Should "Illegal" Immigrants Be Deported?

I have been thinking, is it really the fault of the "illegal" immigrants, or the politicians who have defacto actually given permission for them to come here by not enforcing the laws? Perhaps the "illegal" immigrants actually thought it was okey to come here because the politicians were implicitly giving them permission to do so, as if to say the immigration laws in the books were obsolete and not enforced, kind of like how there are many laws from 150 years ago that are no longer enforced but are still in the books, for example, it is illegal to kiss your wife's breasts in florida, a law from long ago, but it is obviously not enforced today though it is still officially in the books. So, let's say illegals come here, build a life, get married and have kids, are well integrated. Should they years later be deported if let's say a new president is elected who will then decide to actually enforce the immigration laws, even though they have not been enforced for the last 15 years?

Judith

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am in support of closing the borders from now on, even legal immigration, I think 300 million people is enough for this country. But, I am still undecided about illegals that have been here for years because politicians have implicitly given them permission to break the law by defacto allowing them to stay by not enforcing the law.

Here is one opinion supporting deportation of illegals:

Real Message of The Bush Amnesty

by Pat Buchanan

If George Bush’s amnesty for between 8 million and 14 million illegal aliens is enacted, you can kiss the old America goodbye.

Consider what the president is saying with his amnesty. He is telling us that he cannot or will not do his constitutional duty to defend the states from invasion. He is saying that he simply cannot or will not protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. He is saying he will no longer send illegal aliens back.

Complete text at http://www.amconmag.com/2_2_04/buchanan.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, since they are here illegally.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am in support of closing the borders from now on, even legal immigration

I suppose you would have the right to say that only if you're Native American - are you? Or were your family at one time immigrants to the US? Are you sure they immigrated legally?

 

The US population will start to age rather more quickly if immigration stops, leading to the other terror of Americans... OLD PEOPLE!

Illegal Immigrants

Old People

Chooooooosssssseeeee....

 

Then thank your lucky stars you don't live in the UK which has a pop. of 60 million. You can fit the UK into the USA countless times yet we have one fifth the amount of your population. Now thats what I call overcrowding. It is time WE stopped immigration full stop.

 

That argument never convinces me when people bring it up. I believe that even though my grandparents were immigrants, it is morally accepatable for me to vote for a politician who will close the borders.

Every country in the world first started off as people moving into the area from other areas, but I don't believe that means they don't have the right to ever close their borders some time down the line.

Regarding the aging population: as I see it, if you can't work, then don't live. Pull your plug, re-incorporate voluntary euthanization, or just don't retire. Why are people retiring at 60 when they are physically capable of continuing their jobs even till age 80? Modern medicine keeps people healthier much longer than in the past, so people should have to work longer. I don't believe I should open the borders because people above 60 are too lazy. I personally plan to work until my last breath, as long as I am physically capable of doing so.

Of course, the above could be avoided: all the money we spend on unneeded wars, and all the money we give to other countries, can be used instead to perhaps help old people IF they are physically not able to do any jobs at all.

Judith

 

I do not support Illegal immigration, and of course they should be sent back to their country of origin. They could come into the United States legally like millions of other immigrants have over the last 100+ years. But the US now is a state of "low cost" consumers. If you were to totally stop that illegal immigration in the Southern US there will be a massive issue on how to resolve the increase in living costs. Mexican workers work for almost nothing in comparison to American workers, and there are simply some jobs American will not do. I was watching CNN's Lou Dobbs and they were showing a series of "made in America", and "working in America" both of them showed American workers working in threatened industries. One of these industries is a gardener. A man who lived in the SW US was a man who polished gardens the ppl who used his services noted that he came on time, he spoke English and he was courteous, but he charged more then his Mexican counterparts and most Americans want more for less. America sadly it seems needs there illegals to have a cheap labour force, to keep prices down. An argument could be made for those 35 million Americans, who live in poverty, but they would still be bound by US regulations and laws, the illegals aren't so companies make a killing.

 

I think all borders should be opened completely. This would effectively make the practice of shipping jobs overseas for cheaper labor impossible. For example, if the US were to open its border with mexico, Mexico would have to make its labor laws comparable to those of the US in order to avoid having all its citizens leave, and the US would be less inclined to pressure(or allow corporations to pressure) countries into maintaining poor working conditions if it meant that everyone in those countries would simply come to the US. This would ultimately remove the motivation that many immigrants have for coming to the US, and ultimately likely lower the total number of immigrants.

 

Mexico would have to make its labor laws comparable to those of the US in order to avoid having all its citizens leave, and the US would be less inclined to pressure(or allow corporations to pressure) countries into maintaining poor working conditions if it meant that everyone in those countries would simply come to the US.

You are suggesting that NAFTA become one state? If not then this makes no sense. If labour laws in Mexico are more lax, more American companies and jobs will flood into Mexico, and that would encourage Mexicans to stay in Mexico. Sure it is not a good thing for the Mexicans, rather it is morally reprehensible to keep their working standards so low, but if Mexico were to raise her standards, she will lose that competitive nature, and sink into a deep depression economically making the US more attractive not less. You know as well as I do capitalism depends on exploitation, and one cannot exploit with tough regulations.

 

Why would a bunch of jobs that don't pay a livable wage encourage someone to stay in mexico if they have nothing holding them back from moving to the US where they have a chance of getting a job that does pay a livable wage?

If there were no place which didn't have reasonable labor laws, then having them would not remove a countries competitive nature.

 

Why would a bunch of jobs that don't pay a livable wage encourage someone to stay in mexico if they have nothing holding them back from moving to the US where they have a chance of getting a job that does pay a livable wage?


Well then let me put it like this, if Mexico raised her labour laws significantly upwards, China will get even more jobs from Mexico (which she is already taking). Mexican wages will eventually go up, they have to due to the re-organization of wealth due to globalization. But I don't think that 20 million Mexicans are going to find jobs in the US, and surely the US will not allow that. The best thing is to stop illegal immigration, allow investment to flow into Mexico then increasing wages with international inflation rates (due to globalization). In the US they make a livable wage? From what I know they have no benefits, and they make less then a American who would do the same job. I wouldn't call that livable.

If there were no place which didn't have reasonable labor laws, then having them would not remove a countries competitive nature.

Of course it does a nation now with restrictive labour laws like Germany and France are not competitive with states like the US even, and forget about China. The thing is this, re-orient wealth. In globalization the idea is to get the rich richer, and to get the 3rd world into markets, that could mean paying the individual shit, but in a large group they could surpass the purchasing power of the US, and to further make into a market gradually increase wages, and decrease them in the West.

 

It makes more sense to look at the ageing population thing as a red herring. unless your newly arrived OAP care workers are immortal, they will get old as well, and need care, and moreover will have. thus it will not get much better.

 

I guess I wasn't clear on what I meant by opening the borders. I don't mean that the US should look the other way for illegal immigrants so that wal-mart can employ them for slave wages, I meant make all immigrants legal immigrants, and citizens. Not enough jobs for the 20 million new citizens? I guess they'd have to be supported by welfare then. Not enough money for that? then probably something would need to be done to remove the incentive for them to leave Mexico.

If ALL states had good labor laws(which they would have to if they all had open borders) then there would be no incentive to leave any one of them for another, allowing for an equitable distribution of jobs.
"free trade" globalization may be getting the third world into the global market, but its also keeping its wages down. Third world countries are encouraged to have oppressive labor practices. In many cases they'd be better off without entering the global market. For example rather than growing a variety of crops for subsistence they are now growing one crop for exportation and ending up not having enough money to buy the food they previously were growing for themselves.

 

I don't mean that the US should look the other way for illegal immigrants so that wal-mart can employ them for slave wages, I meant make all immigrants legal immigrants, and citizens. Not enough jobs for the 20 million new citizens? I guess they'd have to be supported by welfare then. Not enough money for that? then probably something would need to be done to remove the incentive for them to leave Mexico.

So you accept Mexico and the US being two independent states, yet essentially making all Mexicans US citizens? It seems moronic don't you think to even have a border then. That is essentially what you are saying, that all Mexicans are then able to become immediately legal in the US, like Israel treats international Jewry. The only way u can conceivably remove the incentive is if you have jobs in Mexico proper that aren't expensive but aren't so low that ppl can't afford to live, and Mexico cannot do that alone. It needs FDI to increase it's relative wealth, and Mexican living standards are getting better.

If ALL states had good labor laws(which they would have to if they all had open borders) then there would be no incentive to leave any one of them for another, allowing for an equitable distribution of jobs.

If all states did have that then we wouldn't have a working capitalist system. I think you are a communist u said so before, I remember. But equitable labour standards in the NWO will mean decreasing labour standards, weaker unions, and lower wages. This has been happening over the last quarter century, workers have to deal with less and less all over the world. This system of economics did not work in the USSR and COMECON it surely won't work here and now. I am not a capitalist, but I do know that you cannot have equity across the board, then trade and economics could simply collapse.

"free trade" globalization may be getting the third world into the global market, but its also keeping its wages down.

This is true not only there, but in the developed world as well. Now can u show me some figures though to support this? Because if we look it adjusted for inflation then maybe in the 3rd world u are right. But btwn 1998-2002 wages have pretty much increased.

Third world countries are encouraged to have oppressive labor practices. In many cases they'd be better off without entering the global market.

Depends, that cannot be in absolutist terms that you have categorized it. Import substitution, and central government control, collectivization does more damage then market forces.

For example rather than growing a variety of crops for subsistence they are now growing one crop for exportation and ending up not having enough money to buy the food they previously were growing for themselves

That is not the fault of the Market though, they choose to do that. They could live subsistence that is the NWO I don't like it either. But that is the way it works.

 

No, I'm saying anyone who chooses to immigrate to the US from Mexico, and give up their Mexican citizenship for American citizenship would be allowed to.

Why would equitable labor standards nessarilly mean low standards? and I'm not proposing anything like the USSR.

Third world wages are increasing? By how much? do you have a link?

how so?

The choice isn't necessarilly made by the people effected by it.

 

No, I'm saying anyone who chooses to immigrate to the US from Mexico, and give up their Mexican citizenship for American citizenship would be allowed to.

That is not what you said before. This is still not within the context of a safe country with safe borders. You cannot reasonably expect nations to allow anyone who is wiling to give up their former citizenship to come in and automatically become American. The US would simply not be able to sustain it, and Mexico or any other country for that matter who suffer further.


Why would equitable labor standards nessarilly mean low standards?

Because higher standards are not profitable standards, the standard of workers rights have not improved and if not even got worse. We are reverting yes into an era of industrial ethos of profit over worker. States like the US who is losing droves of jobs to China for instance is indictitive of a NWO, and one must understand that if a government is poor enough they will be wiling to do anything to bring FDI. Standards are going lower, and to increase them would result in a sudden collapse of the global economy, corporations would instantly lose money, and markets would collapse.

and I'm not proposing anything like the USSR.

Sure sounded like it.


Third world wages are increasing? By how much? do you have a link?

Look at the economist:

http://www.economist.com/countries/

Here I will give u some:

India:
1999-0.56
2000-0.59
2001- 0.62
2002- 0.66

China:
1999 -.53
2000 -.59
2001 -.69
2002 -.80

Some regions like Latin America have experienced a decrease in wages, and labour costs, but that is primarily due to the economic havoc that Argentina's debt default and investor confidence eroded. But overall things are slowly increasing, eventually you will have the two worlds meet together, the West will go down and the 3rd world will go up to meet, and create a huge market.

how so?

Juche + North Korea= dead in the water economy. Juche would be popular among states who are in that precarious situation but the long term effects of non-competition and stagnate government control destroys any growth.


The choice isn't necessarilly made by the people effected by it.

True, but that is the way it is.

 

I think it's the people willing to hire them that are to blame, without any adverse consequences. People get stuff for cheap just because of unfair competition. If all employers were sent to federal prison for 20 years for hard-time for hiring undocumented workers, it would stop. Send all those Wal-Mart execs first, as an example.

Also, welfare should be changed back into work-fare, which was how it started during the Depression (like WPA, CCC), it was changed into an entitlement by Prez Johnson, I believe we should make people work for their money. That should add thousands to the labor force. It's time to look at all the contributing factors.

 

That's what I meant, I suppose I should have been more explicit.

Of course they wouldn't. unless of course the motivation to live in the US rather than in Mexico was removed. Thats the whole point.

Thats the way things are now, its not addressing what I am proposing.

I don't see how.

You just said above that standards or workers rights are decreasing, which would mean that even if wages are rising things are not moving towards equitable treatment of workers, and do the increases you quoted take inlfation into account?

how so?

There are a lot of factors at work there besides collectivization.

Yes, but if thats the way it is because the military governor who has the support of the IMF says thats how it is, then it is the fault of the market.

 

Deport the illegals.

Station troops at the border.