🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3DFE928F.2020906@MATH.CL.UH.EDU>,
 Frank Matthews <MATTHEWS@MATH.CL.UH.EDU> wrote:

> Look folks the concept of closing the border is a fantasy.  While it 
> would help the steel mills can you imagine stringing barbed wire in our 
> National Parks?  And how much are you willing to raise taxes to pay the 
> couple of million federal workers needed to patrol?

Given that reality, the only way to "close the border" is to remove the 
incentive to breech it.


> If you want control of illegal immigration you are going to have to get 
> control of the jobs.  If the CEOs & CFOs of corporations were spending 
> time in the slammer for conspiracy to get illegals hired by their 
> contractors you might see some improvement.

There should be disincentives for hiring illegals, but with protections 
for employers duped by forgery.

If, indeed it proves that illegals are the backbone of America, then we 
simply allow the proper amount of *legal* immigration.

This is how it was designed to function.

Had we, or any country, determined that a lax immigration policy with a 
5% enforcement rate was somehow neccessary and advantageous, one might 
wonder why it is not more widely practiced in countries other than the 
US.

The finacial collapses in border areas is going to spread. The system 
simply was not designed to meet the demands. 

And, guess what - if you grant the millions of illegals this automatic 
"meritorious" citizenship, their costs to you will mostly likely 
increase, not decrease. As US citizens, they can now partake of more 
social programs they might have avoided due to their illegal nature.

As far as I can see, the answer from immigration advocates is that yes, 
over-immigration is a serious problem, but that's why we must encourage 
it. Somehow, this blanket amnesty will erase the existing economic 
impact and deter future illegal immigration.





Unless anyone hiring an 
> illegal is at at least as much risk of time in the slammer as a drug 
> dealer you will have folks coming across.  They aren't to blame the fat 
> cats getting them for cheap workers are the cause.


I totally agree, but there are many that are less directly responsible, 
in more subtle ways.

The guilty parties on the business end are regulated. All we need is 
real penalties and enforcement.

The "other end" is a bit harder to deal with, and that's the socialistic 
approach to immigration that has all history and fact against it, based 
one one basic precept - the nobility of a man trying to better himself, 
or feed a family.

The assumption seems to be that advocates of tighter immigration 
policies have no respect for that concept of human dignity.

Oddly, this is often the opinion of those who are likely to identify the 
illegal immigrant's chief value as economic benefit derived from an 
easily exploited group.


The funny thing is, any illegal alien could tell you this, they know the 
game a helluva lot better than most people that defend them.

If you ask most illegals why they came to the US, the basic answer is 
"because we can".