Immigration explained

[Flatlander]

I see the previous comments as being directed at two separate issues: What is, and What should be....

Fact is, there's a procedure for immigrating legally, and it should be followed. Those who don't are breaking the law.

Should the law be changed? Well, that's a different, though very interesting question entirely. Should a country regulate immigration, i.e., who can and who cannot immigrate? I think there are a few ways to look at this. In a way, regulating who can immigrate is protectionist - not a very free market type of position. Generally, regulation has to do with controlling or encouraging better representation along particular skill lines, so as to provide some type of economic benefit to the national economy.

On the other hand, removing those types of restrictions is more of a free market approach. Let whomever shall come, come. Let them fill their own niche, and let the labour market sort it out. The question is, would this approach curtail abuse of government social programs? IMO, not likely. People still won't want to pay taxes, people still won't want to pay for health care.

So, in my opinion, the argument that illegal immigration is responsible for all of this societal abuse, crime, etc, is not necessarily true. It is entirely possible that people are people, no matter where they're from, and will break the law because, quite simply, they are prepared to take that risk. For them, the risk of being caught does not outweigh the benefit of committing the crime. I'm not sure that any type of immigration control is going to put a stop to this. Either opening the border or building a fence is not going to stop people from doing what they want to do.

So, perhaps the most reasonable solution is to ascertain what seems to be the natural flow of events and attempt to manage it, rather than force things otherwise.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Some immigrants do come here for a better life, but others as a virus to exploit and then kill the host.


Interestingly enough, the same dicohtomy is present in the citizens as well.

Nobody judged my worthiness for citizenship. I was given it simply for the fortuitous occurance of having been born here. Many of us fall in them same category, yet I would not want to be the one to determine who deserves it and who doesn't.

The problem is that the current laws create a person who is 'illegal' simply for wanting a better life, but that illegal status then creates a whole host of problems; such as the fact that these illegal immigrants don't pay taxes and t herefore don't support basic services of which they use (from busses to emergency medical care). Most probems with illegal immigration are generated simply *because* someone has decide to make them illegal..

 

[Tez3]

I don't want to add to an argument I know little about but I do want to say how hard it is to actually get into America legally. My daughter only wanted to work in Florida for a few months, she'd been offered a job with a race horse trainer who was based in New York to work for him when he moved the yard to Florida for the winter. There is a shortage of well trained staff by all accounts. She would have had a return ticket and had no intention of staying as she has a very good job here, both her boss and she thought it would be good experience. The sheer difficulty of getting through the red tape to obtain visas and work permits plus the suspicion she was treated with made her give up, She went to Dubai instead.

 

[michaeledward]

Wow...are you asking me: if there is no law against something then is it a legal act? "What if"-- my children used to play that game when they were little and lived at home.

Sometimes you just have to face the facts as they are. There is a procedure, there are laws and anyone breaking the law is a criminal---by definition, that's what a criminal is.

Ray ... I don't disagree with you that we need to face facts as they are. One fact is our immigration laws are ineffective and unenforcable. Some might say that fulfills the definition of 'broken'. When stuff is broken, it generally should be fixed, or thrown out. My suggestion is to throw the laws out. They don't work. They are counter productive. They create a tiered society. One of the things we moved away from when we broke with Europe. The last thing we should be doing is creating a new Caste system.

The facts are, until 1862, there were no laws against any person from any nationality entering the country. How one earth did our young nation survive those first 80 years. In 1862, the first immigration laws were enecated, restrictions were placed on those from China.

Laws are written by people. And we can change them.

So, why not "What if ... there were no immigration laws?"

 

[Cryozombie]

I have a question, somthing I am not familiar with at all, maybe one of you are...

How many countrys can you just show up in, start working, and live there and say "Honey I'm home!"?

Is that the world norm, or do most countries have some immigration control?


​

 

[Xue Sheng]

do most countries have some immigration control?​

Can't speak for all but China does, and I believe Japan does as well, but I am going out on a limb there.

 

[Tez3]

In the EC we all have the right to go to a member country to live and work.It's caused a bit of a panic though as new member countries which are considerably poorer than the rest may be emptied of it's populations as they all descend on the richer countries!

 

[Don Roley]

On the other hand, removing those types of restrictions is more of a free market approach. Let whomever shall come, come. Let them fill their own niche, and let the labour market sort it out. The question is, would this approach curtail abuse of government social programs? IMO, not likely. People still won't want to pay taxes, people still won't want to pay for health care.

This touches on a very imporant point about opening our arms to all immigrants and making them all legal.

I notice in this thread that no one is complaining about illeagles stealing jobs. The complaints I mainly see are that an increasing number of them seem to be using services that the legal citizens pay for, but they don't have to.

The question is, if we open up our borders are we going to attract those that will contribute to the tax base, or take more from it?

When the Statue of Liberty was built there was no welfare, no social security, no food stamps, no free health care...etc. The only thing promised was freedom. In other words, people came here because they thought they would be left alone.

Someone coming to America a century ago would have fully expected to die if they failed or they did not take care of themselves. The people that took the risk were the ones that thought they would do well if they just had the the chance to give their all to what they did. And as a whole they did pretty well I think.

But now, we have people born in this country that abuse the system. Welfare mothers come to mind, but there are many others we can all think of.

So if we do not make things as difficult as Tez3 has pointed out, will we attract those that want to work- or will we attract every last person who has drunken away their health and savings by age 60 and can scrape together enough for a one way ticket?

If you have all the freebies that Amercans have come to consider their god- given right and no restriction on who can apply for them you are going to attract the type of folks that would become welfare mothers from countries that will not bail out lazy people. You merely have to look at the way it seems that more and more illeagles seem to come here for the benifits than prior years when they were barred from them to think about what the problem would be like if everybody was allowed to become a citizen.

So are those (like me) that want to throw open the doors to everyone that wants to come here and make them legal willing to pay for every last sponger in the world- or should we cut out all forms of taking money from one person to pay someone who takes no responsibility for their actions?

 

[michaeledward]

Welfare mothers come to mind, but there are many others we can all think of.

I learned recently that Statue of Liberty was originally concieved to be built in Egypt. Only when Egypt couldn't raise the funds, did the upraised arm get changed to a lamp, and New York Harbour was chosen as a location.

That aside ... the phrase "welfare mothers" is one of those code words that lives on since the Great Fabricator Ronald Reagan. The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 limits the amount of social service a woman can receive in her lifetime. Further, it mandates that those collecting federal social services work up to most of a full time job in order to be able to receive those services.

I do not mean to imply there are no abuses of the system. But many of the stereotypes thrown about have been eliminated.

As for taxes paid by .... my employer withholds taxes due from my paycheck. I bet yours does too. So what companies are employing workers and don't withhold their taxes? Wouldn't it be easier to crack down on those employers? Do we really think there are 12 million day laborers in the country?

 

[Don Roley]

I do not mean to imply there are no abuses of the system. But many of the stereotypes thrown about have been eliminated.

As for taxes paid by .... my employer withholds taxes due from my paycheck. I bet yours does too. So what companies are employing workers and don't withhold their taxes? Wouldn't it be easier to crack down on those employers? Do we really think there are 12 million day laborers in the country?

But you have to admit that there are a lot of people that abuse the system- even if you don't want to admit that there are as many problems about welfare mothers as many think.

And I am not really worried about people that come to America and start working and then have to rely on the system. What concerns me are the folks that would come here and either not work at all, or do only the minimum needed to qualify.

Let me give an example. About 15 years or so ago The Los Angeles Times ran a series of articles on abuses of the medical systems in California. The laws were such that anyone going into a medical center and saying they were an illeagle alien had to be treated for anything that could be life threatening with no questions asked and no reporting to immigration or law enforcement. The articles were not on real illeagle immigrants- but on people who were flying in from other countries to get organ transplants free. The Times found that there were groups and orginizations in other countries that would arrange for the travel and coach people on how to get free a service that would cost a good amount of money in their native countires.

So if we open up our borders and give citizenship to anyone who wants it, how are we tobe sure that the majority will not be the type to go straight to the welfare office? I can see people in this thread complaining that illeagles are already taking up tax monies in the form of benifits- and that is after they have to dodge patrols and immigration sweeps just to get into the country.

 

[michaeledward]

That is a baby/bathwater arguement.

Illegal immigrants drive on highways built with tax dollars. Should we build no more highways?

Illegal immigrants attend public schools. Should we eliminate all public schooling?

Keep in mind, that the parent of the student, may very well be paying the local excise taxes, via rent, to pay for those schools. Sure, the family may be living in a shanty shack that is not taxed, but where is the bigger crime?

And, if we prohibit the illegal immigrant of student age from attending school, what do you think they will be doing all day? Might having whole communities of children legally truant create a whole new set of problems.

And, if "clinics" in California are performing organ transfers, there is something wrong with our medical system. Something in that anecdote doesn't sound right to me.


It seems that many people in congress are adopting a 'Zero Tolerance' attitude toward undocumented workers. Zero Tolerance is always a dumb idea.

My daughter works are a local store, unpacking boxes, and making custom frames. This job requires her to work with a razor blade - the kind of blade 19 guys crashed four planes with - one she ended up at school with her work tool in her pocket. She received a ten day suspension. Simply for possessing a razor blade. Zero Tolerance is a damn stupid idea.

Are there ways to fix the program? Can the program realistically be eliminated in our society today?

Do we really need to throw the baby out with the bath water?

 

[Amazon]

As for taxes paid by .... my employer withholds taxes due from my paycheck. I bet yours does too. So what companies are employing workers and don't withhold their taxes? Wouldn't it be easier to crack down on those employers? Do we really think there are 12 million day laborers in the country?

And how do you plan on finding those employers that aren't witholding taxes from a paycheck? Not to mention that most aren't paying by check at all - they are using cash for the purposes of not leaving any proof that they are paying for anything at all. Also the fact that they don't exactly walk up to Secretary of State or Tax Department and register a Corporation or an LLC that is monitored for whether or not they are witholding.

Damn it man, I am beginning to see where you are coming from. You might (and it pains me to say this) have a point. I have no problem with letting in those who are willing to work and become a productive member of the Country. I think a wide open border would cause a vast increase in problems, more than the benefits could outweigh, but also have to concede the point that it is too constrictive as it is right now. Where that middle ground is, I don't have an answer and am thankful I am not the one who has to come up with the answer to that question.

I have yet to see the issue address of what happens when other countries ship us all their criminals, rather than paying to imprison or maintain them, and then a large majority of them commit crimes here and then we prosecute them. It's all well and good to say that they might not commit a crime once they get there - but I believe there are more than enough studies from a multitude of sources (biased, unbasided, and from both sides of bias) showing that the psychology of criminal behavior is that it is repetitive in nature and only tends to increase in scale with each repetition.

Not to mention that no matter how many would commit a crime once here - anyone that commits a crime in another country would most likely be sent here. By this model we would literally end up paying to support the imprisonment (or whatever other punishment set forth for crime) for every criminal in the world.

In the EC we all have the right to go to a member country to live and work.It's caused a bit of a panic though as new member countries which are considerably poorer than the rest may be emptied of it's populations as they all descend on the richer countries!

Hi Tez! I just have a quick question since I'm not very familliar with the laws that you mentioned. What happens if one goes to another country in the EC and does not work?

Illegal immigrants drive on highways built with tax dollars. Should we build no more highways?

Illegal immigrants attend public schools. Should we eliminate all public schooling?

This makes no sense in relation to what you are responding to. Please explain on what thread of logic you are performing an exegesis to reach these conclusions.

Keep in mind, that the parent of the student, may very well be paying the local excise taxes, via rent, to pay for those schools. Sure, the family may be living in a shanty shack that is not taxed, but where is the bigger crime?

Both families are in this country legally. If the person living in a shanty shack eventually winds up on their feet and starts working they will be paying taxes into the system. A family here illegally is mostly likley working but is not paying those taxes.

As for what happens if the shanty shack family never works - there is a point to be made that there is a difference between educating the children of our citizens that have become unfortunate (and who were probably not always unfortunate and thus either they or their parents/predecessors paid taxes at one point) in an attempt to stop the cycle and bringing in families who are already not working and just want us to educate their kids for free.

And, if we prohibit the illegal immigrant of student age from attending school, what do you think they will be doing all day? Might having whole communities of children legally truant create a whole new set of problems.

Might I suggest that that is the reason that the current laws call for deportation of illegal immigrants? The children of those that wanted to come here and did it through the proper channels are in school.

And, if "clinics" in California are performing organ transfers, there is something wrong with our medical system. Something in that anecdote doesn't sound right to me.

Not "clinics" - hospitals. Trust me - I live here. The hospitals are not allowed to refuse anyone needing treatment for an immediately life threatening issue regardless of their citizenry. The assumption is that the recipients of the treatment will pay their bills but we all know that most of the time the bills don't get paid.

It has made it so that the costs for healthcare here have risen dramatically. Many California residents will tell you that they now have to pay much higher premiums for their health insurance.

The insurance companies are passing on the higher costs in higher premiums. Those that have health coverage through thier employers are also now having to pay an increased portion of their premiums because employers cannot absorb 100% of the increases. And before you start in about the corporations that you seem to think have endless pockets - remember all the corporations that are small and medium sized businesses.

It appears to me that many of your arguments are based on the over-simplification of the conseqences, or failure to examine what all of the consequences may be, of actions that could be taken and use this as leverage to criticize non-action.

It's no secret that the laws need reforming, and I think that the vast majority agrees on this. It is tremendously difficult to enter this country. However, it is important to measure the consequences of our actions before we just run around doing what feels good. Whatever action is taken - we need to be ready to accept all of the consequences that come with it - forseen or not.

*ending serious mode* I personally think it would be a good idea to let in anyone who's not a criminal, will work, and would be willing to live only in the midwest. (No offense to anyone living in the mid-west, but you all have to admit it's pretty empty out there).

 

[Empty Hands]

There is a procedure, there are laws and anyone breaking the law is a criminal---by definition, that's what a criminal is.

Immigration violations are not part of the criminal code. They are handled by separate immigration courts, and the only adjudicated punishment is deportation. Immigration violators are not considered felons. After all, building code requirements are law too - but having a sub-code house doesn't make you a criminal.

So what companies are employing workers and don't withhold their taxes? Wouldn't it be easier to crack down on those employers? Do we really think there are 12 million day laborers in the country?

Most illegal aliens working as established employees do so using a fake or "borrowed" Social Security Number. As such, taxes are withheld, but it goes without saying that most won't file a return for any amount owed them! This is a source of tax benefit from illegal aliens that many fail to take into account. Of course, this doesn't cover the "day laborer" type person in the cash economy.

The hospitals are not allowed to refuse anyone needing treatment for an immediately life threatening issue regardless of their citizenry.

This is true...up to a point. The sticking word is "immediately". If an illegal alien has been shot or is having a heart attack, they will indeed receive critical care. However, this doesn't extend to longer term treatments for life threatening conditions, and most definitely won't apply to organ transplants (even if it did, any alien would still have to wait in line, just like everyone else). So for instance, most chronic care drugs like beta-blockers or ACE inhibitors won't be covered, nor most surgeries. In fact, there is an argument to be made that not covering earlier, simpler treatments results in more costs due to more catastrophic conditions present when the non-insured shows up at the ER ready to die.

It appears to me that many of your arguments are based on the over-simplification of the conseqences, or failure to examine what all of the consequences may be, of actions that could be taken and use this as leverage to criticize non-action.

This is my basic attitude on the whole issue. People simplify this issue on either side too much (not pointing any fingers in this thread BTW), and fail to take into account our good friend Murphy and his immutable law. There WILL be consequences, and heaving the response to one side or the other (open border vs. militarized lockdown) with no attempt at mitigation insures that whatever the consequences are will be more severe.

 

[Cryozombie]

After all, building code requirements are law too - but having a sub-code house doesn't make you a criminal.

Technically, No... Building codes are CODES not LAWS (at least here) and are enforced by Code enforcement, not Law enforcement, and you are not taken to court for violating them, but you can be fined by the (again, here) Village Board.

Illegal Aliens are still arrested by law enforcement, Tried in a court and possibly deported by the Government.

Big difference between those two examples.

 

[Don Roley]

I have yet to see the issue address of what happens when other countries ship us all their criminals, rather than paying to imprison or maintain them, and then a large majority of them commit crimes here and then we prosecute them.

Excellent point!

Not only would eleminating the vetting and restrictions we have bring in people that are attracted by the fact that unemployed people in America get more from various programs than people working from dawn to dusk in their native countries, and not only will we merely create a whole lot of illeagel aliens working off the books to a lot of legal aliens working off the book, but we will see a whole lot of countries sending us the people they don't want to deal with.

Some communities in America have been found to have their officers drop derilicts off in other cities- and that is not a case of one place hating another. Can you imagine what kind of giggles Victor Chavez would get by eliminating the need to pay the prison expenses for all those child molestors, violent criminals and such by sending them to the US? We saw Castro slip in a few criminals when there was that massive influx several years back. With lowered immigration coverage, there would not even be a need to slip in only a few per large group.

And it is not just the criminals. Take a look at how AIDs is devestating many of the countries in Africa. The countries can't or won't pay for the consequenses of the disease on a lot of their population. And if there was any country like the US that would take them in and had a health care system even a tenth as free and open, I would bet they would not even try. It would be much easier to ship all the people affected. The people dying of the disease and the families left without a breadwinner after AIDs has killed them.

Right now, I know of no country that takes in just anyone. A century ago, when nothing was given to the people, there really was no use of the term "illeagle alien." But with all the services paid for by taxes, now their is a need to make sure that you attract more people that will pay taxes than take money from the system.

 

[bydand]

After all, building code requirements are law too - but having a sub-code house doesn't make you a criminal.

Just to expand on Cryozombie's information about this as well. May not be a criminal, but they can make you homeless real quick. I have worked in construction for 25 years now as an Electrician and have seen big, big fines and occupancy permits denied due to non compliance with building codes. (Not electrical I might add. ) I know of a 2.5 million dollar house that was built in 2004 and it still sits empty and is unsellable due to being too tall to fit an areas building code and zoning laws. Comparing these types of codes and laws to immigration laws just don't work.

 

[Amazon]

Just to expand on Cryozombie's information about this as well. May not be a criminal, but they can make you homeless real quick. I have worked in construction for 25 years now as an Electrician and have seen big, big fines and occupancy permits denied due to non compliance with building codes. (Not electrical I might add. ) I know of a 2.5 million dollar house that was built in 2004 and it still sits empty and is unsellable due to being too tall to fit an areas building code and zoning laws. Comparing these types of codes and laws to immigration laws just don't work.

As true as this may be - can we please keep the focus on the big picture here and not split hairs about miniscule facts. If we do that this thread will be as long as the "Last Person" thread and we won't be able to have any productive discussion.

I got what he meant - I'm sure you did too. Let's move along.

 

[bydand]

Amazon, if you would be so kind as to PM me when I have permission to post my thoughts again I would be grateful.

 

[Cryozombie]

Just to expand on Cryozombie's information about this as well. May not be a criminal, but they can make you homeless real quick. I have worked in construction for 25 years now as an Electrician and have seen big, big fines and occupancy permits denied due to non compliance with building codes. (Not electrical I might add. ) I know of a 2.5 million dollar house that was built in 2004 and it still sits empty and is unsellable due to being too tall to fit an areas building code and zoning laws. Comparing these types of codes and laws to immigration laws just don't work.

Well, Ok... theres two things at work here... There are building codes for construction that often go hand in hand with laws, like Zoning laws, etc... and their are building codes like the ones that say "No peeling paint" or "No plastic lawn jesus in a bathtub" etc... I was referring to the latter... no LAWS that go with them.

But back on topic I'm shocked to hear that most other countries have immigration requirements... the way this is screamed about here, I REALLY thought that we were being hardline discriminatory racist pigs by requiring people to follow a proceedure to come here... come to find out that's just not the case, seems it's done thruout most of the civilized world...

Huh, go figure.

 

[Marginal]

If not blow it off......... along with your future Social Security funds, and a lot of other things.

I would, if such types were actually interested in having migrant workers etc actually pay their fair share. Oddly, guest worker programs are strongly opposed. On top of that, most anti immigration folks also tend to view unskilled workers as worthless and as people who shouldn't earn a dime since their jobs don't require a college degree.