Illegal Immigrants... What should be done?

"Invaders" is such a vague term. In the immortal words of Lewis Litt "you must be specific, as the law is specific".

What are most of them actually going to do? Settle down and work. Maybe not pay tax, but that's a problem created by prohibition, not immigration. So maybe (as a result of your policy) they'll steal a view hundred thousand dollars in government aid. Bernie Madoff stole 18 billion dollars, do you shoot him? No, you shoot the guy who is being forced to steal a few hundred thousand bucks as a direct result of your policy.

It's an invented problem.

 

Not really, since you brought up Hitler and Nazis. While I brought up an analogy to yours and RTL's position and...

COMMUNISTS.

 

The "jail" of extremism?.

 

well since illegals get a "get out of jail free card" and are forgiven for a major crime. where's the rest of america's "get out of free card" ? shouldnt we all have the right for amnesty for a major crime? why are only few getting such a right.

what about the people from africa who apply for citizenship and it takes them 10 years to be able to come here legally? where's their justice?

amnesty means are laws are invalid. either everyone gets forgivness for their next major crime, or none of us do. plain and simple. thats equality

 

Its still a false guilt by association tho, thats it.

 

Since most of the illegals are Mexican, and since most Mexicans come to America with the assistance of the Mexican government, I think we should annex the Mexican states that border the US (or at least a couple of them) so they have a place to live. Seems only fair.

 

What "guilt" did I mention? I merely noted an historical example of a country following the policy you and RTL advocate....shooting people trying to cross a national border without proper Governmental approval.

BTW, this is Gunther Liftin....first person shot to death while trying to cross from East Germany to West Germany in 1961-

 

Association fallacy:

• Source S makes claim C.
• Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.
• Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.

 

You can be driving without a license through a city centre and police won't just shoot you, yet not having some paperwork entitles you to summary execution? Sounds like someone is looking to separate types of crimes from others.

 

Not quite right.

if the police tries to stop you speeding around and you resist, they should shoot you. Same with illegals. If they don't turn themselves over, and refuse to be deported somehow. shoot. What I'm saying is that the law's the law and if it takes shooting to follow it then so be it, it's the same if you're speeding around. they should only shoot because you didn't let them use more peaceful alternatives. Get my point here?

 

If a person, was an adamant hater of Muslims, said that they favored rounding up all Muslims in America, sending them to re-location camps, and then as a "Final Solution" ordering their deaths on a massive scale.....would it be fair to mention Auschwitz?

You said you favored a program by which para-military/para-law enforcement officials of the Government would SHOOT PEOPLE attempting to cross a national border without the Government permission....

so why is it unfair to mention the Berlin Wall and people like Gunther Liftin?

 

Except, did we miss where you said "resist"....or did you (and RTL) simply say they should be shot attempting to cross the border or even upon capture?

 

yes.

Not only without permission mind you, the government has even said that it's illegal.

We don't want it for the same reason they want it. besides, they were people trying to get out, not in. It wasn't the west germans shooting you know.

 

I was probably thinking about the illegals already in the US. They should turns themselves over and be deported. And they should be searched after, and if they resist when found they may be shot. About those crossing the border.. hmm, I don't know. provided that there are clear signs warning them that they'll be shot on sight I guess it would be okay.

 

Deport them as fast as we find them.
They should be shot as soon as they step on American soil. They are an invading force and should be treated as such.

 

Insure labor law and minimum wage laws are followed, award whistle blowers on employers with citizenship. When the employers are forced to pay them the same as citizens and face large fines and loss of licenses for employing undocumented workers, most will stop hiring them.

I personally have no problem with allowing those that have committed no crime other than coming here for a better life, a path to citizenship. Not just give it to them but allow them to earn it. Without enforcing the labor laws it will do nothing to prevent it from happening in the future. Streamline the legal entry process to make it easier for need workers to come legally. If we crackdown on the employers hard enough and insure labor laws are enforced, I believe the problem will correct itself.

 

thats like saying stealing isnt a crime just because you give the money you steal to hobos. if your gona give the sympathy card on laws to some americans, youve gotta give it to ALL americans. as well as giving all americans an amnesty card for the next time they get in trouble with the law. its only fair.

 

I will have to disagree with your analogy, it would be more like stealing food to feed your family. If you read my post that was not my suggestion to solve the problem. That was my personal view that I would not oppose it as long as they earned it. If I was making 5 dollars a day working in the US but could make that much a hour in Mexico I would be there tomorrow so I can not blame them.

Do not worry nothing will change most large cities are sanctuary cities that will not enforce immigration laws. Our prison system is overburden already so we can not punish them for coming. The democrats want the votes from the children born here. While the republicans want cheap labor to save them money. I would like to solve the problem to lower the unemployment rate and raise wages for lower income workers. It will never happen but one can dream.

 

Who are they stealing from?

 

Property is as imaginary as the border. Show me where this property thing is. Can you see it from space? Property is just make believe that people made up, and borders are make believe lines so that people can protect their imaginary property. See how stupid it sounds when you try to be a smart ass?

 

I was just in my mind making the analogy made by the poster I was quoting more accurate. They have broke the law by coming here illegally so they have committed a crime. The jobs they do would have to be done by citizens if employers were unable to find cheaper labor. The employers would have to pay more however and follow safety laws by OSHA and others. So while I personally do not think the undocumented workers are technically thieves. They are costing the lower class citizens jobs. I do not blame them however and would do the same thing if the roles were reversed.

 

Illegals know they can come into this country en mass and we won't do a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing because we don't want to be cold AKA they think we are a bunch of wimps. Your words sum up the reason this problem hasn't been solved because wimpy white people don't want to look like meanies by kicking out the poor brown people. That would be mean AND racist. There's nothing worse than being a meanie racist.

Isn't that more "cold" than kicking people out? Or are you saying we should let illegals starve?

 

Are these people entitled to their jobs? If the employer wants to hire cheaper labor then why shouldn't he be able to? Both parties must be better off in a voluntary trade, so by restricting this outcome you are harming both the employers and the immigrant. It's only affirmative action types that want to protect the middle class' fictional right to employment. I can't believe conservatives don't realize how anti-free market their position is.

Not that it matters since they should have the freedom regardless, but most immigrants are of high or low skills, and thus tend to complement the American workforce rather than compete with it.

 

This is a difficult problem. First, they are here ILLEGALLY. They violated our laws and entered our country illegally. No other country in the world would tolerate that.

But, since we have not enforced our immigration laws for years and many illegals have become productive members of our society, we need another solution.

1. deport all illegals who have been found guilty of any crime
2. deport all illegals who are currently on any form of US welfare
3. those who are working and obeying the laws should pay a fine and be put at the end of the list for legal immigration, they should be allowed to stay here for one year or whenever they come to the top of the list whichever comes first.
4. the anchor baby law should be repealed
5. secure the borders to prevent further illegal entry

 

I don't care about what the government says, I care about what actually should be the case. Pointing out the illegality of immigration isn't an argument against making it accessible. It's just an observation about the status quo.

1. Can't deport citizens, so I guess you mean non-citizen immigrants. I'd still prefer to integrate them into society through citizenship like you used to pre-20th century... and why not? Are they coercing anyone? All they're going to do is sit down and raise a family like anyone else. Sure, they might compete for jobs and win, but they'll also increase demand which provides even more job opportunities. This is the free market at its best: people competing to produce the best product (their labor) and the lowest price. Immigration prohibition seems to me nothing more than the Right's version of protectionism :/

2. Presumably only citizens can get welfare. Deporting citizens is ridiculous and illegal. Much more so than immigration. I do agree however that welfare and immigration do not mix. Then it becomes a burden on society instead of an opportunity. But this speaks to the problems of welfare, not immigration. It's actually the reason why proper immigration reform will probably not happen anytime soon: one side thinks "dey took our jerbs", while the other wants to keep their dependent welfare system around at all costs.

3. Why? What gives you any more entitlement to live non-violently in the US than anyone else? That by chance you were born there? National borders are arbitrary from a philosophical perspective. They might not be from a political one, but politics should always reflect good philosophy or else it devolves into endless cries of "socialism" and "capitalist pigs". Oh wait :/

4. By this you mean make it more difficult/impossible for any US citizen (otherwise you'd be picking and choosing based on socio-economic status) to bring over relatives except by chucking them at the back of the queue. I still think this is silly. If you mean the 'law' that allows anyone born on US soil to become a citizen by default then you're talking about the United States Constitution. That's a hard cookie to amend.

5. Why? You still haven't given me an answer beyond "it's illegal". Give me a instance where immigrants by nature coerce others and I'll instantly come over to your side. Until then we'll have to agree to disagree