Jacoby On Immigrants

Professor Boudreaux, I agree with you on almost every issue, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I do NOT think that U.S. taxpayers should be FORCED to provide welfare to citizens of other countries. I support a guest worker program in which ANY foreigner can come to America to work, and, through this program, the guest workers will be able to enjoy many benefits provided by our government like use of public roads, police and fire protection, and access to our court system. Since a guest worker program seem politically impossible, I even support our current second-best solution of "allowing" all illegal immigrants who can find jobs here. But whether a guest worker program is official or de facto, participants should NOT qualify for welfare programs like welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid.

If someone feels sorry for someone, including a citizen of another country, they should be free to donate their own funds either directly or through a private charity. But when the government is involved, the transfer is a FORCED DONATION (oxymoron warning). We already do this too much for our own citizens, and extending these benefits to non-citizens just compounds the problem. And FREEDOM SUFFERS.

Sorry, 'illegals' don't qualify for welfare, food stamps, or medicaid...

Exactly. But the point of the Globe article is that Jacoby thinks they should qualify for subsidized college tuition. Granted, we might not think of this as traditional welfare, but it's a transfer payment from taxpayers, so if it looks and quacks like a duck ...

When the welfare state is significantly dismantled, then the main argument against illegal immigrants is denuded. Unfortunately, our Congress, as the voice of the people, shows how much of the welfare state they want to dismantle---none of it!

Make it so effort and value = remunaration and we will reduce "illegal Immigration" to a non-issue.

I suspect that if the welfare state went away, the anti-"illegal" immigration crowd would find some other justification for keeping the brown people out.

Exactly.

Let's also think for a second. If I had committed a serious crime in a country like Mexico it might very well be a smart move to flee to the US. They are not all saints, so why does the left try to canonize them.

The immigration reform that people would support is to allow foreigners to come here legally so long as they are not criminals and understand that once here they must abide by our laws and pay taxes. They must get no special treatment that is not granted to citizens. But libertarians won't be satisfied with that. They apparently want completely open borders that anyone can cross without having to show any I.D. or pass any sort of bad ground check to make sure they are not an ax murderer, international fugitive or drug runner. This foolishness makes libertarians appear to be crack pots.

Um, Ken, you are a kinda stay-at-home guy, aren't you? Other countries have very few restrictions on entry into the country, and they don't have our illegal immigration problem. The real question is "Why do so many people want to come to the United States and work their asses off?"

Russ, I'm sure you already know what would happen to you if you were caught sneaking across the border into Mexico. You may not know that entering Canada without going through Canadian customs would get you in serious trouble in Canada and when you re-entered the U.S. as well. As far as I know the only open borders between countries are in the E.U. and even then you must cross on a road where there is a uniformed officer who may or may not make you stop and show I.D. There are no countries in the world where crossing their borders is like crossing from one state to another within the U.S.

So I will stick to my position. When it comes to immigration, libertarians are crack pots. I like them on most other things, though.

Whose arguing for that? You just wasted a good 10 minutes slaying straw men... oh well...

It seems to me that is exactly the libertarian position. If I am wrong, then I'm happy to be wrong. I don't think I am.

I won't generalize as YOU have and say no libertarians are for complete unfettered immigration, but i've never met one. Maybe you could offer a link to a well known libertarian site or something along those lines where libertarians advocate what you've claimed they advocate.

Uh, OK. Here's one: Cafe Hayek.

BTW, generalizing is good. If something is true 75% of the time, it is generally true. People who cannot generalize cannot talk. Very little is true 100% of the time.

Interesting... Any link to a post where either Russ or Don advocated that?

"It is even more dispiriting to see conservatives assail immigrants instead of the insane immigration system that gave most of them no legal way to enter the United States."

My favorite line of the whole article. As someone who is married to a foreigner and who is currently going through the legal process I have seen this firsthand with my wife's family. Unless you're wealthy, or you're marrying a US citizen, the US is all but closed to you.

The ONLY way you can keep people from illegally crossing the southern boarder is to create the type of atmosphere that existed along the Berlin Wall and that currently exists on the boarder between N. Korea and China. A shoot-to-kill mentality. Even then, people will still attempt to cross it as many Berliners did and Thousands of N. Koreans continue to do. I've actually debated "conservatives" who advocate this sort of shoot-to-kill policy.

Those who are against illegal MEXICAN immigrants make the same arguments that people made in the past against the Irish and Catholics. They are as misguided now as they were then, and, in some instances, as racist as they were then. (as much as I hate to introduce that word into the discussion).

Those who argue that the problem is that "they're breaking the law" should consider the cases of Prohibition and War on Drugs. Just as Prohibition and the "War on Drugs" fueled and fuels a violent black market that cost many lives and the US vast sums of confiscated wealth (taxes), so too do our idiotic immigration laws. It fuels a black market of human trafficking and has turned the boarder into a graveyard.

http://reason.tv/video/show/the-wall

The Berlin Wall pointed the guns *inward*, not just *outward*.

To address a later-posted concern, show no discrimination towards *anyone*, for the traffickers are more than willing to use women and children as pawns to cross the border. While that might sound a bit inhumane, the people who shuffle them across the border aren't at the least concerned about their humanity. They're just concerned about headcount and payment.

With about 2000 miles of southern border, more miles of northern border, and about 15 million+ unemployed, I'd think that there would be enough capital to get it right. That, and we do have allies outside the Americas(Israel) that have a working model, if not a perfect model.

Of course, we'd have to get out of various treaties, but...

"The Berlin Wall pointed the guns *inward*, not just *outward*. "

Utterly irrelevant. It was a wall designed to keep people from crossing the border plain and simple. As I said, it's the only type of border that the US could set up to keep Mexicans from crossing illegally. Are you for a shoot-to-kill policy along the border? Women and children included?

"To address a later-posted concern, show no discrimination towards *anyone*, for the traffickers are more than willing to use women and children as pawns to cross the border. "

So just to be clear... you ARE for giving the government authority to shoot-to-kill on the southern border, including women and children, right?

Only if they refuse an order to not cross illegally, willfully ignore warning shots, and/or refuse any opportunity to go through the crossing and be documented. That is plenty of room to differentiate between people who wish to contribute legally (and have nobody able to take advantage of them for lack of status), people whom are indeed permitted to enter but require alternate means of identification(read: you forgot your papers), and those whom can only be denied legal entry(read: you have been documented to be a threat by criminal record, are fugitives from other nations that the US recognizes).

Of course, the better solution would be to use less than lethal force. It would have be able to deny entry and the use of human shields. It would also not lead to people waiting for a favorable politician to grant them amnesty.

Either way, take this in mind:
It is similar to how one may exist in a defined and defensible private space. If you wish to enter, you come in through the door on my (clearly defined) terms. You do not simply jump the fence, barge in through the window, and expect me not to do something.

"If you wish to enter, you come in through the door on my (clearly defined) terms."

Where's this "door" you speak of? You talk as if there's some place these people could go and get visas to come to the US and work if they were only willing to 'wait' their turn in line. No such place exists, and the fact that you don't recognize that, shows your ignorance of current US immigration policy.

As I said before, (and as you seem to recognize) the ONLY way to keep people from trying to cross the border illegally is to establish the kind of border that existed with the Berlin Wall and that currently exists on the border between N. Korea and China. I think what happens along the N. Korean/Chinese border is disgusting. You, on the other hand seem to think it's perfectly reasonable... a difference in values I guess...

You speak as if compassion is completely incompatible with uniform application of border security. It seems that to you, pointing something lethal (or less than) in one direction also points it in the other direction. Those border jumpers aren't exactly angels, and the people who bring them across only care if their headcount pays up.

Besides, the only large rush to Mexico I see are 'people' that don't want the public to know that they're headed to Mexico. They lie to their domestic workers about those 'additional workers' or their 'new expansion' when they don't have the cash; they try to whitewash with their PR department when they're outed. These 'people' rush to Mexico because it is a pliable, corrupt narcostate.

If you wish to aid these people so much, go to Mexico and help them fix their nation from the inside.

"You speak as if compassion is completely incompatible with uniform application of border security."

Actually I speak from a standpoint of COLD, HARD reason. I'll cut and paste it so you can read it again. This time, read it slow so you'll be sure to understand.

"As I said before, (and as you seem to recognize) the ONLY way to keep people from trying to cross the border illegally is to establish the kind of border that existed with the Berlin Wall and that currently exists on the border between N. Korea and China."

You can be all for this sort of policy, and it seems that you are. I simply think it's a policy best kept solely by brutal despotic regimes.

"Those border jumpers aren't exactly angels, and the people who bring them across only care if their headcount pays up."

I haven't made the argument that they all are, though as a resident of AZ and someone who has had regular contact with people who both came here illegally and are now citizens, and those who are here illegally still, I can say that many of them love this country and contribute to it every bit as a pure-blooded American. They're not all angels, but they're also not all shady criminals.

"Besides, the only large rush to Mexico I see are 'people' that don't want the public to know that they're headed to Mexico. They lie to their domestic workers about those 'additional workers' or their 'new expansion' when they don't have the cash; they try to whitewash with their PR department when they're outed. These 'people' rush to Mexico because it is a pliable, corrupt narcostate."

This part of your comment seems somewhat nonsensical. I don't know what it has to do with the flow of illegal immigrants into the US and how to solve that problem. Sorry.

"If you wish to aid these people so much, go to Mexico and help them fix their nation from the inside."

You've really missed the point of the debate. I'm really not interested in fixing Mexico's social problems. I'm more interested if figuring out a way that would allow people who want to come to the US to work to do so in a manner that would reduce the chaos on the southern border and help fuel the US economy. Pretty simple really...

The Berlin wall was to keep their citizens in, not to keep foreigners out. They didn't need a wall for that.

Utterly irrelevant. It was a wall designed to keep people from crossing the border plain and simple. As I said, it's the only type of boarder that the US could set up to keep Mexicans from crossing illegally. Are you for a shoot-to-kill policy along the border? Women and children included?

Oh, the best video is Penn & Teller's Bullshit show on Showtime, where they examined the issue of illegal immigration. They hired a bunch of illegals to build a wall similar to the one that's being built along our southern border. Then they paid them to circumvent the wall. One team went over, one went through, and the other dug underneath. The over team won, followed by through and finally last underneath.

I loved P&T's Bullshit. Send a link if you can.

I condemn both Jacoby for his belief of amnesty and its hint at the citizen-hostile qualities of it. He only wishes to use amnesty as a way to get around citizens.

The buyer should get a substantial fine, the business dismantled with a prohibition that transcends any attempt to circumvent. Further, the illegal is to be biologically identified (DNA and/or fingerprint) and deported. Should they attempt another re-entry(or not), the result should be a automatic felony with substantial time in isolation.

He only wishes to disparage citizens in the wish to be a "better US citizen". That's what is called hypocrisy and selling our nation out to the highest bidder.

Traffic law has a different focus and a different goal.

"The buyer should get a substantial fine, the business dismantled with a prohibition that transcends any attempt to circumvent."

This is the kind of power you want the government to have? Hmmmm...

"Traffic law has a different focus and a different goal."

So did Prohibition and the War on Drugs...

So, a person's citizenship is more important than their humanity? Are you saying that the law is supreme and must be obeyed, no matter how unjust? A man should allow his family t suffer, rather than break an unjust law? How fascist.

Are you saying people should be able to have a legal right to break the law?

I'm saying that I have a human right to break any law that infringes on my human rights. If not, then the Founding Fathers were low life anarchists who deserved to be deported for disobeying the Crown. Legal rights flow from human rights, or they are unjust, and those who impose them deserve to be tossed out on their arses.

I'm saying if you believe there a 'legal' right to break the law then your lawyer has to say "my client thought the laws were unjust" and the judge would say "fair enough all charges are dropped".

No, it's a moral right to break unjust laws. It doesn't meant the powers that be won't punish you, or even kill you. It means that no matter how it turns out, you will be justified (albeit jailed or dead), and the "authorities" will be the true criminals. Might doesn't make right. Kangaroo courts punish dissidents the world over, but that in no way means they are legitimate arbiters of justice.

When the law is immoral, yes. I, as a Quaker, won't swear. If a legal document says "I swear that blah blah blah" I cross out the "I swear that" before signing. Nobody can force me to obey anything requiring me to swear, because that would infringe on my religion's obligations. (it's a right that we fought hard for, going to jail as needed.)

I asked whether people had a 'legal' right to break laws not a 'moral' right.

Moral rights trump "legal" rights, so your question is meaningless. I believe there is no such thing as a "legal" right. That which we call "leagal" rights are misnamed privileges, not rights.

So I guess you could morally justify yourself as a drug dealer and could morally stop those who wish to trash your business. Long live the Mexican Drug Lords and hope they can destroy the Mexican Government?

Gil, you can try and interpret seanooski's argument any way you want. The fact of the matter is that, just as bad policy regarding drugs has resulted in the DEATH of thousands, fuels a MASSIVE black market, and WASTES billions of tax payer dollars, so too does bad immigration policy. Every year hundreds DIE in the desert trying to cross the boarder, there is a MASSIVE black market in human trafficking, and the US government WASTES billions of tax dollars building a crappy wall trying to "enforce" its misguided immigration laws.

A person has no more right to immigrate than a person has to enter someone's private property. You could just as well say the banning of legal slavery has created a black market of underground slavery. Tough shit! Would you and your friends personally adopt the poor children of the world until you were all living on bread and butter? If politics are the problem than the people of poor can die trying to overthrow the powers that be and make themselves than trying to graph a slice of the pie that the West has built.

It's not a question of whether or not people should have the "right" to immigrate to the US.

Cut and pasted from another of my responses to you:

"As I've said MULTIPLE times to you, the ONLY way to reduce the flow of people crossing illegally (short of reforming current immigration laws so as to allow these people to come here legally) is to set up the same type of border that existed with the Berlin Wall and currently exists on the border of China and N. Korea. EVEN with the tough measures both China and N. Korea take against those who cross the border illegally, thousands still attempt it every year."

Gil: "You could just as well say the banning of legal slavery has created a black market of underground slavery."

You could could absolutely try and argue that we were better off WITH slavery as a result of some MASSIVE "underground" slave trade that exists today, though you will find few people who agree with you.

I'm arguing that we'd be better off scrapping current immigration law that fuels a MASSIVE inflow of undocumented workers in favor of a policy that would allow those who wish to come here to work low-skilled jobs could do so legally.

Gil: "If politics are the problem than the people of poor can die trying to overthrow the powers that be..."

Seems reasonable. Now you go tell the man who's trying to feed his family, "instead of crossing the border to work odd jobs, why don't you take up arms and lead a revolution against the Mexican govt.?"

When the laws are immoral or even misguided, yes.

Slavery was the law of the south for hundreds of years. Drug prohibition has resulted in the death of thousands. One tenth of the North Korean population died in a massive famine in the 90s due to laws prohibiting open markets and property rights.

It's not like the illegal immigrants broke just the one law crossing the boarder, they continue by breaking our labor, licensing and tax laws, plus anything else gained by being off the grid. The tuition argument is weak. A Massachusetts resident deserves the tuition break for being a taxpayer and fully contributing member of society. The legislature has every right to distinguish between these two levels of societal participation.

My car isn't registered. Mostly because I can't afford it and don't think the registration of property is a valid government function. According to your world view I'm not contributing enough to society and should be thrown in a cage.

Hyperbola as argument? I deliberately didn't mention the merits of immigration reform so as to stick to the tuition theme. I happen to be a big fan of illegal immigrants finding them to be clever and hard working initiative takers. I would recommend that they be given amnesty and preference over any that would stand in line waiting for a bureaucrats visa. They are a self-selected group that have shown personal characteristics that would be a benefit to our society. That said, under the present system, they continue to be law breakers after they arrive. It is necessary for their survival but not something that should be continually ignored.

So what defines a "fully contributing member of society." Skin color, gross income, perhaps their political persuasions?

If you want to create a private college insurance cooperatives you have every right to discriminate against anyone you want.

Massachusetts state law forces these people to pay into the system and denies them the right to access those payments.

The matter of the issue is that they are not there legally.

Allowing them to benefit only encourages the violation of immigration law and the debasement of hard-working US citizens.

While it sounds harsh, that is the truth.

Maybe you should got back to Europe. All us Hard working Native Americans don't need you leeching (3/64th Native American).

Sounds absurd? It is. You have no more right to prevent anyone coming here than you have staying.

If you wish to question mine, I'm 3 generations removed from naturalized Europeans in my family tree (Hungarian and German), as well as 12 generations from the first French Huguenots.

They did so legally, if only for prosperity or escape from religious persecution.

If it helps you any, none of my family were the first or most prosperous off the boat by any means.

Try referring to them as illegal human being to see what a bizarre idea it is.

I think Jacoby makes reasonable points. I certainly believe that our legal immigration procedures must be overhauled. Like all bureaucracies, it's a tangled web of glorified government incompetence.

But while I find immigration to be valuable economically, there's something to be said for not overwhelming our ability to assimilate new arrivals. Some level of control seems desirable. And this is without considering any security implications.

All the 9/11 hijackers entered the country legally.

That strikes me as a non-sequitur, but since you don't explain the relevance of that statement to anything I said, I can only guess as to your meaning.

If you think that security lapses in our legal immigration process is sufficient proof that we need not concern ourselves with security when it comes to illegal immigration, then I disagree. I don't see how it suggests that at all.

At the very least, it shows that there are real security interests at stake. If we remove the loopholes that allow such threats to enter legally, do you really suppose they would not then try to enter illegally? Whether or not we have the capability to control such things is a legitimate debate, which is why I focused on other factors, albeit while acknowledging that security concerns can exist.

I think it shows that the government is incompetent at the task of preventing terrorists from entering the country. At least two of the terrorists were on government watch lists at the time of their entry.

Meanwhile, there have been no reports, that I am aware of, that any terrorist agents have sought to smuggle themselves into the country.

-
Immigration, legal or illegal, is not the problem that various fear mongers have portrayed it to be.

The problem is the tremendous amount of resources that are expropriated by government for activities that do not produce wealth, and thus represent a real economic negative.

It must strike you as absurd that the government pays people for not working while "illegal" aliens are working in agriculture, construction, and service industries all over the country.

The point?
Illegal immigrants thus far have not posed any kind of security issue.

there's something to be said for not overwhelming our ability to assimilate new arrivals

What is our ability to assimilate new arrivals?
Is there any data on this?

IAC, it's not that easy for people to get here.

I'm not sure that little "L" libertarians and true conservatives would agree with the premise that education should be socialized and administered by the state in the first place. The impact of illegal immigration would be greatly reduced in the absence of medical mandates, state welfare programs, and socialized education. These forced redistributions result in perverse incentives created when the state's trough stays constant while the private sector contracts, so there is a natural incentive to latch onto the public teat for both immigrant and native-born alike. The very fact that Mass. and other states socialize education in the first place is the real debate that should take place alongside immigration if we want to come to a long-term solution. Unfortunately, government education is the fat, sacred cow that can't be touched as we rail against socialized medicine, welfare programs, corporate bailouts, and other more acceptable targets.

I'm glad you brought this up. It seems everyone had missed what the Boston Globe author had missed as well, any good Libertarian doesn't care about that arbitrary line that someone crossed. They should, however, care about having the government pick their pockets to have someone sent to college.

Unfortunately, open-borders are not feasible because of the welfare state. The sooner we tear it down, the more people from diverse cultures we can accept into this country.

Sure it's feasible. Just restrict welfare benefits to card-carrying true-blue American Citizens.

Thank you

I'm not sure I agree with you. If we applied your principle to all situations we would be overrun by people seeking a better life and citizens would be saddled with the cost of and denied a position in a state institution by an illegal alien. I also think it violates property and liberty rights in that it compels state residents to part with their resources to support a collective desire and also if enacted, enforced with the threat of jail or fine if one doesn't comply. I think legal immigration is a fine thing and we could use to improve our country but illegal immigration if left unchecked as would be encouraged by Jacoby's article is unfair and is bankrupting our country. As far as jobs go, I hear on NPR that American citizens are showing up in areas where illegals line up for day jobs. So if they are desperate enough, they will take any job to feed themselves or their families.

We are blessed to have so many people who want to come and contribute to the prosperity of our society. The problem is our xenophobic immigration law. In the meantime, it is not only cruel, but impractical, to deny these people the shared benefits of their participation. The pie is infinite, and all immigrants grow the pie. Overrun with people seeking a better life? We are overrun with people seeking a handout and a free ride on the backs of others, and they were all born here. I say we deport the leaches and invite the so-called "illegals" in with open arms. They are better capitalists than we are.

If these people were so productive then the country would well off and they wouldn't need to migrate whatsoever preferring to be a big fish in a small pond. Besides I'm sure Libertarians would be the first to shoot anyone they felt was a-trespassing on their property.

Maybe their government hampers their markets even worse than ours does. In spite of all of our cavailing, we really *do* have a largely free market. Especially compared with some of the countries which hand us most of the illegal immigrants. They want to start a business, and they can't do it at home, so they come here.

"If these people were so productive then the country would well off and they wouldn't need to migrate whatsoever preferring to be a big fish in a small pond."

Interesting argument... sorta like saying all smart people are rich and all poor people are stupid. Hispanics must be pretty stupid, because there are a lot of really poor hispanic countries.

Bingo, if these people were generally highly productive then the societies they come from wouldn't be poor.

I agree with MWG. Dumbest thing, Gil, and you've got a great track record of inanities to overcome.

A great many smart and highly productive people from around the world are usually welcome by many nations aspiring to 'brain drain' other nations. It was said that early America got rich by highly-skilled migrants who "were trained at Europe's expense". If poor people with low skills want to migrate to America they should try to get a green card like everyone else.

No, they can't get a green card like everybody else. That's part of what we are trying to tell you. I think you like it that way.

If you mean 'they' as those who arrived illegally can't get green cards and instead face deportation or jail then you're not exactly breaking my heart.

POOR people in POOR countries can't come to the US legally. That's why they come here illegally. You seem to be suggesting they need to 'get in line' and come here legally. For the poor there is NO 'line'.

How is that the problem of the U.S.A.? Why don't poor people make something of themselves in their own country unless they're wholly unproductive people per se? If the people have voted and don't want to be the dumping ground of the world's poor then tough luck.

"How is that the problem of the U.S.A.?"

You really are dense.

It is a problem for the US in and as long as the US has a closed door policy to people who want to come here and make a living working as maids, doing yard work, and any other manner of low-skilled labor, thousands will continue to poor over the border illegally. As I've said MULTIPLE times to you, the ONLY way to reduce the flow of people crossing illegally (short of reforming current immigration laws so as to allow these people to come here legally) is to set up the same type of border that existed with the Berlin Wall and currently exists on the border of China and N. Korea. EVEN with the tough measures both China and N. Korea take against those who cross the border illegally, thousands still attempt it every year.

"Why don't poor people make something of themselves in their own country unless they're wholly unproductive people per se?"

Because they're stupid, remember?

So the eff what? I'm sure you would treat a visitor who came to your front door and rang the bell differently from someone who is crawling through your back window. Who cares if people break the law - if they caught they pay the price. People who are stupid enough to risk death in the desert won't take on their own government who supposedly stifles their personal economic development. Just as you don't have a duty to let in any one who is at your front regardless of their circumstances so too the U.S.A. doesn't have a duty to soak every 'economic refugee' in the world. The right to leave your home to doesn't give you the right to enter someone else home.

"...so too the U.S.A. doesn't have a duty to soak every 'economic refugee' in the world."

Basic economics... I don't see it as a duty... more as an opportunity. Of course no one would ever accuse you of understanding basic economics...

Hence the term 'front door' - just as a person who wants to get on your property presents himself at your front door for you to decide to let him in or not so too does the U.S. expect people to wait at the 'front door' to get a green card. No, I'm you & your friends MWG would love to have a flood of immigrants south of the border who will overload the systems of government and create a giant pool of cheap labour. Most illegals think they can jump in and magically find the good life they see on TV only to become an underground slave to some dodgy employer paying them a pittance cash in the hand.

"...so too does the U.S. expect people to wait at the 'front door' to get a green card."

That's just it... there is no 'front door' for these people and as long as there isn't, they'll come across the southern border.

"Most illegals think they can jump in and magically find the good life they see on TV only to become an underground slave to some dodgy employer paying them a pittance cash in the hand."

I'm guessing you don't live in a border state...

You think the US government gives green cards to the poor?

I think the it's up to the U.S. voters and politicians to decide who gets green cards - from anyone to no one if they so choose.

Spoken like a true statist.

...and we have every right to disagree and debate... and Mexicans will continue to cross the border as they always have.

Congress established Prohibition and it was every bit as stupid and damaging as our immigration laws have been.

That may just be the dumbest thing you've ever said on this blog. The people of China, Brazil, and India aren't becoming wealthier because they all of a sudden got "smarter". They're becoming wealthier because their idiotic GOVERNMENTS are finally beginning to respect property rights, removing stupid regulations, and opening up their markets after years of GOVERNMENT control.

Average Indians and Chinese have always been smart, which is why when they come here they do so well.

"Besides I'm sure Libertarians would be the first to shoot anyone they felt was a-trespassing on their property."


Well, no, you are wrong. Libertarian doesn't equal asshole.

I say we deport the leaches and invite the so-called "illegals" in with open arms. They are better capitalists than we are.

--

You have it the wrong way around.

Penalizing citizens in favor of your "purge and binge" amnesty is not capitalist in the least. They should fix their own problems in their own nation first, as should US citizens. Then if a nation wishes to accept people, allow only the legal means to do so.

Deport the illegals and make it more painful to not fully comply with immigration law or to use a loophole. Further, scrap any citizen-hostile practices (current implementation of offshoring) and replace them with alternatives that place citizens first.

It is not cruel nor impractical to accept and deny people based on the practice of law.

I'd have to agree with much of what you said. The problem isn't so much illegal immigrants or even people in need, but it's 1) those who choose to live at the expense of others and 2) the ones who enable them.

Which has little to do with immigration and everything to do with the redistributive state.

Come again, how are they bankrupting us?

By not fully contributing to the cost of services provided to them by the community in that they reside. There are benefits that we derive from the lower labor costs associated with illegal immigrants but the costs to educate and care for their health is much greater. The government is pick pocketing you in order to pay for services provided to these uninvited trespassers! What would you say if this Thanksgiving an extra 500K people showed up at your house and you were responsible to feed, educate, protect and pay for their healthcare and in return they would clean, paint and cut your lawn for a reduced rate. Get the picture!

I still don't understand, Bob. They pay taxes like anyone else. How do you think they're not fully contributing to the cost of services?

Russ, no they don't pay taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay no income tax at all. And since they are illegal they don't pay social security taxes either. The largest industry that Mexico has is illegals sending money south. Time to deport all of them.

Many of them use fake social security cards. They DO pay taxes. Whenever they make purchases they also pay sales taxes. The argument that "illegals" don't pay taxes is simply false.

It sounds like you have a problem with government programs bankrupting us. The claim that these people are bankrupting us blatantly false.

I assume you don't make an income in the top income bracket. You are bankrupting those in the highest bracket. Why are you any better?

Wait; government programs are a problem? This is clouding the issue. Let's get back to discussing how the immigrant [only seeking a better life] is the problem and not how the government [spending recklessly to appease the domestic weak-sisters] might be rsponsible for this.

"Those immigrants didn’t come here in order to be lawbreakers; they broke a law in order to come here. That’s a distinction with a crucial difference . . ." - J. Jacoby.

Is this guy serious? They have no problems breakings the laws to get to where they want to go but they then be pleasant law-abiding folk? Isn't this where Libertarians chime in saying "people should be immigrate and emigrate freely as there should be no guvmint borders"?

I'm sure you drove a car this week, and I'm equally sure you broke the speed limit at some point. Are you an evil law breaker who should be deported? How is violating the speed limit any less serious than crossing an imaginary line with a flimsy fence?

Unfortunately, too many illegal immigrants are on public assistance, and this is unsustainable. It's primarily due to the fact that those that come in illegally tend to be semi literate or even illiterate, with no tangible skills to speak of. How many times do you hear of a physician or engineer entering illegally? Very few. Our country can't absorb the masses. We should control the borders and accept only those that can contribute and function immediately within our society.

Um... illegal immigrants don't qualify for public assistance...

This argument doesn't work.

Yes, I break traffic laws. I also accept the punishment when caught. Nobody makes the argument on my behalf that traffic laws shouldn't apply to me because I am a law abiding and productive citizen in other respects.

Last I checked, deportation isn't a punishment for running a stop sign, but it is a punishment for being here illegally.

That being said, I do think the country needs to make it easier for productive and otherwise law-abiding citizens to come and partake in the land of opportunity. Whatever the restrictions keeping this from occurring (which doesn't get much attention in the media), we should look at changing.

Dont mix up issues,immigration and traffic lights are not the same,Immigtation involves alot of issues to the conceptual mind far more than a traffic stop.

You still refuse to even entertain the notion that laws can be completely absurd and arbitrary. When they came for Jews I'm sure many Germans followed the laws. I'm sure many Jews themselves followed the laws. Holding the law up as a divinely inspired is the epitome of what is wrong with America today.

California prisons are populated with about one-third illegal immigrants. This is somewhat expensive and indicates that the illegal immigrant population has criminalistic tendencies greater than the native population.

Um ... yes, it's reasonable to say that illegal immigrants are willing to break laws. So let's make immigration legal and unrestricted, so that anybody who wants to work is welcome to come, including doctors and lawyers and indian chiefs, butcher, baker, and candlestick-maker.

"So let's make immigration legal and unrestricted"

Sure... No checks right?

Wrong. It indicates that the US's war on drugs has been extremely damaging and misguided.