Illegal Border Crossings Surge

[Darth Wedgius]

I think a border wall will probably be somewhat effective at stopping people crossing the border illegally. It's a delaying tactic for would-be crossers that will help to create a narrower space needing to be monitored and increasing the response time window. Walls plus monitoring have worked elsewhere.

While that's not all illegal immigration, it is a good part of it. Anyone complaining that it won't stop people overstaying their visas are like people complaining that a flu shot won't stop you from getting hit by a car; it's not supposed to, and there are other ways to accomplish that end.

Combined with denying all public aid to illegal immigrants might help to put a big crimp in illegal immigration. A constitutional amendment to prevent anchor babies from working could help, too.

And there are ways to do it that don't cause massive environmental damage, and cede land that Americans fought and died for.

I'm open to suggestions. The wall itself isn't that important to me, but I'd like a major crimp put into illegal immigration.

I think streamlining our legal immigration process so it doesn't take ten years of living in legal no-man's-land to get legit status would help.

What about a way that keeps legal immigration at current levels and still makes significant cuts in illegal immigration?

Your only real option for that, even with the wall on the table, is to crash the US economy.

Either that or just drop the pretense and just start openly persecuting Latinos.

Because if an illegal immigrant leaves a job, there's no way to pay a little more so an American will take the job?

And if you have any evidence of a pretense or a desire to persecute Latinos, feel free to lay it on me.

[TGLS]

Your only real option for that, even with the wall on the table, is to crash the US economy.

Either that or just drop the pretense and just start openly persecuting Latinos.

Because if an illegal immigrant leaves a job, there's no way to pay a little more so an American will take the job?

And if you have any evidence of a pretense or a desire to persecute Latinos, feel free to lay it on me.

I believe the argument goes like:
1) The American economy is large.
2) Large economies have better job opportunities.
3) Mexico has lots of people looking for a job.
4) Mexicans will emigrate regardless of the legal ramifications, because they need a job.

So obviously, if the American economy collapses, Mexican emigration will fall drastically.

[Darth Wedgius]

Your only real option for that, even with the wall on the table, is to crash the US economy.

Either that or just drop the pretense and just start openly persecuting Latinos.

Because if an illegal immigrant leaves a job, there's no way to pay a little more so an American will take the job?

And if you have any evidence of a pretense or a desire to persecute Latinos, feel free to lay it on me.

I believe the argument goes like:
1) The American economy is large.
2) Large economies have better job opportunities.
3) Mexico has lots of people looking for a job.
4) Mexicans will emigrate regardless of the legal ramifications, because they need a job.

So obviously, if the American economy collapses, Mexican emigration will fall drastically.

Thank you, I misunderstood Draco's supposed cause and effect.

I'll wait to see if that was what he meant.

[Draco Dracul]

Your only real option for that, even with the wall on the table, is to crash the US economy.

Either that or just drop the pretense and just start openly persecuting Latinos.

Because if an illegal immigrant leaves a job, there's no way to pay a little more so an American will take the job?

And if you have any evidence of a pretense or a desire to persecute Latinos, feel free to lay it on me.

I believe the argument goes like:
1) The American economy is large.
2) Large economies have better job opportunities.
3) Mexico has lots of people looking for a job.
4) Mexicans will emigrate regardless of the legal ramifications, because they need a job.

So obviously, if the American economy collapses, Mexican emigration will fall drastically.

Thank you, I misunderstood Draco's supposed cause and effect.

I'll wait to see if that was what he meant.

That's exactly what I mean.

[Draco Dracul]

Your only real option for that, even with the wall on the table, is to crash the US economy.

Either that or just drop the pretense and just start openly persecuting Latinos.

Because if an illegal immigrant leaves a job, there's no way to pay a little more so an American will take the job?

And if you have any evidence of a pretense or a desire to persecute Latinos, feel free to lay it on me.

I believe the argument goes like:
1) The American economy is large.
2) Large economies have better job opportunities.
3) Mexico has lots of people looking for a job.
4) Mexicans will emigrate regardless of the legal ramifications, because they need a job.

So obviously, if the American economy collapses, Mexican emigration will fall drastically.

Thank you, I misunderstood Draco's supposed cause and effect.

I'll wait to see if that was what he meant.

That's exactly what I mean.

[Darth Wedgius]

Your only real option for that, even with the wall on the table, is to crash the US economy.

Either that or just drop the pretense and just start openly persecuting Latinos.

Because if an illegal immigrant leaves a job, there's no way to pay a little more so an American will take the job?

And if you have any evidence of a pretense or a desire to persecute Latinos, feel free to lay it on me.

I believe the argument goes like:
1) The American economy is large.
2) Large economies have better job opportunities.
3) Mexico has lots of people looking for a job.
4) Mexicans will emigrate regardless of the legal ramifications, because they need a job.

So obviously, if the American economy collapses, Mexican emigration will fall drastically.

Thank you, I misunderstood Draco's supposed cause and effect.

I'll wait to see if that was what he meant.

That's exactly what I mean.

My apologies, then, for assuming something you didn't mean.

However, the idea that illegal immigrants will always find a way in and will always want to take that, barring ethnic discrimination or U.S> economic collapse, seems to be an assumption on your part.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I think a border wall will probably be somewhat effective at stopping people crossing the border illegally. It's a delaying tactic for would-be crossers that will help to create a narrower space needing to be monitored and increasing the response time window. Walls plus monitoring have worked elsewhere.

While that's not all illegal immigration, it is a good part of it. Anyone complaining that it won't stop people overstaying their visas are like people complaining that a flu shot won't stop you from getting hit by a car; it's not supposed to, and there are other ways to accomplish that end.

Combined with denying all public aid to illegal immigrants might help to put a big crimp in illegal immigration. A constitutional amendment to prevent anchor babies from working could help, too.

And there are ways to do it that don't cause massive environmental damage, and cede land that Americans fought and died for.

I'm open to suggestions. The wall itself isn't that important to me, but I'd like a major crimp put into illegal immigration.

I think streamlining our legal immigration process so it doesn't take ten years of living in legal no-man's-land to get legit status would help.

What about a way that keeps legal immigration at current levels and still makes significant cuts in illegal immigration?

You asked for suggestions, I offered.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I think a border wall will probably be somewhat effective at stopping people crossing the border illegally. It's a delaying tactic for would-be crossers that will help to create a narrower space needing to be monitored and increasing the response time window. Walls plus monitoring have worked elsewhere.

While that's not all illegal immigration, it is a good part of it. Anyone complaining that it won't stop people overstaying their visas are like people complaining that a flu shot won't stop you from getting hit by a car; it's not supposed to, and there are other ways to accomplish that end.

Combined with denying all public aid to illegal immigrants might help to put a big crimp in illegal immigration. A constitutional amendment to prevent anchor babies from working could help, too.

And there are ways to do it that don't cause massive environmental damage, and cede land that Americans fought and died for.

I'm open to suggestions. The wall itself isn't that important to me, but I'd like a major crimp put into illegal immigration.

I think streamlining our legal immigration process so it doesn't take ten years of living in legal no-man's-land to get legit status would help.

I am never impressed by arguments for "reducing illegal immigration" by giving more illegal aliens a legal way to immigrate. We need a way to make certain that we can keep people out of the country whom we have decided should not be here. There is no point to a legal immigration system if you cannot choose whom you want to let in and whom you don't.

It's sort of like arguing about reducing rape, and someone saying "well, women would get raped less if they consented more." True, but unless you have a right NOT to consent, consent is not very meaningful.

No, it's really not.

Your logic is circular at best.

My reasoning is, a big reason that we have lots of illegal immigration is because our legal immigration system is so backwards and convoluted. Why is a separate argument, but a lot of people want to come here, and I propose they would do so legally if given a decent chance.

However, you keep invoking the "illegallity" of immigration, neglecting that the arbitrary system we set decides who is or isn't illegal.

You don't want legal immigrants, you want less immigrants, legal or otherwise. Drop the pretense that this is about breaking the law.

[Darth Wedgius]

I think a border wall will probably be somewhat effective at stopping people crossing the border illegally. It's a delaying tactic for would-be crossers that will help to create a narrower space needing to be monitored and increasing the response time window. Walls plus monitoring have worked elsewhere.

While that's not all illegal immigration, it is a good part of it. Anyone complaining that it won't stop people overstaying their visas are like people complaining that a flu shot won't stop you from getting hit by a car; it's not supposed to, and there are other ways to accomplish that end.

Combined with denying all public aid to illegal immigrants might help to put a big crimp in illegal immigration. A constitutional amendment to prevent anchor babies from working could help, too.

And there are ways to do it that don't cause massive environmental damage, and cede land that Americans fought and died for.

I'm open to suggestions. The wall itself isn't that important to me, but I'd like a major crimp put into illegal immigration.

I think streamlining our legal immigration process so it doesn't take ten years of living in legal no-man's-land to get legit status would help.

What about a way that keeps legal immigration at current levels and still makes significant cuts in illegal immigration?

You asked for suggestions, I offered.

You did. I should have been more specific the first time.

[G-Man]

I am never impressed by arguments for "reducing illegal immigration" by giving more illegal aliens a legal way to immigrate. We need a way to make certain that we can keep people out of the country whom we have decided should not be here. There is no point to a legal immigration system if you cannot choose whom you want to let in and whom you don't.

It's sort of like arguing about reducing rape, and someone saying "well, women would get raped less if they consented more." True, but unless you have a right NOT to consent, consent is not very meaningful.

No, it's really not.

Your logic is circular at best.

Nothing circular about it. I want to make certain that the United States has the ability to control who immigrates here. Whether we decided we want to let ten million people in, or no one in, we ought to be able to enforce that decision. You can argue that we should be letting people come in here legally whom we do not currently allow to do so. Fine. But we still need to have the ability to keep those out whom we want out, or to remove them if they stay longer than we want them to. Otherwise, we do not have an immigration system. It's not about "reducing illegal immigration," in purely numerical terms, it is about being able to control whom we let in and let out - if our only means of reducing illegal immigration is to legalize it, then we have no control. And that is the point of the rape analogy: it's one thing to say that we ought to let in people we are not currently letting in, but saying that we should do so specifically to reduce illegal immigration basically assumes that we are obligated to let everyone in who wants to. Which to me, is sort of like questioning the right of a person to say "no" to sex.

My reasoning is, a big reason that we have lots of illegal immigration is because our legal immigration system is so backwards and convoluted. Why is a separate argument, but a lot of people want to come here, and I propose they would do so legally if given a decent chance.

Yes, but in many cases we decided that they would not benefit the country and therefore will not let them in legally. We are not obligated to let someone in, which is what you are essentially implying here.

However, you keep invoking the "illegality" of immigration, neglecting that the arbitrary system we set decides who is or isn't illegal.

That is one thing I have invoked, but not the only thing. Primarily, I have invoked it against those who claim that illegal aliens are "law-abiding." If you come here in violation of our laws, you are a law-breaker and therefore not law-abiding (even if it is only civil law and not criminal law). Also, I do not agree that our system is arbitrary. I think we need to reform the criteria we use, but we do have a right to decide to keep people out and to have that decision respected.

I care about us having a well-functioning immigration system that benefits the United States and its people. Part of that is having a sensible legal immigration system (which I would argue would be more restrictive than the current one), part of that is enforcing our legal immigration system.

You don't want legal immigrants, you want less immigrants, legal or otherwise. Drop the pretense that this is about breaking the law.

I have never denied that I want fewer immigrants. However, I also think that we have a right to determine which immigrants we want and which we do not. This means that illegal immigration is a bad thing, because it brings people in whom we have decided we do not want brought in.