Is ILLEGAL Immigration a PROBLEM? Or is ILLEGAL Immigration OK With You?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I really don't believe most people here think illegal immigration is a problem.  I think they're OK with it and want it to continue.

Here's folks' chance to prove me wrong.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Obviously its an issue. Further restricting immigration and putting immigrants in concentration camps is not the way to deal with it, though. It fixes nothing, is immoral, and costs way too much money.

Just exactly why is this true, and not just a mere assertion to drive a narrative?

I listened to a segment of an NPR broadcast which interviewed a Salvadoran who had been returned to El Salvador.  He stated that the current policy was such that (A) he would not attempt to cross the border again (he had done it more than once), and (B) if he did, he would not bring children with him again.  I recognize this is an anecdote, but it's a significant one. 

Is there not a need to create disincentives to discourage illegal entry into our country?  That's a legitimate question that deserves an answer.  If so, what would an EFFECTIVE disincentive be?

Is it moral to treat folks who come here illegally (that are, in no way, legitimate asylum seekers) with the same welcoming that we treat those who came here legally and respected our laws?  That's a question that deserves an answer, and while there can be endless "whataboutisms" used to respond, there is a bottom line to that question. 

Why is enforcement cheaper than the expenses incurred in illegal aliens being in the US?

These aren't mysteries.  These are questions to which specific answers can be provided. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

With voting trends the way they are, the left knows that all these people will be dems for life. That's why there's tacit approval of illegal immigration. they could not care less about the moral/humanitarian aspect of it all

Question to Republicans: If immigrants started voting Republican, would the GOP take their feet off their necks?

If immigrants were voting Republican, the parties' positions on immigration would flip relatively quickly.

If immigrants were voting Republican, we'd have either a very different type of immigrant, or a very different type of GOP.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Look, I’m a prosecutor. My job every day is to make sure that all types of people are punished for their crimes. Sometimes, depending on the facts of the case, that means giving offenders the maximum jail sentence under the law. I believe unauthorized entry into this country should be illegal. And I believe it should be punished like any other crime. Under federal law, first time illegal immigration is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and up to six months in prison. That means in terms of seriousness of crimes, in most jurisdictions it would rank right up there with shoplifting and simple possession of a marijuana joint.

I believe crimes should be punished. But I cannot condone inhumane treatment of prisoners. For me it’s not about race or politics: it would shock my conscience if our country’s government was treating any class of people this way. I would have the same reaction if our government went into any major city and rounded up every single last shoplifter and pot smoker, threw then all in a makeshift tent city that was nowhere near ready to handle that capacity, and then threw their children in a separate internment camp for “deterrence purposes.”

I very much agree with the highlighted portion. 

I would emphasize that the issue of treatment of detainees, of HOW they should be detained, is a different issue from the question of WHETHER they should be detained.  The children should be detained in humane environments, and not separated from their parents, provided that the adults with those children ARE, indeed, their parents or legal guardians.  If it takes an increase in spending to accomplish that, so be it. 

That isn't the issue with many folks, however.  The "concentration camps" exaggeration (that's being kind; it's really a flat-out lie) is a narrative being deliberately nurtured in social media to generate the idea of (A) it's not possible to detain those who have illegally entered the country in a humane manner, and (B) we now need to just let them all come in to "atone" for our "atrocities".  It's emotional blackmail using a false narrative.

For TexasGurl, I capitalized the word "ILLEGAL" to ask people what should be done, given the fact that these folks are breaking the law to come in here.  There are many folks who advocate just letting everyone in (including many elected officials) who would let all of the illegals come in and stay in, but they don't want to be caught saying that due to electoral repercussions.  Much of the 'concentration camp" false narrative is to manipulate public opinion to allow everyone who wants to  come to America do so.  If folks' main goal is to have totally open borders, with no immigration restrictions, or something that pushes the US significantly in that direction from what we have now, then I would at least appreciate them being honest about their real goals.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's a comparatively minor logistical issue in the grand scheme of things that bears little responsibility in the collapse of living standards over the past forty-plus years, contrary to what right-wing media wants you to believe.

From a moral perspective, of course not. I have a much higher opinion of the median undocumented immigrant than I do of (e.g.) the average conservative boomer, but even if I didn't, it'd be irrelevant, because the concept of national borders and preventing individuals - even the ones I might dislike! - from traveling to certain areas of the world because of what location they happened to be born in (or, in countries without jus soli, which countries their parents happen to hail from) is so ludicrously indefensible from any reasonable standpoint that I'd find it almost puerile if it wasn't the prevailing thought among dumb-dumbs convinced that the subaltern immigrant class is more responsible for their poor material conditions than their superiors in the workplace who deprive them from the full fruit of their labor.

At least this poster is intellectually honest about his underlying motivation.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Is the fact that it’s ILLEGAL the PROBLEM? Or is it that they are brown amd don’t speak english? Something being illegal is not what makes it immoral. I break the law every time I light up a joint but I don’t care because the law is wrong. It should be easier to immigrate here legally, and the republican attack on LEGAL immigration pretty much renders this entire debate moot. Illegal immigration IS a problem, but really only for security reasons (we shoud keep track of the people entering our country). Trump said it himself, right-wingers would be fine with immigration if the immigrants were coming from “places like Norway” and not “sh!thole countries. As much as I disagree with people like Steve Bannon, I have to at least respect that they admit they oppose immigration for cultural reasons. As for the Mortimers of the forum, no we are not “full” (the native-born fertility rate is dropping) and differences in income between immigrants and natives dissipate over the course of 2-3 generations. Most Irish/Italian/German immigrants came here with nothing, but nonetheless those groups have contributed immensely to this country in the decades since.

I'll speak for myself.

When I was a young man, I was in love with a young lady who, amazingly enough, was in love with me.  She was black, but from a Caribbean Island Nation (the Cayman Islands).  She had to go back to the Caymans when her H-1 visa expired (she was a nurse, allowed to come here temporarily when nurses were in short supply).  Marrying her would not have solved the problem back then.  Needless to say, this put a damper on our relationship; she ultimately returned to her home country and I eventually met someone else (not my present wife; that happened much later).  She was a nurse, educated and literate, and she was also a committed Christian.  (It was probably best that we didn't marry at the time because at that time in my life I was NOT a committed Christian, and Scripture warns believers not to be unequally yoked to unbelievers.)

She's not the only black girlfriend I ever had, but she's the only girlfriend for whom the immigration issue was ever a factor.  I'll let this story speak for itself.

I break the law every time I light up a joint but I don’t care because the law is wrong. It should be easier to immigrate here legally, and the republican attack on LEGAL immigration pretty much renders this entire debate moot.

Ollie McClung could have asserted this when he barred blacks from Ollie's BBQ in Alabama.  Lester Maddox could have hung his had on this when he sought to keep his Pickrick Restaurant in Atlanta racially segregated.  They thought the law was wrong, and were not short on folks affirming their position.  Yet immigration law is what it is.  Why, then, should you be able to take the attitudes toward laws you take, yet deny Ollie McClung and Lester Maddox their "right" to nullify Civil Rights laws and court decisions?

Trump's comments about "s---hole" countries was crude and wrong, but the idea that immigrants coming here should not be an economic burden to us is an idea that has merit.  We DON'T have the resources to take in scores of limitless poor folks with low work skills.  I don't have a problem with the race or ethnicity of any of our legal immigrants, so long as they are amenable to liberal democracy and individual liberties.  I have a problem with those who are not amenable, and whether or not an immigrant will be an economic burden to America is a valid consideration.

And I believe that our immigration policy should be one that provides disincentive to "border crashers".  Our status as a wealthy nation bordering a much poorer nation with third world peoples marching through it to come to our border is unique; I can think of no other similar situation.  We have a right to be our own gatekeepers, and we ought to do so in a manner that is in the interest of American Citizens, period.

[Fuzzy Bear]

That's a multifaceted question, fuzzy, so I'll provide a multi-faceted answer.

When people come here illegally, or have lived here for years, are just trying to work and get by, then no I don't see their presence here is a problem. I do, though, see their effective inability to become legal within the space of less than a decade, or not at all 4 most such immigrants, as a serious serious problem.

I consider the fact that most people who rail against illegal immigration, such as yourself, are opposed to Legal immigration for pretty much the same reasons, such as yourself, as you previously let slip on multiple occasions.

Yes, MS-13 are scumbags. However, may I remind you as I did in a previous post that your association with latino immigrants, including the vast vast overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants, is wrong, racist, factually Incorrect, and wrong wrong wrong wrong two plus two equals five wrong.

Because you seem to go on about MS-13 and transnational gangs despite my earlier post, I will repeat it and Endeavor you to respond intelligently before bringing up that shibboleth again.

Latino. Immigrants. R. No. More. Likely. 2. B. MS-13. Members. Than. Italian. Immigrants. We're. 2. B. Mafioso.

Your railing against immigrants because a tiny percentage of them work for Trans National gangs, is equivalent to saying you don't want blacks moving in your neighborhood because a small percentage of them are Bloods or Crips. I'm sorry, man. I think at heart you try not to be racist and to be Christian to everyone, but this point you keep beating on is every bit as ignorantly racist as not wanting potential Crips to move at next door cuz that accountant and teachers teenage son that just moved in down the Block, well, you never know...

I find this administration's naked and vicious appeal to the most base and file levels of overt racism and xenophobia, such as has never been seen by our government in almost a hundred years, to be a huge and defining issue. It divides Americans bitterly and deeply and grossly

I will note yes, border security and tracking criminal dangerous illegal immigrants are an issue and an important one. However, it has been completely subsumed by the Trump administration's complete racist bull whipping and perversion of the issue. The wall is a stupid stupid idea, not merely because of the message it represents, the fact that it's Trump's self vision of a pyramid to mark his presidency, or the expense involved. Simply put, even border security advocates say that a wall is not the most effective means compared to sensors, additional border patrol agents, Etc. However, you need to realize that Trump has effectively killed the issue of border security by completely conflating it with the most base jingoistic and nativist Tendencies. No, you can't lay it on Democrats, liberals, etc for taking it the wrong way. Everybody in America is taking Trump's immigration policy the way he intends it, both opponents and supporters alike. If you really want or security, fuzzy, you better vote Democratic because it's not going to happen under trump. It has now become an issue similar to vonly Nixon could go to China". The same holds true for Effective selective deportation for actual criminal elements like the Obama Administration exercised. You didn't get constant incidents like individuals who been here for 30 years, including illegal immigrants who had a misdemeanor 20 years ago and owns a house.

Yes, MS-13 are nasty dangerous Bunch. But I am a hundred times more concerned about the threat to America pose by that criminal gang in the White House, and the way they divide this country.

You are correct in that I would support lower levels of LEGAL immigration, mainly along the lines of ending "chain migration".  I don't believe we need more immigrants, whether they be from Norway or Haiti or any country in the middle of that economic spectrum.  That's not something I'd make a major issue about, however.  Questions of legal immigration levels are matters of policy, which are debatable.  Questions about ILLEGAL immigration are more fundamental; they go to the issue of the rule of law, which is far more fundamental than the issue of mere policy.

The "rule of law" is sneered at here by some folks who don't care about America as a nation; their primary loyalties appear to lie elsewhere, and since they feel free to believe the worst of me, I'll just put this out there, and we can have a game of, "Well, I just KNOW . . ."  It is the rule of law that differentiates us from the failed states that are supplying us with the present huge stream of "border crashers" that our system is currently dealing with.  Indeed, it is the rule of law that is the reason the INNOCENT persons (not the criminal elements) from failed states such as El Salvador and Honduras want to come here, whether they know it or not, for it is THAT which affords them safety.

I'm not wed to "The Wall", but I'm not amenable to paying the tab for impoverished illegal aliens coming into our country illegally and negatively impacting our society, and I'm definitely against the idea that we have no moral right or authority to do something about it as unremarkable as enforcing our present laws.  And that's what many who disagree with me advocate here; the WILLFUL NON-ENFORCEMENT of laws that are perfectly constitutional and that have not been repealed or amended with regard to immigration.

The Trump Dog and Pony Shows on this issue haven't always been helpful, but the Democrats made it clear in their last campaign that their policy on immigration was, "If you can make it across the river, you're home free."  They had actual, live, ILLEGAL ALIENS on TV, in SPEAKING roles no less, at the Democratic National Convention  A speaker pointed to the group of immigrants, some of them illegally here, and said on an open mic, 'THESE ARE YOUR COUNTRYMEN!"  (I still can't wrap my mind around how someone illegally here is "my fellow countryman".)  That's no way to run a country, and it's breaking faith with the rule of law, a principal bigger than all of this.  

Now I agree, on a pragmatic note, that deporting every illegal alien isn't likely to happen, and I believe that it IS a problem to have millions of folks living in America illegally, but with no pathway to correct this situation.  And I agree that there comes a point, on a humanitarian level, that mass deportations are open to question.  But I would hope you'd agree that the amnesty given to all illegal aliens by Ronald Reagan, in an attempt to solve this problem, has given many in other lands the belief that if they can just get in, even if it's done illegally, they'll somehow get to stay.  Is that really a ridiculous conclusion?  

And if you will put the issue of Trump and his persona aside, is that something that undermines the rule of law?  The divisions in the country were not caused by Trump.  On this issue, what has stirred up controversy is that there has been a reversal of policy, one that is perfectly legal, but inconvenient to some.  I would suggest, however, that in the present controversy, it is Trump, and not his opponents, that has the law on his side.  That's not a trivial talking point.  

I would also make the point that the American victims of MS-13 and other Transnational Gangs (both living and deceased) would not have been harmed had immigration laws been enforced.  The families of the dead and the wounded from MS-13 would not be suffering, and would not be bearing the pain and burden of what they're bearing now, and may bear for the rest of their lives.  What would you tell such a victim about immigration policy?  What would you tell such a victim about Trump, the first President to acknowledge their pain and the source of it?  I'm not for policy being driven by victims's grief in general; that's provided for lots of "feel good" measures that contain unintended consequences, but what WOULD you tell THOSE people?  That they're making mountains out of molehills?  If you're advice to them is to suck it up and get on with their lives, at least be honest enough to say so.  If not, what would you tell them?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'd like to note that pretty much no one on this thread has mentioned the welfare of the immigrants, who are the people most affected by the policy. I think the effect on Americans is most likely only slightly negative, but for immigrants, it's very clearly enormously negative, the great bulk of the human cost of deportation, and yet it goes unnoticed.

Exactly. The concerns of the global poor are so much more important than those of less-fortunate Americans, who, despite their genuine challenges, still have Obamacare, a half-livable wage, and a variety of other benevolent institutions.

I can agree with this statements of fact, to a point.  I do wish that the folks posting these two posts think about just how offensive to less fortunate working Americans the underlined portion is.

I would hope that Blairite (a pretty good poster here) would consider how he'd be viewed by less fortunate Americans who had to train their foreign replacements to do their jobs in order to receive their severance package before their employment was terminated.  If you can, person to person, express this concept to folks in that predicament, I'll give you credit for having some chops.

Just exactly whose responsibility is "The Global Poor"?  Just exactly what do these responsibilities entail?  Just exactly why to those responsibilties fall on those parties, and why do they fall on those parties in the measures you set forth?  Because from the vantage point of less fortunate Americans, they see providing for THEIR familes as primary, and they see THEIR decline in the standard of living as partially due to providing for "The Global Poor".  And to the extent that it's partially true that their standard of living has fallen for that reason, to what extend ARE their frustrations justified?  If you're making the statements about "The Global Poor" that are being made here (and they are, to be sure, reasonable statements), are they not fair and proper questions to ask?

Are less fortunate working Americans getting angry at the wrong people?  Perhaps they are.  The investor class that benefits from the low-wage labor supplied by illegal immigrants deserves a greater reaming out then they are getting.  But the "Drop Everything And Give Them Amnesty!" crowd confirms in the mind of less fortunate working Americans that there is no reward for playing by the rules and no punishment for anyone but them for breaking the rules.  That's the message being sent by the "Save the Children" contingent in this crisis.  Are America's less fortunate wrong in perceiving this as the message?  Is that the message we want American public policy to send out?

The bulk of LFWAs (Less Fortunate Working Americans) are not Utopians.  They are rightly cynical about the idea of the World ever being fair.  Those who are Christians (and many  who are not, but who are theists) place their hopes in the life to come, but they also recognize that this life is the only one they KNOW they have.  They would like to think that rules and laws mean something, because THEY have to follow them, and the price for failing to do so is swiftly brought to them when THEY screw up.

Yes, Global poverty can be devastating.  Why, however, is the solution to take massive numbers of the Globally Poor into the United States?  Why is addressing the Poverty problem with the Global Poor where they are at not a solution?  And why is this all on America?

I'm in agreement with the principle that "to whom much is given, much is required".  In that sense, there is some degree of responsibility for "The Global Poor".  But the Less Fortunate Working Americans see that entire burden being places on them; on THEIR communities and THEIR schools and THEIR places of employment.  And that burden involves bearing the pain of the actions of the worst behaved in the lot of illegal aliens.  The kids that are MS-13 members will live in THEIR communities and attend THEIR kids' schools.  Ask the folks in Brentwood, NY how that's playing out.

If someone can come up with a solution that addresses The Global Poor while being fair to Less Fortunate Working Americans, I'm all ears.

[Fuzzy Bear]

So it's 2020, and it's very likely that Joe Biden will be President on January 20, 2021.

What, specifically, will Joe Biden do to prevent the influx of illegal aliens into America, irregardless of what he may do about those already here?