Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Illegal Aliens

FortKnox (169099) writes | more than 8 years ago

User Journal 40

Although some of you mistakenly take me for a Republican, I'm actually a centrist. Granted, I tend to vote conservatively, but I do have vary wild opinions.
I'm for gay marriage
I'm against the death penalty
I'm pro life
I don't really believe in the seperation of church and state that much (or, basically, I think its waaay overblown)Although some of you mistakenly take me for a Republican, I'm actually a centrist. Granted, I tend to vote conservatively, but I do have vary wild opinions.
I'm for gay marriage
I'm against the death penalty
I'm pro life
I don't really believe in the seperation of church and state that much (or, basically, I think its waaay overblown)

Everyone pretty much knows I hate zealots and extremists for their narrowmindedness...
So I'd like to open my mind up here to the other opinion. I don't see the big deal with illegal aliens. If someone has been living here for 10 years and has a wife and kids, I don't think the government can knock on the door of the individual, and deport them. I believe they should be educated in the law, get a slap on the wrist, and then get back to work.
Sure, someone can bring up the 'terrorists! OMG' point, but, to me, terrorists of this era is communism of the 60s-80s. Something for the public to fear.

So, conservatives of the world, tell me why I should want to kick every illegal alien out of the country. I'm serious. I really feel that I don't know enough about the situation to confidently have the opinion against it. If any of you liberal hippys want to jump in to solidify my opinion, you can have at it, too.

Lets just try to keep it civilized, though, k?

cancel ×

40 comments

3 ideas (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496614)

1. Rule of Law- the current law acutally does say that if they break the law, deport them, and that fraud is against the law. If you come here illegally, you've committed fraud.

2. I don't think we actually need to crack down on illegal aliens. Start protecting the border (OMG! Terrorists!) NOW, and pay for it by cracking down on businesses that hire illegal aliens, and make applications for the green card (resident intending to immigrate and become a citizen) lottery virtual, online, and able to be accessed around the world, and I think you'll pretty much solve the whole problem.

3. The other problem is guest-workers/outsourcing; for that we need to simply stop. Stop wasting money on foreign trade, which has been unprofitable for the last 40 years. Change the money supply back to hard money instead of fiat currency- and make it illegal to export that currency. Charge a 200% sales tax on international money orders. And tell the WTO to go fuck themselves.

Do all of this, and illegal aliens will cease to be a problem completely. No need to round up 20 million people and deport them- when they have no jobs they will either become citizens or deport themselves, maybe to Canada.

Re:3 ideas (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 8 years ago | (#15499932)

I agree almost 100% with number three, and mostly with number two. The real problems of immigration are essentially ignored. First is a half trillion dollars annually that leaves the US. The money that workers send back home will not be recaptured or in any way mitigated by anything. That is $500,000,000,000 pissed away into another country. Second is that it has the de facto effect of eliminating the minimum wage. No, Americans will not do certain jobs that others will. Because we expect worker's comp, reasonable working conditions, something approaching 40 hours per week, Social Security matching funds, etc. If an illegal can be hired so as to not get all 'uppity', all workers lose.

The next thing is that immigrants don't seem to me to be terribly attached to the country. Was listening to NPR (actually, it might have been a BBC show) where they discussed a Pakistani family who returned to Islamabad after 20+ years in the US. Why? Because 10% annual increases on real estate wasn't enough, and they could speculate in the Pakistani markets where values are increasing at 50% annually. An alarming portion of 'immigrants' want only to plunder our economy.

MH42, I would go even further. I've long been a proponent of what I call the 'corporate death penalty'. If it turns out that a corporation is so corrupt or committing so many illegal acts as to be irredemable (sp?), we kill it. The company is sold, with proceeds going to workers and the state. All officers of the corporation during the time of corruption are prevented from holding public office or serving on the board or as management of any other public company. The farce of the 'corporation as legal person' must include the right to eliminate that person. Corporations are granted certain rights (IOW, rights are taken from humans and given to a legal fiction) so there must be some sort of compensation. Traditionally, this has been R&D, steady employment, infrastructure development. Since most companies in the US no longer perform these functions, there is no reason to extend special rights to them.

The first thing that must be done is random spot checking of employees. Somewhere, those illegals are paid. This shows up somewhere on the books of a company. That means it can be found out.

Re:3 ideas (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15502801)

Corporate Death Penalty- I'm very much agreed on. Ecconomics has become warfare- and companies like that are traitors to America and deserve the punishment all traitors deserve.

Re:3 ideas (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15500848)

Foreign trade has been enormously profitable over the last 40 years when you consider all the factors.

Re:3 ideas (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15502772)

Foreign trade has been enormously profitable over the last 40 years when you consider all the factors.

The only real factor in foreign trade that can be measured is dollar value of exports vs dollar value of imports. By that measure, we've lost money EVERY SINGLE YEAR FOR 40 YEARS, and thanks to a combination of that and our governmental debt, every American owes $156,000 to foreign governments above and beyond their own consumer debt, which is also considerable. When I'm in debt, I stop buying and selling- I stop the bleeding. Devaluing the dollar will only work so long- it's time to stop the bleeding.

I consider any company duing business with a rival nation in the game of economics a traitor- their assets should be seized and thier directors and stockholders sent into exile.

Re:3 ideas (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15504217)

But it's not a zero sum game: you can't consider foreign trade in an isolated manner, it's only valid to consider it in the big picture of the entire economy. If the economy worked as you imagine, the United States would have gone broke 30 years ago - yet it has the world's strongest economy. It's trivial to argue you're ten times better off in the situation you're in now than you would have been had you sealed the borders against trade. The dollar has hardly been devalued - the dollar has gained strength in the main against most industrialized economies. The dollar would have only shrunk if the ecomony was shrinking but it has not. You're forgetting that wealth is being created all the time (going back to the not a zero sum game comment earlier).

You can use the Wikipedia article as a good starting point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_deficit [wikipedia.org] as to why a trade surplus is not necessarily a good thing and why a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing. In the context of the United States, it's hardly a terrible thing. It's not something you can eliminate anyway - if you sealed the US borders, you'd still have the same sort of things with trade deficits and surpluses between states of the union. All in all, this so called loss making foreign trade is part of why the economy has been able to expand in the way it has.

In summary, it's a good thing you're not in charge or you'd all be living in relative poverty compared to current conditions! The economy is not as simple as you paint.

Let's just consider this for a minute to demonstrate why a loss in one area can be a GOOD thing; say something a bit simpler than the entire economy: airline flights. I bring this up because I was on a transatlantic flight recently, on a British Airways flight. Every day of the week there are three BA flights from London to Houston and back again. If you book your ticket for Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday you'll find it's very cheap. Then you find these mid-week flights are almost empty. I had all three seats to myself in the bay of three I was in. The plane was probably barely a third full - it's unlikely to have made a profit. This goes on week after week. Book Friday through Monday, and you find the price is about three times higher and the plane is packed.

The simplistic thing for BA to do would be to withdraw these loss-making midweek flights. Some of them are very empty and must be losing money hand over fist - they still have to be fully crewed, they still burn as much fuel, yet the revenue from the passengers on board probably doesn't even pay the fuel bill. Drop them from the schedule surely is the sensible thing for the airline to do. You agree? Watch out...it's a trap!

But if they did this - know what would happen? The lucrative Friday through Monday flights would suddenly be empty. Why? Because the business travellers who pay through the nose for these flights would lose all the flexibility to come back midweek should they want to - they'd all flock to Continental Airlines who are still running the loss making midweek flights, or take another route altogether. The loss making flights are absolutely necessary for the profitable ones to be profitable. You can't just disassemble the schedule into 7 days and cut the loss making ones because the 7 days of the schedule can only be taken as a system as a whole.

The same thing goes for economies. Certain loss making bits of the economy are essential so the growth generating parts of the economy can operate at all. A good example is Bush's steel tarriffs that were supposed to save American steel jobs. They saved American steel jobs but caused job losses elsewhere - the protectionism probably caused a net loss to the economy. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brucebartl ett/2003/03/28/169693.html [townhall.com]

Re:3 ideas (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15504626)

But it's not a zero sum game: you can't consider foreign trade in an isolated manner, it's only valid to consider it in the big picture of the entire economy. If the economy worked as you imagine, the United States would have gone broke 30 years ago - yet it has the world's strongest economy.

No, that just means that economists are spreading propaganda not based on real numbers. You can't have an average governmental + trade debt of $156,000 per citizen and call that a "strong economy"- it flies in the face of all reason, and indicates that the statement is a LIE.

It's trivial to argue you're ten times better off in the situation you're in now than you would have been had you sealed the borders against trade.

Yes, it's trival to lie about a lot of things, lies are usually trivial.

The dollar has hardly been devalued - the dollar has gained strength in the main against most industrialized economies.

In the last 5 years it's lost 80% of it's value. The only thing proping it up is OPEC- and they've now got a better currency to turn to.

The dollar would have only shrunk if the ecomony was shrinking but it has not. You're forgetting that wealth is being created all the time (going back to the not a zero sum game comment earlier).

Wealth is imaginary- it is neither created nor destroyed because it's all a myth. A very powerfull myth to be sure- but no different than the Olympian Gods.

You can use the Wikipedia article as a good starting point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_deficit [wikipedia.org] as to why a trade surplus is not necessarily a good thing and why a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing. In the context of the United States, it's hardly a terrible thing. It's not something you can eliminate anyway - if you sealed the US borders, you'd still have the same sort of things with trade deficits and surpluses between states of the union. All in all, this so called loss making foreign trade is part of why the economy has been able to expand in the way it has.

An expanding economy at the expense of the citizenry is not a good thing. A rising tide that sinks some boats is a mistake.

In summary, it's a good thing you're not in charge or you'd all be living in relative poverty compared to current conditions! The economy is not as simple as you paint.

Nor is it as rosy as your lies would make it out to be- and most of the people around me ARE living in poverty. There's a reason the rich have to have gated communities to keep people from stealing from them.

But if they did this - know what would happen? The lucrative Friday through Monday flights would suddenly be empty. Why? Because the business travellers who pay through the nose for these flights would lose all the flexibility to come back midweek should they want to - they'd all flock to Continental Airlines who are still running the loss making midweek flights, or take another route altogether. The loss making flights are absolutely necessary for the profitable ones to be profitable. You can't just disassemble the schedule into 7 days and cut the loss making ones because the 7 days of the schedule can only be taken as a system as a whole.

You could if everybody did it. But the fact that YOU were able to take a flight to London at all, would indicate that you have a different reason for having an economy than I do. To me, a failed economy isn't one where a few rich people can't go to Europe any more. To me a failed economy is one where even a single person can't afford a roof over their head, or clothes to wear.

The same thing goes for economies. Certain loss making bits of the economy are essential so the growth generating parts of the economy can operate at all. A good example is Bush's steel tarriffs that were supposed to save American steel jobs. They saved American steel jobs but caused job losses elsewhere - the protectionism probably caused a net loss to the economy.

It wouldn't have if we had simply shut our borders to ALL foreign imports simultaneously. Economics is now warfare, and it's time we started treating it as such. We need to reopen our factories, start making things here in America again. We need the losses to be in OTHER countries, not here. Oh, and those closed factories also indicate a SHRINKING economy, not a growing one.

Re:3 ideas (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507915)

Fine - close the borders, but as I said, then you'd complain about the trade deficit whatever state you live in has because if there's trade at all, someone somewhere has a deficit. The only way to do away with trade deficits at all is cease all commerce and abolish free trade and move to a command economy. Of course this has been tried before and it didn't work. Instead of a few people being poor, everyone was equally poor and had to queue up for hours for basic things like bread.

Also, adding the PSBR (public sector borrowing requirement - government debt) and a trade deficit doesn't really make sense.

I also never said there aren't people who are not living in poverty, but in the United States, it is a small minority. Virtually everyone can afford a proper roof over their head in the United States. Show me a SUCCESSFUL protectionist economy where the people in general are wealthier than in the United States.

Re:3 ideas (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514367)

Fine - close the borders, but as I said, then you'd complain about the trade deficit whatever state you live in has because if there's trade at all, someone somewhere has a deficit.

Why does there have to be trade at all? We've got the internet now to send ideas, very cheaply. We've got everything we need locally to produce whatever the heck we want to. Why waste money and energy on trade? It's a stupid thing in this day and age to begin with to still be dependent upon trade.

The only way to do away with trade deficits at all is cease all commerce and abolish free trade and move to a command economy.

I'm fine with a command economy as long as it is LOCAL. Go further than you can travel in a day to kill a man for doing you wrong, and you've gone too big.

Of course this has been tried before and it didn't work.

No it hasn't. Russia was not a command economy any more than the stock market is, it's just con artists lying to people so that they can steal from people they don't know. Same story ever since we started trading and commerce.

Instead of a few people being poor, everyone was equally poor and had to queue up for hours for basic things like bread.

No, that was under the Soviet version of Capitalism- everything for the Politburu, nothing for anybody else. If you couldn't see that for the theft and scam it was, it's little wonder you can't see the theft and scam going on in international commerce.

Also, adding the PSBR (public sector borrowing requirement - government debt) and a trade deficit doesn't really make sense.

It's all debt- running a country on a credit card. And all debt is always evil. Neither borrower nor lender be- it's all equally immoral.

I also never said there aren't people who are not living in poverty, but in the United States, it is a small minority.

ONE is too many, and constitutes a failed economy and society.

Show me a SUCCESSFUL protectionist economy where the people in general are wealthier than in the United States.

The Kalapuya, for one, until your precious Unites States imported malaria to kill them in 1833 and stole their land. EVERY member of that society had food, clothing, shelter, and water- until it was stolen from them by immoral greedy bastards from Europe.

Re:3 ideas (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520132)

Why does there have to be trade at all? We've got the internet now to send ideas, very cheaply. We've got everything we need locally to produce whatever the heck we want to.

That's interesting.
Thought experiment: We close down all trade and localize everything.
How long will the Internet last when your local router goes pop, and you can't trade to get a new one? How are you going to make a new router from entirely locally sourced parts? Let's call "local" somewhere the size of Houston. You could argue that a city the size of Houston could contain a chip fab, a hard disk plant, there's plenty of oil in that part of the world too - so you could make the plastics. But there's something missing. Where do you get the lead for solder? Check out the geology for the Texas gulf coast. No lead, no tin, very little iron. Oops. It turns out that you don't actually have everything you need locally to produce whatever the heck you want to after all.

Re:3 ideas (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520319)

How long will the Internet last when your local router goes pop, and you can't trade to get a new one?

Build a new one, there's enough local demand in my area for routers, plus we have the people right here in Oregon who invented them in the first place.

How are you going to make a new router from entirely locally sourced parts?

Local to me are chip manufacturers- all one needs to do is design the chip. There are chip manufacturers all over the United States capable of this level of work.

Let's call "local" somewhere the size of Houston. You could argue that a city the size of Houston could contain a chip fab, a hard disk plant, there's plenty of oil in that part of the world too - so you could make the plastics. But there's something missing. Where do you get the lead for solder? Check out the geology for the Texas gulf coast. No lead, no tin, very little iron. Oops. It turns out that you don't actually have everything you need locally to produce whatever the heck you want to after all.

Check out your local dump- we've been stockpiling lead, iron, tin, all sorts of elements for the last century, nice and convient to our cities. Recycle the old router- it's got plenty of solder, tin, silicon, plastic....enough to make a new router.

I remember a time when if your TV set went out, you took a tube or a chip out of it, took it down to your local department store, plugged it into a tester, and if it failed, you got a new tube or chip and put it in and the TV set worked. There is NO reason we can't design our electronics to that level of replacability again. None at all. EVERY one of those components we now trade for, was made locally at one time, it's just a matter of rebuilding and reopening the factories, of recycling, refining, and reusing what we already have. It's not about geology anymore- 200 years of international trade already done has spread the materials for an advanced society out pretty nicely.

Re:3 ideas (1)

Abm0raz (668337) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510168)

Wealth is imaginary- it is neither created nor destroyed because it's all a myth. A very powerfull myth to be sure- but no different than the Olympian Gods.

Funniest comment I've seen in YEARS! Wealth is not imaginary, any more than air the air we breath or the electricity that powers our computers. Wealth is measurable, fluctuates and real. Wealth is created with every productive operation done to raw materials, be they inanimate (iron, oil), living (service industries), or imaginary (real estate and futures).
      Ex: Iron ore from the ground is near worthless (~$65/ton [steelonthenet.com] ). When it is mined (value added process), smelted (value added process), cast (value added process), and seasoned (value added process) that iron went from $65/ton to , an increase in wealth by %9000. [slashdot.org]

You're falling into the "trap" (calling it that cause I don't have a better word) that wealth and money is based on how MUCH money is present and it's buying power. That is *NOT* what wealth and the economy is based on. The economy is based on the MOVEMENT of money, or, from a more mathematical persepctive, the rate of money dissemination. To illustrate: If everone in the country (~290million of us) each had exactly $1,000,000, but all put every penny in the bank and refused to spend it, economically, we might as well all had $0. We have no wealth if it goes unused. If it is frozen and cannot be liquified.

To further illustrate the point, take a $1 bill. If you go to McDonald's and buy something from the $1 menu. That bill has been used to purchase $1 worth of goods and services. The manager then takes that same bill and uses it to pay an employee. It's now been used for $2 worth of transactions. That employee then stops to get gas on the way home and uses the same bill. ($3 worth of transactions). The gas staton owner then uses that dollar to pay his sales tax owed at the end of the day ($4). The state then uses that dollar to buy concrete for a bridge ($5), and so on... That one dollar has been used to create $5 worth of wealth. If that dollar was instead put under your mattress for a rainy day savings, it has no value because it is not being used. It creates no wealth.

As for the US economy, I think the main problem is that we don't enforce our laws and that the US worker is over-valued. If the laws were enforced as written, there would be less of a problem (not a lack of one, just less) and with the expansion into a global economy, the US worker is worth less, but refuses to admit it. The economy *IS* heading for a crash in the near future (next 20 years). The economy has gone from a production based economy where tangible value was added to goods to create wealth to a futures based economy where we place value on intangible items and services that do not exist and live off of credit. Eventually the banks are gonna come calling and a LOT of people are going to end up poor, bankrupt, homeless and with nothing. (See: Shay's Rebellion in Mass. of the 1780s)

-Ab

Let's hear it for "Preview" (1)

Abm0raz (668337) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510177)

The "example" should read as follows:

      Ex: Iron ore from the ground is near worthless (~$65/ton [steelonthenet.com] ). When it is mined (value added process), smelted (value added process), cast (value added process), and seasoned (value added process) that iron went from $65/ton to $21.95/7.5 lbs [castironcookware.com] , an increase in wealth by %9000.

Stupid HTML tags ;)

-Ab

Re:Let's hear it for "Preview" (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518108)

That cast iron cookware site is highly overpriced. I can get the same 7.5 lb pan for $5 at my local blacksmith's. Of course, he only charges his time + the amount of iron actually used, as opposed to iron used + time of casting + markup for retailer + storage costs + shipping costs. This is one example where it's cheaper at the mom&pop store.....because the labor is negligible once you have the mold.

Re:3 ideas (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514444)

Funniest comment I've seen in YEARS! Wealth is not imaginary, any more than air the air we breath or the electricity that powers our computers.

Both of those are based in the laws of physics- as opposed to being based in the promises of a country that has been shown to lie over and over to it's citizens about the economy.

Wealth is measurable, fluctuates and real.

Two of those things are not like the other- if it was measurable and real, it wouldn't fluctuate, and vice versa.

Wealth is created with every productive operation done to raw materials, be they inanimate (iron, oil), living (service industries), or imaginary (real estate and futures).

Only because WE say it does. Does a mountain get more wealthy when it creates Roman Concrete in a volcano?

Ex: Iron ore from the ground is near worthless (~$65/ton). When it is mined (value added process), smelted (value added process), cast (value added process), and seasoned (value added process) that iron went from $65/ton to , an increase in wealth by %9000.

To what? Well, given X and Z, I can make a guess at Y: $5850/Ton. Since the most expensive steel RIGHT NOW is trading at a mere $450/ton, I can only say you must not know even the immaginary market very well.

You're falling into the "trap" (calling it that cause I don't have a better word) that wealth and money is based on how MUCH money is present and it's buying power.

That's only part of it- but since money is worth in physical terms exactly 4 cents a bill, regardless of denomination, it's buying power is entirely mythical and immaginary.

That is *NOT* what wealth and the economy is based on. The economy is based on the MOVEMENT of money, or, from a more mathematical persepctive, the rate of money dissemination.

Which is also invented and controlled by the same lying government- which results in the same mythical and immaginary numbers.

To illustrate: If everone in the country (~290million of us) each had exactly $1,000,000, but all put every penny in the bank and refused to spend it, economically, we might as well all had $0. We have no wealth if it goes unused. If it is frozen and cannot be liquified.

Which is exactly the same situation as if we all spent, say, $156,000 more than we had every year...we'd still have bupkiss.

To further illustrate the point, take a $1 bill. If you go to McDonald's and buy something from the $1 menu. That bill has been used to purchase $1 worth of goods and services.

And somebody's been taken, because that bill is really worth 4 cents- in fact, both the guy who earned the bill and the guy he spent it with have been stolen from by the Federal Reserve Bank.

The manager then takes that same bill and uses it to pay an employee. It's now been used for $2 worth of transactions. That employee then stops to get gas on the way home and uses the same bill. ($3 worth of transactions). The gas staton owner then uses that dollar to pay his sales tax owed at the end of the day ($4). The state then uses that dollar to buy concrete for a bridge ($5), and so on... That one dollar has been used to create $5 worth of wealth. If that dollar was instead put under your mattress for a rainy day savings, it has no value because it is not being used. It creates no wealth.

And in reality- 92 cents of that bill goes back to the corporate ownership, and only 8 cents is kept locally- so by allowing "foreign" ownership in our local communities, instead of $5 of economic movement, we've got 8 cents worth of economic movement. See how quickly the lies get told when you buy into the myth?

As for the US economy, I think the main problem is that we don't enforce our laws and that the US worker is over-valued. If the laws were enforced as written, there would be less of a problem (not a lack of one, just less) and with the expansion into a global economy, the US worker is worth less, but refuses to admit it. The economy *IS* heading for a crash in the near future (next 20 years). The economy has gone from a production based economy where tangible value was added to goods to create wealth to a futures based economy where we place value on intangible items and services that do not exist and live off of credit. Eventually the banks are gonna come calling and a LOT of people are going to end up poor, bankrupt, homeless and with nothing. (See: Shay's Rebellion in Mass. of the 1780s)

And there's something we can do before that happens: Shut the borders, tell the foreign investors to go home, and withdraw from the WTO- freeze our economy. Stop creating wealth until the rest of the world catches up.

Meh (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15496631)

It's a matter of how you define your views on justice. Does justice come from doing what's right, or does justice come from adhering the procedures set forth by law?

Bear in mind first of all that most of the backlash about immigration is, like the gay marriage "debate", largely fabricated by media and special interests who have a vested interest in causing unncessary friction. Most Americans have opinions on these things but by and large don't think they're terribly important or worth focusing on right now.

That said, there are some people who are anti-immigration for the simple fact that, conscious or not, they're racists. Yes, they'll whine and complain when you bring it up and say it's no fair, but it's true. Racists exist, and a large motivating factor in the people who have strong anti-immigration feelings is nothing more than outright or latent racism.

Once you get past them, most of the remaining objection is simply procedural. The law is the law and there are set procedures - not very effective ones in my opinion - to follow if you wish to emigrate to America. For the most part the objection hinges either on arbitrary adherance to the law for the sake of the law or for more pratical beliefs. For example, the (somewhat laughable) belief that proper screening can significantly reduce terrorism or crime risks by filtering out the people you don't want living in your neighborhood. Other ideas exist that illegals sap resources unfairly from, for example, the children of legitimate taxpayers (though this could be just as good an argument for amnesty as for deportation) by sneaking their kids into public schools.

I personally don't think it's of much concern. People throw around a number of statistics now and then, but they're generally highly suspect and exceptionally selective in what they represent. Maybe if I lived closer to a border crossing area I'd be more concerned but, frankly, I'm with you: I don't really know why I'm supposed to care.

as a one time illegal alien (1)

Mantorp (142371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496736)

I overstayed my student visa. Deportation would have sucked.

Re:as a one time illegal alien (1)

Iamthefallen (523816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496803)

Not to mention, under the suggestion of some people, you would be convicted of a felony, imprisoned, deported, and barred from ever coming back.

I was never illegal, just legal without the ability to prove it.

Re:as a one time illegal alien (1)

Mantorp (142371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496950)

I flew back here once from Winter break and was planning to get my visa the same day as my flight. Got up to the embassy and it was closed (is it Presiden't Day we have in January? 17 years and I still don't remember holidays). This was back when we still needed tourist visas to visit, you could sign them on the flight but they basically said you couldn't change your status once you signed. So I didn't sign and pleaded my case with the "friendly" INS people. They stuck me in a holding room with a few kids who'd gone AWOL and random smugglers. After about an hour they gave me a 1 month visa for the low low price of $95 which I then had to extend at the INS later for more cash. I suppose I could have been sent right back and that would have been even worse.

Class system. (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496795)

The current system of legal aliens, illegal aliens, and citizens creates a de facto class system. Illegal aliens do not have access to many essential services, for the fear that they'll be discovered and deported. Legal aliens don't have the same constitutional rights as citizens. Us citizens sit up here on top.

Oddly enough, the system works in many ways. Minimum wage is ignored where it's economically impractical. Jobs Americans Won't Do get occupied by people who just want money.

So codify the system. Call it like it is. Put all citizens in one class, all current categories of legal aliens in another class, and most illegal aliens in a third class. And when you find anyone not in the three classes, deport them.

When people enter the country, give them opportunities to join one of the alien classes. And have a system where one can upgrade from one class to the next based on codified criteria.

This isn't really conservative-versus-liberal (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496939)

In the US, immigration isn't really a right-and-left issue for the most part. It's only every ten years or so, when it turns into a high-profile issue and the people who never gave it any thought suddenly start yelling at each other, that the usual party lines appear.

I think I might count as a conservative... (1)

Iamthefallen (523816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496961)

So, conservatives of the world, tell me why I should want to kick every illegal alien out of the country.

You shouldn't. Even if you truly believed they should all be deported, it's not feasible. It's up there with "hang'em all" for crime fighting.

Those that use claim "rule of law mandates they be deported/they don't respect our laws" as an argument, would you be OK with changing the law then to allow then to stay? It would be a helluva lot easier to do.

Realistically, the solution to the immigration problem is a path to citizenship. Yes, it's a form of amnesty, but with some requirements and restrictions.

Re:I think I might count as a conservative... (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527787)

Justice should mean something- especially in rule of law. By not deporting illegals, we are harming the innocent to reward the guilty.

Having said that, I'd be fine with a law that automatically naturalized everybody who had been in the pipeline for citizenship for more than 3 years, THEN gave everybody willing to renouce all ties, both family and governmental, to their homeland the chance to start on the pipeline to naturalized citizenship. All others should be deported- including those citizens who are showing disrespect to their new country by refusing to learn such basics as language.

Not really a platform; just an anecdote... (1)

SlashChick (544252) | more than 8 years ago | (#15497012)

A friend of mine was pregnant with her first child and was rear-ended while driving home one day. It turns out the driver was an illegal alien and did not have car insurance. Due to her being pregnant, she was rushed to the hospital to ensure there was no damage to her baby. (There wasn't, thankfully.) She suffered back and hip problems, which were exacerbated by the extra weight she was carrying, and had to visit the doctor again to be checked out and to receive pain medication.

Who bore all these costs? HER insurance company, because the driver who caused the accident was uninsured and illegal.

If you don't want to deport illegal aliens, that's fine. But you are paying for them to stay here in the form of increased insurance costs. (Hospitals must treat anyone who walks through the door; illegals often don't have any place to receive bills and have no way to pay for the treatment.) Since illegal aliens also use government services without paying for them in taxes, you are also paying for them in increased taxes. Whatever you decide as a result of this, keep that in mind.

Re:Not really a platform; just an anecdote... (2, Interesting)

Iamthefallen (523816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15497222)

Who bore all these costs? HER insurance company, because the driver who caused the accident was uninsured and illegal.

Wouldn't that be true if the driver had been an uninsured redneck as well?

Since illegal aliens also use government services without paying for them in taxes, you are also paying for them in increased taxes.

Two solutions, we make them stop using the services, or, we make them pay for the services through taxes. Which one will yield better results?

Re:Not really a platform; just an anecdote... (1)

SlashChick (544252) | more than 8 years ago | (#15498078)

Sure, but if you're an uninsured redneck, there are many more consequences. You can have your license taken away. You can face fines that ramp up to several thousand dollars, and since you are a U.S. citizen, those fines can be collected through wage garnishments. In other words, there are many things that discourage you from driving without insurance.

With illegal immigrants, even if the government were to institute those penalties, there is no way to follow up and make sure the fine has been paid. Most illegals are paid under the table, so wage garnishments are not a possibility either. Again, we pay for illegal immigrants.

Re:Not really a platform; just an anecdote... (1)

Iamthefallen (523816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15498763)

But in practice, those items are largely irrelevant when comparing apples to apples, or low wage immigrant to low wage American.

A guy working a low income job won't really have any disposable income to garnish. In my experience, from 4 years in redneckville, half of the people I worked with doing industrial work would drive on suspended licenses anyway (Usually after a DUI). Taking it away wouldn't stop them from driving to work the next day.

Point is, there's a good chance your friend wouldn't have gotten any more money had an uninsured American hit her instead.

Same story as SlashChick, only different (1)

Degrees (220395) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501189)

This is really a story about games large organizations play.

When I worked at the Health Department, there was a case of an illegal alien run over by a truck. The hospital amputated both his legs. Normally, that would get one a hospital stay of about one week.

The hospital billed us, the County Health Department. We denied the claim - the alien wasn't a part of any county program.

The hospital kept that guy in for over a month, giving him different treatments, and trying to slip various bills into our system. Mental Health, physical therapy, dental... anything.

Legally, once we paid one bill for him, we would have been on the hook for all of them. We never slipped up - so we never paid.

The hospital kept the guy in a month trying to get us (or probably also someone else, like INS or the government of Mexico) to pay up.

Eventually they ran a sob story in the newspaper how this one illegal alien was going to cost them over one million dollars. They had to pay for it themselves, and charge it to their 'charity cases' account.

Wouldn't have cost so much if they hadn't been trying to play billing games.

And actually, had the accident victim been a US citizen, the county would have paid, and the person would have been released in the normal week. The county does make you liquidate any cash you have above some number of dollars, and puts a lien on your home for the amount of the bill they pay, but otherwise, the debt is paid out of the county general fund. IIRC, people who live in house trailers don't get the lien, because the trailer isn't 'real' property.

FWIW.

Re:Not really a platform; just an anecdote... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15497295)

Since illegal aliens also use government services without paying for them in taxes, you are also paying for them in increased taxes. Whatever you decide as a result of this, keep that in mind.

The problem is that the ultimate cause of contention was not inherently the driver's illegal status, it was the driver's lack of insurance, and legal citizens can and do drive without insurance. The resolution to that could just as easily be "let them buy insurance" as "deport them". Since this was an economic argument to begin with, it seems that the appropriate resolution would be the former because it would provide additional cash flow in the economy.

Perhaps a compromise would be to make an illegal status and aggravating factor in crimes. That way people who are doing things like driving unlicensed without insurance because of their illegal status don't get a free ride and they suffer a consequence for entering illegally, but at the same time you're recognizing that the actual harm came not from being illegal, but from driving unlicensed and without insurance.

Re:Not really a platform; just an anecdote... (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527681)

Perhaps a compromise would be to make an illegal status and aggravating factor in crimes.

It's already automatic deportation- but they're just back the next week with a different name and SSN.

Re:Not really a platform; just an anecdote... (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 8 years ago | (#15497403)

I'm not saying ignore the situation. I think something should be done and, as many had said, "deport'm all!" isn't a good solution. I'd rather said illegal alien was given some way to stay in the states, and given the ability to buy car insurance in order to be able to be responsible for this situation.
Remember, the guy didn't (necessarily) ignore car insurance cause he thought it'd save him a few bucks... he ignored the car insurance to stay under INS's radar. It wasn't evil of him, rather, at worst, amoral.

Re:Not really a platform; just an anecdote... (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527737)

he ignored the car insurance to stay under INS's radar. It wasn't evil of him, rather, at worst, amoral.

You must have some strange meaning of the word amoral of which I have not previously been aware. Crimes committed to cover up other crimes would be immoral in a politician, in a business person. Why not in an illegal immigrant?

I think that's what really gets me here- behavior that would never be tolerated in a citizen (showing forged documents to get a job, driving without license or insurance, taking advantage of welfare and other relief systems that puts such a huge burden on those systems that they collapse and aren't there when citizens need them) are just AOK with everybody if done by an illegal alien.

#1 reason to not oppose immigration: (1)

eglamkowski (631706) | more than 8 years ago | (#15497417)

The constitution only gives the feds authority to address naturalization, NOT immigration.

Once you've convinced yourself of that, then look up the 10th amendment.

Re:#1 reason to not oppose immigration: (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527759)

Who has the duty to protect the land? Last I looked, providing for the common defense was the responsibility of the Federal Government- and that would most certainly include protecting the borders against what is essentially an invasion (admited so by the Mexican Government, who is working very hard to export their poor to the Pacific Southwest in an attempt to reverse the Mexican-American war).

Personally... (1)

Some Woman (250267) | more than 8 years ago | (#15499117)

I think that anybody who wants to be here badly enough to sneak in and work low-wage jobs just to get by deserves to be here. Maybe I just watched El Norte [imdb.com] one time too many, but from the sounds of the Mexican border conditions...they really are risking a lot to get into this country. That has to be worth something.

Re:Personally... (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527423)

but from the sounds of the Mexican border conditions...they really are risking a lot to get into this country. That has to be worth something.

A bank robber also braves security systems and trigger happy rent-a-cops: should he be allowed to keep his take also because of the risk he took? What about the gang member in the shootout that kills an old woman sitting in her front living room a block away, should he get away with it because he choose to take the risk of being in a shootout? I ask because I keep hearing this excuse- and I just can't figure out how being an idiot and braving what is clearly a bad situation (never mind that the Mexican Government lies to their people and puts out comic books claiming that anybody can beat the border) should give one a reward.

Get in line (1)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501670)

My wife's been here almost 5 years now and we're still fighting the CIS with their assorted screw ups and paperwork nightmares.

So, I've bothered doing all of this legally and have probably paid at least as much in paperwork preparation, processing fees, and time as any proposed fine that these "undocumented workers" are expected to pay to get in the country and in front of the people who are trying to do things legally.

They knew full well that they were entering the country illegally and all that that entails. Fine, we won't actively deport them but we shouldn't normalize them and we should start cracking down heavily on businesses who employ them.

If they want to go back out and then apply for guest worker status, fine.

Re:Get in line (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527459)

My wife's been here almost 5 years now and we're still fighting the CIS with their assorted screw ups and paperwork nightmares.

And this, to me, is the other half of the problem that nobody is talking about. Why the hell hasn't CIS automated their processes and done away with their fees yet? The whole bloody thing, including the "In person interviews" could go on the web- people should be able to apply for legal entry before they come, and if they intend to become citizens, should be let in on that basis and with that understanding. That means that they have to renounce ties to their original country and government.

Ummmm (1)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527547)

People DO apply for legal entry before they come into the United States. The original visas are issued in the US Embassies of foreign countries. (In my wife's case, the original K1 fiance visa.)

In person interviews are also valuable in the case of marriage-related visa's just to make sure that the people in question aren't simply going through the motions to get someone into the US.

No, my big problem is that the current processing system is FUBAR'd totally. We're 6+ months into waiting for a "replacement" green card (they gave her a temporary one when she should have been given a permanent) and so far it's managed to go from Texas up to Vermont and maybe have gotten to an actual desk for processing (this being in the last week).

Tons of people are sucking it up and struggling through this process and some Senators want to take a bunch of people who couldn't be bothered to obey the law in the first place and jump them ahead of all of these people? No, I don't think so.

Re:Ummmm (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527631)

People DO apply for legal entry before they come into the United States. The original visas are issued in the US Embassies of foreign countries. (In my wife's case, the original K1 fiance visa.)

Yes- but there are many places that don't have US Embassies. India, one of the places we get many legal immigrants from, has only two- several thousand miles apart.

In person interviews are also valuable in the case of marriage-related visa's just to make sure that the people in question aren't simply going through the motions to get someone into the US.

Agreed, but VOIP/Webcam would work equally well....if done properly. Thus cutting down on the need to have somebody in every separate embassy.

No, my big problem is that the current processing system is FUBAR'd totally. We're 6+ months into waiting for a "replacement" green card (they gave her a temporary one when she should have been given a permanent) and so far it's managed to go from Texas up to Vermont and maybe have gotten to an actual desk for processing (this being in the last week).

Agreed with that- the horror stories I've heard are amazing. It's a wonder we don't have even more illegal immigrants- people just trying to work their way AROUND all the red tape. Something this simple, since it's already been approved, should be as simple as logging onto the website and downloading a new PDF to print out the new card.

Tons of people are sucking it up and struggling through this process and some Senators want to take a bunch of people who couldn't be bothered to obey the law in the first place and jump them ahead of all of these people? No, I don't think so.

I'm agreed with that as well- why should we punish the innocent in order to reward the guilty?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...