Will the last person leaveing Mexico please turn off the lights?

[Plane]

Back in 1986 it was "unrealistic" to round up and deport the 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States then. So they were given amnesty -- honestly labeled, back then -- which is precisely why there are now 12 million illegal immigrants.

As a result of the current amnesty bill -- not honestly labeled, this time -- will it be "unrealistic" to round up and deport 40 million or 50 million illegal immigrants in the future?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/the_amnesty_fraud.html

[Universe Prince]

Back in 1986 it was "unrealistic" to round up and deport the 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States then. So they were given amnesty -- honestly labeled, back then -- which is precisely why there are now 12 million illegal immigrants.

As a result of the current amnesty bill -- not honestly labeled, this time -- will it be "unrealistic" to round up and deport 40 million or 50 million illegal immigrants in the future?

I certainly hope so.

My main problem with the arguments denouncing "amnesty" (which apparently means anything short of tarring, feathering and chasing the people out of the country with a bullwhip) is that there should not be anything for which to give the immigrants amnesty. They should not need amnesty. They should be allowed to come and go with about the same ease that American citizens travel from one state to another.

[sirs]

They should not need amnesty. They should be allowed to come and go with about the same ease that American citizens travel from one state to another.[/color]

Scary.       The national security ramifications alone should torpedo that notion.  And no, it's not specific to "mexicans" only.  The Ecnomic crush to our healthcare and education systems, as manifested in their current forms, also demonstrates how bad an idea that mindset really is.

[_JS]

My main problem with the arguments denouncing "amnesty" (which apparently means anything short of tarring, feathering and chasing the people out of the country with a bullwhip) is that there should not be anything for which to give the immigrants amnesty. They should not need amnesty. They should be allowed to come and go with about the same ease that American citizens travel from one state to another.

Well said Prince.

I completely agree.

[Universe Prince]

The national security ramifications alone should torpedo that notion.

Why?

The Ecnomic crush to our healthcare and education systems, as manifested in their current forms, also demonstrates how bad an idea that mindset really is.

On the contrary, that demonstrates a problem with the healthcare and education systems, not with free immigration. Then again, open immigration would result in millions if not billions of additional tax dollars being added to the system. All those immigrants, even the ones coming in for work and going home, would be paying taxes when they buy stuff here and would be having their payroll taxes taken from them.

[Mucho]

I agree with Prince?
I believe that all things being equal, people prefer to stay in  their own country. Mexico is a beautiful and temperate place to be. They come here to support their families back home for the most part. These are decent , hard working & family oriented people . We need more , not less , of them here. These are the people that will be supporting us with their taxes for our baby boomers retirement. Let's not make it harder for them to improve this country.

[sirs]

The national security ramifications alone should torpedo that notion.

Why?

It boggles the mind that you'd have no problem with would be terrorists, just walking right into this country, with whatever WMD they may have aquired, or some form of mass killing to initiate, as easy as myself crossing California into Nevada.  And you have to ask "why"?

The Ecnomic crush to our healthcare and education systems, as manifested in their current forms, also demonstrates how bad an idea that mindset really is.

On the contrary, that demonstrates a problem with the healthcare and education systems, not with free immigration.

Wrong I'm afraid Prince.  With the intimate understanding I have being in the healthcare industry, the issue with the problems of both healthcare and education is the overriding Federal bureacracy attached to both, severely exacebated by the sheer # of immigrants who are accessing the finate resources of both, who are here illegally.  Not the primary problem, I concede, but an ever worsening secondary problem.  Remove that #, and the system is made much more functional & cost effective.  And if we could get our primary wish, it'd be to remove as much of Government out of both areas, as possible

Then again, open immigration would result in millions if not billions of additional tax dollars being added to the system. All those immigrants, even the ones coming in for work and going home, would be paying taxes when they buy stuff here and would be having their payroll taxes taken from them.

I'm afraid that's distorted as the overwhelming majority of those workers will likely be very low paying positions, likley to be exempt from income taxes, and with the amounts required by taxpayers to to pay for their healthcare & education, FAR outpaces any revenues they could generate into the system.  And if I recall in a recent think tank report I read, hypothetically if we did grant amnesty to the 9+million illegal immigrants, that's an additional 9+million who'd be joining the ranks of receiving SS at just about the time that SS will have already gone bankrupt trying to pay for those eligible Americans & legal immigrants

[Universe Prince]

It boggles the mind that you'd have no problem with would be terrorists, just walking right into this country, with whatever WMD they may have aquired, or some form of mass killing to initiate, as easy as myself crossing California into Nevada.  And you have to ask "why"?

Wow. That seems more than a tad unfair. How about if I said you have no problem with pedophiles, rapists and murderers moving right into your state or city? Or did I miss something while I was away from the Saloon and now you're advocating that everyone must pass through police checkpoints when traveling from one city or state to another?

With the intimate understanding I have being in the healthcare industry, the issue with the problems of both healthcare and education is the overriding Federal bureacracy attached to both, severely exacebated by the sheer # of immigrants who are accessing the finate resources of both, who are here illegally.  Not the primary problem, I concede, but an ever worsening secondary problem.  Remove that #, and the system is made much more functional & cost effective.  And if we could get our primary wish, it'd be to remove as much of Government out of both areas, as possible

Your intimate understanding runs contrary to every reasonable investigation into the situation I've seen. Most immigrants, illegal and not, are trying to keep a low profile and generally end up putting more money into the system than they take out. I suggest that the problem of numbers would still exist if the tax paying immigrants, many of whom are technically here illegally and using fake I.D.s to get jobs, were all taken out of the equation. The fundamental problem is with the nature of the system, not the people. You won't solve the problem by taking away some of the people. A barely functional and cost ineffective system will not become more functional and cost effective if you take away people who both use and support the system. And quite frankly, in regard to health care and education, we should be trying to figure out how to be more helpful to everyone (and I don't mean via the government), including the immigrants, not trying to figure out how to exclude people.

I'm afraid that's distorted as the overwhelming majority of those workers will likely be very low paying positions, likley to be exempt from income taxes, and with the amounts required by taxpayers to to pay for their healthcare & education, FAR outpaces any revenues they could generate into the system.  And if I recall in a recent think tank report I read, hypothetically if we did grant amnesty to the 9+million illegal immigrants, that's an additional 9+million who'd be joining the ranks of receiving SS at just about the time that SS will have already gone bankrupt trying to pay for those eligible Americans & legal immigrants

We don't know what jobs they would take. Migrant farm work is a small percentage of the work immigrants do here. Many more go into construction, which can pay pretty well. Even if they were exempt from federal income taxes, the FICA taxes, as always, would be taken anyway. But you're also ignoring state and local taxes, such as property taxes and sales taxes. So the notion that they would not be paying taxes is a false one. And I'm pretty sure that whatever think tank study you're talking about would not assume that all immigrants would become eligible for "Social Security" payouts at the same time. But even if the influx of immigrants did contribute to the bankruptcy of "Social Security", again I have to point out that would be because of the problem inherent within the nature of "Social Security" and not because of the people.

[sirs]

It boggles the mind that you'd have no problem with would be terrorists, just walking right into this country, with whatever WMD they may have aquired, or some form of mass killing to initiate, as easy as myself crossing California into Nevada.  And you have to ask "why"?

Wow. That seems more than a tad unfair. How about if I said you have no problem with pedophiles, rapists and murderers moving right into your state or city? Or did I miss something while I was away from the Saloon and now you're advocating that everyone must pass through police checkpoints when traveling from one city or state to another?

No, the thing you're missing is how more and more limitations are placed on the many, due to the actions of a few.  I just recently got back from vacation, and on one of our van driven tours, the driver had indicated so many of the old trails that were closed (some to to some of the most beautiful of waterfalls), due to those few tourists who completely ignored warning signs NOT to tresspass in those areas where flashfloods could occur, then getting caught up in said flashfloods, with many being swept out to sea and die.  Subsequent lawsuits by families of those who ignored the warnings, and they then being awarded millions of dollars for failing to read the warnings.  In my industry, we've had more and more regulations applied, with frequent denial of services, due to the fraud of those few taking advantage of the system.  Point being, our borders are the 1st line of defense against foreign enemies.  The mindset you apply completely abolishes that line of defense.

Your intimate understanding runs contrary to every reasonable investigation into the situation I've seen.

And strangely, I can apply how my understanding appears to run completely in line with most "reasonable investigations" and think tank studies I've seen

And quite frankly, in regard to health care and education, we should be trying to figure out how to be more helpful to everyone (and I don't mean via the government), including the immigrants, not trying to figure out how to exclude people.

No one's trying to exclude "people", only ILLEGAL people.  A distinct & not-so-subtle difference

We don't know what jobs they would take. Migrant farm work is a small percentage of the work immigrants do here. Many more go into construction, which can pay pretty well. Even if they were exempt from federal income taxes, the FICA taxes, as always, would be taken anyway. But you're also ignoring state and local taxes, such as property taxes and sales taxes.

We kinda do.  They'd take those jobs where the employers are desperate for the lowest waged worker.  That's the whole issue here....employers and corporations willing to undercut american workers by paying salaries that only illegal immigrants will jump at.  And the vast majority of those illegal immigrats are likely to be renting vs paying property taxes, so there's another big# you can take out of the equation.  But yes, they would have to pay sales taxes

So the notion that they would not be paying taxes is a false one.

Didn't say they wouldn't pay "any" taxes, so that's a false implication to begin with.  The reference is in that they would pay far less in taxes compared to what they'd use in tax payer payed services

And I'm pretty sure that whatever think tank study you're talking about would not assume that all immigrants would become eligible for "Social Security" payouts at the same time. But even if the influx of immigrants did contribute to the bankruptcy of "Social Security", again I have to point out that would be because of the problem inherent within the nature of "Social Security" and not because of the people.

Again with the "all or nothing" inferrence.  The reference was that the 9+million would likely be starting to receive SS benefits just after said system was completely bankrupt.  And I won't even reference Medicare, as that will be an even worse scenario than SS

[Universe Prince]

No, the thing you're missing is how more and more limitations are placed on the many, due to the actions of a few.

Completely irrelevant to what we were talking about, unless you're suggesting border security is important to keeping people out of flashfloods. So, back to my point: How about if I said you have no problem with pedophiles, rapists and murderers moving right into your state or city? It's pretty much the same thing. You have no border protection, so bad people with intentions of harming others can come right in to where you live with no one to stop them. How can you be so ignorant of the obvious need for closing off all state and city borders within the United States? Yes, I am being sarcastic, but it makes my point.

Point being, our borders are the 1st line of defense against foreign enemies.  The mindset you apply completely abolishes that line of defense.

Your state borders are your first line of defense against rapists and pedophiles from other states. The mindset you apply completely abolishes that line of defense. How can you ignore the obvious threat of pedophiles left free to enter your state as they please? Murderers, thieves, rapists, even terrorists here in the country on student visas, all free to walk across your state border unimpeded. How can you stand to allow such nonexistent border security? If your state has "better" government run social programs, you might even be in danger of homeless people and low-wage earners moving into your state and using up valuable resources. Clearly you need to do something about your state's open borders. So tell me, how soon will you be starting the campaign in your state for a guarded double fence along your state border? (Yes, still being sarcastic, but still making the point.)

my understanding appears to run completely in line with most "reasonable investigations" and think tank studies I've seen

I cannot find a single one that supports your view that taking away the illegal immigrants makes the health care and education systems "much more functional & cost effective." What I find says most of them are paying more in taxes than they ever get out of the system. Which means removing the illegal immigrants would be detrimental and not beneficial to those systems.

No one's trying to exclude "people", only ILLEGAL people.  A distinct & not-so-subtle difference

As a fictional philosopher once correctly noted, "Peoples is peoples." I'm not exactly sure what the difference between "people" (in quotes) and ILLEGAL people is. Seems to me, they're all people. And if you're trying to exclude ILLEGAL people—and though I know what you meant, I am still a little surprised you put it that way—then you're trying to exclude people. And one of the major problems with that, as I have mentioned before, is that those illegal immigrants shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

They'd take those jobs where the employers are desperate for the lowest waged worker.  That's the whole issue here....employers and corporations willing to undercut american workers by paying salaries that only illegal immigrants will jump at.

Um, no. They take the jobs they are willing to do for the pay offered. The same as everyone else. But this only helps my point. You can't have an underground market in jobs if you don't have an underground market in employees. Eliminate the onerous legal barriers, let people come here openly, and away goes most of the illegal employment of people at below market wages. This isn't rocket science. The issue here is not employers undercutting anyone. The issue is letting people have the liberty to seek employment and/or to employ as they see fit. It's called capitalism, and it works. But since you're concerned about employers undercutting "american workers by paying salaries that only illegal immigrants will jump at", are you also in favor of minimum wage hikes? You're making almost the same argument as those who want to raise minimum wage. Have you joined the camp of those who believe the government needs to tell people how to run their businesses?

And the vast majority of those illegal immigrats are likely to be renting vs paying property taxes, so there's another big# you can take out of the equation.

I would like to know how you came to that particular conclusion.

The reference is in that they would pay far less in taxes compared to what they'd use in tax payer payed services

Again, this is contrary to all the evidence I have seen.

Again with the "all or nothing" inferrence.  The reference was that the 9+million would likely be starting to receive SS benefits just after said system was completely bankrupt.

I inferred nothing. In any case, my point remains the same. A bankrupt "Social Security" system would be a result of the inherently faulty system not be the immigrants. To complain about immigrants, illegal or otherwise, somehow spoiling the system is a complete strawman. The peril of it does not exist.

[sirs]

No, the thing you're missing is how more and more limitations are placed on the many, due to the actions of a few.

Completely irrelevant to what we were talking about, unless you're suggesting border security is important to keeping people out of flashfloods. So, back to my point:...

No, let's go back to the attempt at twisting my point.  I'm not "suggesting" anything, much less that unfathonable tangent.  I'm indicating that many of the laws we have that effect most, if not all of us, are brought about by the acts of a few.  In this case, militant Islamic terrorists

How about if I said you have no problem with pedophiles, rapists and murderers moving right into your state or city? It's pretty much the same thing. You have no border protection, so bad people with intentions of harming others can come right in to where you live with no one to stop them.

Outside of course that they're here legally, while attempting to perform illegal acts.  I hope you don't mind the fact I can differentiate between the 2

How can you be so ignorant of the obvious need for closing off all state and city borders within the United States? Yes, I am being sarcastic, but it makes my point.

Not quite, unless you're trying to make a ludicrous point, than yea, ok

Point being, our borders are the 1st line of defense against foreign enemies.  The mindset you apply completely abolishes that line of defense.

Your state borders are your first line of defense against rapists and pedophiles from other states. The mindset you apply completely abolishes that line of defense.

Actually our 1st line of defense against LEGAL citizens in this country is neighborhood watch.   Not surprised though how you continue the effort in blurring the 2 (legal vs illegal immigrants)

my understanding appears to run completely in line with most "reasonable investigations" and think tank studies I've seen

I cannot find a single one that supports your view that taking away the illegal immigrants makes the health care and education systems "much more functional & cost effective." What I find says most of them are paying more in taxes than they ever get out of the system. Which means removing the illegal immigrants would be detrimental and not beneficial to those systems.

We obviously are reading different studies then, since I've come across precisely the opposite.  Not combined of course, just studies on each, mostly regarding healthcare, and mostly about how far more money is drained than what they contribute

No one's trying to exclude "people", only ILLEGAL people.  A distinct & not-so-subtle difference

As a fictional philosopher once correctly noted, "Peoples is peoples." I'm not exactly sure what the difference between "people" (in quotes) and ILLEGAL people is.

That's easy.  ILLEGAL people are those that have not followed our laws, have not followed procedure that legal immigrants have taken, and obviously have no patience to respect our rule of law.  "People" are all those here legally, including some who are actually pedophiles and murderers, that you were so incongruently trying to analogize

Seems to me, they're all people.

Technically yes.  So are terrorists, so are dictators, so are pedophiles.  So?

And if you're trying to exclude ILLEGAL people—and though I know what you meant, I am still a little surprised you put it that way—then you're trying to exclude people.

If you're going to start to try to play that blurr game again, you can deal me out.  So don't

And one of the major problems with that, as I have mentioned before, is that those illegal immigrants shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

BUT THEY ARE.  Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean they aren't.  Just because a murderer may donate to charity, doesn't remove the fact he's a murderer.  Fact is, those that have entered this country illegally, are illegally in this country.  It is ONLY those I take issue with, as it relates to who comes in and out of this country, not "people" in general, nor those simply from Mexico.  ANYONE entering this country, without going thru the legal process of coming into this country, should not be here, plane & simple

They'd take those jobs where the employers are desperate for the lowest waged worker.  That's the whole issue here....employers and corporations willing to undercut american workers by paying salaries that only illegal immigrants will jump at.

Um, no. They take the jobs they are willing to do for the pay offered. The same as everyone else.

I think I just said that.  And it's ususally lower than any legal American is willing to work for.  Yea, I got that

You can't have an underground market in jobs if you don't have an underground market in employees.

Hey, that helps make my point.  Start enforcing current immigration laws, start hitting these employers who are willing to shaft both illegal immigrants and Americans, and the underground would dry up significantly

And the vast majority of those illegal immigrats are likely to be renting vs paying property taxes, so there's another big# you can take out of the equation.

I would like to know how you came to that particular conclusion.

Common sense.  such low skilled paying jobs, at rates that are often less than minimum wage isn't likely to put one on the path to home ownership.  Unless you're like BofA or Western Mutual, ready to put up some outrageous mortgage rates to shaft the illegal immigrant, that much more

The reference is in that they would pay far less in taxes compared to what they'd use in tax payer payed services

Again, this is contrary to all the evidence I have seen.

Then we're obviously seeing different evidence

Again with the "all or nothing" inferrence.  The reference was that the 9+million would likely be starting to receive SS benefits just after said system was completely bankrupt.

I inferred nothing. In any case, my point remains the same. A bankrupt "Social Security" system would be a result of the inherently faulty system not be the immigrants. To complain about immigrants, illegal or otherwise, somehow spoiling the system is a complete strawman. The peril of it does not exist.

A) I NEVER was complaining that immigrants, whether legal or illegal was what was spoiling SS, so I'd appreciate if you dropped that attempt.  and B) 1 last time, it's simply demonstrating that the #'s will be THAT MUCH EXPONENTIALLY MORE entering the SS & Medicare systems, at a time when they're going, if not already gone bankrupt.  Consider it the cherry on top

[Universe Prince]

I'm indicating that many of the laws we have that effect most, if not all of us, are brought about by the acts of a few.  In this case, militant Islamic terrorists

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

How about if I said you have no problem with pedophiles, rapists and murderers moving right into your state or city? It's pretty much the same thing. You have no border protection, so bad people with intentions of harming others can come right in to where you live with no one to stop them.

Outside of course that they're here legally, while attempting to perform illegal acts.  I hope you don't mind the fact I can differentiate between the 2

In their home state they might be there legally, but you can make their entry into your state illegal by the imposition of laws on interstate travel similar to what we have on international travel. We supposedly need to have these immigration laws to secure the borders to keep out the terrorists and criminals from foreign lands, then why not secure the borders to keep out terrorists and criminals from other states? Isn't that the point of the whole border security thing? If it is a must-have for our national borders, why not for our state borders?

How can you be so ignorant of the obvious need for closing off all state and city borders within the United States? Yes, I am being sarcastic, but it makes my point.

Not quite, unless you're trying to make a ludicrous point, than yea, ok

Why is it ludicrous to suggest that the same laws that apply to international immigration should be applied to interstate immigration? The same issues apply. Keeping out criminals. Protecting the populace. Preventing undue drain on local resources. Then why not the same solution? Conversely, if it is ludicrous to suggest closed state borders and tightly controlled interstate immigration, why then is a closed national border and tightly controlled international immigration insisted to be the necessary solution? If it is ludicrous on the level of interstate travel, then how can it not be proportionately more ludicrous at the level of international travel?

Actually our 1st line of defense against LEGAL citizens in this country is neighborhood watch.

The point isn't whether native born pedophiles or rapists are legal citizens of the U.S. The point is their movement from one state to another is legal. You claimed our first line of defense against foreign enemies is our border. Why is that only true at the national level? Why is that not true at the state level or the city level? It cannot be because the native born criminals are here legally. The only thing needed to make their interstate immigration illegal are the laws that say so. So if we need such laws for the national borders, why not for the state borders?

Not surprised though how you continue the effort in blurring the 2 (legal vs illegal immigrants)

I'm not blurring anything. I'm making a fairly straightforward comparison of international and interstate immigration.

We obviously are reading different studies then, since I've come across precisely the opposite.  Not combined of course, just studies on each, mostly regarding healthcare, and mostly about how far more money is drained than what they contribute

And those studies would be...?

ILLEGAL people are those that have not followed our laws, have not followed procedure that legal immigrants have taken, and obviously have no patience to respect our rule of law.  "People" are all those here legally, including some who are actually pedophiles and murderers, that you were so incongruently trying to analogize

Okay. I feel I should have a better response, but I'm a little stunned that people not having patience for the decades to gain legal entry to the U.S. are to be excluded from immigration to places with better health care or education but murderers and pedophiles should apparently feel free to go where they wish. Something about that seems incongruous to me.

Seems to me, they're all people.

Technically yes.  So are terrorists, so are dictators, so are pedophiles.  So?

So if you're trying to exclude ILLEGAL people (your term), then you're trying to exclude people. But I said that already, didn't I...

And if you're trying to exclude ILLEGAL people—and though I know what you meant, I am still a little surprised you put it that way—then you're trying to exclude people.

If you're going to start to try to play that blurr game again, you can deal me out.  So don't

Again, I'm not blurring anything. I realize you're saying there is a difference between people here legally and people here illegally. But that distinction is entirely artificial and one with which I happen to disagree. The distinction should not exist.

And if you're trying to exclude ILLEGAL people—and though I know what you meant, I am still a little surprised you put it that way—then you're trying to exclude people. And one of the major problems with that, as I have mentioned before, is that those illegal immigrants shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

BUT THEY ARE.  Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean they aren't.  Just because a murderer may donate to charity, doesn't remove the fact he's a murderer.  Fact is, those that have entered this country illegally, are illegally in this country.

I did not deny, nor have I denied, that such is the case. Obviously the situation exists. That does not mean that it should.

 It is ONLY those I take issue with, as it relates to who comes in and out of this country, not "people" in general, nor those simply from Mexico.  ANYONE entering this country, without going thru the legal process of coming into this country, should not be here, plane & simple

I disagree. I don't believe we need an onerous process of legal entry into this country. I don't believe we need to have most, if any, of those laws on the books. The existence of a law is not sufficient to justify its existence. And the existence of a law does not make it right or necessary or good. You believe we need onerous immigration laws? Okay, but I do not. That is a disagreement with the law, not a denial of the law.

Start enforcing current immigration laws, start hitting these employers who are willing to shaft both illegal immigrants and Americans, and the underground would dry up significantly

Kinda like how cracking down on the market for alcohol (enforcement of Prohibition) shrunk the the black market for alcohol? No, I think the more likely result would be the underground market would merely get better at hiding. And it would probably do more harm than good to the people involved and to the legal market.

Common sense.  such low skilled paying jobs, at rates that are often less than minimum wage isn't likely to put one on the path to home ownership.  Unless you're like BofA or Western Mutual, ready to put up some outrageous mortgage rates to shaft the illegal immigrant, that much more

Oh yes, you're still assuming that immigrants are only going to take low paying jobs. I still haven't seen the evidence for that either.

A) I NEVER was complaining that immigrants, whether legal or illegal was what was spoiling SS, so I'd appreciate if you dropped that attempt.

I could have sworn that was you explaining how the studies you've seen show that the immigrants are going to drain more than they contribute...

and B) 1 last time, it's simply demonstrating that the #'s will be THAT MUCH EXPONENTIALLY MORE entering the SS & Medicare systems, at a time when they're going, if not already gone bankrupt.  Consider it the cherry on top

Then maybe we should focus on getting out of the flawed systems now rather than waiting for them to go bankrupt. And before you tell me how we can't do that, I submit that if all of the verbiage, effort, time and money being spent on arguing for immigration control was instead spent on campaigning against "Social Security" and Medicare, then some progress, at the very least, toward ending those programs could be made.

[Plane]

Why is it ludicrous to suggest that the same laws that apply to international immigration should be applied to interstate immigration? The same issues apply. Keeping out criminals. Protecting the populace. Preventing undue drain on local resources. Then why not the same solution? Conversely, if it is ludicrous to suggest closed state borders and tightly controlled interstate immigration, why then is a closed national border and tightly controlled international immigration insisted to be the necessary solution? If it is ludicrous on the level of interstate travel, then how can it not be proportionately more ludicrous at the level of international travel?"

If a person with a very anti social attitude commits a lot of crimes in Jahilisco then comes to Texas he can start over because no one will know what sort of criminal he is , but he is very likely to remain a criminal .

If the same sort of guy leaves New York his record is more available to the authority's of Texas .


Do you remember the boat lift of Mariel?

[sirs]

This is basically the crux of the matter, minus the attempts to distort any of each other's positions

It is ONLY those I take issue with, as it relates to who comes in and out of this country, not "people" in general, nor those simply from Mexico.  ANYONE entering this country, without going thru the legal process of coming into this country, should not be here, plane & simple

I disagree. I don't believe we need an onerous process of legal entry into this country. I don't believe we need to have most, if any, of those laws on the books. The existence of a law is not sufficient to justify its existence. And the existence of a law does not make it right or necessary or good. You believe we need onerous immigration laws? Okay, but I do not.

And I've given you my reasons for what you claim as "oneruos", and the need for orderly immgration, minus the distortion efforts, and so we agree to disagree

[Mucho]

Why is it ludicrous to suggest that the same laws that apply to international immigration should be applied to interstate immigration? The same issues apply. Keeping out criminals. Protecting the populace. Preventing undue drain on local resources. Then why not the same solution? Conversely, if it is ludicrous to suggest closed state borders and tightly controlled interstate immigration, why then is a closed national border and tightly controlled international immigration insisted to be the necessary solution? If it is ludicrous on the level of interstate travel, then how can it not be proportionately more ludicrous at the level of international travel?"

If a person with a very anti social attitude commits a lot of crimes in Jahilisco then comes to Texas he can start over because no one will know what sort of criminal he is , but he is very likely to remain a criminal .

If the same sort of guy leaves New York his record is more available to the authority's of Texas .


Do you remember the boat lift of Mariel?

Mexico is a poor country but hey do have criminal records especially from major cities.
I do agree with you though that it iS the Cubans that came to the US that are the real Latino
 criminals. Just look at the thugs in FL that attempted to kidnapp Elian from his father.