I’m advocating is that illegal (or unauthorized) entry be a civil infraction, not criminal. I’m not advocating that we should have open borders.

R7, I know. Decriminalization. But you can infer why I'd be against that. It sends a message of acceptance that I don't want to send. It may encourage more illegal immigrants to come. It encourages those advocating for illegal immigrants. Etc.

"Acceptance — what a terrible thing!" a DLer might snark. I know, I get it. But that's where I am.

It’s hard to know what prompted the confrontation in the video. It sounds like the teacher sent out a message about ‘cultural appropriation on Halloween”. I don’t know what this really means. Were people dressed as Zulu tribesman with bones through the nose, with spears, grass shirts, etc.?

These are kids, after all, and this guy is there to educate them.

Ooooh, at 21:05 there’s a real cunt. She’s just a fucjed up kid, is all.

In any event, I don’t see how this is connected to the subject.

Pierre, you can infer, surely. You likely have a high IQ. I'm not saying there's a literal connection. I was repulsed. Repulsion leads to prejudice, prejudice is why I want a very harsh border enforcement regime.

Come on. Are you an attorney? Or an engineer? Don't parse it so closely. Infer. Inject some intuition into figuring out the connections.

And let me guess, you want free healthcare, too? You can’t have both. You can have illegal people sucking up the countries resources and heading back home. Don’t forget terrorists and hardened criminals come illegally as well. The Left is completely out of control.

the problem if you disagree with the left on this issue they just start calling you xenophobic. The truth is, I don't hate immigration if they are doing it the right way and not making dangerous journeys across Mexico

I mean fuck, if you want no borders here, let's make the whole world borderless! So the country I want to move to HAS to give me free housing, medical care, food, education, and the working citizens of that country can pay for it ALL. And the people who applied legally and lawfully for citizenship and even paid to get their papers processed----they're a bunch of stupid SUCKERS!!

Thanks for the limitless freebies!!

People wait forever for their visas to become available to immigrate when they actually have a sponsor here!

If you’re a Filipino brother or sister of a US citizen, they are only now “calling the number” of people who filed July 1... **1998!**

Those are relatives of actual US Citizens who pay fees, complete paperwork, go through a medical exam, and have US citizens (or permanent residents) sign sworn affidavits to financially support them! And then they waited 20 years to be united with family here in the US!!!

And we talk about decriminalizing people illegally crossing the border, or giving asylum applicants free and unfettered access into the country while waiting for their court date. Ridiculous. You do realize based on the country of origin many people can’t even get a TOURIST visa into the US!? Most of the people advocating for this lunacy don’t. They just shout trite little arguments with no knowledge or context of the system already in place.

R10, haha, you nailed me. I do, in fact, have degrees in three Engineering disciplines.

I didn’t want to infer, because, frankly, the inference I made from the video is kinda ugly. Just to draw some connections, I wrote in another thread about busing in 5th grade, and my experience then was ugly enough then, if I wanted to generalize.

Recently I was in a historic cemetery in the Black section of Boston, Dudley Sq. The cemetery is below street level and hidden from the street. I never would have gone to Dudley 30 years ago, even to drive through, but Boston is fairly safe, now. I’m a big guy, though getting on in age. While I was in there, this much bigger Black guy sees the unlocked cemetery gate and wanders in.

He’s looking at the headstones and walks past. We talk a bit. I tell him a little about the cemetery, and some of the notable dead. He asks if any Blacks were buried there. I reflexively say yes, then backtrack. Of course not, there would be none, except maybe a favored slave or two.

Meanwhile, I have my camera in my hand and I’m nervous. Should I hide my camera? He’s standing right in front of me. What do I do? My hands are shaking a little. We finish talking and he walks along the path. He makes a loop of the cemetery and comes back, eventually. I get nervous again. We talk some more. After a while, we conclude our chat and he extends his had and introduces himself by name. I don’t think he was anybody, just like I’m not anybody, but we shake and he leaves.

He was a gentleman who happened to be as big as a house and as Black as night. It stuck with me, how nervous I was. I felt a little ashamed of myself.

Life is full of scary things. Scary people. Scary imaginations. I think that you can’t let your fear interfere with your humanity. I do the best I can, and sometimes I get in trouble, but usually, I do not.

without any defined borders, we really don't have a country

Almost, R11. I want affordable, universal healthcare. I also want more affordable education. I don’t think either should be free. Both need to cost something or people will over-use them. That’s human nature and proven time and again.. But neither should be out of reach. And we can easily afford both.

As for terrorists and hardened criminals, well, let’s stop them from coming in. But they’re not at all like that 25 year old father and his 25 month old daughter who drown last week. Let’s not lose track and mix Al Capone up with Josè the gardener.

But this really is off topic.

Why? There's zero evidence of any upside for US employees and taxpayers.

R13, you’re letting your imagination run away with you. R16 as well.

Nobody, absolutely nobody who is responsible is advocating “open borders”. I’m sure Fox News manages to find some idiot, and they put a tie on him, and push him in front of the camera to advocate open borders, whatever that means, but that’s not the mainstream.

And let me lose my shit for one moment and say [italic] “without any defined borders, we really don't have a country” [/italic] is a truly STUPID thing that sounds reasonable, but really isn’t. It’s simplistic jingoism and fear mongering. The US didn’t have defined borders until the middle or end of the 19th century, but we still had a country. The US and Canada have a defined border that was almost completely unmonitored, until 9-11: and is still mostly unmonitored. If there’s monitoring on most of it at all, it’s electronic. There’s no fence, no gate, no guard. You don’t need concentration camp style fencing to “have a country”. Now, R16, where ever you heard that reasonable sounding but stupid saying, STOP LISTENING TO THEM. Because they are manipulating you by making you fearful, instead of thoughtful.

Why, what, R18? Who are you responding to?

Thoughtful commentary from Andrew Sullivan today.

Yes, yes milky loads etc.

So you are an engineer 😁

[Quote] I didn’t want to infer, because, frankly, the inference I made from the video is kinda ugly.

I suspect the ugly inferences are pretty much the ones on which I've based my newish take on illegal immigration.

Thanks for the thoughtful account of meeting that guy in the graveyard. I know that on an individual level people are usually decent, but I'm feeling scarcity and alarm facing life in America, and that's making me turn towards my prejudices when it comes to groups.

but I'm feeling scarcity and alarm affecting* life in America,

[quote] R14: And we talk about decriminalizing people illegally crossing the border, or giving asylum applicants free and unfettered access into the country while waiting for their court date.

We should not mix up asylum seekers with other immigrants. The US is party to treaties that we signed voluntarily in which we have pledged to treat asylum seekers according to certain guidelines. If we want to change that, let’s withdraw from those treaties, first. Otherwise we’re acting illegally, and we can’t really complain about people entering the US illegally if we treat them illegally, can we?

Or can we? Technically, we have the guns, so we can be as hypocritical, dishonest, dishonorable, cowardly, and sleazy as we like. We could just shoot these asylum seekers on site, and that is really what we should be doing instead of pussyfooting around. It would be efficient, and effective. Overall, it would probably spare lives and spare suffering at the border where we can see it, and send it back where we cannot. It surely would end most illegal immigration and asylum seekers. It would be the cheapest solution, too. If you want good borders, and a country defined by those borders, that’s a good way to get them. If you want to live in that kind of country.

And my point is, that we are half way there already, and now, I am not being satirical.

Wow. I have no OP and no other posts in this thread besides R5. Zero.

That means you were already blocked for other shit and you're all previously identified cunts.

I have been getting more ruthless with it lately but this is the most extreme example of invisible cunts that I've seen yet.

In the United States, pursuant to our treaty obligations, the definitions, "Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion."

The immigration courts have dramatically expanded the reading of this dramatically. E.g., women facing abuse are now a persecuted "social group" and qualify for asylum. The immigration court judges' bleeding hearts are leading to disaster.

[quote] We could just shoot these asylum seekers on site, and that is really what we should be doing instead of pussyfooting around. It would be efficient, and effective. Overall, it would probably spare lives and spare suffering at the border where we can see it, and send it back where we cannot. It surely would end most illegal immigration and asylum seekers. It would be the cheapest solution, too. If you want good borders, and a country defined by those borders, that’s a good way to get them.

If Trump gets a second term, and the caravans get bigger and more aggressive, I think this indeed is similar to where we would be headed.

But activists demand essentially open boarders, and the press is with them. Unless the majority of voters agree with that, I think Trump will be elected.

Apparently, the people coming in on the southern border are mostly from Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. Failed states, blah, blah, blah. It seems that we’re getting more immigrants since Trump stopped our humanitarian aid to those countries, because he thought they weren’t deserving of it, or using it efficiently, or something, Trump is a bit of a sadist, so I’m sure the anticipated additional suffering after ending the aid was irresistible to him.

The solution, I believe, lies in doing something at the root cause of the problem. Either increase aid, or take over their governments. Have you noticed that Trump hasn't done a single thing truly notable in office that is humanitarian and generous? Not even with fellow Americans in Puerto Rico and the VI. Sure, he bailed out Houston, but he didn’t do anything beyond the minimum any President would do, there. So, I guess we can count out the aid package. I don’t trust him not to completely fuck up a military solution, but a better man might find an an occupation of these three countries to be in the best interests of everyone. I’m being quite serious. We’ve actually been messing with these three countries for a hundred years, anyway. So, that brings us back to aid. Bribe the leaders there to quite things down. That’s the solution.

Nobody wants open borders, R27. Nor “essentially open borders”. You’ve been foxwashed.

This will not work.

The US is lucky you guys get Latin American immigrants. In Canada we get weird Eastern Europeans, obnoxious Chinese people and rude Midde Easterners.

I wish R25 could see this post because I would recommend he block everyone but himself. I have Prussian ancestry and do favor simple, efficient solutions like that.

New to the format.

If this becomes the mantra of the 2020 Democrats, Trump will win by a landslide.

Third of first generation Latinos support him simply because they immigrated legally. The shortsighted ignorance of this policy is typical of the current crop of Democratic candidates.

Tulsi Gabbard is the only person that might be able to beat him in 2020

If your only "crime" is crossing the border and/or being in the United States without documentation, making it a misdemeanor is the rational course of action. It makes it more simple and faster to address.

That doesn't mean everybody gets to stay. It doesn't mean open borders. It means that we ratchet down the violence, the militaristic attitude, the dumb fortress America insanity that has led to so much suffering and tragedy on our border. It is easily preventable. We have never treated asylum seekers and people at our borders with such intolerance and inhumanity. It's a disgrace and a humiliation for our country. It has to stop and it has to stop now.

I'll put the orange traitor and his grifter family in jail before I'll put an asylum seeker there.

R33, if ‘decriminalizing unauthorized immigration” becomes the “mantra” of the Dens, they need someone to explain that this simply changes the legal status of the undocumented. It doesn’t actually change anything about their being allowed to stay here. You understand that it will still be a civil offense, right? Unauthorized entry would still be an offense. They could assess a $10,000 fine and deport everyone caught. They just wouldn’t have a criminal record.

It would need a good spokesman, but we already need a good spokesman, given the fear and lies that Trump and Fox spew at every opportunity.

R25

That is hysterical.

You are so fucking stupid that you block anyone who disagrees with you, and therefore you remain fundamentally ignorant of reality.

That’s Collectivism for ya!

R27

At this point, Donald Trump has a 95% chance of being reelected. Did you watch the debates the last two nights? It was a total disaster.

Well, this point is not Nov, 2020.

Marianne did not belong there. The Climate Change guy is too narrow focused, as was the guy with his stories about Ohio (not Pete). Worse, they were boring.

As for the rest, I would not call that a disaster by any means. The debates are also learning experiences for those who haven’t been doing this for a long time. There’s also a race for VP, too, remember.

Trump was an awful accident that only happened because no one thought they had to worry about it happening in the first place, with a Russian assist. It won’t happen again.

Interesting commentary. But it's Bret Stephens so of course it's all lies and racism, right?

Sorry r20. I was responding to the OP's question. R18 here.

Why should illegal immigration be decriminalized? In other words, the burden of persuasion hasn’t been carried by the proponents—what's the upside for the US of reducing the penalty for illegal entry into the country?

[quote] But what I’m advocating is that illegal (or unauthorized) entry be a civil infraction, not criminal. I’m not advocating that we should have open borders.

What's your definition of open borders.?

R40, I hope we’ll be having that discussion in the coming months.

Criminal justice reform is being discussed. The US has orders of magnitude more people in prison than our industrial, peers. Including drug crimes. We over-prosecute in this country. It’s expensive, and makes us weaker, not safer or stronger. It creates an underclass.

It is always good for crimes to get treated appropriately. And I don’t see it as the US “reducing” the penalty as much as I see it was adjusting it so that it is appropriate. Because, this isn’t robbing a bank or beating someone. It’s just seeking freedom and safety. How can that be a crime?

R41, I really think “open borders” is a term hysterics use to make others fearful that some dark people are going to rape their daughters.

It might include the removal of physical obstacles and monitoring at the border. Who knows? It’s mostly just a term used to scare people.

Thanks r42. In my view, it is appropriately treated as a criminal offense. Many actions are criminal offenses that don’t involve violence—perjury, fraud, embezzlement, shoplifting, blackmail. These are usually matters treated by the penal codes of the individual states.

Illegal immigration is a federal matter, and treated as an offense against national sovereignty, I guess. It is also part of protecting against smuggling and trafficking. It is not appropriately treated by imposing a fine, on someone who can’t pay—and allowing the offender to stay.

Borders matter. It’s not just offenders “seeking freedom and safety”—otherwise the offender would have stopped at the first country they came to.

R44, interesting points. I’m not necessarily saying that by decriminalizing it, that the person should be allowed to stay. It would still be a civil infraction, and they’d still be subject to deportation. They would still be subject to searches to deter smuggling.

I agree that the fine is ridiculous. They always talk about making these people pay a fine. I just think that’s just a pound of flesh from a Darfur orphan.

[quote] It’s not just offenders “seeking freedom and safety”—otherwise the offender would have stopped at the first country they came to.

This is an interesting concern.

I suppose, if you are uprooting your life anyway, you might think, “hmm, Mexico, or America? Hmm. It’s so hard to choose.” I don’t know the answer to this one. Maybe I should hear more from these immigrants.

The US may have a mythical reputation among immigrants, perhaps, that Mexico does not have? Does the US have more potential for upward mobility? Do the poorest starve in Mexico? I wish I knew more. Though, even if they were indeed coming here for economic reasons, I don’t think that’s so terrible, or even, much of a surprise.

R43, you made a point of saying you are against open borders, yet you now say you don't know what it means.

This is some sort of SJW left-wing fantasy. I admit I'm rather horrified at how popular it is among the candidates. I can assure you it is not popular among general election voters in November. And no, I'm not going to accept the response of "Those voters would never vote for a Democrat anyway!"

What do you think would happen if this were put up to a vote? How do you think the majority of Americans would vote on this issue in an anonymous voting booth?

I would make a significant donation to focus on the family if in black neighborhoods open immigration didn't prove a whopping FAIL along with Republican ones in such a vote.

Just so you ALL remember and NEVER forget, the Koch Brothers and their mental masturbation factory the Cato Institute have been calling for and pushing for open borders and decades.

For decades people concerned about the working poor in the US have known that open borders and unrestricted immigration will likely have a downward pressure on wages and most negatively impact the working poor.

The Koch brothers are known to support libertarian and rethug polices and candidates, donating huge sums of money to these and other pro business and pro wealthy causes whose primary objective is to make themselves richer and retain MORE of their money at the expense of the middle and working class people.

Pierre is (temporarily?) locked out and can’t post, but he’s fine and sends his love.

[quote] R47: you made a point of saying you are against open borders, yet you now say you don't know what it means.

I don’t know what you or others who use the expression mean I assume it means a border like a state border, with no security, no monitoring, no recognition that it’s a border,

I think the expression is just used to scare people, and has no definition.

-Pierre

[quote] R49: What do you think would happen if this were put up to a vote? How do you think the majority of Americans would vote on this issue in an anonymous voting booth?

If proponents of this had a good spokesman, and that person explained it in a 15 minute video, and that played before the ballot was released to the voter, it would pass.

Here’s a better thought: The entire point of a representative Democracy is that we elect people who spend all their time studying these issues, because we have other things to do. That representative should explain it to his constituents.

-Pierre

R48, Those voters would never vote for a Democrat anyway!

[quote] R51: Just so you ALL remember and NEVER forget, the Koch Brothers and ... the Cato Institute have been calling for and pushing for open borders (for) decades.

How are you defining open borders?

David Koch donates a lot: NY Metropolitan Museum; PBS (surprisingly); either the NY or DC dinosaur exhibit, or both (i forget); other places. My friend suggested it gives him control over the charities 🙀.

-Pierre

r54 I doubt it. I think most Americans would vote NO. Even many Dems. It's just gotten to be too much.

R57, if we put this to the voters:

[Italic] Should illegal immigrants over the age of 21 be executed? [/Italic]

Would that pass? I wouldn’t be surprised if it did, in some states.

r58 that's a completely false comparison and you know it. Stop shit-stirring.

[quote]How are you defining open borders?

The Koch brothers have been pushing policies which would allow free flow of immigrants into the US in order to provide a large population of cheap labor, not for any altruistic reasons. Unions and other traditionally Democratic bases have opposed this. The only reason it ceased to be in the forefront of their agenda was the ugly racist turn that the issue has taken recently. However, they are more than happy to see a pool of cheap labor flood the market.

[quotes]David Koch donates a lot: NY Metropolitan Museum; PBS (surprisingly); either the NY or DC dinosaur exhibit, or both (i forget); other places. My friend suggested it gives him control over the charities

Yes, he gives money to many organizations in order to push their editorial policy in more favorable directions. See George Mason University.

[quote]Documents obtained from George Mason University through a Freedom of Information Act request finally reveal donor influence over the university’s economics department and law school. In an email last Friday (April 27) to faculty, staff, and students, GMU President Angel Cabrera, wrote: "Last week I was made aware of a number of gift agreements that . . .raise questions concerning donor influence in academic matters. . . [T]hese agreements fall short of the standards of academic independence I expect any gift to meet." The agreements (from 2003-2011) create professorships in the department of economics that are affiliated with the Mercatus Center. Cabrera concedes that the agreements grant “donors some participation in faculty selection and evaluation.”

Interesting, R60.

Bump

I could barely get half way through this thread. So much disinformation and lies. So many lies. Straight out of the conservative/Russian disinformation handbook (page 279-306)

Why are Cubans allowed to just merely step foot on US soil and are granted citizenship? Yet, no one else is. Oh, because they vote GOP.

Cheap Labor Conservatives lured immigrants. Conservatives love illegals. They get to pay them next to nothing and bust unions at the same time.

Dems (Andrew Sullivan can fuck off) need to fine tune their message but they have had comprehensive reform, passed by the Dem Senate in 2013 but who killed it? Conservatives in the House.

This issue has become more complicated and made worse by our current WH resident. His actions are directly responsible for the huge rise in immigrants at the border.

The GOP does not want to fix this problem because they prefer to run on it every year to keep their racist base foaming at the mouth like rabid squirrels.

Dems would solve this issue if they were in charge completely. The GOP never solves anything.

[quote] Why are Cubans allowed to just merely step foot on US soil and are granted citizenship? Yet, no one else is. Oh, because they vote GOP.

I think you have it backwards. The GOP supports the law, and as a result of this, and other GOP actions on Cuba, Cubans vote GOP. (I don’t think they get immediate citizenship. I think they just get to stay, free from deportation threats.)

I do think Obama’s approach to Cuba would be the best and fastest way to eventually free the island. Trump cancelled some of Obama’s changes and I think that will mean the island stays Communist longer.

It seems that the more contact that Communist countries have with the West, the faster they convert to Capitalism.

ABOLISH ICE

[quote]Cheap Labor Conservatives lured immigrants. Conservatives love illegals. They get to pay them next to nothing and bust unions at the same time.

Is it your contention that, while the Koch brothers have traditionally pushed policies and an agenda that are pro business and libertarian in nature, on the ONE issue of immigration, they do so out of the goodness of their hearts and altruism.

Your hysterical and unhinged ranting sounds more like disinformation and lies by painting policy in the most absurd manner possible without, you know, any facts or data.

They have been pushing for immigration reform for decades. The Cato Institute, a notoriously libertarian, pro business, and conservative policy mouthpiece, has been supporting immigration reforms.

[quote]The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch

Unions:

[quote]The United Farm Workers under Cesar Chavez was committed to restricting immigration. Chavez and Dolores Huerta, the cofounder and president of the UFW, fought the Bracero Program, which existed from 1942 to 1964. They opposed the program because they believe that it undermined American workers and exploited the migrant workers. Since the program ensured a constant supply of cheap immigrant labor for growers, immigrants could not protest any infringement of their rights, lest they be fired and replaced. Their efforts contributed to Congress ending the Bracero Program in 1964.

[quote]n 2005, several unions within the AFL-CIO, such as UNITE and SEIU, disaffiliated from the AFL-CIO and formed the Change to Win Federation, a competing labor federation that now includes seven constituent member unions. One principal disagreement the unions had with the AFL-CIO that helped spur their disaffiliation was their belief that the AFL-CIO was not investing enough resources into organizing new workers. While not directly related to immigration issues, the split is reminiscent of earlier disagreements concerning immigration policy in which the AFL unions that had prioritized organization were more likely to support immigration.

The reason some unions have changed their position on immigration is tied to declining membership (and thus negotiating and political power):

[quote] Immigration reform would boost pay for low-wage workers, and that could lead to increased union enrollment. And many unions have undocumented immigrants members, like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which represents workers in fields like home healthcare and janitorial services.

When NAFTA passed, I predicted that we’d be importing 3d World poverty for our poorest people. I think the theory at the time was that the alternative was being left behind by other industrial powers.

Well, this thread isn’t the place to discuss that. It’s about decriminalizing unauthorized immigration.

[quote] R49: What do you think would happen if this were put up to a vote? How do you think the majority of Americans would vote on this issue in an anonymous voting booth?

My Deplorable bro-in-law said something similar enough to this, and I should have repeated my answer to him here, right from the start. [bold] Just because something is popular doesn’t mean that it’s right. [/bold]

Maybe a good example is prohibition. We passed a constitutional amendment to enact it. Then, not too long later, we changed our minds and passed another constitutional amendment to repeal it.

Or look at Trump! Completely unqualified for the Presidency but he was elected anyway. He got the votes.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it, good and hard.

I think as time goes on in terms of centuries South America will be absorbed by North America or vise versa; times are changing fast and we have no ability to accurately access the nature of the future.

r68 with all the problems native-born Americans face, it's understandable why they're opposed to illegal immigration. If it were a few thousand perhaps people would be more charitable, but the numbers are totally staggering. And their fertility rates are sky-high.

So what does the US do r68? Let in all the asylum seekers and others? They have no skills. They have lots of kids. Tax dollars can only go so far. There has to be limits. You can't let yourself be emotionally manipulated at the expense of a functional society.

BTW, one reason the US is a powerhouse is because we welcome immigrants of all kinds. These poor folks nonetheless pay sales tax, and eventually income tax. I know a housecleaner who contributes with her work and pays taxes. She’s not taking tax dollars from anyone.

Oh fuck sales tax. That's hardly propping up the whole system. And we welcomed immigrants of all kinds when we still made stuff in this country. We had more factory jobs than we knew what to do with. All of that is gone now. And automation is only going to increase.

You can't compare immigration from the early 20th century to today. Society, the economy and the labor structure have changed drastically since then.

[quote] R72: So what does the US do [R68]?

My personal thoughts are that we should temporarily reduce legal immigration. Though I’d allow in people who have aided the military in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere. It’s a shame that translators and others work for the Americans and then get forgotten.

As for these people from Central America, I’d restore the financial aid that we cut off, and I’d consider military action to occupy the country if the governments there can’t keep their people safe.

[quote]BTW, one reason the US is a powerhouse is because we welcome immigrants of all kinds.

Strawman argument.

No one is suggesting cutting off immigration completely or not allowing people to immigrate to the US legally - which means meeting certain criteria and obtaining legal documentation.

[quote]and I’d consider military action to occupy the country if the governments there can’t keep their people safe.

In other words, another Vietnam. Are you American? I don't think you understand a lot of things about these countries.

There is no way in HELL Americans would put up with their men and women occupying Latin American countries. It's not gonna happen.

They are not Vietnam.

But first, I’d try restoring aid, as I said. I’d get the opinions of experts. It seems that things got worse after Trump discontinued the aid. Is that because the aid was working, or because the leaders are stealing the money, and have made things worse after the aid ended on purpose, to get the aid restored?

I don’t know. But the root of the problem is in Central America and needs to be fixed there.

Those countries got aid and it barely did anything. And suggesting the US military occupy those countries is absolutely outrageous. The only real solution is the people themselves changing their countries from within, but that's not going to happen in the forseeable future. The US is stuck with this mess no matter what.

Of course, if they stopped popping out kids like a gumball machine it would greatly help matters as well. But that's not going to change either.

Are their kids assimilating?

R89, you’ve identified the problem, but no solution.

I’ve told this story before on here, but I’m going to repeat it. A local contractor in my neighborhood hired some undocumented workers for a job, and one was killed because the boss was forcing him to do dangerous work against the wishes of the homeowner. These workers come here and are basically modern day slaves without any legal recourse. There has to be accountability at the borders. People come here and are completely vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. As things stand now, they are invisible. I don’t think in many cases that life improves much for the Central Americans. It’s not as if once you make it in, the American Dream kicks into gear. I wonder if they know this, or are so desperate that they don’t care. The whole thing is so depressing. But I know my ancestors were exploited, too, and climbed out of poverty within a generation. It’s like a really bad fraternity hazing.