If East Germany Could Secure Their Border So Can America!

[Ivan Seeking]

Before his security detail handcuffed a reporter to a chair following a town hall event in Alaska over the weekend, Senate candidate Joe Miller [R] told the audience at his event that if “East Germany” could secure their border during the Cold War than the U.S. should be able to stem illegal immigration from Mexico...
http://www.mediaite.com/online/joe-miller-if-east-germany-could-secure-their-border-so-can-america/

Has it come to this? We now look to our former enemies for solutions to our problems. As I recall, "the wall" stood as a symbol for everything we oppose. It was in part what defined the enemy.

One of the most famous lines from one of the most famous Republicans ever was, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" No doubt Reagan is rolling over in his grave.

[drankin]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/joe-miller-if-east-germany-could-secure-their-border-so-can-america/

Has it come to this? We now look to our former enemies for solutions to our problems. As I recall, "the wall" stood as a symbol for everything we oppose. It was in part what defined the enemy.

One of the most famous lines from one of the most famous Republicans ever was, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" No doubt Reagan is rolling over in his grave.

Apples and Oranges. The point was we can build a wall to prevent illegal immigration into the US while the Berlin Wall was contructed to prevent East Germans from leaving East Germany:

"The Soviet-dominated Eastern Bloc officially claimed that the wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the "will of the people" in building a Socialist State in East Germany. However, in practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that marked Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period." - Wikipedia

[Evo]

The Berlin wall was how long? How long is the US/Mexico border? What kind of terrain was in Berlin, what is the terrain of the Mexican border?

Will be be allowed to shoot down in cold blood anyone trying to cross, no questions asked?

Where do people come up with these idiotic ideas?

[drankin]

The Berlin wall was how long? How long is the US/Mexico border? What kind of terrain was in Berlin, what is the terrain of the Mexican border?

Will be be allowed to shoot down in cold blood anyone trying to cross, no questions asked?

Where do people come up with these idiotic ideas?

Who said anything about shooting down people in cold blood?

A wall may be impractical, but a muli-layered fence is doable. Spend some of that stimulus money on it. There would be jobs in it for awhile. Maintenance afterwards.

[Jimmy Snyder]

Who said anything about shooting down people in cold blood?
To the extent that the Berlin Wall worked at all, it worked by shooting down people in cold blood. 136 people died trying to cross. But it didn't work, at least 5000 people crossed it successfully.
cbn news (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/features/11/09/09/facts-about-berlin-wall)
A wall may be impractical, but a muli-layered fence is doable.
Just as impractical. A "no-man's land" ran the length of the Wall, varying from the width of a street to about 300 metres.
Spend some of that stimulus money on it. There would be jobs in it for awhile. Maintenance afterwards.
It ran for about 100 miles. There were some 300 watchtowers and 20 bunkers were manned by seven units of 1,000 to 1,200 soldiers each. The US-Mexican border is about 2000 miles long.

Edit: And the East Germans controlled the departure side.

[edward]

Who said anything about shooting down people in cold blood?

A wall may be impractical, but a muli-layered fence is doable. Spend some of that stimulus money on it. There would be jobs in it for awhile. Maintenance afterwards.

I am in AZ and we keep hearing about a two or three layer fence. The first two layers will be torn down and sold for scrap by the illegals. The final one will be found full of holes.

Most of the border is in very remote areas. Build a twenty foot fence and they will find a twenty one foot ladder.

We spent millions on a virtual fence that was to be built by Boeing. The first 14 towers were built with all kinds of sophisticated sensing equipment. The problem was that they could not see over a hill.

Our most recent immigration law, the controversial AZ SB 1070, which I favored originally was written by the private prison industry. The governors assistant chief advisor was formerly a lobbyist for Corrections corporation of America and his wife still is.

CCA stood to make millions off of detainees if there was a massive round up of illegals.

The first thing we need to do is get the politicians and special interests out of the situation.

The national guard helps, but all that they are allowed to do is report locations of illegals. They are not allowed to detain or enter into any kind of firefight.

This only emboldens the drug dealers knowing that the national Guard will back off from a confrontation.

Miller is full of himself about a comparison to the Berlin wall.

[drankin]

Of course anyone can get beyond a fence if they want but it's a way to symbolize a border. It's more of a psychological statement. "This is our country, that is your country." It's better than nothing at all to distinguish a border. Easier to monitor a fence than an imaginary line.

[Jimmy Snyder]

It's more of a psychological statement.
We live in a era of empty gestures. This one costs too much. Why don't you just wear a ribbon or something.

[turbo]

We live in a era of empty gestures. This one costs too much. Why don't you just wear a ribbon or something.Yeah! A magnetic ribbon made and printed in China that you can slap on your gas-hog. That'll do it.

[jobyts]

As George Lopez joked,

“Who do you think they'll get to build the wall?”

[CAC1001]

Will be be allowed to shoot down in cold blood anyone trying to cross, no questions asked?

Where do people come up with these idiotic ideas?

I have read the Israelis had a problem with their border and they built a fence to stop them. A fence on the American border is not to stop any and all illegal immigrants from crossing, it is to turn what is (or was) a flood into a trickle. Of course some people will make it across. A few people here and there making it across is not a problem.

To the extent that the Berlin Wall worked at all, it worked by shooting down people in cold blood. 136 people died trying to cross. But it didn't work, at least 5000 people crossed it successfully.
cbn news (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/features/11/09/09/facts-about-berlin-wall)

Then I'd say it worked. 5,000 is a miniscule amount in the grand scheme of the Cold War. The idea was to stop what was a flood of people leaving and turn it into a trickle.

[CAC1001]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/joe-miller-if-east-germany-could-secure-their-border-so-can-america/

Has it come to this? We now look to our former enemies for solutions to our problems. As I recall, "the wall" stood as a symbol for everything we oppose. It was in part what defined the enemy.

One of the most famous lines from one of the most famous Republicans ever was, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" No doubt Reagan is rolling over in his grave.

Totally different situations. The Berlin Wall was so a brutal dictatorship could forcefully prevent people from being able to leave.

A fence on the American border is to stop people from illegally entering the country in massive numbers.

[turbo]

Totally different situations. The Berlin Wall was so a brutal dictatorship could forcefully prevent people from being able to leave.

A fence on the American border is to stop people from illegally entering the country in massive numbers.Which is different how? Is it necessary to have a "brutal dictatorship" on one side and "freedom" on the other? How about being able to make enough money to keep your family alive vs NOT? The jingoism on the immigration debate makes rational debate impossible.

[Evo]

I have read the Israelis had a problem with their border and they built a fence to stop them. A fence on the American border is not to stop any and all illegal immigrants from crossing, it is to turn what is (or was) a flood into a trickle. Of course some people will make it across. A few people here and there making it across is not a problem.



Then I'd say it worked. 5,000 is a miniscule amount in the grand scheme of the Cold War. The idea was to stop what was a flood of people leaving and turn it into a trickle.
We have fencing already, it's not working.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_%E2%80%93_United_States_barrier

Something like $1 billion was set aside for a new fence a few years ago.

Why do people post if they don't know what is going on or what has already been done?

[turbo]

]Why do people post if they don't know what is going on or what has already been done?It's fun to kick up **** and pretend that they know something. Already disproven by the "quality" of the post, usually.

[lisab]

The problem is not going to be fixed once and for all with a fence.

There are dozens of clever ways to get here - by air, water, tunnel, train, back of a truck. Blocking one way doesn't get to the root cause of why they come. They come because there are no good opportunities at home, and they need to earn money for their families.

This issue ties in to a theme that I hear from challengers this election cycle: all it takes to solve our problems is a little common sense...as if all our problems are just so dang simple. I wish it were so.

[CAC1001]

Why do people post if they don't know what is going on or what has already been done?

I was aware of that fence, my understanding however was that the government was rather half-heartedly going about it. I'm talking about a serious fence.

[CAC1001]

Which is different how? Is it necessary to have a "brutal dictatorship" on one side and "freedom" on the other? How about being able to make enough money to keep your family alive vs NOT? The jingoism on the immigration debate makes rational debate impossible.

I don't get what you're saying. The Berlin Wall was so a dictatorship could hold people back from leaving the country. A border fence is to keep people (in particular a good number of criminals) from illegally entering the country. Arizona right now is the kidnapping capital of the world outside of Mexco City: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6848672&page=1

[turbo]

I don't get what you're saying. The Berlin Wall was so a dictatorship could hold people back from leaving the country. A border fence is to keep people (in particular a good number of criminals) from illegally entering the country. Arizona right now is the kidnapping capital of the world outside of Mexco City: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6848672&page=1America was founded and bolstered by emigration. It may be possible to continue that progression, absent the jingoism and sloganeering of the neo-cons. Our society has always benefited by immigrants who were willing to work very hard and accept less than already-established workers. This is the historical version of "free trade" though it happened over decades, not years, and it greatly benefited the productivity of our country.

[edward]

On foot the fence isn't the biggest obstacle. Two to three days walking in the desert is.

They take the seats out of vans and stack people in on top of each other. The record number caught in one van was 21 illegals.

This mini van was pulled over by Boarder Patrol:

nyrugCTk-xk

[NobodySpecial]

If you want a Wall several thousand miles long - cheap, have you thought of outsourcing it to China ? They do have some experience.

(Wasn't terribly effective at keeping out invaders though)

[Evo]

I don't get what you're saying. The Berlin Wall was so a dictatorship could hold people back from leaving the country. A border fence is to keep people (in particular a good number of criminals) from illegally entering the country. Arizona right now is the kidnapping capital of the world outside of Mexco City: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6848672&page=1
<sigh> You're probably too young to know the atrocities committed in conjuction with the Berlin Wall.

[Evo]

America was founded and bolstered by emigration. It may be possible to continue that progression, absent the jingoism and sloganeering of the neo-cons. Our society has always benefited by immigrants who were willing to work very hard and accept less than already-established workers. This is the historical version of "free trade" though it happened over decades, not years, and it greatly benefited the productivity of our country.Post again after we send 5 million illegal aliens and their families to Maine. :tongue2:

[Char. Limit]

Post again after we send 5 million illegal aliens and their families to Maine. :tongue2:

Am I allowed to post if I'm near Washington? I think most of our immigrants are Canadian, if there's even immigration at all into Washington.

[CAC1001]

America was founded and bolstered by emigration. It may be possible to continue that progression, absent the jingoism and sloganeering of the neo-cons.

I would say it is the "neocons" who are the ones who will not enforce the border. I mean Reagan granted amnesty to illegals. George W. Bush tried to. McCain was never very anti-illegal immigrant. Part of the reason for this as well I'd think is that many of the Big Business interests that lobby these types of Republicans want access to illegal immigrant labor (Dick Morris pointed out that the labor unions and the Democrats want the illegals to vote, but not work, and the Republicans want them to work, but not vote).

It is more the libertarian, isolationist wing of the Right that strikes me as being very anti-immigrant, like Tom Tancredo for example.

Our society has always benefited by immigrants who were willing to work very hard and accept less than already-established workers. This is the historical version of "free trade" though it happened over decades, not years, and it greatly benefited the productivity of our country.

Sure, but such immigrants did not bring their crime to America the way many illegals do nor did they come solely to just milk the social service system. They came, as you said, to work.

[CAC1001]

<sigh> You're probably too young to know the atrocities committed in conjuction with the Berlin Wall.

Are you misunderstanding my post, because now I'm confused :confused: I am well aware that many atrocities occurred in conjunction with the Berlin Wall, like I said, it was so a brutal dictatorship could keep people inside the country.

The idea behind a wall on the American border is not to commit atrocities, it is just to stop illegal immigrants from entering the country in large numbers.

Right now, to an illegal, if the current ones are granted amnesty with an open border, that basically says, "Come to America, hide out for around ten to twenty years, and eventually you'll get granted amnesty."

[turbo]

Post again after we send 5 million illegal aliens and their families to Maine. :tongue2:My family was "undesirable" aliens. During the depression, French-Canadian families were the enemy. It is a good reason to evaluate positive influences and try to cull the ethno-nutzo idiots from the population.

[Evo]

The idea behind a wall on the American border is not to commit atrocities, it is just to stop illegal immigrants from entering the country in large numbers.We already have a fence, and it's defended by Border Patrol Agents. You don't understand the issue with coyotes.

[CAC1001]

Coyotes?

[Evo]

Coyotes?They are the immigrant smugglers that bring all of the immigrants axcross the border. In spite of the fence, in spite of the National Guard, in spite of Border Patrol.

[Barwick]

Well we COULD just get rid of our welfare state, that'd be a large deterrent for illegals thinking of coming here.

Honestly, for the millions who probably are here, here's my solution:

1) Register with us right now
2) You will be allowed to reside here and given permanent resident status
3) You will NEVER get to become a US citizen, you broke our laws
4) *Many* more people will be allowed to immigrate into the US and get green cards, visas, and permanent resident status
5) The number of people granted citizenship per year remains the same.
6) Anyone else who comes in after date XYZ and is illegal WILL be immediately deported upon discovery of them being here. It is going to be very easy to legally move here, but still difficult to become a citizen.

[CAC1001]

3) You will NEVER get to become a US citizen, you broke our laws

I think if we could figure out how to stop the large numbers of illegal immirants crossing the border, that it would be fine to grant the ones already here citizenship. I mean they're here now, they are not leaving. The problem is granting them citizenship with the border open.

[NobodySpecial]

1) Register with us right now
2) You will be allowed to reside here and given permanent resident status
3) You will NEVER get to become a US citizen, you broke our laws
4) *Many* more people will be allowed to immigrate into the US and get green cards, visas, and permanent resident status
5) The number of people granted citizenship per year remains the same.
6) Anyone else who comes in after date XYZ and is illegal WILL be immediately deported upon discovery of them being here. It is going to be very easy to legally move here, but still difficult to become a citizen.

Wouldn't it be more fun to just put you all on reservations and force you to run casinos and make things from beads for the tourists?

[Proton Soup]

it would be easy enough to rectify. just do what we're doing for Afghanistan. go in, kill the bad guys, install a new government, and keep the bodies out of the press.

[mheslep]

As others have said, the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in, the goal of the fence on the southern US border is to keep people out. The symbolism of this difference as pertains to the nature of the US vs E. Germany is obvious.

The goal of the fence on the southern border is to stem the large flow of illegals, on the order of half a million per year (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06770.pdf), not to be relatively speaking air tight as was the Berlin Wall. A southern fence would be a huge success if reduced the illegal stampede to even tens of thousands per year, and a double fence is completely capable of doing so. There's evidence coming in now from the areas with good fencing showing the fence works - San Diego and parts of Texas.
Before the fence was built, all that separated that stretch of Mexico from California was a single strand of cable that demarcated the international border.
[...]
"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5323928

Apparently one person can use a twenty foot latter to scale a fence, but not so fast for one million over a double fence. Build the fence, and I suspect the country will gladly go along with immigration reform for the millions already in the country.

[drankin]

Apparently one person can use a twenty foot latter to scale a fence, but not one million over a double fence. Build the fence, and I suspect the country will gladly go along with immigration reform for the millions already in the country.

This seems very reasonable and I agree it would make the idea of amnesty more acceptable if we believed that the flood of illegals was effectively diminished. I don't understand the resistance to building a fence. There is a lot of sarcasm about the effectiveness on this forum.

Noone blames illegals for the want to come here. That's not the argument. It's unreasonable to me for just anyone to walk to a neighboring country and take up permanent residence without the permission of its government. There is an orderly system of immigration to any country. Why should the US be an exception?

[mheslep]

This seems very reasonable and I agree it would make the idea of amnesty more acceptable if we believed that the flood of illegals was effectively diminished. I don't understand the resistance to building a fence. There is a lot of sarcasm about the effectiveness on this forum.

Noone blames illegals for the want to come here. That's not the argument. It's unreasonable to me for just anyone to walk to a neighboring country and take up permanent residence without the permission of its government. There is an orderly system of immigration to any country. Why should the US be an exception?Agreed.

[Char. Limit]

this seems very reasonable and i agree it would make the idea of amnesty more acceptable if we believed that the flood of illegals was effectively diminished. I don't understand the resistance to building a fence. There is a lot of sarcasm about the effectiveness on this forum.

Noone blames illegals for the want to come here. That's not the argument. It's unreasonable to me for just anyone to walk to a neighboring country and take up permanent residence without the permission of its government. There is an orderly system of immigration to any country. Why should the us be an exception?

qft.

[Evo]

You guys know we already have a fence and that in 2006 Congress has set aside another $2.7 billion for the fence?

I posted pictures of the fence earlier. Can char, drankin, mheslep, etc... explain what they are talking about? I'm not quite clear. Is it the small unfinished parts that are still to be completed?

US-Mexico border fence almost complete

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/01/27/20090127border-fence0127-ON.html

I believe the rest of us were commenting on the nutty politician saying we need a Berlin Wall type fence.

[Char. Limit]

I'm just quoting people. I don't really have a stake in this issue at all... I just quote what sounds good.

[mheslep]

You guys know we already have a fence and that in 2006 Congress has set aside another $2.7 billion for the fence?

I posted pictures of the fence earlier. Can char, drankin, mheslep, etc... explain what they are talking about? I'm not quite clear. Is it the small unfinished parts that are still to be completed?

US-Mexico border fence almost complete

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/01/27/20090127border-fence0127-ON.html
The US - Mexico border is more than 2000 miles long. As the article indicates, not even a third has been built (the title is misleading). I believe the current US administration is slow walking the remainder.

Edit:
I believe the rest of us were commenting on the nutty politician saying we need a Berlin Wall type fence.1. Miller's not a nutty politician; he's an intelligent, thoughtful candidate IMO (http://joemiller.us/about/bio), one of the best rookies in the country.
2. I don't know what Miller said, as we don't have any reliable source in the thread (the quote comes via some Ak half-a-stalker blogger (http://whatdoino-steve.blogspot.com/)).
3. The quote, even if accurate:
East Germany was very, very able to reduce the flow…Now, obviously, other things there were involved. We have the capacity to, as a great nation, obviously to secure our border. If East Germany could do, we could itDoes not lead me to believe Miller believes the US needs "a Berlin Wall type fence" complete with shooting people in "cold blood."

[turbo]

Would right-wingers like Meg Whitman (who employed an illegal alien as her housekeeper) roll back the xenophobia and support an expanded program that fast-tracks gainfully-employed immigrants toward residency status and eventual citizenship? Illegals are being used as a political football, and the "just say NO" stance is not working.

My father's family came here from Ireland, and they faced resistance. My mother's family came here from Canada and they faced resistance. The KKK was very popular in Maine in the 1920's, not because there were lots of black people to rail against, but because there were Catholic immigrants from Ireland and Canada to scapegoat. Even 30 years on, when I was a child, there was still discrimination against us. It was very common to hear people slurring immigrants as Micks and Frogs, usually preceded by adjectives like "stupid", "dumb", etc.

My mother's father and her aunts and uncles never got fluent in English, since they came here as adults and did not have a lot of productive contact with English-speakers. My mother didn't teach me French (though I picked up a lot from other family members) because she was pitched into school in the first grade knowing not a word of English. When she graduated HS, she was the Salutatorian, but she had a long hard path to get there, starting in grade school. I see similar situations with Hispanics, and see hate and fear-mongering being used as tools to emphasize the "otherness" of immigrants.

It may seem odd, but agriculture in Maine (the jobs that require lots of hand-labor, such as dairy operations, orchard-work, and seasonal crops like broccoli) would be very expensive and possibly unsustainable without a migrant work-force. A large local dairy farm has a work-force comprised primarily of documented immigrants that live, eat, and work on the premises. The sandwich counter at the local grocery had to start carrying jalapeno peppers as sandwich ingredients to keep the Mexicans happy when they splurged on take-out. They work hard and send their money home to their families. Why can't they earn a shot a citizenship and bring their loved ones here?

[Evo]

I'm just quoting people. I don't really have a stake in this issue at all... I just quote what sounds good.Well, you shouldn't do that. If you don't know if what they said is correct or have no information to add, you should not post.

[drankin]

You guys know we already have a fence and that in 2006 Congress has set aside another $2.7 billion for the fence?

I posted pictures of the fence earlier. Can char, drankin, mheslep, etc... explain what they are talking about? I'm not quite clear. Is it the small unfinished parts that are still to be completed?

US-Mexico border fence almost complete

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/01/27/20090127border-fence0127-ON.html

I believe the rest of us were commenting on the nutty politician saying we need a Berlin Wall type fence.

The way I understand it, it's not a continual fence. I can't find any definitive news but the project is only for 670 miles of the 2000 miles of border.

[Evo]

The US - Mexico border is more than 2000 miles long. As the article indicates, not even a third has been built (the title is misleading). I believe the current US administration is slow walking the remainder.No, it's not complete, I'm trying to find a current map, meanwhile, you can read this.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/us-southern-border-fence-tech-map

[NobodySpecial]

As others have said, the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in, the goal of the fence on the southern US border is to keep people out. The symbolism of this difference as pertains to the nature of the US vs E. Germany is obvious.
It's also technically rather easier. The land 20km upto the border was restricted needing a special permit to enter, the last km upto the fence needed an armed guard to enter - even to farm land near the fence.
In addition the secret police were very active in searching out anybody who showed any interest in the wall or in any aspect of the west.
Building a wall to keep people out is considerably more difficult.

[CAC1001]

Would right-wingers like Meg Whitman (who employed an illegal alien as her housekeeper) roll back the xenophobia and support an expanded program that fast-tracks gainfully-employed immigrants toward residency status and eventual citizenship? Illegals are being used as a political football, and the "just say NO" stance is not working.

My father's family came here from Ireland, and they faced resistance. My mother's family came here from Canada and they faced resistance. The KKK was very popular in Maine in the 1920's, not because there were lots of black people to rail against, but because there were Catholic immigrants from Ireland and Canada to scapegoat. Even 30 years on, when I was a child, there was still discrimination against us. It was very common to hear people slurring immigrants as Micks and Frogs, usually preceded by adjectives like "stupid", "dumb", etc.

My mother's father and her aunts and uncles never got fluent in English, since they came here as adults and did not have a lot of productive contact with English-speakers. My mother didn't teach me French (though I picked up a lot from other family members) because she was pitched into school in the first grade knowing not a word of English. When she graduated HS, she was the Salutatorian, but she had a long hard path to get there, starting in grade school. I see similar situations with Hispanics, and see hate and fear-mongering being used as tools to emphasize the "otherness" of immigrants.

It may seem odd, but agriculture in Maine (the jobs that require lots of hand-labor, such as dairy operations, orchard-work, and seasonal crops like broccoli) would be very expensive and possibly unsustainable without a migrant work-force. A large local dairy farm has a work-force comprised primarily of documented immigrants that live, eat, and work on the premises. The sandwich counter at the local grocery had to start carrying jalapeno peppers as sandwich ingredients to keep the Mexicans happy when they splurged on take-out. They work hard and send their money home to their families. Why can't they earn a shot a citizenship and bring their loved ones here?

I have no problem with the illegals whom come here to work and make a decent living, it is the ones who come here and bring crime and drugs, and/or to live off of the social welfare state.

The other problem with this is that the social welfare state, when applied to groups like illegals, prevents them from assimilating into society. As you mentioned, all ethnicities and cultures ran into trouble upon first coming to America and no one really like one another. The Irish lived in their own areas, the Jews lived in their own areas, the Italians in their own areas, the Chinese in their own, etc...and even among the Italians there was separation between the ones from northern Italy and southern Italy, same with Jews of different cultures, etc...what unified everyone by the second and third generation however was learning the English language and being able to function in American society, as there was no social welfare state, so they had to find jobs and work, and thus today you'll find many ethnicities all living amongst one another (although even today in some areas this is finicky, for example in NYC there is tension in areas between Jews and blacks).

But this won't happen unless the immigrants have an incentive to learn English and assimilate. Which means they need to come to work. If they come to live on welfare, there is no need to learn English and become a productive member of society.

[Evo]

The way I understand it, it's not a continual fence. I can't find any definitive news but the project is only for 670 miles of the 2000 miles of border.The BBC had a map back in 2006, various fences appeared to cover more than half of the border. Some of those fences may no longer exist. I think the 670 miles is the "new fence".

[Desi_M]

I am a female of Mexican descent living in what many call the "hood" and I see the effects of illegal immigration on a daily basis every time I go home from college. I really respect what a lot of you who posted here have to say. I am very divided in my opinion of immigration policy and what should be done about it. One of the problems I face directly is the crime rate in my neighborhood that some attribute to our high illegal immigrant population. I agree that something needs to be done about it, I mean I've been followed home by a truck full of guys who couldn't even heckle me in English. There is a joke someone I know made about building a fence, "Yeah if they choose to build a fence, who are they going to get to build it?"

[drankin]

I am a female of Mexican descent living in what many call the "hood" and I see the effects of illegal immigration on a daily basis every time I go home from college. I really respect what a lot of you who posted here have to say. I am very divided in my opinion of immigration policy and what should be done about it. One of the problems I face directly is the crime rate in my neighborhood that some attribute to our high illegal immigrant population. I agree that something needs to be done about it, I mean I've been followed home by a truck full of guys who couldn't even heckle me in English. There is a joke someone I know made about building a fence, "Yeah if they choose to build a fence, who are they going to get to build it?"

As far as who builds the fence, the same people that already built 1/3 of it already. Your joke suggests that Americans won't do manual labor or hard work. Looking at what our country has done in the past and is doing now, it really isn't that funny.

[Barwick]

They work hard and send their money home to their families. Why can't they earn a shot a citizenship and bring their loved ones here?

They can earn a shot at permanent resident status. But being a citizen is not something people are guaranteed. As I said before, I suggest the following:

1) Everyone here must register with us by XYZ date. If they don't, anyone found here undocumented will be deported, period.
2) Grant permanent residency to those who registered, are already here being productive, and haven't committed felonies.
3) Nobody who is here illegally currently can *ever* become a citizen unless they immediately go back to their home country upon registration with us, and begin the process of citizenship like everyone else. Their alternative is remaining here as a permanent resident for life with no chance of citizenship (they did break a legitimate law).
4) The children of those permanent residents can become citizens upon turning 18, after going through the same process (but not the same quota limitations) as other immigrants wishing to become citizens.

[Desi_M]

Americans will do manual labor, I'm not suggesting that they won't. Trust me, I know many American citizens who jump on the chance. From what I've experienced, sometimes the will to work isn't enough to get them the job. Americans are not lazy, but Americans have to eat and provide for themselves and their families. People hire illegals because they will work for a lot less, it's not right and it's not fair, but that's what happens. Citizens pay taxes, have to pay for medical care, and illegal immigrants don't. Citizens have to pay the cost of living in the United States, illegal immigrants pay a lot less to live here. That is the reality. An illegal immigrant can live off what little they're getting paid, and American in most cases can't. And when it comes to hiring in El Paso, Laredo, and The Valley, there is a huge illegal immigrant population that will work for what ever their employers want to pay.

My father worked in construction and he is an American, but the truth is, it wasn't paying enough to get him out of his brother's house and back to the same city as his daughter, so he went back to school. Now he's a business owner, he hires US citizens, and they are a lot more expensive than the illegal that walks in the door who says, "I'll do anything."

[CRGreathouse]

People hire illegals because they will work for a lot less, it's not right and it's not fair, but that's what happens.

Why isn't it fair? If they're willing to do more work per dollar, why not hire them?

[Jimmy Snyder]

Why isn't it fair? If they're willing to do more work per dollar, why not hire them?
As a software engineer making six figures, I get nervous looking at the illegal alien sitting in the next cubicle getting less than minimum wage for the same work.

[Barwick]

Why isn't it fair? If they're willing to do more work per dollar, why not hire them?

Because that would take away a union job!

oops, did I say that? :)

Honestly? It's because of government protectionism that's artificially inflating wages in this country, and therefore artificially inflating the prices of every product we purchase. This in turn makes workers demand higher "minimum wage" (what a farce), which raises wages again, causing increases in price, and the cycle continues.

[CRGreathouse]

As a software engineer making six figures, I get nervous looking at the illegal alien sitting in the next cubicle getting less than minimum wage for the same work.

I do the same sort of work but make 1 digit less. Are you worried about me taking your job?

Presumably you're well-paid because you're good. I stopped worrying about competition from India when I saw the quality of the work done there. I'm sure over time it will rise, but so will (and have!) their salaries.

[Jimmy Snyder]

I do the same sort of work but make 1 digit less. Are you worried about me taking your job?
No, but I spoke with the other guy and he said he was worried that his job would be outsourced back to Mexico. If they build a fence he won't be able to get home.

[drankin]

No, but I spoke with the other guy and he said he was worried that his job would be outsourced back to Mexico. If they build a fence he won't be able to get home.

I'm pretty sure he can just walk through a border crossing. They don't seem to mind people going that direction.

[Evo]

I'm pretty sure he can just walk through a border crossing. They don't seem to mind people going that direction.Reminds me of this article a member posted.

Illegal Immigrants Returning To Mexico For American Jobs

Still, the danger is very real. When 31-year-old illegal Arizona resident Ignacio Jimenez sought employment at an American plant in Mexico, he was shot at by Mexican border guards as he attempted to illegally enter the country of his citizenship, pursued by U.S. immigration officials who thought he might be entering the country illegally, and fired upon again by a second group of U.S. Border Patrol agents charged with keeping valuable table-busing and food-delivery personnel inside American borders.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/illegal-immigrants-returning-to-mexico-for-america,1951/

[drankin]

Reminds me of this article a member posted.



http://www.theonion.com/articles/illegal-immigrants-returning-to-mexico-for-america,1951/

Of course, one must cross at designated border crossings or risk being shot at.

[Jimmy Snyder]

Reminds me of this article a member posted.
I lift most of my material.

[turbo]

I lift most of my material.Steal from the best and you'll do well.

[Jimmy Snyder]

Steal from the best and you'll do well.
I'll use that someday.

[CAC1001]

Reminds me of this article a member posted.



http://www.theonion.com/articles/illegal-immigrants-returning-to-mexico-for-america,1951/

I don't know if you guys are joking or think this link is serious, but if the latter, keep in mind that's The Onion :biggrin:

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't know if you guys are joking or think this link is serious, but if the latter, keep in mind that's The Onion :biggrin:
I was more worried that people were taking me seriously.

[skeptic2]

I lived near the border in Nogales, AZ and worked in Nogales, Sonora. Thousands of people cross the border every day from both sides. How does a fence stop them? How does a fence stop those who overstay their visas. Did the East Germans have to deal with those problems?

I propose we offer a work visa at the US Consulates that guarantee at least minimum wage to the holder.
* Income tax and FICA would have to be paid on earnings or the visa would not be renewed.
* By requiring the employers to pay at least minimum wage these workers would not be putting downward pressure on low wage jobs.
* By requiring them to pay taxes, they would be no more a burden on taxpayers than low wage earning Americans.
* Employers may be encouraged to hire Americans for jobs for which they formerly used illegals.
* Illegals who are already here may return to get a visa in order to raise their wages.

[mugaliens]

I read the cost of securing our souther border is about $15 million per mile!

[mheslep]

Thousands of people cross the border every day from both sides. How does a fence stop them? How does a fence stop those who overstay their visas. [...] Good point but a somewhat different problem. At least for visa busters identity and some background information is known, meaning, among other things, a visa violator can't exit the country and expect to easily re-enter the country again with another visa, ruling out its use for repeat narcotics traffickers, for example. Second, the US always has the option of ratcheting down visas if it chooses on a country by country basis, encouraging cooperation from host countries to send people likely to abide by the terms of the visa.

[Galteeth]

Ok, I know this is an unpopular view point but from a moral point of view- what gives the US the right to restrict people's freedom of movement? Would you want to live in Mexico? What gives you the right to be here but not the them? I understand that immigration is not a long term solution to the problem. But the US has created a situation, through NAFTA, the war on drugs, and currency hegemony where Mexico just keeps getting worse and worse. Since NAFTA, which was supposed to improve the Mexican economy, the amount of immigrants has exploded. The US feels it can exploit the world through neo-mercantilist economic domination, backed by its dollar hegemony, which is backed by its military, and reacts with shock to the consequences that people want to live inside the seat of the empire.

My solution to the border problem: Repeal NAFTA, end the war on drugs, end government entitlements that encourage people to come, and start buying domestically produced products

[CAC1001]

Ok, I know this is an unpopular view point but from a moral point of view- what gives the US the right to restrict people's freedom of movement? Would you want to live in Mexico? What gives you the right to be here but not the them?

Because we are a nation? What gives many of them the right to utilize the social services paid for by the American taxpayer without paying taxes?

I understand that immigration is not a long term solution to the problem. But the US has created a situation, through NAFTA, the war on drugs, and currency hegemony where Mexico just keeps getting worse and worse.

Mexico's problems are all America's fault? NAFTA allows free trade (or more free trade) which leads to job creation for both sides. As for "currency hegemony," I would think America having a stronger currency makes Mexican-produced goods more attractive to Americans, because they are cheaper to import. America having a weaker currency than Mexico would hurt Mexican exports to America.

Since NAFTA, which was supposed to improve the Mexican economy, the amount of immigrants has exploded. The US feels it can exploit the world through neo-mercantilist economic domination, backed by its dollar hegemony, which is backed by its military, and reacts with shock to the consequences that people want to live inside the seat of the empire.

How do you mean America seeks to "exploit" the world, and how is the dollar backed by the military. Last I checked, the dollar's strength is backed by the economy. and no one is shocked people want to live inside America, but we cannot as a nation have a situation where people just randomly cross the border either.

My solution to the border problem: Repeal NAFTA, end the war on drugs, end government entitlements that encourage people to come, and start buying domestically produced products

Agree on the entitlements, disagree on NAFTA, not sure on the War on Drugs, as for products, buy from whomever produces with the most quality and best price.

[Galteeth]

"Because we are a nation? What gives many of them the right to utilize the social services paid for by the American taxpayer without paying taxes?"

Nothing, but although we live in a world of nation-states, the idea that the physical location of one's birth entitles people to different rights is not morally justifiable.




"Mexico's problems are all America's fault? NAFTA allows free trade (or more free trade) which leads to job creation for both sides. As for "currency hegemony," I would think America having a stronger currency makes Mexican-produced goods more attractive to Americans, because they are cheaper to import. America having a weaker currency than Mexico would hurt Mexican exports to America."

Mexico's problems are not all the US's fault. I am pointing out that before NAFTA, the illegal immigration problem was a small fraction of what it currently is. America's stronger currency attracts Mexicans to work here. Mexicans send the money back to their families, where it's purchasing power is disproportionately strong (i.e., the same work in America can buy more Mexican goods then equivalent work in Mexico.) You are correct about the attractiveness of imports, but I believe this is in fact a common fallacy. When you think about it, what you are saying is that the currency imbalance makes it logical for Mexicans to produce things and give them to the US, while the US does not produce things that are sent to Mexico. I know this flies in the face of conventional economic thinking, but it is the reason why the US, despite having the strongest currency, is the materially wealthiest nation in the world.



"How do you mean America seeks to "exploit" the world, and how is the dollar backed by the military. Last I checked, the dollar's strength is backed by the economy. and no one is shocked people want to live inside America, but we cannot as a nation have a situation where people just randomly cross the border either."

I don't mean America seeks to per ce, but the American government creates and supports world economic policies (through "free trade", the IMF, the WTO, etc) that are designed to maintain a global economic order where America is the consumer nation with all the clout and directive economic political power, and the third world countries must structure their economies to service the needs of the first world. There is nothing remarkable about this; it is the way of nation states, but that doesn't mean it's morally correct.

The dollar's strength is backed by "the economy" but this a global economy where America can print the reserve currency of the world and expand its monetary base with little consequence. Other countries whose currencies are not backed by having their currency being the default standard could not simply create money like we do and maintain such huge debt levels without wreaking havoc on their domestic standard of living and material wealth. The reasons for the US having the world reserve currency are a consequence of America's military and economic position at the end of world war 2, and the ultimate reason it has been maintained is the continued dominance of America as the world's military superpower (this is something of a tangent but if you are interested I can go into more detail; it is a long discussion).



Agree on the entitlements, disagree on NAFTA, not sure on the War on Drugs, as for products, buy from whomever produces with the most quality and best price.[/QUOTE]

A question for you, If NAFTA was supposed to be the benefit of both countries, why has Mexico gone so downhill, and why did Mexicans only start leaving en mass after NAFTA came into effect?

The war on drugs is a direct contributor, as the US's aggressive drug policy has dramatically increased the profits be had from the drug trade, which has lead to the rise of the Mexican cartels and Mexico's current undeclared civil war.

Another thing to be done to help the immigration problem would be to repeal minimum wage laws, with some caveats.

[Office_Shredder]

I am pointing out that before NAFTA, the illegal immigration problem was a small fraction of what it currently is. America's stronger currency attracts Mexicans to work here. Mexicans send the money back to their families, where it's purchasing power is disproportionately strong (i.e., the same work in America can buy more Mexican goods then equivalent work in Mexico.)

A strong currency isn't what makes the same job get paid more in America. It's the vast economic disparity that does it.

A question for you, If NAFTA was supposed to be the benefit of both countries, why has Mexico gone so downhill, and why did Mexicans only start leaving en mass after NAFTA came into effect?

The signing of NAFTA also coincided with the massive devaluation of the peso. I assume that was an American plot to help bolster the dollar vs the peso?

[CAC1001]

One thing, in order to quote what someone else has written, just write the word "quote" but with brackets ([ ]) around it at the start of the quoted passage, then write "/quote" in brackets at the end. Also, for whole posts, just click the "QUOTE" button in the bottom right-hand corner of a person's post.

Mexico's problems are not all the US's fault. I am pointing out that before NAFTA, the illegal immigration problem was a small fraction of what it currently is. America's stronger currency attracts Mexicans to work here.

America had a large illegal immigrant problem before NAFTA as well. Ronald Reagan granted millions of illegals amnesty.

Mexicans send the money back to their families, where it's purchasing power is disproportionately strong (i.e., the same work in America can buy more Mexican goods then equivalent work in Mexico.)

In that sense, America is helping Mexico through illegals, not hurting it. Illegals come to America to work or for freebies because life there is so terrible. That is also why the Mexican government is against stopping illegal immigration.

You are correct about the attractiveness of imports, but I believe this is in fact a common fallacy. When you think about it, what you are saying is that the currency imbalance makes it logical for Mexicans to produce things and give them to the US, while the US does not produce things that are sent to Mexico. I know this flies in the face of conventional economic thinking, but it is the reason why the US, despite having the strongest currency, is the materially wealthiest nation in the world.

The currency imbalance doesn't make it logical for Mexico to produce things and give them to the US, it makes it logical for Americans to buy things that are produced in Mexico if they are of good quality.

The US is the most materially wealthy nation because we produce more than anyone else and are more productive for the most part. We export more than anyone else as well.

I don't mean America seeks to per ce, but the American government creates and supports world economic policies (through "free trade", the IMF, the WTO, etc) that are designed to maintain a global economic order where America is the consumer nation with all the clout and directive economic political power, and the third world countries must structure their economies to service the needs of the first world. There is nothing remarkable about this; it is the way of nation states, but that doesn't mean it's morally correct.

I wouldn't say these institutions maintain any global economic order. By that standard, China, South Korea, etc...would still be Third World nations. Also, there wouldn't be efforts by the Third World nations to use things like global warming regulations to transfer wealth from nations like America to themselves.

The dollar's strength is backed by "the economy" but this a global economy where America can print the reserve currency of the world and expand its monetary base with little consequence. Other countries whose currencies are not backed by having their currency being the default standard could not simply create money like we do and maintain such huge debt levels without wreaking havoc on their domestic standard of living and material wealth.

Japan has a very level of debt. Italy as well (although Italy is near the breaking point).

The reasons for the US having the world reserve currency are a consequence of America's military and economic position at the end of world war 2, and the ultimate reason it has been maintained is the continued dominance of America as the world's military superpower (this is something of a tangent but if you are interested I can go into more detail; it is a long discussion).

The Soviet Union was a military superpower as well, but they were never any economic power.

A question for you, If NAFTA was supposed to be the benefit of both countries, why has Mexico gone so downhill, and why did Mexicans only start leaving en mass after NAFTA came into effect?

Because Mexico's government is so incredibly corrupt and because Mexico did nothing about the problem of the drug cartels which kept gaining and gaining in power to the point that now they're a major problem.

The war on drugs is a direct contributor, as the US's aggressive drug policy has dramatically increased the profits be had from the drug trade, which has lead to the rise of the Mexican cartels and Mexico's current undeclared civil war.

I don't know much about the connections between the U.S. drug policy and its influence on the drug trade, although that could be part of it.

Another thing to be done to help the immigration problem would be to repeal minimum wage laws, with some caveats.

Minimum wage laws help keep illegal immigrants out I would think, as their purpose is to protect unionize labor. Although I would say repeal them anyway on principle because I believe the minimum wage is a bad thing.

[skeptic2]

Another thing to be done to help the immigration problem would be to repeal minimum wage laws, with some caveats.


Minimum wage laws help keep illegal immigrants out I would think, as their purpose is to protect unionize labor. Although I would say repeal them anyway on principle because I believe the minimum wage is a bad thing.

Please explain. Minimum wage laws in the US encourage illegal immigration because in the illegals can work for less than a US worker yet make more than they could in Mexico. By providing the immigrant worker with a visa that guarantees him the same or higher minimum wage as US workers, their labor will put less downward pressure on workers' wages. Requiring that they pay taxes and social security will offset the social services they may require.

Minimum wage laws do not protect unionized labor and repealing them would not hurt unions. In fact it would give them a stronger reason to exist.

Why do you think minimum wage is a bad thing? Before minimum wage, companies could and did pay workers so little that they were trapped in their jobs. Companies loaned their workers money that they could never pay back making it illegal for the worker to leave the company no matter how bad the working conditions were.

[JonF]

Please explain. Minimum wage laws in the US encourage illegal immigration because in the illegals can work for less than a US worker yet make more than they could in Mexico. By providing the immigrant worker with a visa that guarantees him the same or higher minimum wage as US workers, their labor will put less downward pressure on workers' wages. Requiring that they pay taxes and social security will offset the social services they may require.I agree with you, what would be the point of foreign labor then? Typically people go with foreign labor because it’s cheaper. If you give foreign labor all the benefits of being a citizen there is no point. In my opinion a work visa program that makes sense would be the best solution. Give immigrants a viable option to come here and work legally in a way that is mutually beneficial to both the employer and the immigrant in certain industries, like agriculture or landscaping. As long as the worker’s standard of living and discretionary income is higher than it would be in Mexico’s everyone should be happy.

[Office_Shredder]

Legally permitting immigrants to work for less than minimum wage defeats the entire purpose of minimum wage. If you allow immigrants only to work for less than minimum wage then you are putting Americans at a disadvantage economically because they can't apply for some jobs anymore

[CAC1001]

Please explain. Minimum wage laws in the US encourage illegal immigration because in the illegals can work for less than a US worker yet make more than they could in Mexico. By providing the immigrant worker with a visa that guarantees him the same or higher minimum wage as US workers, their labor will put less downward pressure on workers' wages. Requiring that they pay taxes and social security will offset the social services they may require.

Maybe I'm wrong on illegals, because they are illegal, however if all those illegals are, say, granted amnesty, but are willing to work for far cheaper than the average American worker still, minimum wage laws protect unionized labor. They do this by pricing cheaper workers out of the market.

Why do you think minimum wage is a bad thing? Before minimum wage, companies could and did pay workers so little that they were trapped in their jobs.

A minimum wage is a price control. It artificially increases the cost of workers to a business. When you increase the price of something, what happens? People and businesses buy less of it. In the case of the minimum wage, it tends to artificially increase the unemployment rate because businesses hire fewer workers. It in particular will hurt small businesses because they cannot absorb the costs as easily as big businesses. This is of course not exact, I mean the price of gas can go up and businesses and people absorb the cost, raise the price too much though, and people and businesses start using less. Same with employers hiring workers.

An economy like America's can thus withstand a minimum wage to a degree and still maintain full employment, but there is a limit (and historically it seems the unemployment rate has had a very bad effect on the teenage unemployment rate).

Regarding unions, the minimum wage was actually used to protect white unionized labor against minorities throughout the early 20th century, because minorities such as blacks were willing to work for less money. By having a price control on the price of labor that makes it illegal to pay workers less than a minimum wage, it eliminated the ability of minorities to work for less.

Companies loaned their workers money that they could never pay back making it illegal for the worker to leave the company no matter how bad the working conditions were.

Those were the days before labor laws and their enforcement. Companies cannot do that kind of stuff anymore.

[Vanadium 50]

By requiring the employers to pay at least minimum wage these workers would not be putting downward pressure on low wage jobs.

How do you figure that? If the prevailing wage for a laborer is $10/hr and now someone will do it at $7.25/hr, how can it not put downward pressure on wages?

[skeptic2]

How do you figure that? If the prevailing wage for a laborer is $10/hr and now someone will do it at $7.25/hr, how can it not put downward pressure on wages?

Because $10/hr is above the minimum wage, anyone can offer to work $7.25/hr, even US citizens, and if enough applicants did, the going rate would be $7.25 instead of $10/hr. One assumes that if $10/hr is the going rate, it is the equilibrium point between what workers are willing to work for and what employers are willing to pay.

That is not true for those offering to work for less than minimum wage. If a US citizen were to offer to work for less than minimum wage the employer may well be suspicious because the worker could report him. Not so with illegals. If the illegal reports the employer he gets deported. A visa that guarantees minimum wage would give the immigrant the same power as a citizen to report employers that pay less than minimum wage.

I wish there were a way to guarantee immigrant workers the going rate for jobs, but I can't figure out how that might be done. That said, for jobs that offer over the minimum wage, yes, immigrant workers could still depress wages.

[JaredJames]

Does minimum wage only apply to citizens of the US then?

In the UK, it doesn't matter whether you are a citizen, a national or a legal immigrant. The law says you are to be paid at least the minimum wage.

You can't compare illegals working for less than MW to those legally working. It is an unfair comparison. If there were no more illegals (let's imagine they don't exist), the going rate would be determined by what people want to be paid vs what the employer wants to pay, your equilibrium point. But it would always be at least the minimum wage.

Illegals don't lower the going rate for legal workers in legitimate and legal companies. If a company is employing illegals it is breaking the law and so you can't apply the wage structuring to it in the same way you would a legit company.

[skeptic2]

Maybe I'm wrong on illegals, because they are illegal, however if all those illegals are, say, granted amnesty, but are willing to work for far cheaper than the average American worker still, minimum wage laws protect unionized labor. They do this by pricing cheaper workers out of the market.

I am not advocating amnesty for illegal workers. However, once granted amnesty, why would they be willing to work cheaper than non-immigrant workers?


A minimum wage is a price control. It artificially increases the cost of workers to a business. When you increase the price of something, what happens? People and businesses buy less of it. In the case of the minimum wage, it tends to artificially increase the unemployment rate because businesses hire fewer workers. It in particular will hurt small businesses because they cannot absorb the costs as easily as big businesses. This is of course not exact, I mean the price of gas can go up and businesses and people absorb the cost, raise the price too much though, and people and businesses start using less. Same with employers hiring workers.

While I don't agree that in general a minimum wage hurts small businesses more than large ones I do agree with much of what you wrote. However we can't think only of the businesses. Some consideration must be given to the workers too and there comes a point below which the low wages hurt the workers more than they help the company.

An economy like America's can thus withstand a minimum wage to a degree and still maintain full employment, but there is a limit (and historically it seems the unemployment rate has had a very bad effect on the teenage unemployment rate).

If lower wages were the solution to unemployment I think we would be seeing that now. Someone who has been out of work for 6 or 9 months certainly may be willing to take a job at a cut in pay, but that doesn't seem to be happening. It seems to me that there are fewer jobs being offered to new grads but the offers that are made are made at attractive salaries.

Regarding unions, the minimum wage was actually used to protect white unionized labor against minorities throughout the early 20th century, because minorities such as blacks were willing to work for less money. By having a price control on the price of labor that makes it illegal to pay workers less than a minimum wage, it eliminated the ability of minorities to work for less.
Do you think that is still the case? (if it ever was)


Those were the days before labor laws and their enforcement. Companies cannot do that kind of stuff anymore.
Yes and one of the labor laws that ended that practice was minimum wage.

[skeptic2]

Does minimum wage only apply to citizens of the US then?

In the UK, it doesn't matter whether you are a citizen, a national or a legal immigrant. The law says you are to be paid at least the minimum wage.
It's the same in the US. The employers are breaking the law by hiring illegals and by paying them less than MW. Who's going to report them though?

You can't compare illegals working for less than MW to those legally working. It is an unfair comparison. If there were no more illegals (let's imagine they don't exist), the going rate would be determined by what people want to be paid vs what the employer wants to pay, your equilibrium point. But it would always be at least the minimum wage.

Illegals don't lower the going rate for legal workers in legitimate and legal companies. If a company is employing illegals it is breaking the law and so you can't apply the wage structuring to it in the same way you would a legit company.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say illegals don't lower the going rate for legal workers but also that without illegals the going rate would be determined by what people want to be paid vs what the employer wants to pay.

[JaredJames]

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say illegals don't lower the going rate for legal workers but also that without illegals the going rate would be determined by what people want to be paid vs what the employer wants to pay.

Legal workers in legitimate and legal companies. As in companies not hiring illegal workers. They will get at least minimum wage if that is what the job dictates it should earn.

I can picture what I want to say in my head perfectly but just can't get it out into words.

[Galteeth]

The signing of NAFTA also coincided with the massive devaluation of the peso. I assume that was an American plot to help bolster the dollar vs the peso?

Read this paper.

http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/1997_bp_nafta.pdf

[mheslep]

Ok, I know this is an unpopular view point but from a moral point of view- what gives the US the right to restrict people's freedom of movement? Would you want to live in Mexico?
What gives you the right to be here but not the them?
If that's really a curiosity, then ask yourself why don't I have the right to enter your domicile at will, or the domicile of your family.

I understand that immigration is not a long term solution to the problem. But the US has created a situation, through NAFTA, the war on drugs, and currency hegemony where Mexico just keeps getting worse and worse. Since NAFTA, which was supposed to improve the Mexican economy,NAFTA clearly improved both the Mexican, Canadian, and US economies.the amount of immigrants has exploded. The US feels it can exploit the world through neo-mercantilist economic domination, backed by its dollar hegemony, which is backed by its military, and reacts with shock to the consequences that people want to live inside the seat of the empire.

My solution to the border problem: Repeal NAFTA, end the war on drugs, end government entitlements that encourage people to come, and start buying domestically produced productsThough I credit the drug problem as part of the immigration problem, for the most part I see deep seated racial and class divisions as the main economic problem in Mexico. After all, there are not waves of Canadians sneaking into the US to perform farm labor.

[Galteeth]

A strong currency isn't what makes the same job get paid more in America. It's the vast economic disparity that does it.




But the American dollar can purchase more in Mexico. A Mexican working in America is usually not earning enough to have a high standard of living, in America.. But when they send their American dollars back to their families in Mexico, it does earn them a high standard of living. I have spoken to many illegal immigrants about this topic, and a lot of them hate the long hours and demeaning work they do in America, but they explain that their families back home are wealthy by local standards. Of course this is not the case for all illegal immigrants, but it does seem to be a common trend.

[JaredJames]

But the American dollar can purchase more in Mexico. A Mexican working in America is usually not earning enough to have a high standard of living, in America.. But when they send their American dollars back to their families in Mexico, it does earn them a high standard of living. I have spoken to many illegal immigrants about this topic, and a lot of them hate the long hours and demeaning work they do in America, but they explain that their families back home are wealthy by local standards. Of course this is not the case for all illegal immigrants, but it does seem to be a common trend.

A lot of illegals in Britain work for little more than food and board. They can earn as little as £10 a day.

[Galteeth]

If that's really a curiosity, then ask yourself why don't I have the right to enter your domicile at will, or the domicile of your family.

NAFTA clearly improved both the Mexican, Canadian, and US economies.Though I credit the drug problem is part if the immigration problem, for the most part I see deep seated racial and class divisions as the main economic problem in Mexico. After all, there are not waves of Canadians sneaking into the US to perform farm labor.

On the second point, I'd like to see some proof. On the first, there is a clear difference between someone's private living space, which it is generally recognized should not be trespassed upon, and movement in general (people are allowed to walk down the sidewalk in front of your house, or buy or rent the house next to yours, or build their own home near yours.) Of course, I suppose you do have the right to enter my domicile in the sense that I don't think it's ok to use violence to prevent you if you are being non-violent, but it's rude.

[skeptic2]

I go to Mexico fairly regularly, the last time was Aug. 2010 and I am surprised at how expensive things are in Mexico. The cheapest things are things that are labor intensive such as houses and car repair. Anything that is imported such as electronics, even if it is from China, is more expensive than in the US. Even food and gasoline aren't as cheap as one would expect. I think this may be because when there is an export market for an item, the export market also determines the domestic price.

I think the main reason dollars go a lot further in Mexico than in the US is that most Mexicans don't have insurance on their houses, cars, health or lives. Even income tax is either low or non-existent for most Mexicans. They do have a hefty IVA or added value tax in addition to their sales tax. For those who favor a flat tax over an income tax, Mexico would be a good place to study to get an idea of how well (or not) it works.

[mheslep]

On the first, there is a clear difference between someone's private living space, which it is generally recognized should not be trespassed upon, and movement in general (people are allowed to walk down the sidewalk in front of your house, or buy or rent the house next to yours, or build their own home near yours.) The distinction you draw there is an arbitrary one of geography, with arbitrary rules: "generally recognized", "should not", "are allowed", etc. By the laws of the US, not all people are allowed to walk down the sidewalk in front of my house. Only people with clothes on, for instance, and only those legally resident in the country may do so. I'd likely object to Kim Jong-il walking down the street.

Of course, I suppose you do have the right to enter my domicile in the sense [...]I do not have any such right, not in the US, any more than I have a right to grab your wallet or conscript your labor for my nefarious ends. Nor do you have any right or leave to act similarly on me. In the US, we hold that all have the right to life, liberty, etc. None of those rights can be preserved without the rule of law, and by extension borders are required within which the law can be enacted and applied by the consent of the governed. No borders, then no rule of law, no rights.

[Office_Shredder]

But the American dollar can purchase more in Mexico. A Mexican working in America is usually not earning enough to have a high standard of living, in America.. But when they send their American dollars back to their families in Mexico, it does earn them a high standard of living. I have spoken to many illegal immigrants about this topic, and a lot of them hate the long hours and demeaning work they do in America, but they explain that their families back home are wealthy by local standards. Of course this is not the case for all illegal immigrants, but it does seem to be a common trend.


Again, this isn't because of the strength of the American dollar vs the peso. It's because America is far wealthier as a nation so people get paid more here

[CAC1001]

I am not advocating amnesty for illegal workers. However, once granted amnesty, why would they be willing to work cheaper than non-immigrant workers?

Historically immigrants have always been willing to work for less. The Irish and the blacks and other ethnic groups used to have riots where they battled one another over this.

While I don't agree that in general a minimum wage hurts small businesses more than large ones I do agree with much of what you wrote.

A small business cannot absorb the higher costs from a minimum wage in the way a big business can. Same thing with regulations. Sometimes big businesses in an industry will push for heavy regulations because the compliance costs will wipe out their competitors.

I'm not saying create a minimum wage and all small businesses go kaput, that isn't the case, but any kind of extra costs added will hurt smaller businesses moeso.

However we can't think only of the businesses. Some consideration must be given to the workers too and there comes a point below which the low wages hurt the workers more than they help the company.

How is not having a minimum wage "thinking of the businesses" though? The market sets the actual minimum wage, and it is the price of the labor offered by the workers versus what the employers will pay. It isn't the businesses' fault if the wage is set very low for particular forms of labor.

If lower wages were the solution to unemployment I think we would be seeing that now. Someone who has been out of work for 6 or 9 months certainly may be willing to take a job at a cut in pay, but that doesn't seem to be happening. It seems to me that there are fewer jobs being offered to new grads but the offers that are made are made at attractive salaries.

Wages are not being held artificially high right now. They tried this during the Great Depression and it is believed to have held unemployment higher than what it would have been.

Do you think that is still the case? (if it ever was)

If illegals are granted amnesty, and are willing to work for less than current wages, I most certainly think that the unions want the minimum wage in order to price them out of the market. And yes it was the case, read up on the New Deal in particular regarding this.

Yes and one of the labor laws that ended that practice was minimum wage.

What ended that were laws demanding safe working environments, laws giving weekends, laws preventing corporations from demanding you work an assembly line sixteen hours a day with no bathroom breaks even, for seven days a week, etc...

[Jasongreat]

CAC1001- Historically immigrants have always been willing to work for less. The Irish and the blacks and other ethnic groups used to have riots where they battled one another over this.

IMO, this is not because of their ethinticity, but because they are still used to, or are willing and capable to live at the lower standard of living they had in the countries they emmigrated from. A law that forces immigrants to assimilate to our culture quicker, would do more to raise their wages, than a law that you have to pay them a certain amount, since they would need to make more money to maintain their higher living standards and therefore would demand higher pay themselves, they would also learn the most important part of the equation in getting a raise is they need more skills, making their labor more valuable to their employer and would concentrate on learning those skills needed for advancement instead of blaming others for their willingness to work cheaper.


A small business cannot absorb the higher costs from a minimum wage in the way a big business can. Same thing with regulations. Sometimes big businesses in an industry will push for heavy regulations because the compliance costs will wipe out their competitors.

I dont think any buisiness, big or small, can absorb higher labor costs without hurting their bottom line. Any product can only support a certain level of overhead before the cost of that product needs to increase and any product can only go to a certain level before it will start to lose sales. I do completely agree with your point about regulation though.


How is not having a minimum wage "thinking of the businesses" though? The market sets the actual minimum wage, and it is the price of the labor offered by the workers versus what the employers will pay. It isn't the businesses' fault if the wage is set very low for particular forms of labor.

I think it could be argued that having a minimum wage arbitrarilly increased hurts the workers more than the buisinesses. Say you have a hourly budget for labor of 20 dollars for your product. At a minimum wage of 5$ you can hire 4 workers, if the government, or a union, comes in and says that you need to raise the wage to 6$, you can only afford to pay three workers, or you have to raise the price of your product. If the market will only support the original price you either lose money and go out of buisiness and all workers get hurt, or one worker has to go find another job, if they can.


Wages are not being held artificially high right now. They tried this during the Great Depression and it is believed to have held unemployment higher than what it would have been.

Imo, wages are both being held artificially high and at the same time being held artificially low, through governmental intrusion. For low or unskilled workers the minimum wage is artificially raising their wage above market value, since if the market could naturally support those wages there would be no need for the minimum wage in the first place. For higher skilled workers their wages are being reduced artificially through things like social security, health benefit requirements, unemployment insurance and the like. Employers would not pay more than what an employee is worth to them, so everything in their pay package that is mandated reduces the wage the skilled employee can negotiate.


If illegals are granted amnesty, and are willing to work for less than current wages, I most certainly think that the unions want the minimum wage in order to price them out of the market. And yes it was the case, read up on the New Deal in particular regarding this.

Some of the largest beneficaries of illegals' labor are unions, in my experience unions really dont care if it is an american paying dues or an illegal as long as they get those dues. When I worked in SoCal, the laborers where pretty upfront about their union having a buisiness agent who would help them get fake documents and then send them out to jobs. Unions also have another trick up their sleeve, it is called prevailing wage. It is explained as a wonderful, unselfish thing they do to help non-union workers, the only problem with that explanation, is that without prevailing wage laws, unions would be priced out of the market.


What ended that were laws demanding safe working environments, laws giving weekends, laws preventing corporations from demanding you work an assembly line sixteen hours a day with no bathroom breaks even, for seven days a week, etc...

I am glad you said laws demanding, and not laws creating safe working enviroments. I am not a fan of oversight, since imo, while sounds good it makes matters worse. The best way to regulate anything is undersight. As a worker in a pretty dangerous field, I have noticed that most safety rules(oversight) make workers less safe, whereas having the worker watch out for themselves make them far safer(undersight). One such rule states that overhead powerlines need to have markers to warn workers of the hazard, and I have seen a quite a few different pieces of equipment run into lines because someone or something(wind) had moved the markers, whereas if an employee is taught to watch out for the powerlines and not the markers, accidents are far less likely to happen. Undersight would also work for any market as well. Making the consumer responsible for controlling prices for example, would go a long way to prevent boom and bust housing markets for example. Teaching people to watch out for hazards(like overpriced housing), succeeds far better than trying to eliminate the hazards through oversight and regulation because the world is a dangerous place and no matter how many rules there are hazards still exist. Education allows free choice, oversight does not. I know lots of people that choose to work long hours, to work 7 days a week so they can make more money to buy everything they want, on the otherhand I prefer to keep my expenses as low as possible so I can have all the free time I can possibly afford. Lets leave life choices, employment choices, wage choices up to the individual, not some bureacrat or groups of bureacrats who think they know better what we want or need.

[skeptic2]

How is not having a minimum wage "thinking of the businesses" though? The market sets the actual minimum wage, and it is the price of the labor offered by the workers versus what the employers will pay. It isn't the businesses' fault if the wage is set very low for particular forms of labor.

In cosmopolitan areas where there are many businesses and workers are free to migrate between employers there probably wouldn't be a problem. But there are many situations where there is one major employer in a town and the residents either work for that employer or they don’t work. In situations like these the corporation may gradually lower wages and as they do so, the employees become more dependent on those minuscule wages. With lower wages the employees become less able to drive 30 miles to the next town for a different job. The same company in areas where there is more competition may pay its workers double or more than it does in small towns. Is this what you call the market setting the actual minimum wage? Is this what you mean when you say it isn’t the businesses’ fault if the wage is set very low for particular forms of labor?

[skeptic2]

I think it could be argued that having a minimum wage arbitrarilly increased hurts the workers more than the buisinesses. Say you have a hourly budget for labor of 20 dollars for your product. At a minimum wage of 5$ you can hire 4 workers, if the government, or a union, comes in and says that you need to raise the wage to 6$, you can only afford to pay three workers, or you have to raise the price of your product. If the market will only support the original price you either lose money and go out of buisiness and all workers get hurt, or one worker has to go find another job, if they can.


If a McDonalds restaurant substantially raises the wages it pays and increases its prices to cover the increase in wages, some customers may start going to Burger King. If however Burger King also has to raise its wages by the same amount as well, the increase probably won’t have much if any affect on sales. Since there are many other factors in the cost of a burger beside wages, the price of the burger won’t have to increase by the same percentage as the percent increase in wages. This means that by virtue of the increase in the minimum wage, someone who formerly couldn’t afford to eat at McDonalds or Burger King now may be able to.

No I’m not suggesting we can legislate wealth by raising the minimum wage but I am suggesting that minimum wage increases cut both ways and only looking at one side is neither fair nor honest.

[Office_Shredder]

Read this paper.

http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/1997_bp_nafta.pdf

Fact: The devalued peso made it easier for Mexico to import to the US under Nafta. I won't disagree with that.

The claim is that this was intentionally done for the purposes of letting the US buy cheap goods is made, but not proven in this. The author says that it was politics that let the peso get high, acknowledging that it was going to crash regardless of the effect of NAFTA. The only alleged role that NAFTA plays is that the author claims the peso was held to a high level so that NAFTA could be passed in the US. Overall the paper does little to nothing to support the claim that NAFTA is the difference between whether or not a peso collapse occurs

As a counterpoint
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj17n3-14.html

A peer reviewed article as opposed to a briefing paper describing how Mexico's credit boom collapse was the cause of the peso devaluation with analogies to other countries which had similar problems. The role that NAFTA plays is simply being part of a politically uncertain situation in 1994 which helped trigger the inevitable collapse

[CAC1001]

IMO, this is not because of their ethinticity, but because they are still used to, or are willing and capable to live at the lower standard of living they had in the countries they emmigrated from. A law that forces immigrants to assimilate to our culture quicker, would do more to raise their wages, than a law that you have to pay them a certain amount, since they would need to make more money to maintain their higher living standards and therefore would demand higher pay themselves, they would also learn the most important part of the equation in getting a raise is they need more skills, making their labor more valuable to their employer and would concentrate on learning those skills needed for advancement instead of blaming others for their willingness to work cheaper.

True. I just meant that historically (at least as far as I know), immigrant labor has always been willing to do more work for less money, until they did become assimilated into society.

I think it could be argued that having a minimum wage arbitrarilly increased hurts the workers more than the buisinesses. Say you have a hourly budget for labor of 20 dollars for your product. At a minimum wage of 5$ you can hire 4 workers, if the government, or a union, comes in and says that you need to raise the wage to 6$, you can only afford to pay three workers, or you have to raise the price of your product. If the market will only support the original price you either lose money and go out of buisiness and all workers get hurt, or one worker has to go find another job, if they can.

Yup, exactly, but this also hurts the business as well if they have to give up employees or raise prices.

Imo, wages are both being held artificially high and at the same time being held artificially low, through governmental intrusion. For low or unskilled workers the minimum wage is artificially raising their wage above market value, since if the market could naturally support those wages there would be no need for the minimum wage in the first place. For higher skilled workers their wages are being reduced artificially through things like social security, health benefit requirements, unemployment insurance and the like. Employers would not pay more than what an employee is worth to them, so everything in their pay package that is mandated reduces the wage the skilled employee can negotiate.

Yup. That is why wages can be declining while incomes can be increasing. I believe part of the reason for declining wages with rising per capita incomes lately as been the rising costs of healthcare.

Some of the largest beneficaries of illegals' labor are unions, in my experience unions really dont care if it is an american paying dues or an illegal as long as they get those dues. When I worked in SoCal, the laborers where pretty upfront about their union having a buisiness agent who would help them get fake documents and then send them out to jobs. Unions also have another trick up their sleeve, it is called prevailing wage. It is explained as a wonderful, unselfish thing they do to help non-union workers, the only problem with that explanation, is that without prevailing wage laws, unions would be priced out of the market.

I see.

I am glad you said laws demanding, and not laws creating safe working enviroments. I am not a fan of oversight, since imo, while sounds good it makes matters worse. The best way to regulate anything is undersight. As a worker in a pretty dangerous field, I have noticed that most safety rules(oversight) make workers less safe, whereas having the worker watch out for themselves make them far safer(undersight). One such rule states that overhead powerlines need to have markers to warn workers of the hazard, and I have seen a quite a few different pieces of equipment run into lines because someone or something(wind) had moved the markers, whereas if an employee is taught to watch out for the powerlines and not the markers, accidents are far less likely to happen. Undersight would also work for any market as well. Making the consumer responsible for controlling prices for example, would go a long way to prevent boom and bust housing markets for example. Teaching people to watch out for hazards(like overpriced housing), succeeds far better than trying to eliminate the hazards through oversight and regulation because the world is a dangerous place and no matter how many rules there are hazards still exist. Education allows free choice, oversight does not. I know lots of people that choose to work long hours, to work 7 days a week so they can make more money to buy everything they want, on the otherhand I prefer to keep my expenses as low as possible so I can have all the free time I can possibly afford. Lets leave life choices, employment choices, wage choices up to the individual, not some bureacrat or groups of bureacrats who think they know better what we want or need.

I agree, although I think certain areas do need regulation, just keep it as light and efficient as possible. But for example we need regulation to make sure toys are not made with lead paint.

[mheslep]

[...]But for example we need regulation to make sure toys are not made with lead paint.I don't know that regulation is the only way to insure that. To my mind what's needed is information about harm, not necessarily prevention by a far removed third party.

[Galteeth]

Again, this isn't because of the strength of the American dollar vs the peso. It's because America is far wealthier as a nation so people get paid more here

"Paid more" is the same thing. A low end job by American standards is a high end job by Mexican standards. These jobs can possibly afford more material wealth in America then they could in Mexico, but the real difference in "paid more" comes when you compare a mexican working in america and spending his money in mexico versus a mexican working in mexioc and spending his money in mexico. A mexican working in america and spending his money in america is still poor (I am referring to material wealth here.)

[Galteeth]

The distinction you draw there is an arbitrary one of geography, with arbitrary rules: "generally recognized", "should not", "are allowed", etc. By the laws of the US, not all people are allowed to walk down the sidewalk in front of my house. Only people with clothes on, for instance, and only those legally resident in the country may do so. I'd likely object to Kim Jong-il walking down the street.

I do not have any such right, not in the US, any more than I have a right to grab your wallet or conscript your labor for my nefarious ends. Nor do you have any right or leave to act similarly on me. In the US, we hold that all have the right to life, liberty, etc. None of those rights can be preserved without the rule of law, and by extension borders are required within which the law can be enacted and applied by the consent of the governed. No borders, then no rule of law, no rights.

I was referring to the moral basis; obviously I understand the legal basis. The distinction is not arbitrary. One is private space, the other is public. These distinctions are the creation of human values, and I anticipate you will say so are nation states. When I refer to rights, i am obviously talking about my own moral views, not the laws of the US.
The basis for private space is human conception of ownership of place. You can say the people of the US own their country. But the point is that the determination of who is a person of the United states is arbitrary. It is about location of birth. It has nothing to do with value as people, or work done to claim ownership in the lockean sense.

[Galteeth]

A lot of illegals in Britain work for little more than food and board. They can earn as little as £10 a day.

Doesn't this reinforce my point, as the British currency could buy more in the home country?

[Galteeth]

One thing, in order to quote what someone else has written, just write the word "quote" but with brackets ([ ]) around it at the start of the quoted passage, then write "/quote" in brackets at the end. Also, for whole posts, just click the "QUOTE" button in the bottom right-hand corner of a person's post.



America had a large illegal immigrant problem before NAFTA as well. Ronald Reagan granted millions of illegals amnesty.



In that sense, America is helping Mexico through illegals, not hurting it. Illegals come to America to work or for freebies because life there is so terrible. That is also why the Mexican government is against stopping illegal immigration.



The currency imbalance doesn't make it logical for Mexico to produce things and give them to the US, it makes it logical for Americans to buy things that are produced in Mexico if they are of good quality.

The US is the most materially wealthy nation because we produce more than anyone else and are more productive for the most part. We export more than anyone else as well.



I wouldn't say these institutions maintain any global economic order. By that standard, China, South Korea, etc...would still be Third World nations. Also, there wouldn't be efforts by the Third World nations to use things like global warming regulations to transfer wealth from nations like America to themselves.



Japan has a very level of debt. Italy as well (although Italy is near the breaking point).



The Soviet Union was a military superpower as well, but they were never any economic power.



Because Mexico's government is so incredibly corrupt and because Mexico did nothing about the problem of the drug cartels which kept gaining and gaining in power to the point that now they're a major problem.



I don't know much about the connections between the U.S. drug policy and its influence on the drug trade, although that could be part of it.



Minimum wage laws help keep illegal immigrants out I would think, as their purpose is to protect unionize labor. Although I would say repeal them anyway on principle because I believe the minimum wage is a bad thing.

1. The problem has gotten worse since NAFTA.

2. Sort of. Except that the motivated people leave Mexico, making it worse in the long run for the people still there. There will eventually be localized dollar inflation, as dollars sent home chase fewer domestic services. Mexican products are sent to the US as per NAFTA

3. tomato tomato

4. Yes, but the total imports exceed the exports.

5. Generally speaking they do. There are always going to be exceptions and complexities.

6. There has been greater consequence for countries with high debt levels that aren't the US. See Japan's lost decade, and as you pointed out, the severe problems in the "lesser" nations of the european union.


7. More or less agreed. I wasn't suggesting being a military power automatically leads to being economically powerful.

8. This is true, but as i pointed out there are other factors such as the war on drugs, motivated mexican workers leaving, NAFTA

9. Quite obviously restricting supply leads to increased profit from those who can sell

10. The last point has been argued extensively by other posters

[Siv]

While I agree theat there are many practical problems from illegal immigration, I am with a few others here who say that in general it gives rise to a lot of flag-waving and ethnocenrism/xenophobia.
Something I have always felt - that being bonded to or being loyal to an artificially bounded piece of land because you or your parents/grandparents happened to be born there is just silly. Patriotism is as irrational a religion as Christianity or Islam or Hinduism.

One of the reasons I refused to move to the US ages back when most of my colleagues/friends/peers were doing so, I hated the smugness of some Americans who think they are doing a big favour to the immigrants.
The US has, and always will continue to benefit from immigrants, but obviously the more elite and higher educated ones. There's no charity there, lets be very clear about that.

[Siv]

I do the same sort of work but make 1 digit less. Are you worried about me taking your job?

Presumably you're well-paid because you're good. I stopped worrying about competition from India when I saw the quality of the work done there. I'm sure over time it will rise, but so will (and have!) their salaries. (clearing my throat).
What was that about the quality of work from India ?

Not sure if you have read this recent Economist article.
http://www.economist.com/node/17147648

Yes, we were once cheap labour, but thats changing rapidly.

I apologise for the patriotic note in my post (cant help it, I guess :smile:).

[JaredJames]

Doesn't this reinforce my point, as the British currency could buy more in the home country?

No it doesn't reinforce your point.

These people are exploited because of their illegal status. They work longer hours in terrible coniditions.

By the time you factor in the cost of clothing and various other necessary requirements, there's not much (if any) change from £50 a week. Remember, this is the same amount as being on basic state benefits in Britain. You can survive on it, barely.

Sending money home isn't an option when you're dealing with such small amounts.

These people came to Britain for a better life and in turn have ended up stuck in a situation they have no hope of escaping. Most that are ferried in illegaly are in debt to those who brought them here by thousands of pounds and have to work to pay it off.

[Galteeth]

No it doesn't reinforce your point.

These people are exploited because of their illegal status. They work longer hours in terrible coniditions.

By the time you factor in the cost of clothing and various other necessary requirements, there's not much (if any) change from £50 a week. Remember, this is the same amount as being on basic state benefits in Britain. You can survive on it, barely.

Sending money home isn't an option when you're dealing with such small amounts.

These people came to Britain for a better life and in turn have ended up stuck in a situation they have no hope of escaping. Most that are ferried in illegaly are in debt to those who brought them here by thousands of pounds and have to work to pay it off.

I never claimed they weren't being exploited. Where do these immigrants to Britian come from?

[Jasongreat]

While I agree theat there are many practical problems from illegal immigration, I am with a few others here who say that in general it gives rise to a lot of flag-waving and ethnocenrism/xenophobia.
Something I have always felt - that being bonded to or being loyal to an artificially bounded piece of land because you or your parents/grandparents happened to be born there is just silly. Patriotism is as irrational a religion as Christianity or Islam or Hinduism.

One of the reasons I refused to move to the US ages back when most of my colleagues/friends/peers were doing so, I hated the smugness of some Americans who think they are doing a big favour to the immigrants.
The US has, and always will continue to benefit from immigrants, but obviously the more elite and higher educated ones. There's no charity there, lets be very clear about that.

You hate the smugness of some americans? Your post seems very smug to me. You also said you think patriotism is irrational, then post:

What was that about the quality of work from India ?

Not sure if you have read this recent Economist article.
http://www.economist.com/node/17147648

Yes, we were once cheap labour, but thats changing rapidly.

Seems pretty irrational.

Americans dont have problems with immigrants, we all have immigration in our past, even the native americans emmigrated here. Some of us do have a problem with illegal immigration though, and for good reason, its illegal!

As to the article you provided, good for india, but dont sound the trumpets just yet, you still have plenty of problems in your own country to deal with.

[JaredJames]

I never claimed they weren't being exploited. Where do these immigrants to Britian come from?

Eastern Europe (non-EU states) and the middle east. A lot of Afghanistan and Iraqi people try to get in via lorries from Callais to Dover.

I wasn't disagreeing with British money being worth more back home, I was simply trying to make the point that they aren't necessarily sending money back home so the whole "coming here to send money back home to help their families" doesn't always hold. (Even if it was their intention.)

[Siv]

Americans dont have problems with immigrants, we all have immigration in our past, even the native americans emmigrated here. Some of us do have a problem with illegal immigration though, and for good reason, its illegal! Laws are made by human beings and are not always perfect. Lets not make them sacred.

As to the article you provided, good for india, but dont sound the trumpets just yet, you still have plenty of problems in your own country to deal with.I would be the last to do that. We have tons of issues, yes.

But so do you :wink:

[CAC1001]

1. The problem has gotten worse since NAFTA.

Doesn't mean that's NAFTA's fault.

4. Yes, but the total imports exceed the exports.

That's not a problem.

BTW, when you click the "Quote" button and get the person's post you're responding to, you can then write "quote" and "/quote" brackets around each portion of that person's post you are responding to.

[mheslep]

I was referring to the moral basis; obviously I understand the legal basis. The distinction is not arbitrary. One is private space, the other is public. Can you see the circular aspect of that definition? One should not invade my private space because it is private. According to who? My home is shared with other family members and frequent guests but no more. I share my place of business with colleagues, occasional clients but no more. I share my country with all the other citizens and legal residents but no more.

These distinctions are the creation of human values, and I anticipate you will say so are nation states. When I refer to rights, i am obviously talking about my own moral views, not the laws of the US. I'd say the distinctions you draw about private and public space are your assertions, not those of all humanity, at least not mine. That is, I'd commonly call the street public space too, but that definition of public does not include criminals.

The basis for private space is human conception of ownership of place. You can say the people of the US own their country. But the point is that the determination of who is a person of the United states is arbitrary. It is about location of birth. There are a clear and rigorous set of rules in place for determining who resides legally in the US. Clearly for the millions of naturalized US citizens citizenship is about more than place of birth.

[Siv]

There are a clear and rigorous set of rules in place for determining who resides legally in the US. Clearly for the millions of naturalized US citizens citizenship is about more than place of birth.It definitely is.
And it comes naturally to us, associating with a particular group and thinking that group is superior to all others because we are in it.

But, if you really dig deep, its really just an irrational feeling, something which probably helped in our evolution but can be a terrible baggage now.

If you go far enough back, we all should consider a small piece of land in the African grasslands as our "motherland" and be willing to die for that piece of land.

Practical aspects matter of course. You pay taxes to a particular government and so that government (supposedly) provides you with some basic services and infrastructure and all that sort of thing. But with most people, its much more than that. Patriotism makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside and makes them do silly things. Which can be terrible sometimes. Like shooting illegal immigrants.

[Jasongreat]

Laws are made by human beings and are not always perfect. Lets not make them sacred.

:

What kind of world would it be if everyone just chose which laws they had to follow and which ones they didnt. Would Mexicans feel the same way if 10-40 million americans went across their border, and went about turning their country into ours? How do they treat illegal immigrants that come from other countries? It sure isnt the same way they want to be treated here.

I could easily say it is my best interest, and that I am only trying to make my life better, to come to your house and make you feed me because my house has no food in the fridge. I think most rational people would say that was wrong, then I guess some would say that the law that says I couldnt do that, was just a man made law and not sacred, and therefore what I did was right. But I bet you would feel differently if it was your house, and your food. Now if you invited me, wouldnt that make it different? Which is why there is a difference between illegal immigration and immigration, one has been invited, the other hasnt.

Or I could say that my house has no food in the fridge, and I could go about doing what I could, under the law, to change that fact.

That is the problem I have with illegals, they need to fix their own damn country, dont come here because your country sucks, unless you want to assimilate to our culture(which includes following the law, which means coming here legally), because that is what has made our country great, law and order.

[CRGreathouse]

How do[es Mexico] treat illegal immigrants that come from other countries?

Poorly.

That is the problem I have with illegals, they need to fix their own damn country, dont come here because your country sucks, unless you want to assimilate to our culture(which includes following the law, which means coming here legally), because that is what has made our country great, law and order.

You left out the part about how badly America needs the Mexican labor.

[CAC1001]

But with most people, its much more than that. Patriotism makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside and makes them do silly things. Which can be terrible sometimes. Like shooting illegal immigrants.

Patriotism doesn't lead people to shoot illegal immigrants. That I'd more associate with nationalism. Many people confuse nationalism with patriotism, but the two are separate. Nationalism is a collective movement, it is based on groupthink. People get caught up in it, the fervor, the emotion, etc...it is a form of collective mania. Other forms of collective manias can be for example stock market bubbles and market crashes, manias over celebrities, even politicians (I'd say Barack Obama had a form of a mania around him during the '08 election).

Patriotism, on the other hand, is an individual type of thing. Patriotism isn't a collective emotional wave you get caught up in, it can mean going against the collective wave, many Democrats even epitomized this during the Bush years over the Iraq War when they said, "Dissent is a high form of patriotism." Patriotism oftentimes requires sacrifice as well.

[skeptic2]

Would Mexicans feel the same way if 10-40 million americans went across their border, and went about turning their country into ours?

That's exactly how they do feel over the annexation of Texas in 1845.

[mheslep]

It definitely is.
And it comes naturally to us, associating with a particular group and thinking that group is superior to all others because we are in it.

But, if you really dig deep, its really just an irrational feeling, something which probably helped in our evolution but can be a terrible baggage now.

If you go far enough back, we all should consider a small piece of land in the African grasslands as our "motherland" and be willing to die for that piece of land.

Practical aspects matter of course. You pay taxes to a particular government and so that government (supposedly) provides you with some basic services and infrastructure and all that sort of thing. But with most people, its much more than that. Patriotism makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside and makes them do silly things. Which can be terrible sometimes. Like shooting illegal immigrants.Consider that your post may be just a collection of feelings (baseless assumptions, hyperbole, condescension) absent any logical argument before getting overly caught up in the condemnation of group associations as irrational.

[mheslep]

That's exactly how they do feel over the annexation of Texas in 1845.How do you know how 'they' feel? Can you also speak for the Aztecs?

[skeptic2]

I am married to a Mexican and have Mexican inlaws. I also worked for five years in Mexico. I am fluent in Spanish and watch Mexican television and read Mexican newspapers. Five of my relatives are or were teachers in Mexican schools.

Before Ernesto Zedillo's presidency, the schools taught that the U.S. invaded Mexico and took Texas away from Mexico by force and under duress. Zedillo, who had been secretary of education before becoming president, moderated the tone of the textbooks presumably to make NAFTA more palatable to the Mexicans.

No I can't speak for the Aztecs.

[Siv]

What kind of world would it be if everyone just chose which laws they had to follow and which ones they didnt. Would Mexicans feel the same way if 10-40 million americans went across their border, and went about turning their country into ours? How do they treat illegal immigrants that come from other countries? It sure isnt the same way they want to be treated here.

I could easily say it is my best interest, and that I am only trying to make my life better, to come to your house and make you feed me because my house has no food in the fridge. I think most rational people would say that was wrong, then I guess some would say that the law that says I couldnt do that, was just a man made law and not sacred, and therefore what I did was right. But I bet you would feel differently if it was your house, and your food. Now if you invited me, wouldnt that make it different? Which is why there is a difference between illegal immigration and immigration, one has been invited, the other hasnt. This is called the slippery slope logical fallacy.
My point in saying that laws are not sacrosanct was saying that they can and should be changed based on objective considerations. Not that everyone should break the law. If laws are set in stone, thats not civilization, thats a religion.

That is the problem I have with illegals, they need to fix their own damn country, dont come here because your country sucks, unless you want to assimilate to our culture(which includes following the law, which means coming here legally), because that is what has made our country great, law and order.Here it is again. The "my country is greater than your country because its mine" religion. Whats so different between this and claiming "my god is better because he is my god".

National boundaries may serve some practical benefits, but lets not be making them into a religion.

[Siv]

Patriotism doesn't lead people to shoot illegal immigrants. That I'd more associate with nationalism. Many people confuse nationalism with patriotism, but the two are separate. Nationalism is a collective movement, it is based on groupthink. People get caught up in it, the fervor, the emotion, etc...it is a form of collective mania. Other forms of collective manias can be for example stock market bubbles and market crashes, manias over celebrities, even politicians (I'd say Barack Obama had a form of a mania around him during the '08 election).

Patriotism, on the other hand, is an individual type of thing. Patriotism isn't a collective emotional wave you get caught up in, it can mean going against the collective wave, many Democrats even epitomized this during the Bush years over the Iraq War when they said, "Dissent is a high form of patriotism." Patriotism oftentimes requires sacrifice as well. Ok, so whats the rationale behind this not-collective sense of feeling that your own country is the best ? You would feel differently if your grandparents had been born a few hundred kilometers north/south/east/west.

Consider that your post may be just a collection of feelings (baseless assumptions, hyperbole, condescension) absent any logical argument before getting overly caught up in the condemnation of group associations as irrational. So tell me, whats so rational about group associations ?
It comes naturally to us, because we evolved to associate with a particular tribe and had a deep rooted distrust/resentment towards other groups. Studies show that even small children are capable of it. But if you ask me, this is not such a harmless or mild thing. This sows the seed for lots of horrible things.

[CAC1001]

Ok, so whats the rationale behind this not-collective sense of feeling that your own country is the best ? You would feel differently if your grandparents had been born a few hundred kilometers north/south/east/west.

What makes you think patriotism is thinking one's country is "the best?" Patriotism is having a deep pride for one's nation, culture, country, etc..whatever. We find it intranationally as well. Texans are very proud to be from Texas, Californians are very proud to be from California, New Yorkers are proud to be from New York, etc...then you get even more localized, with city pride.

Also East Coast versus West Coast, North versus South, etc...being patriotic does not mean one thinks their country/culture is per se "the best."

That's one thing that bugs me with many of the elitist types who say, "Patriotism is beneath me, I am a 'global citizen,'" as if being patriotic and having deep pride in one's nation prevents one from being a worldly citizen.

Blindly thinking one's country is the best and that's that and everyone else is beneath them is more a nationalistic type of mindset IMO.

[Char. Limit]

As an example of how patriotism is not limited to country, I feel that people from Eastern Washington are superior to people from Western Washington. As it happens, I live in Eastern Washington.

[Phrak]

You left out the part about how badly America needs the Mexican labor.

I don't need Mexican labor. I'm not an employer. You?

I lock my doors at times to deter unwelcome visitors. Do you?

[Galteeth]

What kind of world would it be if everyone just chose which laws they had to follow and which ones they didnt. .

Probably a lot like the one we have now.

[Siv]

What makes you think patriotism is thinking one's country is "the best?" Patriotism is having a deep pride for one's nation, culture, country, etc..whatever.But whats the rationale behind this deep pride ?
The fact that your parents/grandparents/great grandparents happened to be born where they were and not a few hundred kms north/south/east/west ?

Now suppose I was born Indian but I move to Singapore, and, after 5 years, become a Singapore citizen. I should feel this deep pride for Singapore or India ? Or both ? What would the basis be for either of these choices ?!

[Siv]

As an example of how patriotism is not limited to country, I feel that people from Eastern Washington are superior to people from Western Washington. As it happens, I live in Eastern Washington.Actually, I think that all the people living in <my address> are superior.
No, not superior. I have deep pride for all those living in <my address>.

[xxChrisxx]

The UK can't stop illegals and we have at minimum 23 miles of sea between us and foreign land. You lot have no chance.

It's also rather myopic to think that a great big wall will stop people crossing the boarder. All it does is force those who are going to cross to be more sneaky and therefore become more organised. You also massively encourage people traffiking. There is a demand for people to cross the boarder. Where there is demand, there is supply, this supply is generally run by people with low moral fibre.

So unless you are going to turn it into 'FORTRESS AMERICA' and run something as ruthless as a Soviet era boarder, you'll never stop illegals.

[mheslep]

The UK can't stop illegals and we have at minimum 23 miles of sea between us and foreign land. You lot have no chance.

It's also rather myopic to think that a great big wall will stop people crossing the boarder. All it does is force those who are going to cross to be more sneaky and therefore become more organised. You also massively encourage people traffiking. There is a demand for people to cross the boarder. Where there is demand, there is supply, this supply is generally run by people with low moral fibre.

So unless you are going to turn it into 'FORTRESS AMERICA' and run something as ruthless as a Soviet era boarder, you'll never stop illegals.The goal is not to stop all illegals, the goal is to reduce the flow to the point where immigration is manageable by law and integration with existing society/culture is possible; yes there is a very good chance decent border security can do just that; no I don't want a Fortress America and I doubt very few Americans do either. Where do you get these conceptions? The Guardian?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2943534&postcount=35

[Char. Limit]

That's exactly how they do feel over the annexation of Texas in 1845.

I missed this earlier, but I'd say the same thing to these people that I say to people who still complain about the American Civil War.

That was over 150 years ago. Get over it.

[CAC1001]

I missed this earlier, but I'd say the same thing to these people that I say to people who still complain about the American Civil War.

That was over 150 years ago. Get over it.

You mean the Waw of Nawthern Aggression:wink::biggrin:

[CAC1001]

But whats the rationale behind this deep pride ?
The fact that your parents/grandparents/great grandparents happened to be born where they were and not a few hundred kms north/south/east/west ?

I don't know if there is necessarilly a "rationale" to it, that's just how humans are. Irish are proud, English are proud, Scottish are proud, Italians are proud, Germans are proud, Greeks are proud, etc...

Now suppose I was born Indian but I move to Singapore, and, after 5 years, become a Singapore citizen. I should feel this deep pride for Singapore or India ? Or both ? What would the basis be for either of these choices ?!

You would probably feel pride for your new country, but you'd also still feel pride for India too.

[WhoWee]

Post again after we send 5 million illegal aliens and their families to Maine. :tongue2:

:rofl:

[WhoWee]

A completed fence and a shoot first and ask questions later approach might be feasible as part of a serious immigration reform package - it MIGHT just force the politicians to think about the unintended consequences of their legislation.

[Galteeth]

A completed fence and a shoot first and ask questions later approach might be feasible as part of a serious immigration reform package - it MIGHT just force the politicians to think about the unintended consequences of their legislation.

Are you seriously?

[Char. Limit]

Are you seriously?

Proper adjective-adverb use, but that's beside the point.

What WhoWee suggests is radical, yes. But when people scream at even what I'd consider moderate solutions, like Arizona's recent law, well...

I'm not sure where I want to go from that. I'll let you decide.

[skeptic2]

A completed fence and a shoot first and ask questions later approach might be feasible as part of a serious immigration reform package - it MIGHT just force the politicians to think about the unintended consequences of their legislation.

May I assume that you admire the East Germans for their solution to their emigration problem?

[WhoWee]

Wow! Please keep my post in context.

Specifically, "A completed fence and a shoot first and ask questions later approach might be feasible as part of a serious immigration reform package - it MIGHT just force the politicians to think about the unintended consequences of their legislation. "

My point is this, we have a serious problem with illegal immigration, smuggling/trafficking, and(possibly) terrorist activites (???). It has become a political issue, costs are enormous, and nobody seems to have a comprehensive solution.

It seems to me the politicians are leaning towards "comprehensive immigration reform". However, experience tells me (think "health care reform") that the politicians will seek a solution that guarantees their own political objective (such as being re-elected) rather than the best solution for the problem, the people and our country.

Hence, I propose that once an immigration reform package is put into place (whether 30 million are granted amnesty or everyone is deported and forced to become a citizen in a traditional way, that afterward the new policy is enforced without exception.

Quite frankly, if it's easy to cross the border to work or become a citizen legally, then it coould be assumed that people sneaking across at that point would be doing something that is illegal.

Am I seriously saying to shoot first and ask questions later in this context? Yes, sure, absolutely, and why not - if there's no reason to sneak across except to smuggle drugs (or worse) - then shoot to kill.

Legislative actions have consequences - it's time for the politicians to stop playing games and take responsibility for their work.

[Galteeth]

- if there's no reason to sneak across except to smuggle drugs (or worse) - then shoot to kill.



Except there obviously is.

And I don't think smuggling drugs, or the suspicion there of, is deserving of death.

[NobodySpecial]

You mean the Waw of Nawthern Aggression:wink::biggrin:
Operation enduring banjo ?

[skeptic2]

Quite frankly, if it's easy to cross the border to work or become a citizen legally, then it coould be assumed that people sneaking across at that point would be doing something that is illegal.


Your premise is faulty. It is not easy to cross the border to work or become a citizen legally. Certainly it is much more difficult than to cross the border to go shopping or visit relatives.

[WhoWee]

Except there obviously is.

And I don't think smuggling drugs, or the suspicion there of, is deserving of death.

Again, read my post and stay in context - then explain why someone would need to sneak across the border in light of well-planned immigration reform. My post is focused on Congress taking the issue seriously - not ptomoting executions/mass slaughter.

[WhoWee]

Your premise is faulty. It is not easy to cross the border to work or become a citizen legally. Certainly it is much more difficult than to cross the border to go shopping or visit relatives.

Again, read my posts in context.

[Siv]

I don't know if there is necessarilly a "rationale" to it, that's just how humans are. Irish are proud, English are proud, Scottish are proud, Italians are proud, Germans are proud, Greeks are proud, etc... Oh sure. We all feel it. Its a strong genetic program, this need to identify with one group and think its the best, and that other groups are bad or not good enough.

But there is no rationale behind this warm fuzzy feeling. And its not a harmless one. The strong feelings that come about because of the accident of your being born in a certain latitude/longitude can sometimes result in serious harm.

As Dawkins says, given human nature, the fewer differentiating labels we have, the better.

[Siv]

Wow! Please keep my post in context.

Specifically, "A completed fence and a shoot first and ask questions later approach might be feasible as part of a serious immigration reform package - it MIGHT just force the politicians to think about the unintended consequences of their legislation. "

My point is this, we have a serious problem with illegal immigration, smuggling/trafficking, and(possibly) terrorist activites (???). It has become a political issue, costs are enormous, and nobody seems to have a comprehensive solution. Actually some of the most dangerous terrorists are those who have entered the country legally.

[Galteeth]

Again, read my post and stay in context - then explain why someone would need to sneak across the border in light of well-planned immigration reform. My post is focused on Congress taking the issue seriously - not ptomoting executions/mass slaughter.

Ok, let's think about the point of view of a hypothetical Mexican. You see a future of poverty and hard labor, with little job security. You live in constant fear of violence from drug gangsters. Your government is corrupt. You have little education. You have heard there is a place where a better life is possible. You don't have knowledge of the official process, or the means to request it.

[Char. Limit]

Ok, let's think about the point of view of a hypothetical Mexican. You see a future of poverty and hard labor, with little job security. You live in constant fear of violence from drug gangsters. Your government is corrupt. You have little education. You have heard there is a place where a better life is possible. You don't have knowledge of the official process, or the means to request it.

So you find out, get a green card, and wait a few years before becoming a citizen and voting and working for a living in this great nation.

I can see the dream now.

[skeptic2]

Char.Limit, it's more than a few years they would have to wait. First in line are spouses and close relatives, next are those with higher education and special skills. Ordinary laborers that don't meet any of the special conditions are at the bottom of the list and may never get in.

[CAC1001]

Oh sure. We all feel it. Its a strong genetic program, this need to identify with one group and think its the best, and that other groups are bad or not good enough.

Why do you keep regarding a person having pride in their culture/ethnicity/region/country etc...as this person thinking their group is the "best?" I said Irish are proud, Germans are proud, Italians are proud, etc...doesn't mean any of them think of themselves as "the best."

[Siv]

Why do you keep regarding a person having pride in their culture/ethnicity/region/country etc...as this person thinking their group is the "best?" I said Irish are proud, Germans are proud, Italians are proud, etc...doesn't mean any of them think of themselves as "the best."Oh come on.
You're proud to be American, because all countries are equally good, with America as good as Britain and India and ... :uhh:

[WhoWee]

Ok, let's think about the point of view of a hypothetical Mexican. You see a future of poverty and hard labor, with little job security. You live in constant fear of violence from drug gangsters. Your government is corrupt. You have little education. You have heard there is a place where a better life is possible. You don't have knowledge of the official process, or the means to request it.

One option would be to cross the border into California. Unfortunately, the unemployment rate is high and drug gangs control the Mexican neighborhoods.
The good news is that food stamps, subsidized housing, free health care, free education are all very possible.
I believe the "American Dream" has evolved.

[Char. Limit]

Char.Limit, it's more than a few years they would have to wait. First in line are spouses and close relatives, next are those with higher education and special skills. Ordinary laborers that don't meet any of the special conditions are at the bottom of the list and may never get in.

So streamline the process, don't allow people to break the law to come in here.

[CAC1001]

Oh come on.
You're proud to be American, because all countries are equally good, with America as good as Britain and India and ... :uhh:

Some countries are better than others, but that is not based on patriotism, that is just based on facts. You can very much say, "Mexico may be a crappy country, but it's still MY country, and I am a proud Mexican."

I am proud to be American because of many things about America and what it has accomplished. Doesn't mean America is perfect or had any perfect history (treatment of native Americans, slavery, Jim Crow, etc...).

[skeptic2]

So streamline the process, don't allow people to break the law to come in here.

That's what I was trying to do in post #66. I think most illegals come here to make more money than they could at home but are not interested in becoming citizens except to become legal. There are a few that have heard that in the US it's possible to go on welfare and live without working. Fortunately a work visa would prevent that.

The advantage of a work visa over a higher fence and stiffer penalties is that it is offering a carrot for obeying the law instead of a stick for breaking it.

[Galteeth]

Actually some of the most dangerous terrorists are those who have entered the country legally.

Yes, generally terrorists don't sneak across the border.

[ThomasT]

As several posters have stated, the fact that the Soviet Union was able to pretty effectively secure the East German border doesn't entail that the US can secure its southern border (not just the US-Mexican border per se) enough to significantly decrease the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America, etc. Securing the southern US border would entail a certain level of militarization of that border and more or less drastic measures. My guess is that the US won't commit to this and that current trends will continue.

Some off topic considerations:

So, assuming that the immigration rate, legal and illegal, of Spanish speaking people remains about the same as the best guesses put it at now, then what sort of demographic changes can be expected in the US during the next few generations? What's a reasonable expectation value of the sustained growth rate of the US's Spanish speaking population? Then, given that assumption, what will the number of Spanish speaking US residents be in, say, 2060?

Another guess is that the US seems destined to become a predominantly Spanish speaking country.

[WhoWee]

As several posters have stated, the fact that the Soviet Union was able to pretty effectively secure the East German border doesn't entail that the US can secure its southern border (not just the US-Mexican border per se) enough to significantly decrease the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America, etc. Securing the southern US border would entail a certain level of militarization of that border and more or less drastic measures. My guess is that the US won't commit to this and that current trends will continue.

Some off topic considerations:

So, assuming that the immigration rate, legal and illegal, of Spanish speaking people remains about the same as the best guesses put it at now, then what sort of demographic changes can be expected in the US during the next few generations? What's a reasonable expectation value of the sustained growth rate of the US's Spanish speaking population? Then, given that assumption, what will the number of Spanish speaking US residents be in, say, 2060?

Another guess is that the US seems destined to become a predominantly Spanish speaking country.

Logistically speaking, Canada has a great deal of open space. I think we should build a very fast train from the southern border to the northern border as soon as possible. Canada already speaks 2 languages, the assimilation will be smoother.

[mheslep]

As several posters have stated, the fact that the Soviet Union was able to pretty effectively secure the East German border doesn't entail that the US can secure its southern border (not just the US-Mexican border per se) enough to significantly decrease the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America, etc. Securing the southern US border would entail a certain level of militarization of that border and more or less drastic measures. [...] The record of the fence so far indicates otherwise.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5323928
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2943534&postcount=35
On what do you base your statement?

[ThomasT]

The record of the fence so far indicates otherwise.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5323928
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2943534&postcount=35
On what do you base your statement?Yes, thanks for the links. But it's a very big border and there are lots of people who want to get into the US. My statement was that I don't think that the US will commit to what's necessary to significantly reduce the flow of illegal immigrants. It's just an opinion, and since it's an empirical consideration then, eventually, we'll see.

By the way, I don't consider the 'Latinization' of the current US a bad thing. After all, the current US is just a geographical location which has been populated/dominated by various cultures throughout history. My current opinion is that the dominant culture of the US, by say, 2060, will be Hispanic, not Anglo-Saxon.

[ThomasT]

Logistically speaking, Canada has a great deal of open space. I think we should build a very fast train from the southern border to the northern border as soon as possible. Canada already speaks 2 languages, the assimilation will be smoother.But it's really cold in Canada.

[WhoWee]

But it's really cold in Canada.

I suppose the train could move the thin-skinned folks south for the winter?

[CAC1001]

By the way, I don't consider the 'Latinization' of the current US a bad thing. After all, the current US is just a geographical location which has been populated/dominated by various cultures throughout history. My current opinion is that the dominant culture of the US, by say, 2060, will be Hispanic, not Anglo-Saxon.

If they do not assimilate into the mainstream culture and basically turn America into Mexico, it will be a bad thing.

[NobodySpecial]

If they do not assimilate into the mainstream culture and basically turn America into Mexico, it will be a bad thing.

You could still follow the German model and put the fence down the middle, Texas, New mexico, southern-California, Nevada, and Arizona on one side and the rest on the other.

[lisab]

If they do not assimilate into the mainstream culture and basically turn America into Mexico, it will be a bad thing.

Are you sure?

Most Mexicans I know (I grew up in California, I've known plenty) are family-oriented and hard working. Really, Mexican core values aren't very different from American core values.

Of course, the corruption and drug wars wouldn't be so good :tongue2:.

Besides, generally by the second or third generation, they're assimilated. Who cares what language they speak at home?

[Char. Limit]

Are you sure?

Most Mexicans I know (I grew up in California, I've known plenty) are family-oriented and hard working. Really, Mexican core values aren't very different from American core values.

Of course, the corruption and drug wars wouldn't be so good :tongue2:.

Besides, generally by the second or third generation, they're assimilated. Who cares what language they speak at home?

M.E.Ch.A. is something I don't like...

[NobodySpecial]

Another guess is that the US seems destined to become a predominantly Spanish speaking country.
I always wondered why all the towns/rivers/mountains etc in the south-western united states were named in Spanish.

[turbo]

Is there a good reason for this thread to continue? East Germans wanted to prevent defections and the SW border nuts want to prevent immigration. These are not congruent goals, despite Joe Miller's to conflate them.

[mheslep]

If they do not assimilate into the mainstream culture and basically turn America into Mexico, it will be a bad thing.

...Besides, generally by the second or third generation, they're assimilated. ...:confused:

[lisab]

:confused:

CAC1001 says if they don't assimilate, it's bad - I agree. My point is, they generally *do* assimilate - certainly by the third generation, at the latest.

[mheslep]

CAC1001 says if they don't assimilate, it's bad - I agree. My point is, they generally *do* assimilate - certainly by the third generation, at the latest.In the past yes. Increasingly I read of communities where there's no encouragement to do so. Three generations is far too long, I think. I expect it indeed takes far longer to assimilate if an immigrant i) comes here illegally, or ii) resides in communities where assimilation is frowned upon.

[lisab]

In the pass yes. Increasingly I read of communities where there's no encouragement to do so. Three generations is far too long, I think. I expect it indeed takes far longer to assimilate if an immigrant i) comes here illegally, or ii) resides in communities where assimilation is frowned upon.

That's quite possible, but I don't know of such groups where I live. The immigrants I knew growing up were mostly Mexican, and most were assimilated by the second generation, or at least bi-cultural.

Where I live now there's a crush of them from eastern Europe, and they're assimilating extremely quickly.

I've read assimilation is becoming an issue in some places in Europe - perhaps the immigrant communities there have reached a critical mass, making assimilation unnecessary? Just a guess.

[WhoWee]

Is there a good reason for this thread to continue? East Germans wanted to prevent defections and the SW border nuts want to prevent immigration. These are not congruent goals, despite Joe Miller's to conflate them.

The train could also make a few stops in Maine if you like?

[mheslep]

I've read assimilation is becoming an issue in some places in Europe - perhaps the immigrant communities there have reached a critical mass, making assimilation unnecessary? Just a guess.Since I believe the American and Western culture are worth preserving, it's history of earlier immigrants included, then assimilation is always required and never unnecessary. If immigrant communities grow too fast or too isolated, then immigration needs to be slowed down, for awhile.

[NobodySpecial]

CAC1001 says if they don't assimilate, it's bad - I agree. My point is, they generally *do* assimilate - certainly by the third generation, at the latest.
Not always - I understand many of the english immigrants still haven't learned any native languages after 400 years

[edward]

If the can't go over the fence they go under it.


The 1,800-foot tunnel is the 75th discovered on the U.S.-Mexico border since 2006, according to John Morton, director of ICE. The lighted and ventilated passageway connects two warehouses east of the Otay Mesa border crossing, a two-story building in Tijuana and another warehouse in San Diego.



Read more: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7020435119?U.S.-Mexico%20Drug%20Tunnel%20Found,%2040%20Tons%20Of%2 0Marijuana%20Seized#ixzz14N91MhlA


http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7020435119?U.S.-Mexico%20Drug%20Tunnel%20Found,%2040%20Tons%20Of%2 0Marijuana%20Seized

[skeptic2]

Not always - I understand many of the english immigrants still haven't learned any native languages after 400 years

And many Mexicans would say the same about the Spanish immigrants.

[lisab]

Not always - I understand many of the english immigrants still haven't learned any native languages after 400 years

:rofl:

[CAC1001]

That's quite possible, but I don't know of such groups where I live. The immigrants I knew growing up were mostly Mexican, and most were assimilated by the second generation, or at least bi-cultural.

Where I live now there's a crush of them from eastern Europe, and they're assimilating extremely quickly.

I've read assimilation is becoming an issue in some places in Europe - perhaps the immigrant communities there have reached a critical mass, making assimilation unnecessary? Just a guess.

A big problem in Europe from what I understand is Muslim immigrants, who due to the Europeans not requiring them to assimilate, have essentially formed their own little "countries within-a-country." There are areas within France and Germany, Sweden, and I think even the UK now (?) where the police will not even go into, because it is too dangerous. They have had problems with Muslims rioting in France in particular, they also have rioted in London and Stockholm.

There isn't such a Muslim problem in the United States because Muslims here have mostly been assimilated; we don't have whole communities of Muslims that do not assimilate and become rather radicalized like in Europe.

As for people's languages spoken at home, I have no problem if Mexican immigrants and people of Mexican origin speak Spanish at home, that is their business entirely. I just want them to be capable of functioning within English-speaking America. If they can't function without having to "Press 2 for Spanish" (with this stated in Spanish!) and can't hook up a TV without using Spanish-language instructions, and could never get a job in regular/corporate America because they do not speak English, then there's a problem.

"Assimilate" does not mean give up one's culture, it just means become capable of functioning within America (speak the language and work and pay taxes).

[Gokul43201]

If the can't go over the fence they go under it.
The 1,800-foot tunnel is the 75th discovered on the U.S.-Mexico border since 2006, according to John Morton, director of ICE. The lighted and ventilated passageway connects two warehouses east of the Otay Mesa border crossing, a two-story building in Tijuana and another warehouse in San Diego.

Read more: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7020435119?U.S.-Mexico%20Drug%20Tunnel%20Found,%2040%20Tons%20Of%2 0Marijuana%20Seized#ixzz14N91MhlA


http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7020435119?U.S.-Mexico%20Drug%20Tunnel%20Found,%2040%20Tons%20Of%2 0Marijuana%20SeizedYou'd think things like tunnels would be trivially easy to locate and shut down. With a team of 20 border agents, each in charge of a 100 mile section, driving along their border sections once every other day or so with a suitable ultrasonic device you'd think should eliminate the tunnel issue. But obviously the problem must be harder than I'm imagining.

[Siv]

Some countries are better than others, but that is not based on patriotism, that is just based on facts. You can very much say, "Mexico may be a crappy country, but it's still MY country, and I am a proud Mexican."

I am proud to be American because of many things about America and what it has accomplished. Doesn't mean America is perfect or had any perfect history (treatment of native Americans, slavery, Jim Crow, etc...).You're proud of America because America is your country, period. And why is it your country ?
Because your great grandfather happened to be born there, or moved there, rather than a few hundred kilometers north or south or east or west.

Now if you were born a European but were proud of America, or if you were an American and proud of Japan, that wouldn't be a religion. But this is.

[Gokul43201]

You're proud of America because America is your country, period. And why is it your country ?
Because your great grandfather happened to be born there, or moved there, rather than a few hundred kilometers north or south or east or west.

Now if you were born a European but were proud of America, or if you were an American and proud of Japan, that wouldn't be a religion. But this is.So irrespective of what his rationale is, you've decided that his pride is a form of religion? Incidentally, what if his great grandfather was born in Europe or Japan?

[Char. Limit]

So irrespective of what his rationale is, you've decided that his pride is a form of religion? Incidentally, what if his great grandfather was born in Europe or Japan?

Basically, what he's saying is that you're only allowed to be proud of a country if you're not part of that country.

Which is nonsense.

[WhoWee]

If the can't go over the fence they go under it.






Read more: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7020435119?U.S.-Mexico%20Drug%20Tunnel%20Found,%2040%20Tons%20Of%2 0Marijuana%20Seized#ixzz14N91MhlA


http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7020435119?U.S.-Mexico%20Drug%20Tunnel%20Found,%2040%20Tons%20Of%2 0Marijuana%20Seized

An operation like that is funded and organized - and criminal.

[Galteeth]

Basically, what he's saying is that you're only allowed to be proud of a country if you're not part of that country.

Which is nonsense.

No, no no, it's makes total sense to be proud to be an American, because we all know that objectively, America is the greatest country in the world. Having pride in any other country is just crazy. Or at least that's what I gather from my nightly Glenn Beck watching.

Cause you know, at least I know I'm free, etc. etc.

[Char. Limit]

No, no no, it's makes total sense to be proud to be an American, because we all know that objectively, America is the greatest country in the world. Having pride in any other country is just crazy. Or at least that's what I gather from my nightly Glenn Beck watching.

Cause you know, at least I know I'm free, etc. etc.

I never mentioned America. You brought up America.

[JaredJames]

This thread is done. In the last two pages there's barely a mention of the whole fencing issue.

Haven't unsubscribed from a thread in a while. But unfortunately I keep getting emails full of rambling non-sense.

[WhoWee]

I think the tunnel mentioned a few posts back is worth discussing.

[NobodySpecial]

I think the tunnel mentioned a few posts back is worth discussing.
It was quite a nice tunnel, it had obviously been made by profesional engineers.
It started in a warehouse just across the border and went quite a way, 300-400m into the USA splitting into several branches so it came up in a few different warehouses on the US side.

They run too deep to detect with ground penetrating radar or microphones, they are normally found by intelligence work - warehouse on the US side rented by front companies that don't seem to need a warehouse and have no trucks arriving.

They are also mostly used to smuggle drugs rather than people. If you smuggle people the security is too hard and the location will leak out, after you have spent rather a lot of time and effort building the tunel

[Siv]

So irrespective of what his rationale is, you've decided that his pride is a form of religion? Incidentally, what if his great grandfather was born in Europe or Japan?Then it would not be a religion - please read what I wrote - Now if you were born a European but were proud of America, or if you were an American and proud of Japan, that wouldn't be a religion. But this is.


Basically, what he's saying is that you're only allowed to be proud of a country if you're not part of that country.

Which is nonsense. Ok, Char.Limit. First of all, I am a "she".

Second of all, it is not nonsense (calling something nonsense is an argument since when ?:wink:).

Patriotism is "my country right or wrong" - theistic religions are "my god right or wrong". There is no rationale to either. It is our innate sense of "us vs. them" is all.

[Siv]

This thread is done. In the last two pages there's barely a mention of the whole fencing issue.

Haven't unsubscribed from a thread in a while. But unfortunately I keep getting emails full of rambling non-sense.Wow, the PF I remember from 7-8 years ago was a much nicer place.

[Char. Limit]

Then it would not be a religion - please read what I wrote -


Ok, Char.Limit. First of all, I am a "she".

Second of all, it is not nonsense (calling something nonsense is an argument since when ?:wink:).

Patriotism is "my country right or wrong" - theistic religions are "my god right or wrong". There is no rationale to either. It is our innate sense of "us vs. them" is all.

Firstly, it's rather difficult to tell gender over the internet. Since I am a he, I assume others are as well.

Secondly, calling something nonsense has never been a logical argument, but I wasn't making an argument, I was making a statement.

And finally, if I'm proud of the U.S. because we have the largest, most powerful army (I'm not saying that I'm proud of the U.S. for this reason, but let's go with it), is that "religious"?

[mheslep]

A big problem in Europe from what I understand is Muslim immigrants, who due to the Europeans not requiring them to assimilate, have essentially formed their own little "countries within-a-country." There are areas within France and Germany, Sweden, and I think even the UK now (?) where the police will not even go into, because it is too dangerous. They have had problems with Muslims rioting in France in particular, they also have rioted in London and Stockholm.

There isn't such a Muslim problem in the United States because Muslims here have mostly been assimilated; we don't have whole communities of Muslims that do not assimilate and become rather radicalized like in Europe. [...]I suggest the reason for the difference in assimilation is the perennially weak job creation rate in Europe compared to the US (until recently). Especially in the troubled areas you mention, Muslims immigrate to Europe but can't get a job because of things like the employer restrictions and a less than stellar entrepreneurial culture. They linger none the less because of the largess of extensive welfare systems, while retreating into isolated communities. Hopefully this is a cautionary tale for a US government considering policies hostile to business.

[NobodySpecial]

A big problem in Europe from what I understand is Muslim immigrants, who due to the Europeans not requiring them to assimilate, have essentially formed their own little "countries within-a-country."
Not all communities choose to assimilate, visited a camera store in New York recently?

There are areas within France and Germany, Sweden, and I think even the UK now (?) where the police will not even go into, because it is too dangerous.
Unlikely - there were areas of the UK where the police couldn't go and the army had to be used. But that was due to christians - we are still waiting for them to assimilate but it's only been 1500 years so we need to give them a chance.

They have had problems with Muslims rioting in France in particular, they also have rioted in London and Stockholm.
Everybody riots in France. If the croissants are cold they burn barricades in the streets.
Disaffected youth riot everywhere when they feel the system is against them.
I understand there have occasionally been riots in the USA with the descendants of some of your former imported laborers - despite them being Episcopalians.

[NobodySpecial]

I suggest the reason for the difference in assimilation is the perennially weak job creation rate in Europe compared to the US (until recently).
Or more likely numbers and timing. Europe has a larger muslim community - mostly from former empire countries in the UK and France or Turkish guest workers in the case of Germany. The children of the people who first migrated after WWII are now more assimilated.

It's a lot more comparable to Mexican immigration to the US - and so a similar level of poverty / unemployment etc. In London the only mexicans you are likely to meet are professors, managers of mexican companies or airlines etc. so on the same basis Brits would be wondering why mexicans in the USA seem so down and what it is about the US economy that obviously doesn't work.

[CAC1001]

You're proud of America because America is your country, period. And why is it your country ?
Because your great grandfather happened to be born there, or moved there, rather than a few hundred kilometers north or south or east or west.

Now if you were born a European but were proud of America, or if you were an American and proud of Japan, that wouldn't be a religion. But this is.

It's not religion. It would be a religion if you blindly think your culture/country is superior and that's that. Being proud of your culture/country while acknowledging faults it has and areas it could learn from others, is not religion.

Patriotism is "my country right or wrong" - theistic religions are "my god right or wrong". There is no rationale to either. It is our innate sense of "us vs. them" is all.

You're confusing patriotism with nationalism. Patriotism is more complex than "my country right or wrong." Nationalism is rather religious and cult-like. It is blind and cannot be reasoned with. You can't reason with a rabid Nazi. It's a cult. You also can't reason with a rabid Marxist. It's a cult. A patriotic German, you very much could reason with. A patriotic Russian, you very much could reason with.

Reminds me of Tom Cruise in Valkyrie when he says, "Do you want to serve Germany or the Fuhrer?"

Or Mikhail Baryshnikov in White Nights when he says, "I am Russian. Not Soviet."

Patriotism and nationalism are different and patriotism is not religious.

[JaredJames]

Wow, the PF I remember from 7-8 years ago was a much nicer place.

It also had far slacker rules regarding off-topic posts.

The discussion is now regarding whether or not patriotism is a religion or not. This has what to do with a fence?

I'm sorry but this thread has just got plain silly.

[NobodySpecial]

Patriotism and nationalism are different
Largely semantics though nowadays
Left wing philosphers tended to define them as nationalism = aggressive, patriotism = defensive.
Right wing philosphers split them into nationalism=instinct/no choice in where you are born vs patriotism = moral choice/duty to country.

Unless you define what you mean they are pretty interchangeable terms.

[ThomasT]

Ok, so what's the prevailing opinion here? Is a border obstacle with monitering and militarization sufficient to significantly decrease the flow of illegal immigrants going to happen? My guess is no. It won't happen.

[JaredJames]

A 20ft fence, 15ft above ground, 5ft below ground. Floodlit and monitored with infrared and other such sensor tech. Guard towers every 100yds with armed, shoot to kill guards (well perhaps not that last one).

That should stem the flow somewhat. Blooming expensive though.

As sarcastic as it sounds, I really think that would be the only effective way to stop the vast majority of illegal immigrants passing into the USA. But then, would the cost be justified?

I do hate illegal immigration but I think an important point here is that the UK has a strip of water between us and Europe and we still get illegals passing over via the trade routes on lorries using the ferries and trains across the Channel.
If this border defence isn't enough to keep them out then I don't see how anything less than a fence such as I have described above would be effective (granted it's the transport links causing the problem, but even the US would still have them - not sure how much of a problem they create for you though).

The solution for the UK is simple, search every lorry entering the UK. This would drastically reduce the number of immigrants entering illegaly but it would also be extremely costly, both in monetary value and delay time for transport vehicles.
The US would need to implement an island like system (as per the UK), isolating yourselves completely so that the only way in and out is via border posts, allowing you to check as many entering vehicles as possible.

Tunnels, well I don't think there's much you can do about those.

[Gokul43201]

A 20ft fence, 15ft above ground, 5ft below ground. Floodlit and monitored with infrared and other such sensor tech. Guard towers every 100yds with armed, shoot to kill guards (well perhaps not that last one).A 100yds? That's 30,000 towers, and at least as many guards! I think you could achieve the same with towers 1000 yds apart - I think that's still within fairly easy viewing distance for most parts of the border region.

[JaredJames]

A 100yds? That's 30,000 towers, and at least as many guards! I think you could achieve the same with towers 1000 yds apart - I think that's still within fairly easy viewing distance for most parts of the border region.

Perhaps I over cooked it a little. Not sure of the terrain out there so just assumed it was difficult to see any distance.

Perhaps putting 30000 troops there would be a better use of their time than their current situation in the ME. At least you'd see your money at work, making a difference.

[WhoWee]

Ok, so what's the prevailing opinion here? Is a border obstacle with monitering and militarization sufficient to significantly decrease the flow of illegal immigrants going to happen? My guess is no. It won't happen.

We need to ask ourselves why these people want to come here. If our manufacturing plants have relocated to Mexico - it had to create local employment. If Mexico has a national health care system - is our Medicaid system better for them? Our economy is in the tank, Obama is talking about unemployment extensions - we're not offering a lot of well paying jobs. Other than welfare, what motivates these people? We don't have these problems on the northern border.

Address this issue sufficiently, and the fence/militarization of the border would only be necessary to stop criminal activity - hence (going back a few pages) shoot to kill might be appropriate?

[ThomasT]

Thanks for the reply jared. I will reply to some of your points below:

A 20ft fence, 15ft above ground, 5ft below ground. Floodlit and monitored with infrared and other such sensor tech. Guard towers every 100yds with armed, shoot to kill guards (well perhaps not that last one).Ok, that means a minimum of about 100,000 guards stationed on the border. That's based on the assumption that each guard will do an 8 hour shift on actual guard duty each day. They do have to sleep you know. Also, unless anyone here has actually done guard duty in a situation where it was likely that they might get shot at, then you have no idea how much an 8 hour shift can take out of you.

Also, they're not going to be allowed to just shoot to kill on sight. The US, for all its faults, is not the USSR or Nazi Germany or anything even remotely like that. Even our most dickheaded bureaucrats wouldn't be allowed to ok something like that.

So, jared, while I might concede that an obstacle of the sort you describe might be built. I really don't think that the government will put 100,000 men on the border. How about 20,000 men? Not likely, but lets go with it. That means one man per 8 hour shift monitors 500 yards of fence. Ok, that might decrease the flow by, say, 10%, which means that instead of 500k per year there will be 450k per year coming into the US. Look, don't you think that whatever agency is charged with protecting our borders has already done any and all of the math that any of us is ever going to come up with? Bottom line, imho, the southern US border is, fapp, open, and will stay that way. The illegal immigration and drug transport will continue, pretty much unabated, for the foreseeable future. We simply don't have the political will, or the manpower, to stop it.

[ThomasT]

We need to ask ourselves why these people want to come here. If our manufacturing plants have relocated to Mexico - it had to create local employment. If Mexico has a national health care system - is our Medicaid system better for them? Our economy is in the tank, Obama is talking about unemployment extensions - we're not offering a lot of well paying jobs. Other than welfare, what motivates these people? We don't have these problems on the northern border.Welfare is enough. But there's more than that. The US is huge. There are VERY large Mexican populations all over the US. There's work here. It's nice here. It's safe here. People in the US have no idea what's happening in Mexico. It's a very bad place to live if you're poor, and not so good even if you have money.

... hence (going back a few pages) shoot to kill might be appropriate?No. This would never be appropriate or implemented. The vast majority of illegal immigrants aren't criminals but just poor folks seeking a better life. If we started shooting them, then I would renounce my citizenship in disgust and move to Sweden or somewhere. On second thought, maybe southern Italy -- it's warm there isn't it?

[JaredJames]

Im curious, i dont know what troops do when they arent deployed to a war zone, so the way i see it, why cant they post that man power to the border?

There are thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of troops available. Just seems logical to me. At least then they are actually defending the country.

[WhoWee]

Welfare is enough. But there's more than that. The US is huge. There are VERY large Mexican populations all over the US. There's work here. It's nice here. It's safe here. People in the US have no idea what's happening in Mexico. It's a very bad place to live if you're poor, and not so good even if you have money.

No. This would never be appropriate or implemented. The vast majority of illegal immigrants aren't criminals but just poor folks seeking a better life. If we started shooting them, then I would renounce my citizenship in disgust and move to Sweden or somewhere. On second thought, maybe southern Italy -- it's warm there isn't it?

Let's stay focused - I don't want to shoot anyone. If we address the immigration issue comprehensively, the botder reverts back to a customs issue.
The US is a nice place to live, but the concept of using welfare to buy votes is unpleasant.

[JaredJames]

Just to point out, I don't advocate "shoot to kill" in the above context.

[ThomasT]

Let's stay focused - I don't want to shoot anyone.Thank the gods (old school, never mind).

If we address the immigration issue comprehensively, the border reverts back to a customs issue. Elaborate?

The US is a nice place to live, but the concept of using welfare to buy votes is unpleasant.Ok, maybe it's just me. I just woke up. What are you talking about?

[NobodySpecial]

A 20ft fence, 15ft above ground, 5ft below ground. Floodlit and monitored with infrared and other such sensor tech. Guard towers every 100yds with armed, shoot to kill guards (well perhaps not that last one)
Not even close - the tunnel above was 100ft deep and came up 1/4mi into the US.
You would need an east german style fence with a DMZ 1-2km wide

Then you would have to deal with corrupt guards, the majority of east german defectors were border guards - in spite of a system were 1/3 of the guards were spys for the stasi and they had a policy of treating everyone else at the post where someone defected as if they had also defected. The policy for dealing with US border guards who let a few people through for a bribe would have to be similarly stiff

Then you have the issue of everybody else entering america - probably a secret service detail to watch every visitor (as in east germany) might be sufficent - and would certainly result in 100% employment.

[ThomasT]

Im curious, i dont know what troops do when they arent deployed to a war zone, so the way i see it, why cant they post that man power to the border?Because we don't have the manpower. We've got a certain lesser percentage of the manpower that we had, say, 40 years ago during the Vietnam thing. There's currently no draft/conscription. Our troops are spread over the entire world. We actually do not have the manpower that it would take to police the Mexican border, much less the entire southern US border.

There are thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of troops available. Just seems logical to me. At least then they are actually defending the country.No. There are fewer troops available than you might think, even though, technologically, the US military is far superior to any other nation. More planes, more ships. more nuclear weapons, etc. -- but not more people under arms.

[ThomasT]

Not even close - the tunnel above was 100ft deep and came up 1/4mi into the US.
You would need an east german style fence with a DMZ 1-2km wide

Then you would have to deal with corrupt guards, the majority of east german defectors were border guards - in spite of a system were 1/3 of the guards were spys for the stasi and they had a policy of treating everyone else at the post where someone defected as if they had also defected. The policy for dealing with US border guards who let a few people through for a bribe would have to be similarly stiffThis is a good point. Who knows who is being bribed and for how much.

Then you have the issue of everybody else entering america - probably a secret service detail to watch every visitor (as in east germany) might be sufficent - and would certainly result in 100% employment.But that's absurd. Was that your point? I mean, there are literally thousands of people coming through the 'regulated' border crossings each day.

[JaredJames]

Not even close

Please note the last line in my post:

"Tunnels, well I don't think there's much you can do about those.".

Please don't mis-quote me, I wasn't addressing the tunnels and made the point of noting this at the end of my post. The whole "5ft below ground" thing was simply to prevent people easily/rapidly digging under it.

Because we don't have the manpower. We've got a certain lesser percentage of the manpower that we had, say, 40 years ago during the Vietnam thing. There's currently no draft/conscription. Our troops are spread over the entire world. We actually do not have the manpower that it would take to police the Mexican border, much less the entire southern US border.

No. There are fewer troops available than you might think, even though, technologically, the US military is far superior to any other nation. More planes, more ships. more nuclear weapons, etc. -- but not more people under arms.

Good or bad aside, the war in Iraq and Afghansitan is costing billions to fund not to mention the man power required for it.

If illegal immigration is that big an issue, why not use those troops (I thought they were being pulled out anyway)? The money spent on that could be saved and some of it put towards defending the border. Use the troops for those purposes. Defend your country.

(I subscribe very strongly to dealing with your own (your countries) problems first and then helping others around the world. It's no good trying to sort out another countries problems if your own country is going to the dogs.)

I'd say that even an additional 10,000 to 20,000 men could help with the immigration issues by simply patroling the borders and providing additional response teams.

[NobodySpecial]

But that's absurd. Was that your point? I mean, there are literally thousands of people coming through the 'regulated' border crossings each day.

Yes exactly - there isn't much point in having a ninja patrolled laser canon armed death fence if at the border crossing you have someone saying "hello Mr forged passport, so you have decided to visit america for a holiday, oh I see you have brought grand-ma and your chickens and all your possessions with you while you go to Disney land - well have a nice stay"

The east german fence would hardly have worked if the east germans also allowed people to go on coach trips to Bonn.

[CAC1001]

I'd say that even an additional 10,000 to 20,000 men could help with the immigration issues by simply patroling the borders and providing additional response teams.

The current Army isn't/wasn't really large enough for the Iraq and Afghanistan efforts. It really needs one or two additional divisions. But then you need the troops to fill those divisions, you need the vehicles, weapons, equipment, etc...all for it, and the budget is just not there, especially right now.

[CAC1001]

Largely semantics though nowadays
Left wing philosphers tended to define them as nationalism = aggressive, patriotism = defensive.
Right wing philosphers split them into nationalism=instinct/no choice in where you are born vs patriotism = moral choice/duty to country.

Unless you define what you mean they are pretty interchangeable terms.

My definition of them was that nationalism is a collective type of thing, a wave you get caught up in. Patriotism is much more individual and not a mania you get caught up in for awhile. There is a fine line between the two though.

[JaredJames]

The current Army isn't/wasn't really large enough for the Iraq and Afghanistan efforts. It really needs one or two additional divisions. But then you need the troops to fill those divisions, you need the vehicles, weapons, equipment, etc...all for it, and the budget is just not there, especially right now.

Which is why in my previous posts I indicated you would have to remove the Iraq / Afghan component for it to work. (Bring the troops home style, kill two birds with one stone - troops come home, troops help secure border).

[NobodySpecial]

"Tunnels, well I don't think there's much you can do about those.".
Sorry missed that - I was just pointing out that the tunnels were quite large engineering projects - not the holes in fences you used as kids to get into the ball park.

[mheslep]

For my part I'm unconcerned about tunnels. They could only be used by small numbers of people or for smuggling. Put large numbers of random people through a tunnel and it would remain a secret only for a moment.

[JaredJames]

For my part I'm unconcerned about tunnels. They could only be used by small numbers of people or for smuggling. Put large numbers of random people through a tunnel and it would remain a secret only for a moment.

Agreed. They'd have people singing like canaries if they caught any of them. Given the engineering required for such a tunnel it simply isn't worth the risk as someone earlier pointed out.

[skeptic2]

Then you would have to deal with corrupt guards, the majority of east german defectors were border guards - in spite of a system were 1/3 of the guards were spys for the stasi and they had a policy of treating everyone else at the post where someone defected as if they had also defected. The policy for dealing with US border guards who let a few people through for a bribe would have to be similarly stiff



Yes exactly - there isn't much point in having a ninja patrolled laser canon armed death fence if at the border crossing you have someone saying "hello Mr forged passport, so you have decided to visit america for a holiday, oh I see you have brought grand-ma and your chickens and all your possessions with you while you go to Disney land - well have a nice stay"

The east german fence would hardly have worked if the east germans also allowed people to go on coach trips to Bonn.

Very good points and similar to the ones I made in post #66.

I know a woman who claims to have paid a coyote who simply drove her over in his pickup. As he crossed the border he started talking on his walkie-talkie to a US customs official who told him which of the lines to get into. When they got to the customs stop, that officer just waved them through.

Thousands of people cross at the border crossings each day. How do you force them to return? Once in the US it's relatively easy, though expensive, to get a good ID.

My point is that it is not possible to make the border even close to air tight. It is much more effective to create an incentive to obey the law than impediments or punishments for violating it.

[Siv]

Largely semantics though nowadays
Left wing philosphers tended to define them as nationalism = aggressive, patriotism = defensive.
Right wing philosphers split them into nationalism=instinct/no choice in where you are born vs patriotism = moral choice/duty to country.

Unless you define what you mean they are pretty interchangeable terms. Thank you. Yes.
Its like religious folks saying that it is religious extremism which is the problem and not religion per se.

The point is, there is no rationale for either, except chance. I am born to Christian/Hindu/Muslim parents and so I think that religion is the best. Similarly, I am born to American/Indian/British parents so I am proud of that country.

There is no rationale in thinking your own religion/language/country/race is the best. On the contrary ....

Anyway, thats all I will be posting here, since its off topic.

[Galteeth]

On the size of the army thing- a big question to me is why the heck do we still have over 100,000 troops in europe, troops in japan, south korea etc. It seems like if we stopped being the defense force for the entire world, we would have sufficient manpower for the middle east missions and border security, if such was desirable.

[JaredJames]

On the size of the army thing- a big question to me is why the heck do we still have over 100,000 troops in europe, troops in japan, south korea etc. It seems like if we stopped being the defense force for the entire world, we would have sufficient manpower for the middle east missions and border security, if such was desirable.

Exactly. For some reason it's a case of look out for others and to hell with your own countries needs. The UK is exactly the same (although now we don't even have our own dedicated services thanks to the merger with France - wait until something kicks off and see how long we remain helping each other).

[ThomasT]

... there isn't much point in having a ninja patrolled laser canon armed death fence if at the border crossing you have someone saying "hello Mr forged passport, so you have decided to visit america for a holiday, oh I see you have brought grand-ma and your chickens and all your possessions with you while you go to Disney land - well have a nice stay"Indeed. Nice phrasing. :smile:

Anyway, having said what I've said in this thread about insufficient manpower and other problems, I nonetheless think that if the political will was there, a big if, then the US could surely summon the manpower, and surely build a formidable obstacle for that manpower to monitor and patrol -- and that a border security 'could' be engineered that would significantly (like down to, say, 10% of current levels) decrease the flow of illegal immigrants across the southern (at least the Mexican) border.

So, for the moment, let's just assume that the people who could set in motion a significant stemming of this flow are allowing it to continue for some particular reason. What might that be? Or is this just an absurd notion? (I'm pretty sure it isn't about votes.)

(The problem I have with the whole situation is that I'm sort of morally conflicted about it. That is, we know that, given the current situation in the US, we can help these people to better lives within the borders of the US. On the other hand, are we creating another third world country that, eventually, will not be able to help any of the poor and downtrodden, but will itself need help?)

Is it really just that the US, even given the political will, can't do it?

By the way, a bit off-topic, but regarding the immigration situation (not illegal, and, as I understand it, largely Muslim) wrt, say, Germany. Germany 'needs' a certain number of immigrants assimilating into it's workforce each year. The problem is, as I understand it, that they're not, as had been envisioned or hoped for, assimilating into the dominant German culture. And so the historical dominance of a certain culture within the boundaries defining Germany is being increasingly threatened -- in a way that the historical dominance of a certain culture (Anglo-Saxon, English speaking) isn't yet being threatened within the boundaries defining the US.

The US, on the other hand, doesn't 'need' the number of illegal immigrants coming into the US each year -- unless there's some 'plan' that most of us haven't considered. Or is it simply that the US can't do anything about it. Which is the case?

[CAC1001]

On the size of the army thing- a big question to me is why the heck do we still have over 100,000 troops in europe, troops in japan, south korea etc. It seems like if we stopped being the defense force for the entire world, we would have sufficient manpower for the middle east missions and border security, if such was desirable.

Troops in Europe, Japan, South Korea, etc...was in part to also protect America, in particular during the Cold War. It also allows us to be able to project force around the world when needed.

[mheslep]

Troops in Europe, Japan, South Korea, etc...was in part to also protect America, in particular during the Cold War. Yes, very prudent at the time, but he cold war is long over yet the US still maintains 50,000 troops in Germany, tens of thousands in Japan, in S. Korea, in Guam, ...
It also allows us to be able to project force around the world when needed.I don't buy this argument anymore at this level of generality. Without a specific argument as to why the security of the US can not be guaranteed by force projection done from the US, perhaps a bit slower, via the colossal US air lift capability, or from many fewer forward deployed bases, or by the Navy, then the whole thing smacks of empire maintenance and continued picking-up-the-tab for the Europeans in the eastern hemisphere.

[CAC1001]

Yes, very prudent at the time, but he cold war is long over yet the US still maintains 50,000 troops in Germany, tens of thousands in Japan, in S. Korea, in Guam, ...
I don't buy this argument anymore at this level of generality. Without a specific argument as to why the security of the US can not be guaranteed by force projection done from the US, perhaps a bit slower, via the colossal US air lift capability, or from many fewer forward deployed bases, or by the Navy, then the whole thing smacks of empire maintenance and continued picking-up-the-tab for the Europeans in the eastern hemisphere.

I wouldn't go as a far as "empire maintenance," as the U.S. doesn't have any formal empire in the old sense like Britain did. However I do agree that if we could do force projection just fine without overseas bases, then we could close some of them up.

[mheslep]

I wouldn't go as a far as "empire maintenance," as the U.S. doesn't have any formal empire in the old sense like Britain did. Yes on reflection I agree, empire is inaccurate. Perhaps military-industrial-complex maintenance.

[talk2glenn]

Yes, very prudent at the time, but he cold war is long over yet the US still maintains 50,000 troops in Germany, tens of thousands in Japan, in S. Korea, in Guam, ...
I don't buy this argument anymore at this level of generality. Without a specific argument as to why the security of the US can not be guaranteed by force projection done from the US, perhaps a bit slower, via the colossal US air lift capability, or from many fewer forward deployed bases, or by the Navy, then the whole thing smacks of empire maintenance and continued picking-up-the-tab for the Europeans in the eastern hemisphere.

The US air lift capability may be colossal relative to the rest of the world, but it is completely incapable of moving anything heavy. To do that, you need ships. These ships are slow, and vulnerable to attack.

The US presence in Germany and Europe is almost entirely heavy. From there, we can easily project force towards Eastern Europe and/or the Middle East. Without Germany, the Iraq and Afghanistan operations as executed would have been much less possible. Like wise for our bases in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and elsewhere around the Gulf. How do you think we get an 80 ton tank to Baghdad? Fed Ex? Naw, they just never leave.

There is no political incentive to retain an expansive and substantial foreign military presence. There is tremendous political pressure to retain an expansive and substnatial domestic military presence, and every Pentagon proposed closure at home is fought tooth and nail by the affected state and its federal representatives. The fact that, despite this, the United States still retains such a tremendous foreign footprint is a testament to just how vital that footprint is.

Japan and S. Korea provide a SE Asian heavy capacity. Europe and the Middle East give us an African and Eastern European heavy capacity. This cannot be replaced with air or sea power. The Navy doesn't have any ships capable of transporting a tank division, and the Air Force lacks the planes. The cost (in terms of dollars and time) of maintaining your heavy capability at home, and then shipping it abroad every time you decided to go to war would be prohibiting; this is precisely why nobody else on earth ever goes to war with anybody except their neighbors. It's simply not practical.

[mheslep]

The US air lift capability may be colossal relative to the rest of the world, but it is completely incapable of moving anything heavy.
Not true.
Cargo is loaded through a large aft door that accommodates rolling stock, such as the 70-ton M1 Abrams tank, other armored vehicles, trucks, trailers, etc., along with palletized cargo.
...
Maximum payload of the C-17 is 170,900 lb (77,500 kg),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III
And one can make an argument that a fixed base in Germany or anywhere else is more 'vulnerable to attack' than a United States naval task force at sea.

[JaredJames]

Just to add to mheslep:

C-5 Galaxy
It was designed to provide strategic heavy airlift over intercontinental distances and to carry outsize and oversize cargo. The C-5 Galaxy has been operated by the United States Air Force (USAF) since 1969 and is one of the largest military aircraft in the world.

C-5s were used to transport equipment and troops; included Army tanks and various smaller aircraft.

Payload: 270,000 lb (122,470 kg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy

If you don't consider tanks and "various smaller aircraft" heavy lifting capacity, what do you think it is?

Personally, I think a strong naval force is the key to being a strong military power in the world these days. The ability to mobilize your troops around the world, and then re-deploy elsewhere is important.

[CAC1001]

I don't know about ships, but as mentioned above the Air Force does have aircraft that can carry Abrams tanks. Also keep in mind that Abrams tanks get shipped back to the U.S. from Iraq all the time for a tear-down and re-build. I saw a TV special on this, they take the whole tank apart, down to the very pieces of the engine, they put the hull into a special machine that holds it up and fires it with some kind of miniature pieces all over to scrape the rust off, they replace the tracks, the engine is rebuilt completely, etc...then the tank is basically brand-new at the end and goes back to battle.

EDIT: The U.S. Navy does have ships that can carry Abrams tanks: http://www.msc.navy.mil/N00p/pressrel/press05/press07.htm

[mugaliens]

I don't know about ships, but as mentioned above the Air Force does have aircraft that can carry Abrams tanks.

Yes, but only one at a time, and at great expense, so it's done only in emergencies. The C-5 Galaxy has the lift capacity to carry the weight of two Abrams, but it can't actually carry two Abrams tanks, as the bending moment about the CG in the wing box exceeds the structural limitations of the aircraft.

Also keep in mind that Abrams tanks get shipped back to the U.S. from Iraq all the time for a tear-down and re-build.

Yes they do - aboard ships.

EDIT: The U.S. Navy does have ships that can carry Abrams tanks: http://www.msc.navy.mil/N00p/pressrel/press05/press07.htm

Believe it or not, the U.S. Army has significantly more sealift capacity than does the U.S. Navy, whose focus is projecting power from the sea, not hauling the Army's cargo back and forth.

[CAC1001]

Yes they do - aboard ships.

I pointed that out in an edit.

Believe it or not, the U.S. Army has significantly more sealift capacity than does the U.S. Navy, whose focus is projecting power from the sea, not hauling the Army's cargo back and forth.

Didn't know that, probably makes sense from a bureaucratic standpoint though, as the Navy brass I'd bet wouldn't want to be concerned with hauling the Army's stuff around as opposed to power projection. I read this was a problem with the Air Force for a long time, that the Air Force was charged with providing close air support for the Army, but the Air Force brass had zero interest in this, and didn't believe it was even necessary, as they saw future wars as being nuclear and not requiring the Army.

BTW, what is the CG when you refer to the C-5 Galaxy?

[JaredJames]

BTW, what is the CG when you refer to the C-5 Galaxy?

Centre of Gravity, not just C-5 specific.

[brainstorm]

I wouldn't go as a far as "empire maintenance," as the U.S. doesn't have any formal empire in the old sense like Britain did. However I do agree that if we could do force projection just fine without overseas bases, then we could close some of them up.

Why is it that if people engage in free trade at a global scale, it's called empire, but if they do it at the level of (a) sub-global region(s), it's called a national economy and no eyebrows get raised? Have the ethics of conquest degenerated into "empire is ok as long as it is contained within national borders?"

What is the point of closing overseas military bases? Is it really a good idea to contain people within the national regions of their citizenship? Is there no value in having a world where people can freely go wherever they want and do whatever they want within reason? Or is it better to just allow bullies to divide the world up into ethno-national territories and segregate people in all their life activities except for certain designated purposes for which there would be visas?

Personally, I think we should be working toward more global freedom of movement and addressing the problems that come with migration and ethnic conflict on a case by case basis. Why are so many people for maintaining relatively segregated national regions? Why shouldn't anyone live and work where they want?

[drankin]

Personally, I think we should be working toward more global freedom of movement and addressing the problems that come with migration and ethnic conflict on a case by case basis. Why are so many people for maintaining relatively segregated national regions? Why shouldn't anyone live and work where they want?

Nice ideal. Very impractical. Impossible to enforce without a worldwide governing "empire" to bring those that want their own nation and culture untouched into line, by force. The Middle East is resisting assimilation by the West as we speak and it's very violent, for example. What you are suggesting would create extreme violence.

[mheslep]

Nice ideal. Very impractical. If the idea is summarized as the abolition of national borders, then I doubt on reflection you'd agree that this is even a nice idea. That's a concept borne of both nihilism and of contempt for the idea that some cultures can be preferred both practically and morally over others.

[mheslep]

Personally, I think we should be working toward more global freedom of movement and addressing the problems that come with migration and ethnic conflict on a case by case basis. Why are so many people for maintaining relatively segregated national regions? Why shouldn't anyone live and work where they want?So far the closest practical historical example of this is the United States.

[brainstorm]

Nice ideal. Very impractical. Impossible to enforce without a worldwide governing "empire" to bring those that want their own nation and culture untouched into line, by force. The Middle East is resisting assimilation by the West as we speak and it's very violent, for example. What you are suggesting would create extreme violence.

You can't blame peace for war. Extreme nationalist violence is the product of nationalism, not freedom or migration. As for a "worldwide governing 'empire'," that already exists in practice in the form of intergovernmental cooperation in managing people according to citizenship. Each national government is an socially-accepted "empire" and they work together to control migration and economic activity. You're right though that it is very difficult to regulate ethnic social movements. The best you can really do with such people is give them a minimal regional territory to concentrate themselves in and then bombard them with anti-fascist propaganda. I'm not as concerned with ethnic nationalism as I am with figuring out how to facilitate diversity of language and culture within regions of free migration. It seems to me that when people migrate freely, they tend to use English or another lingua franca unless there are sufficient numbers of speakers of some other shared language(s). As post-nationalism progresses, I believe such issues will become quite challenging since some people seem to have a hard time maintaining language/culture when multiple languages/cultures are co-present.

[JaredJames]

So far the closest practical historical example of this is the United States.

I know the US is made of seperate states, but they do all come under one overall government and are part of the same country so actually I'd say it's the EU in respect to actually having individual countries 'remove' their borders so far as work goes.

Any EU resident can work in any other EU country without requiring work documentation.

[JaredJames]

Each national government is an socially-accepted "empire" and they work together to control migration and economic activity.

Work together? You're 'aving a giraffe mate. ("Having a laugh")

Each country has it's own laws, countries such as those in the EU may work together in some respects but it still comes down to the individual laws governing each country which dictate what happens with regard to migration and economic activity. Nothing to do with working together. If Britain doesn't want immigrants, it doesn't accept them. There's nothing anyone can do about it (I suppose they could try imposing sanctions on us in some shape, but not sure how effective that would be).

[brainstorm]

Work together? You're 'aving a giraffe mate. ("Having a laugh")

Each country has it's own laws, countries such as those in the EU may work together in some respects but it still comes down to the individual laws governing each country which dictate what happens with regard to migration and economic activity. Nothing to do with working together. If Britain doesn't want immigrants, it doesn't accept them. There's nothing anyone can do about it (I suppose they could try imposing sanctions on us in some shape, but not sure how effective that would be).

What I meant is that the governments work together to segregate people into their respective regions of citizenship. So if the UK deports someone, that person has to go where they have citizenship or where their citizenship won't get them deported. Thus, governments work together to maintain global apartheid. It just so happens that the ideology of national pride and belonging has convinced many people to accept relegation to a limited regional territory as a privilege instead of infringement of their right to free mobility. Make the cages cozy enough and the zoo animals will see them as a right and a privilege instead of as a prison.

[JaredJames]

What I meant is that the governments work together to segregate people into their respective regions of citizenship. So if the UK deports someone, that person has to go where they have citizenship or where their citizenship won't get them deported. Thus, governments work together to maintain global apartheid. It just so happens that the ideology of national pride and belonging has convinced many people to accept relegation to a limited regional territory as a privilege instead of infringement of their right to free mobility. Make the cages cozy enough and the zoo animals will see them as a right and a privilege instead of as a prison.

The UK only deports you if it has just cause. The main reason being that you've broken the law. They can't simply deport someone without a damn good reason.

They don't work together to segregate people. A person comes to the UK, violates the UK's laws and as such their own actions remove their right to inhabit the UK and so they are removed back to wherever they came from. They don't work together on this. The UK does this off their own back. There's no participation from the other country unless travel documents are required. In the case of China, it can take a year to get those documents. From India it is around 6 months. Their foreign goverments don't make it an easy process.

[mugaliens]

Didn't know that, probably makes sense from a bureaucratic standpoint though, as the Navy brass I'd bet wouldn't want to be concerned with hauling the Army's stuff around as opposed to power projection. I read this was a problem with the Air Force for a long time, that the Air Force was charged with providing close air support for the Army, but the Air Force brass had zero interest in this, and didn't believe it was even necessary, as they saw future wars as being nuclear and not requiring the Army.

The Air Force also provides airlift, not only for the Army but for all services. USTRANSCOM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USTRANSCOM) was created in order to manage air, land, and sea-lift while bypassing issues involving interservice rivalries.

[CAC1001]

Why is it that if people engage in free trade at a global scale, it's called empire, but if they do it at the level of (a) sub-global region(s), it's called a national economy and no eyebrows get raised? Have the ethics of conquest degenerated into "empire is ok as long as it is contained within national borders?"

What is the point of closing overseas military bases? Is it really a good idea to contain people within the national regions of their citizenship? Is there no value in having a world where people can freely go wherever they want and do whatever they want within reason? Or is it better to just allow bullies to divide the world up into ethno-national territories and segregate people in all their life activities except for certain designated purposes for which there would be visas?

Personally, I think we should be working toward more global freedom of movement and addressing the problems that come with migration and ethnic conflict on a case by case basis. Why are so many people for maintaining relatively segregated national regions? Why shouldn't anyone live and work where they want?

Are you saying that the U.S. military bases around the world contain people within their countries? America doesn't maintain anything like that.

[CRGreathouse]

Are you saying that the U.S. military bases around the world contain people within their countries? America doesn't maintain anything like that.

I don't understand your claim, would you clarify?

[CAC1001]

When brainstorm said the following:

What is the point of closing overseas military bases? Is it really a good idea to contain people within the national regions of their citizenship? Is there no value in having a world where people can freely go wherever they want and do whatever they want within reason? Or is it better to just allow bullies to divide the world up into ethno-national territories and segregate people in all their life activities except for certain designated purposes for which there would be visas?

...although upon re-reading it, perhaps I mis-interpreted it? I thought he was saying that the U.S.'s having military bases overseas keeps people constrained within the countries where we have the bases.

[brainstorm]

The UK only deports you if it has just cause. The main reason being that you've broken the law. They can't simply deport someone without a damn good reason.
Well, if they have a conditional visa with a time-limit, that provides a free-card for deportation if the conditions/limits of the visa are violated, no?

They don't work together to segregate people. A person comes to the UK, violates the UK's laws and as such their own actions remove their right to inhabit the UK and so they are removed back to wherever they came from.
Maybe it bothers you to call it segregation but it is in fact a form of segregation. If you look at how apartheid was regulated in South Africa, it was very similar to the way international traffic is regulated. People needed "passes" instead of "passports," but the general idea was to ensure that people only travelled to another region if they had a reason legitimated by the people/government of the receiving region (mostly employment, I believe). Beyond that, people were viewed as not 'belonging' outside their region of citizenship, the same as nationalism views nation-states at present.

They don't work together on this. The UK does this off their own back. There's no participation from the other country unless travel documents are required. In the case of China, it can take a year to get those documents. From India it is around 6 months. Their foreign goverments don't make it an easy process.
Sure they do. Travel documents are the main method of working together. A government creates a passport for a citizen, which is used/stamped by a second government and used to keep track of where to deport that person if they overstay their visa. Without the passport, they would have to go by whatever the person said and if they said that the UK was their country, there would be no way to deport them.

Are you saying that the U.S. military bases around the world contain people within their countries? America doesn't maintain anything like that.
When did I say that? It depends what you mean. There are a lot of subtleties in regulating human traffic, much of which involves manipulating voluntary compliance.

When brainstorm said the following:

What is the point of closing overseas military bases? Is it really a good idea to contain people within the national regions of their citizenship? Is there no value in having a world where people can freely go wherever they want and do whatever they want within reason? Or is it better to just allow bullies to divide the world up into ethno-national territories and segregate people in all their life activities except for certain designated purposes for which there would be visas?

...although upon re-reading it, perhaps I mis-interpreted it? I thought he was saying that the U.S.'s having military bases overseas keeps people constrained within the countries where we have the bases.
Um, no. What I mean is that if there was no global military presence, travelers would be at the mercy of local xenophobia. The result would be that people would restrict their movement to nationalized regions where they did not feel hostility toward themselves as "foreigners." Thus I think it is a good idea for ALL people, including soldiers/military to be globally integrated. That is the only way to de-escalate the tensions that arise from territorialism. When there is no transnational military presence, it sensitizes people to the prospect of "invasion." When "occupation" is no longer viewed as "occupation," the threat of conflict de-escalates and the presence of "foreign" soldiers becomes just an everyday fact of life. Until that level of comfort is reached, you have a situation where tensions and hostilities are potential in the attitude of local territorialists toward "foreign" individuals.

The only way global peace can occur is for such territorialism and native/foreign tensions to become everywhere fully diffused. For such tension to become diffused, people can't react to the idea of "foreign military presence" as "occupation." They have to just view soldiers as individuals who have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else.

[JaredJames]

Well, if they have a conditional visa with a time-limit, that provides a free-card for deportation if the conditions/limits of the visa are violated, no?

Note, "if the conditions/limits of the visa are violated". You can continuously re-apply for a visa providing you have a legitimate reason to do so. If so, it won't be declined.
If you violate the conditions of the visa, that is your fault not the countries. The country accepted you by giving the visa and you have effectively betrayed their trust in you. You don't deserve to be in that country. The conditions are there to protect the country not the person entering it.
Maybe it bothers you to call it segregation but it is in fact a form of segregation. If you look at how apartheid was regulated in South Africa, it was very similar to the way international traffic is regulated. People needed "passes" instead of "passports," but the general idea was to ensure that people only travelled to another region if they had a reason legitimated by the people/government of the receiving region (mostly employment, I believe). Beyond that, people were viewed as not 'belonging' outside their region of citizenship, the same as nationalism views nation-states at present.

You can apply for holiday visa's to the UK continuously. Stay here as long as like (visa's are 6 months at a time so you'd have to re-apply). As long as you can prove you can pay your way, without working illegally and without being a burden to the country they won't stop you.

The only thing stopping you travelling or entering a country is if you are suspicious (can't prove why you are travelling or can't support yourself etc) or if you have violated your travel conditions (come to the country on a tourist visa and then worked etc).

Just because you aren't British, doesn't stop you living here. It's more difficult, but that is only because you need to prove you aren't going to be a burden / problem for the country.

[brainstorm]

Note, "if the conditions/limits of the visa are violated". You can continuously re-apply for a visa providing you have a legitimate reason to do so. If so, it won't be declined.
If you violate the conditions of the visa, that is your fault not the countries. The country accepted you by giving the visa and you have effectively betrayed their trust in you. You don't deserve to be in that country. The conditions are there to protect the country not the person entering it.
I don't know why you feel the need to get into the details of the authoritarian logic of it all. All I was pointing out is that different national authorities cooperate to effectively segregate individuals into "regions of belonging." You don't seem to be able to rise above the level of naturalizing regional belongingness as if it was assigned genetically or by God.

If you look at nationalism anthropologically as a form of human culture, you should notice that it is a form of territorialism and that it is utilized to facilitate relative segregation of people into relatively separate regions - at least this is the ideal it strives for. In principle, I am for open, non-territorial regionalism where anyone can live and work anywhere without being treated as a "foreigner" but there is currently too much nationalist territorialism for people to simply accept anyone else's presence as natural regardless of citizenship and ethnic identity. Presumably this will dissipate in the coming century or two the way racial/ethnic segregation has been dissipating for the last century or so.

You can apply for holiday visa's to the UK continuously. Stay here as long as like (visa's are 6 months at a time so you'd have to re-apply). As long as you can prove you can pay your way, without working illegally and without being a burden to the country they won't stop you.
I'm actually surprised to hear you don't have to leave and come back to get another 6 month visa and that there is no limit to continuous visa requests. What is actually the point of making people get a visa at all in that case? Can people legally apply to any job without citizenship in UK law?

The only thing stopping you travelling or entering a country is if you are suspicious (can't prove why you are travelling or can't support yourself etc) or if you have violated your travel conditions (come to the country on a tourist visa and then worked etc).

Just because you aren't British, doesn't stop you living here. It's more difficult, but that is only because you need to prove you aren't going to be a burden / problem for the country.
So you have to be independently wealthy? Is there no official or unofficial discrimination against job-applicants identified as "foreign?"

[JaredJames]

I'm actually surprised to hear you don't have to leave and come back to get another 6 month visa and that there is no limit to continuous visa requests. What is actually the point of making people get a visa at all in that case? Can people legally apply to any job without citizenship in UK law?

Well there are clauses, you can only remain in the UK for 6 months at a time (even with visas up to 10 years long). But what I'm trying to say is that there is nothing stopping you remaining here by going away and coming back. However you have to realise that coming here for six months, and then trying to get straight back in will flag you up to immigration.

So you have to be independently wealthy? Is there no official or unofficial discrimination against job-applicants identified as "foreign?"

Working visas are different to tourist ones. There are different classes for working visas and they present different issues to tourist ones - they are harder to get.

Like I said before, the EU has removed the need for a work visa within other EU states. It's the countries outside of the EU (particularly the middle eastern block) that prove to be the biggest problem when it comes to illegal immigration and working illegally. The visas are there to ensure people wanting to work here do so with the governments knowledge and contribute to the country they are inhabiting.

[brainstorm]

Well there are clauses, you can only remain in the UK for 6 months at a time (even with visas up to 10 years long). But what I'm trying to say is that there is nothing stopping you remaining here by going away and coming back. However you have to realise that coming here for six months, and then trying to get straight back in will flag you up to immigration.

Working visas are different to tourist ones. There are different classes for working visas and they present different issues to tourist ones - they are harder to get.

Like I said before, the EU has removed the need for a work visa within other EU states. It's the countries outside of the EU (particularly the middle eastern block) that prove to be the biggest problem when it comes to illegal immigration and working illegally. The visas are there to ensure people wanting to work here do so with the governments knowledge and contribute to the country they are inhabiting.

Right, this was my point. So the point is to segregate people into eastern and western Europe? Yes, temporary stays are permitted but only under the conditions that people aren't settling permanently. They want people not to permanently migrate to certain regions. It is a system of segregation by the ideology of regional-belonging.

[JaredJames]

Right, this was my point. So the point is to segregate people into eastern and western Europe? Yes, temporary stays are permitted but only under the conditions that people aren't settling permanently. They want people not to permanently migrate to certain regions. It is a system of segregation by the ideology of regional-belonging.

Have you not heard of emigration? People move to other countries to live and it isn't that difficult - providing you do it legally.

There's really not much more to it than working here for a few years whilst holding a work visa and then proving you have a good understanding of British life and culture.

Also, if you marry someone in the UK you pretty much guarantee acceptance (it's not certain, but it's a lot more difficult to get you out once married).

You clearly don't understand the process, here is the general outline direct from the Border Agency:
After you have lived legally in the UK for a certain length of time (usually between two and five years), you may be able to apply for permission to settle here. This is known as 'indefinite leave to remain'..

Your right to apply for settlement will depend on your current immigration category. You should read the section for your category (in Working in the UK, Partners and family members or Asylum) to find out whether and when you can apply for settlement.

Most applicants will need to show that they have a knowledge of language and life in the UK.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/settlement/

I think it's also worth noting that in the US, any child born in the country is automatically a US citizen. There are a number of pregnant women from poorer countries who will travel to the US during late stages of pregnancy and have the child there. That way they gain a way to remain in the country. This is not true for the UK however.

Your views are extremely idealised. As nice a concept as yours is, you seem blissfully unaware of the reasons for countries having borders and the need for immigration control.

[brainstorm]

Your views are extremely idealised. As nice a concept as yours is, you seem blissfully unaware of the reasons for countries having borders and the need for immigration control.

Eating is a need. Warmth is a need. Is nationalism a need? Regardless, I'm not talking about whether migration control benefits some people. I am just saying that relative global segregation is what is achieved by nationalist migration control. In other words, people aren't allowed to live and work wherever they want. Why not? What would happen if they did?

[Office_Shredder]

I think it's also worth noting that in the US, any child born in the country is automatically a US citizen. There are a number of pregnant women from poorer countries who will travel to the US during late stages of pregnancy and have the child there. That way they gain a way to remain in the country. This is not true for the UK however.

That's not really how it works

http://asu.news21.com/2010/children-of-deported-parents/

[JaredJames]

That's not really how it works

http://asu.news21.com/2010/children-of-deported-parents/

You might want to read that article. A tad bias I must say.

If I've understood it correctly, the only reason that woman was deported is because of the father and her inability to defend herself - helped by the fact he was a citizen.

Also, there is a huge section which says they are trying to get the amendment through, which was dismissed in 2009, that would mean a child basically needs one US citizen parent to gain citizenship in the US. If not, they would be refused citizenship and returned to the parents country of origin (how it works in the UK).

That article only speaks about deported parents, it doesn't give figures (deported / allowed to remain). I'd be interested to see those before I make a judgement here.
I'm not saying I don't believe you regarding how it works, but given the bill they are trying to get through regarding the 14th amendments I'd say it's obviously an issue with people having children in the US and trying to use them to remain - even if it fails and they end up getting deported. There appears to be some bias in the article.

One thing I am curious about though, how do those kids end up homeless? They either remain in the US or go home with parents. If you know you have no one to look after your child (or fostering isn't going to happen), why would you leave them there and let them get into the situation of being homeless? I'd say that's neglect on the parents part.