What should be done about illegal immigration?

Foxfyre wrote:

Does Canada allow Americans to just move in and set up shop without going through due process? Does Mexico? I think not. We recently extradited a local murderer from Mexico. He was arrested there for being there illegally and would have stayed in jail for up to two years for that crime.

Why is it okay for them to have rules and regulations about who can be in their countries legally, but it's somehow unfriendly or combative for us to have rules and regulations about who can be in our country legally?

Huh? You want to take your cue on behavior from Canada or Mexico? Doesn't sound like the Foxfire I know.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
It is your side that wants to make TB treatment inaccessible for "illegal" immigrants.

No, it is the side of common sense.

Or, based on that rant, an utter lack thereof. Rolling Eyes

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

Do you doubt that there has been a rise in such diseases and the origin of them? Should we just not worry about who comes across our borders or what diseases they carry? MTB... come on down. Polio... come on down. malaria... come on down. Bird Flu... come on down.

Do you honestly believe we wouldn't be better off to eliminate such deseases from the entire rock? Could there be a better example of "what goes around, comes around"? This is yet another impossible desire for isolationism.

Setanta wrote:

When the Border Patrol stepped up enforcement on the Rio Grande and in Southern California in response to political pressure, the Coyotes simply started dumping their victims across the border in the Chihuahuan Desert, in southern Arizona and New Mexico. People did, literally, die in the attempt to get across the border. This is well known in Mexico, Central and South America. It didn't stop the or even abate the flow. I think that "line of death" idea is horseshit.

Bingo! I wonder how many anti-illegal-folks have considered what a person must consider before embarking on such a journey and why?

Cyclo's "us and them" is as ignorant as you suggest Ebrown. Here we are on another subject I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you on... how did we get to be them? My vote carries the same weight as his... though I suspect I sway more votes since I don't back my opinions with bigotry derived from personal experience.

There's lots of good reasons to kill people. Risking your life, in hopes of a better lot in life (while presenting a threat to no one), is not one of them. Rolling Eyes

Ps. It is the democrats here in Wisconsin that ensure that illegal aliens do indeed get to vote in elections, and that I'm not happy about.

0 Replies

Quote:

There's lots of good reasons to kill people

By chance this was the first and only sentence I read on your post Bill.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, what is the appropriate punishment? A slap on the wrist? Don't think so.

Eh, yeah - death, slap on the wrist, thats obviously the choice we face. I mean, nothing in between, naturally. If I'm against strips of minefield along the border that will blow up families illegally trying to cross the border into high heavens, I must just want to keep it to a slap on the wrist. Obviously. Whatever..

I think there's a LOT that can be done to discourage the current volume of illegal immigration, and much of it would be focused on the employers that hire such illegals. The current lack of serious action against employers who hire illegals does kind of reek of corporate welfare, and there's a lot to be achieved there.

Such measures will not, of course, stop illegal immigration altogether, no. But it should decrease it significantly. When establishing the balance between harshness of impact (on illegals) and restriction of volume (of illegal immigration), I'd go for such measures that will already limit volume a lot while not actually physically harming illegal persons, rather than aim for some zero-line of illegal immigration even if it requires putting up a Berlin Wall along the border. And making someone who chooses such a middle road out to be then just wanting to do nothing at all (the "slap on the wrist" nonsense) is just disingenious.

0 Replies

Good post, Bill.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oh, yeah

Quote:
I consider crossing a border illegally in search for a better life an offense of the law comparable to shoplifting.

You have never had your life affected in a significant and permanent way by an illegal alien who breaks the law and then vanishes then, I assume.

Huh?

You mean "who breaks the law" as in, the fact that he crossed the border illegally and is now an illegal, in the first place? That affects neither your nor my life in any personal way, at most (debatably) in a general, abstract way (with some saying it creates an overall lack of jobs etc).

If you are talking about an illegal person who committed some additional crime (burglared you or something), then whatever that was is the crime thats not comparable to shoplifting. Not the being illegal in itself, but the burglary/robbery/whatever it was.

But that then would not say much against legalising illegal immigrants. If anything it would plead for legalisation; once they're legal, they can be tracked down more easily.

---

In general;

- I think every state has the right to deport illegal immigrants;

- but I also think that once an illegal immigrant has been there for years, has been hired by the country's employers, has possibly even paid taxes, might have kids going to school, it's not fair anymore to suddenly deport him after all.

So my solution would be to:

- declare an amnesty for anyone who's been here over, say, two years;

- and from then on:
* start systematic checks of low-wage workplaces (and deport anyone who's found who can't prove he's been in the country for two years already),
* intensify border controls (but not mining them or shooting people),
* and penalise employers systematically, and more harshly, when they hire illegals.

This wont stop illegal immigration, but it will succeed in turning back a greater proportion of those who do come in (and I'd settle for that if the alternative is of the Berlin-wall type), and decrease the market for illegal workers.

In itself it still will be "mopping up while the tap's running", so these measures would need to be complemented by:

- Offering more realistic avenues of legal immigration so it doesnt seem as much like going in illegally is the only realistic chance anymore

- Providing co-operation and material support to improve life perspectives in Mexico and especially Mexican border towns.

The latter an irresponsible give-away, in times of budget deficits? Perhaps. But justifiable if the result saves you money on your own side of the border when illegal immigration decreases. Besides, with Bush's recent enormous tax cuts for the richest Americans and out-of-control pork spending, and Americans still materially among the very wealthiest in the world, there's bigger fish to fry when it comes to tackling the deficits, and claiming Americans are already bled dry just isnt credible.

0 Replies

Obill wrote

Quote:

Huh? You want to take your cue on behavior from Canada or Mexico? Doesn't sound like the Foxfire I know.

And it isn't like you to convolute a statement into something that wasn't said or intended. I do not and have never thought the United States was obligated to take its cues from anybody but itself while at the same time have tried to follow a principle that a good idea is a good idea no matter who puts it out there and a bad idea is a bad idea no matter who puts it out there.

My statement, however, was in response to this post

Quote:

. . . .Neither Canadians nor Mexicans are our foe, nor will they be in the foreseeable future unless we completely lose our collective mind.

You seem to think that if we enforce our borders and our sovereignty we will somehow offend Mexico and Canada. And since they are vigorously defending their own, you think I should care what they think about us defending ours? What kind of logic is this?

Quote:

Securing the borders in a country the size of ours is a pipe-dream. Even if we turned it into the world's largest prison compound; it would take a significant portion of our population to actually police it. I know no one who understands the expense involved AND wants to contribute their fair share to implement it. Even if we did... 20 well funded terrorists with the patience to plan could repeat September 11th anyway... quite easily actually.

It's not like you to take the defeatist's position either Bill. I am still of the old conservative school that believes that we can collectively do just about any darn thing we set our minds to do once we decide to do it. I reject completely the idea that our controlling who comes into this country makes it into some kind of prison compound or that this will not slow down entry by those intend to do us harm whether it is terrorists or those who commit lessor crimes.

Except for those convicted of felonies, the United States has never cared who wanted to leave nor prevented them in any way from doing so. That in itself negates the 'prison compound' metapor. Nevertheless when the few Americans want to live some place else where anybody would want to love, they have to follow rules and regulations of that place in order to do so.

It is mystifying to me why some Americans seem to think it is wrong for the United States to also have rules and regulations.

Quote:

This whole thing strikes me as more political foolishness, where fools will get elected promising to do things to please the ignorant masses that actually help them not in the least. Bigotry and selfishness predominate the arguments... and misguided selfishness at that. Our country benefits with each and every productive addition to our population. The path to enrichment doesn't run through restrictions on your competition. 4 billion people who can't make a living wage are 4 billion people who can't buy your services or products, whatever

And a pretty good majority of Americans think it is political foolishness to open the gates to unknown hordes all the while pandering for votes from those who come in. A pretty good majority of Americans are neither prejudiced nor bigoted as they do not care what color, creed, nationality, etc. people come so long as they do so legally and do so with the intention of obeying the law and assimilating the American language and culture as productive citizens.

To call America, a nation of the most generous people you can find anywhere, selfish because we think it prudent to control our borders and increase our population by the numbers that can be employed and assimilated productively is simply wrong headed. I don't know any economists that think that giving your customer the dollar to buy your product does anything other than cost you a dollar.

By all means lets adopt policy that lets people be here for their own advantage and ours. And if they wish to become Americans, by all means lets have reasonable policies and procedures for that to happen.

But I will not agree to reward those who have circumvented the laws. I think we should look at our immigration laws and amend them as necessary to expedite legal entry without compromising our economy, culture, and values. I would accept a policy to expedite the illegals already here returning home and coming back legally on a guest worker program. Then and then only should they be allowed to apply for permanent residency.

I do not favor a policy that allows people who have circumvented the law to get in line in front of people who have respected our laws and have been going through the process to immigrate legally.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

jpinMilwaukee wrote:
Do you doubt that there has been a rise in such diseases and the origin of them? Should we just not worry about who comes across our borders or what diseases they carry? MTB... come on down. Polio... come on down. malaria... come on down. Bird Flu... come on down.

Do you honestly believe we wouldn't be better off to eliminat(ing) such deseases from the entire rock? Could there be a better example of "what goes around, comes around"? This is yet another impossible desire for isolationism.

How is letting illegal aliens into our country going to solve the problem of "eliminate such deseases from the entire rock"? That is a foolish idea. The entire statement is foolish as a matter of fact. People with disease spread disease. Allowing them to enter our country unchecked perpetuates the spread of disease... not eliminate it. Here is an idea, how about the Mexican government helps rid disease from their citizens instead of our citizens footing the bill to cure illegal aliens without insurance or the funds to pay for medical care.

As far as your inane statement about isolationism... pure BS. I favor making it easier to enter the country legally and harder to enter illegally. Hardly the definition of isolationism.

0 Replies

The United States does immigration better than any other country in the world.

A lot of the rhetoric being bandied about in this discussion is simply ridiculous, as no one (citizen or politician) would seriously entertain the idea of shooting anyone or mining our borders to solve the issue of illegals. Those extremist crackpots who suggest such are best ignored.

Those in this country wanting to see the rule of law enforced and secure borders are not anti-immigrant, but rather realists who understand that irresponsible mass immigration benefits no one.

Not everyone wanting to come to the United States does so for the purist of reasons. Most do, but with secure borders and allowing entrance through legal means only, many of those that have ulterior motives will be turned away. It's simply fact that we are the world's richest target, attracting a rather diverse group of criminals from around the world and yes, thousands upon thousands of us have personally been affected, either directly or indirectly, at the hands of the criminal aliens.

There are millions from every corner of this earth wishing to come here to live, work and improve their standard of living. Many have been waiting patiently for years to enter legally and shouldn't be denied or kept waiting further.

The reality is that on a planet of 6 billion, the U.S. simply cannot rescue all of the huddled masses and again, we are not anti-immigrant if we insist on responsible, lawful means of entrance for those that we can rescue.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And a pretty good majority of Americans think it is political foolishness to open the gates to unknown hordes all the while pandering for votes from those who come in.

In other news, when asked whether they agree with a bunch of scumbags who do terrible things, a majority of those polled shockingly say no.

Is this supposed to illustrate Foxfyre's definition of neutral polling?

In reality, of course, a string of opinion polls have shown that while a majority of Americans opposes an amnesty, a majority also supports offering illegal immigrants that are there now the opportunity of legal status, and tend to oppose deporting all illegal immigrants. For example:

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/APworker.GIF

And:

USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 7-9, 2006

"Which comes closest to your view about what government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country, allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States in order to work but only for a limited amount of time, or allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time?" Options rotated

18% Deport All
17% Remain for Limited Time
63% Remain if Meet Certain Requirements

See for a comprehensive overview of polls on the matter this page

0 Replies

I am one who thinks we should allow an opportunity for legal status for those who are already here. But I think we have to do it through a process that everybody else, especially those waiting for legal admission, have to follow. Give them an opportunity to return home voluntarily and make it easy for their employers to bring them back immediately with legal guest worker permits, and then for those who want it, let them put their name on the list (behind those who are already there) for permanent status.

Those unwilling to do that should continue to be illegal aliens subject to arrest and deportation and ineligible to apply for either temporary or permanent status.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I am one who thinks we should allow an opportunity for legal status for those who are already here. But I think we have to do it through a process that everybody else, especially those waiting for legal admission, have to follow. Give them an opportunity to return home voluntarily and make it easy for their employers to bring them back immediately with legal guest worker permits, and then for those who want it, let them put their name on the list (behind those who are already there) for permanent status.

Those unwilling to do that should continue to be illegal aliens subject to arrest and deportation and ineligible to apply for either temporary or permanent status.

I see nothing wrong with that rational thinking. Anything else is simply irresponsible.

0 Replies

Fox wrote:

Give them an opportunity to return home voluntarily and make it easy for their employers to bring them back immediately with legal guest worker permits, and then for those who want it, let them put their name on the list (behind those who are already there) for permanent status.

Once again, Fox, proposes an extraordinary burden be put on taxpayers, and that employers who illegally employ these people not only suffer no consequences, but eventually be rewarded with cheap labor, once again through a program which will be paid for by the taxpayer. Fox envisions no consequences for the illegal employer, because she wears blinders which only allows her to selectively see illegality. That hardly constitutes rational thinking, except from the point of view of those who traditionally profit from illegal immigration.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I am one who thinks we should allow an opportunity for legal status for those who are already here. But I think we have to do it through a process that everybody else, especially those waiting for legal admission, have to follow. Give them an opportunity to return home voluntarily and make it easy for their employers to bring them back immediately with legal guest worker permits

Seems like an awful lot of extra hassle and red tape just to make a point. I mean, if you do actually approve of those already here gaining a legal status, this seems like the least efficient way of going about it.

I can understand wanting to make a point, but if its going to cost both employers and employees a lot of money and effort, making it all but impossible for the poorest of employees at that - when you actually do want them to succeed anyway - it just seems irrational. Principled perhaps, but not rational.

Imagine telling a business owner this: Yes, I realise you have people working for you now who are illegal, and actually, I do want to allow them to keep on working for you - but I'm going to insist on them leaving, going to another country, applying there, waiting either there or here depending on the regulations, and then coming back here to continue their work. Yes, I realise that this will cost your employee a lot of money just to get what I do actually want him to get anyway; and he might have to take his children out of school for the time being and have them catch up again afterward; I realise you will either have to hire someone else and retrain him for the time being and then fire him again when this employee comes back, or leave the work position vacant and you struggling with it for the time being; but, you know - I want to make a point.

Like I said, principled, but not rational.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I am one who thinks we should allow an opportunity for legal status for those who are already here. But I think we have to do it through a process that everybody else, especially those waiting for legal admission, have to follow. Give them an opportunity to return home voluntarily and make it easy for their employers to bring them back immediately with legal guest worker permits

Seems like an awful lot of extra hassle and red tape just to make a point. I mean, if you do actually approve of those already here gaining a legal status, this seems like the least efficient way of going about it.

I can understand wanting to make a point, but if its going to cost both employers and employees a lot of money and effort, making it all but impossible for the poorest of employees at that - when you actually do want them to succeed anyway - it just seems irrational. Principled perhaps, but not rational.

Imagine telling a business owner this: Yes, I realise you have people working for you now who are illegal, and actually, I do want to allow them to keep on working for you - but I'm going to insist on them leaving, going to another country, applying there, waiting either there or here depending on the regulations, and then coming back here to continue their work. Yes, I realise that this will cost your employee a lot of money just to get what I do actually want him to get anyway; and he might have to take his children out of school for the time being and have them catch up again afterward; I realise you will either have to hire someone else and retrain him for the time being and then fire him again when this employee comes back, or leave the work position vacant and you struggling with it for the time being; but, you know - I want to make a point.

Like I said, principled, but not rational.

I believe it is entirely rational. The people would be responsible for getting themselves out of the country and the emloyers would be responsible for bringing them back. The immigrants themselves or the employers would pay for it.

We do need tighter controls on hiring people yes, and any policy adopted should include severe consequences for knowingly hiring an illegal. But we have to have different policies than those implemented before because before, as I have previously posted, it made compliance virtually impossible for employers and as a result, it made enforcement impractical. I am not sure how the new policy would look--MysteryMan has come up with the best idea so far on this thread but still had problems--so I'm still looking for a best idea on that one.

I also think we need to allow the states to refuse services to illegals where warranted. The more these kinds of things are implemented, the more people will see the benefits of coming into the country legally and the disadvantages of doing so illegally.

0 Replies

The tax-payers are burdened no matter which way you slice it (although I've never before seen the left worry too much about burdening us through taxes).

UTEP (University of Texas at El Paso) did a study recently that shows Texas alone pays around $50M in the health-care costs of illegals annually and that although the Feds are supposed to reimburse the border states for the money they spend on the care of illegals, the reality is Texas received less than $1M (around $700,000).

The rest is coughed up by guess who? The tax-payers.

0 Replies

I disagree that it is principled. The principle of respect for legality is only applied to the immigrants, and not to the employers who knowing committed an illegal act in employing them. It is not, of course, rational at all.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, what is the appropriate punishment? A slap on the wrist? Don't think so.

Eh, yeah - death, slap on the wrist, thats obviously the choice we face. I mean, nothing in between, naturally. If I'm against strips of minefield along the border that will blow up families illegally trying to cross the border into high heavens, I must just want to keep it to a slap on the wrist. Obviously. Whatever..

I think there's a LOT that can be done to discourage the current volume of illegal immigration, and much of it would be focused on the employers that hire such illegals. The current lack of serious action against employers who hire illegals does kind of reek of corporate welfare, and there's a lot to be achieved there.

Such measures will not, of course, stop illegal immigration altogether, no. But it should decrease it significantly. When establishing the balance between harshness of impact (on illegals) and restriction of volume (of illegal immigration), I'd go for such measures that will already limit volume a lot while not actually physically harming illegal persons, rather than aim for some zero-line of illegal immigration even if it requires putting up a Berlin Wall along the border. And making someone who chooses such a middle road out to be then just wanting to do nothing at all (the "slap on the wrist" nonsense) is just disingenious.

A lot of time in discussions we take a harder line than is neccessary in order to prove a point.

Let me re-iterate my position in order to avoid confusion:

Solving Illegal Immigration is a three-step problem.

First, as I have made abundandtly clear to anyone who bothered to read this and the 'US anthem in Spanish' thread, I consider the real criminals here to be those who hire Illegal Aliens, to their detriment and to our societies' detriment, in the name of increased profits and greed. The primary step that has to be taken is to eliminate the reasons for illegals coming by cracking down on those who employ them. I believe that this will help stem the flow of illegals who come to America looking for work.

Second, I believe that all those illegal aliens living here in America right now who don't have a felony conviction deserve the opportunity to become American citizens. All we really want from them is two things: first, to know where they are (like other citizens) and second, their money. Deporting people on a mass scale is a super-expensive and unworkable plan in my opinion. I believe that making it easier for those who have worked hard in their life to immigrate to America legally is also a step of this plan; people who can get in legally have less incentive to break the law by entering the country illegally.

Third, we have to close the border. Period. I don't care if it is a 'line of death' or a 'line of pillows.' Whatever it takes to keep streams of people from crossing our borders, we have to do.

I said earlier in this thread that

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Amendment: Although I'm not sure about the line of death thing. We do need to make it hard to enter illegally... but a line of death might be a bit to harsh.

Perhaps it was too harsh. I don't really wish for anyone to die, just want to have the most efficient way to keep illegals from entering America, which I feel must happen.

Part of the 'line of death' argument is in deterrence. We simply don't have the resources IMO to fully man the border at all times. Fences can be useful, but only act as a passive deterrent to illegal entry into our country and can be easily defeated.

The situation becomes drastically different once the illegal realizes that he is actively taking his life into his own hands by attempting to break the law. You or I wouldn't try and rob a bank, not just because of the criminal consequences, but because we could get shot doing so. You don't try to assault police officers, because you get shot for doing so. What is so different about protecting our borders?

I understand that this is a difficult subject, and I guarantee that no matter what solution is worked out, not everyone - perhaps noone, really - is going to be happy with the compromise. But I do feel that there is no harm in considering all ideas for solving this problem.

Cycloptichorn

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2016693#2016693

I categorically deny that we 'cannot' close our borders. We can put a man on the moon, but we can't close the borders? Bull sh*t. It just takes money and effort, money that people don't want to spend, effort that people don't want to spend.

It also takes some form of deterrence. You see, criminals and crooks (and potentially terrorists) who cross over into America aren't going to sign up to be citizens. They aren't going to play by the rules. That is why the first two steps of my proposal are incomplete by themselves; we must have some sort of border enforcement in order to keep people away, because just expecting them to follow the laws and regulations simply isn't going to work. The people in question have already demonstrated a great willingness to break the law in order to get what they want, so it is a given that some sort of strict punishment is neccessary in order to deter them from attempting to do so.

Question time:

Given that we will crack down on employers, and that we will work to make those who are here Citizens,

What is the best strategy for keeping crooks, thieves, thugs and terrorists from coming across our borders?

What should the penalty be for being caught border-breaking?

Do you disagree completely that the US has the right to regulate who comes across our borders or not?

Should Illegal aliens in America be treated with greater respect than Citizens of the United States of America are treated when they are in other countries illegally?

If you don't favor the deportation of illegal aliens, what do you suggest we do to keep those who aren't going to follow by the rules of society? Jail them? If we deport them and they come right back across, do we just keep on deporting them? How will we keep accurate records on hundreds of thousands of people with no IDs? I'm serious. Not one of you who is against the idea of having phyisicial deterrents to crossing the border has presented a serious alternative to doing so.

Nimh, you support legalization of anyone who has been here for over a few years; I support legalization of all illegals who are here. How the hell are you going to prove that someone with fake documentation and no ID has been here for any length of time? Impossible and unworkable in the extreme.

Thanks Nimh, and please don't hold this against me personally; to me, this is not only a policy argument, but a reality of life.

O'Bill,

Quote:

Cyclo's "us and them" is as ignorant as you suggest Ebrown. Here we are on another subject I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you on... how did we get to be them? My vote carries the same weight as his... though I suspect I sway more votes since I don't back my opinions with bigotry derived from personal experience.

I am in no way a bigot. I'm not even sure how you got that from what I wrote. But I'll just chalk it up to your usual bloviating.

Do I have personal experiences, negative ones, with illegal aliens? Yes I do. Does that change the validity of my argument, or do my feelings about the policies that I proposed stem from this? No, and no. It merely adds conviction to my belief that only a multi-stage solution to the problem will be effective.

I don't blame anyone for trying to come to America; don't you believe that if I was bigoted, then I would favor the House bill which I have already condemned in this thread? That I would favor Fox's idea of deportation and re-applicance for citizenship? I favor neither. I simply do not agree with the idea that those who have come to America illegally are doing nothing wrong. This doesn't make me a bigot, though of course it is conveinent for your argument to label me so.

This truly is an 'us and them' problem. You deny this? Tell me then, in the end, will it not be Americans who vote on the solution to this problem? No matter how much we debate what the right course of action is or isn't, in the end, it will be us, American Citizens, who decide how to handle the problem of them, Illegal Aliens in our country.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

An excellent summation Cy of what I think is basically my opinion also. While I have a problem allowing those who have come here illegally to benefit from their illegality, the idea that we will deport all those here less than 5 years is not practical. (Do you really think those here less than 5 years will walk up to the border and recross or turn themselves in?)

Thus, from a practical standpoint, we are left having to allow them to stay and work toward citizenship. And I think most Americans would at least grudgingly accept that. But as Cy has stated, we must then also take away the incentive for others to come here illegally, which means enforcing employment laws, including huge fines for those caught breaking them and doing whatever it takes to secure our borders to minimize greatly the influx of future illegals.

I don't understand why anyone would have objections to this solution.

0 Replies

I don't think anyone is suggesting the corporations guilty of hiring illegal aliens should get a pass, but I do think it's unrealistic to think that punishing them will stop those wanting to come here - either legally or illegally.

Which is better? Starving in that sinkhole of corruption known as Mexico or starving in the U.S.?

Yes, we should apply the rule of law equally to those breaking it, which definitely includes the companies that are guilty. However, unless we address the issue of securing our southern border, this issue will not diminish.

0 Replies

Agreed Sierra. Just fining companies alone will not do it. Just taking greater measures to secure our border will not in and of itself do it. That is why both Cy (and I) believe that solving the illegal immigration problem will require us to do both. Will it completely illiminate illegal crossings of the border? Of course not. I don't think there is any way to completely stop it short of applying Cy's idea of a line of death along the border (by mining or whatever).

But by fining corporations we make it less worth their while to hire an illegal immigrant and gives less incentive for them to cross our border illegally.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know