Immigration: How Hard Will Illegals Fight to Enter the U.S.?

reply to post by donwhite


As to a well educated immigrant I am all for it. I would personally like to see all receive a free higher education. I really don't see why this cannot happen here. There are many that would avail themselves of it. However I don't believe that it is required for success in life. Hard work and perseverance will get you farther in life. However a good civics class would more than benefit the majority!

respectfully

reluctantpawn

reply to post by reluctantpawn

Unfortunately it is now socially acceptable to give birth out of wedlock, remain unmarried, and wait for others to offer assistance. These in my opinion are part of the cause of the downfall of our society. Yes they can and should be taught these things even in our school systems but it seems that now we must accept any decision by an individual as the right one due to political correctness. But I digress . .

I always digress. Everything is connected to everything. The 6 degrees of consanguinity. I have a different perspective on out of wedlock children. I believe it is really due to the END of the institution of marriage. I’m not going to recite the history of marriage, but I will say this much: marriage was a property right in the man. To rape a married woman in the middle ages in England was a trespass on the property rights of the husband.

World War Two brought million of women into defense work. The richest man I know got his start with the $5,000 his wife saved during the war. He parlayed that and 50 years of hard work into $15 m. It was his bootstrap.

Then came the “pill” and women were: free at last, thank God A’mighty, free at last! Just as some men now use Viagra so women used the pill to have sex without incurring pregnancy.

And last, no-fault divorce. We mocked the Soviets once upon a time when we learned they had no-fault divorce. Now we have it in all states but New York and frankly, I believe it is the better way. Before ‘no-fault” you had to have “fault” to get a divorce. That was the law. Some of the “faults” were, adultery, desertion, insanity, a felony conviction, impotency so the marriage had not been consummated, fraud, i.e., lying about your assets or failure to reveal venereal disease, and cruelty, originally physical only but in California, mental was added which morphed into “no fault” divorce under the old law.

Rather than lament their condition, we need to give single parent families - usually the female - as much help as she needs to give her children as good a chance in life as possible. High quality day care is one thing we need. A day off once a week is another thing that would help a woman raising a child(ren) alone. You cannot do well on duty 24/7 for 365 days a year. And a decent place in which to live and raise children. We could do all this if we wanted. We just don’t have the will. Or the conviction.

We certainly must do something about the immigration issue and it must start with us. Ignorance of the masses will only breed more discontentment and more blame from the ill informed. We must reverse the downward spiral of our service economy and social misdirection. I unfortunately am starting to believe that the govt. may want it to play out this way for whatever reason they may have. Yes I agree we need campaign finance reform As I posted earlier we should also find agreeable limits for lobbying.

First, we can’t force 12 million people out of the country. Recall from history it took the famously efficient Germans from 1939 to 1945 to move 6 million Jews into death camps, usually by train. I like to remind that Amtrak doesn’t run to Mexico! And little known is that IBM helped the Germans make a data base on every Jew in Germany. It helps if you know where they live.

Next, it must be assumed most illegals here are performing honest labor which benefits all of us. Sure, it is anti-union, but Nixon and Reagan killed unions long ago. And the middle class which was built on good paying blue collar jobs too. But alas, we cannot run the clock backwards. OTOH, making them “legal” can actually reduce the adverse impact on wages that being illegal creates. But the R&Fs don’t want that and who funds the candidates?

Reversing our society is impossible. Altering its present course is possible. We’ll soon end building cars in Detroit. Obviously, the foreign car makers found it was cheaper for them to move to Smyrna, TN, (Nissan) or to Georgetown, KY, (Toyota) or to Marysville, OH, (Honda) or to Flat Rock, MI. (Mazda). There is a different work ethic in Smalltown, USA. I don’t like that but I can’t change it.

it’s not the “government” per se. Unfortunately, we loosely refer to the current administration as the “government.” By so doing we lump in all the 2 million bureaucrats who do the day to day job of governance. The DoT highway engineers. The USDA National Park rangers, meat inspectors and so on. I am convinced that Republicans are purposely hindering the deliverance of good services so that the public will become so disenchanted they will agree to privatizing all the government. Say hello Halliburton! Ken Brown and FEMA are part of my proof.

Why an “agreeable limit" on lobbyists? Do you want a limited case of small pox? Or only to lose half a limb? Lobbyist most nearly resemble pimps to me. What good can come from pimping? Did you know it takes 18 pages to lay out all the taxes the US Government imposes, but 2,000 pages of rules and exceptions to those who are supposed to pay those taxes? Every new president first says, “Let’s reform the tax code.” And each time, we get more exceptions to paying the taxes.

You’ve heard of the “revolving door” where former Congressmen and their staffs go to work for the very companies they were supposed to regulate? How retiring generals and admirals get huge “consultant” contacts with Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamic and Being? Often working in the same area they were while in the service. How dumb can we get?

Did you know that the 535 (+5) Congresspersons had 38,000 employees in 2000? I don’t know how many today. Should not 38,000 people be able to tell a congressperson all he or she needs to know to cast an intelligent vote on any issue before them? Each committee has its own staff as does each Congressperson. The +5 are the delegates from Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, American Virgin Islands, Guam and the Pacific Trust Territories. They have been given by law full participation in all matters in the House except they cannot vote on the final passage of a bill.

We do not need lobbyists. If you think Butch Cunningham is the only one who took money for votes, I think you are too optimistic. When the US Attorney in San Diego ignored Gonzales and was about to put those who had bribed Butch in jail, Bush43 fired her. Jack Abramoff gave up only enough people to get his sentence reduced.

You cannot be a little bit pregnant. We don’t need lobbyists. It should be a felony crime.

[edit on 12/31/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite

At least we agree on lobbying. I think that the institution of marriage was a great asset to the building of this country. Children need two parents. People should put more thought into there partnerships. Certainly marriage has it's issues but by and large we did not see the speeding up of the collapse of our system until then. Yes I do blame the women that went out and had sex without commitment but I also blame men as well. It is a poor choice no matter how you look at it. A person cannot be both parents. [no I don't blame rape victims]
But this has little to do with immigration, only to the fall of the U.S.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

Ultimately, you're talking abou the strength of our social fabric. In many repspects, a stronger society would be capable of absorbing many more immigrants. the terrible truth is that our economy is a shadow of its former self. We do not currently posess the growth potential tha we once did. If we did, there would be no conversation about illegals.

reply to post by reluctantpawn

I think that the institution of marriage was a great asset to the building of this country.

There’s no doubt about that. Humans - like many of the lower animals - are capable of forming bonds of love and affection. Monogamous relationships tend to offer the best circumstances for the full expression of these feelings. But until the 1950s, marriage offered a quid pro quo for most of us. Man works, woman keeps house and raises the children. Women did not work outside the house. Old maids were teachers, librarians and nurses. Less well educated women were charwomen. That is, lady janitors and so on. Lower paying jobs in food service went to women, higher paying jobs went to men. That was the almost universally accepted attitude. But as you may hear, 50% of today’s marriages will fail in 5 years. Out of 60 million married couples, and 3 million marriages per year, losing 1.5 million is not the end of the world but it shows there is a sea change taking place.

o blame the women that went out and had sex without commitment but I also blame men as well. It is a poor choice no matter how you look at it. A person cannot be both parents. But this has little to do with immigration, only to the fall of the U.S.

Rather than thinking of the US “falling” as in Rome around 476 AFTER 500 years as the hegemon of the Mediterranean basin, I’d say we are changing many aspects of our life and culture rapidly. It’s goona get better. No matter how you shake it, the US still has the best infrastructure and the biggest backlog of educated people who can keep us going!

reply to post by Justin Oldham


Many municipalities and local governments are starting to enact their own legislation. Not just on immigration reform, but also on environmental issues. The local governments are getting sick of the feds doing nothing.

I wonder if this could cause an eventual shift into states gaining more power back. And mabye eventually another civil war.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I wonder if this could cause an eventual shift into states gaining more power back. And mabye eventually another civil war.

You've asked a good question, but this is an immigration thread. You might try your question in this thread.

The indivudual States might one day decide to fight Federal jurisdiction when it comes to matter of citizenship and immigration, but there's no sign of that desire at this time. Much of their legal argument would rest on the fundamentals of the Inter-State Commerce laws and related provisions in the Constitution.

[edit on 31-12-2007 by Justin Oldham]

Until their own government decides to take care of their own people they will always try

Originally posted by tac109
Until their own government decides to take care of their own people they will always try

Try what? I think you lost the second half of your sentence. It's okay. Try again.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


We have already seen fires started and officers shot at. We may have even seen the Mexican military at a standoff with the border patrol. However I can't really think that the average illegal immigrant would not resort just yet to violence. We need to work harder to police those which bring in humans and drugs. These groups have the financial and political power to make it worthwhile. Most illegals are here to work and I would like to think may have a higher moral standing to to become violent, but if my family were going hungry I would do whatever it took to provide. One lone border patrol agent would not be enough to deter anyone determined to transport any large commodity whether human or contraband.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

reply to post by reluctantpawn

We have already seen fires started and officers shot at. We may have even seen the Mexican military at a standoff with the border patrol.

I have heard of the stand-off but I am not familiar with the details. From what I have heard the Mexican police and Mexican Army are woefully underpaid, especially when compared to American standards. If true that is a structural defect the criminal ringleaders will always be able to take full advantage of. Maybe we should do for Mexico what we are doing for Russia and Uzbekistan? Pay their solders who guard the nuclear weapons.

It appears to me one way to reduce border patrol tensions would be to “swap” forces, that is, put 2 US types on the Mexican side with their comrades and also 2 Mexican types on our side with our Border Patrols. Maybe we could pay the Mexicans at our rate of pay when doing duty on our side?

However I can't really think that the average illegal immigrant would not resort just yet to violence. Most illegals are here to work and I would like to think may have a higher moral standing to become violent, but if my family were going hungry I would do whatever it took to provide.

Time should tell. Numbers should tell. How many of the “undocumented” workers or aliens alleged to be here in the US, have you heard have committed egregious crimes of violence or acts of terrorism? Aside from the occasional convenient food store robbery or assaulting a fellow alien, I am not aware of ANY. Aside: How do you reach the number of 12 million illegals in the US? Isn’t this just a “number” that seems to “work well?”

One lone border patrol agent would not be enough to deter anyone determined to transport any large commodity whether human or contraband. respectfully reluctantpawn

I’ve always questioned how you would go about measuring the underground economy, for example. We know it is there, most of us are part and parcel of it from time to time. All too many of us are far too ready to buy stolen property. You could make a case that if no honest people bought any stolen property, burglary and storehouse breaking would end.

Some crimes have pitifully low rates of arrest or conviction. Burglary is one. Note: burglary as a common law crime related only to residences, while the crime of storehouse breaking referred to all other illegal entries.

The simple fact that our laws are not enfoced is more than enough incentive for most illegals to risk capture and deportation. Nobody disputes the dire circumstances they come from. What we do dispute is the real need for actual law enforcement and border integrity.

I would suggest that if we enforced our borders and our domestic laws, we might actually be able to welcome more of these people. All of us who are taking part in this duscussion have acknowledged the fact that it'll be hard to break the cheap labor addiction. If we don't do this voluntarily, we risk more than the failure of the economy.

Consider this. If the economy fails prior to any meaningful reforms, the powers that be will have no incentive to 'allow' the rise of skilled labor and the educated classes over the course of the next century. In certain respects, our elites will do what the Mexican elites have long since done.

There's an old saying that applies to politicians of all centuries. "It is better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." If we give them the choice, our elites will much prefer to be permanently empowered in a third world country rather than at the mercy of the voters in a first word economy.

This is an important distinction. Border security and illegal immigration matter more to the average citizen than they do to the rich and famous.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by Justin Oldham]

reply to post by Justin Oldham

The simple fact that our laws are not enforced is more than enough incentive for most illegals to risk capture and deportation. What we do dispute is the real need for actual law enforcement and border integrity.

Consider if all the illegals lived in one city. 12 million. The size of NYC. The NYC has 55,000 police officers, not counting the Subway Police, the Port Police, Airport Police and probably several other specialized police. Maybe 75,000 all told. I have no idea how many of the ICE are dedicated to the enforcement of immigration laws. Probably NOT as many as the old INS.

I take it for granted the ICE is understaffed by humongous numbers. I do not know what immigration laws and customs laws have in common so as make combining the two enforcement agencies preferable to having two separate single issue agencies. It sounds more a conscious effort to guarantee failure of BOTH undertakings. Reaganism.

My point is we CANNOT enforce the laws without adequate staffing.

I would suggest that if we enforced our borders and our domestic laws, we might actually be able to welcome more of these people. All of us who are taking part in this discussion have acknowledged the fact that it'll be hard to break the cheap labor addiction. If we don't do this voluntarily, we risk more than the failure of the economy.

The Mexican border is our shortest at 1,950 miles, but that is a very long distance. It just happens to be the same distance from Boston MA to Denver CO. So how many men and women are needed to cover that long distance? Remember on our side, we must hire 4.2 people to get ONE man or woman on duty! 40 hours work week. And 5% will be on vacation or sick leave at any given time. 5%-10% will be in court or in training. 120% X 4.2 = 5.04 people. So, if we decide we want 1 agent for every 2 miles, then we’d need at least 5,100 agents at $60,000 each, or more than $3 billion for salaries alone.

Consider this. If the economy fails prior to any meaningful reforms, the powers that be will have no incentive . . Border security and illegal immigration matter more to the average citizen than they do to the rich and famous.

Well, my point is maybe we need to Fight Smart Not Fight Dumb. There is a limit how much we can pay; China will cut us off if we keep throwing their money away. We need to REGISTER the illegals, establish a FAIR way to get into the country and do it right all the way, not just “fix” the roughest edges.

reply to post by donwhite


We have a fair and legal way to enter the country, they prefer not to use it. This is what I have said all along. No one is against legal immigration, it is the american way. The way most of our ancestry arrived. The illegals don't want the hassles. They would then be registered and able to work at any place they chose. They would not have to watch for the INS. They would be supported by the community. They would have to pay FICA and state and federal taxes. They would be subject to our laws and not just face deportation. They would be citizens and have to act accordingly with all the benefits as well as responsibilities. All that have posted here would not have issues with that.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

Fighting smarter, and not harder, is a wise course of action. I should think it would begin with the actual enfocement of the laws we have on the books. As Don points out, border security is more than geography. We've got to impress that on the businesses that hire illegals. We've also got to bite the bullet when it comes to the price restructuring that will have to happen in regards to certain things. We're willing to pay $4 for a six pack of our favorite soda, but we won't pay $3 for a head of lettuce. I do agree with the folks who have posted here that we have to start with the borders, and ramp up from there. The wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly.