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

[Universe Prince]

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 .

Very likely. So?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Very likely. So?

======================
So this means that an undocumented immigrant criminal will have an advantage over local criminals. We really don't need more criminals in the US and hardly need to be importing them.

The US, like any prosperous country, cannot allow unrestricted, unsupervised immigration. If we were to do this, we would easily have 100 million Chinese, Filipinos, Moldavians, Nigerians and citizens of whatever impoverished nation wished to come here here within a year or so.

It is ridiculous to say that our schools, healthcare and social security systems are already so bad that unrestricted immigration will not make it worse. I have yet to contract a disease, infection, or  symptom that my doctor has been unable to alleviate. I was educated mostly in the US and have never been unemployed in over 40 years. No one has failed to collect a Social Security check to which he or she was not entitled since the system began. There are flawsa in the systems, but they work fairly well most of the time.

On the other hand if we were to just open the borders to whomever wished to come, all our systems would be stressed and many would cease to work at all.

Social Security will only pay out to non citizens what they paid in, by the way.

There are thousands of aged Cubans here in Miami who have NEVER held any job in the US, and live of SSI, which is paid for by the government. They may be someone's beloved grandparents, but we certainly cannot afford to have many more of them, whether they are from Cuba or wherever.

The Senate Immigration Bill is realistic and the best that has come along for decades. I certainly hope it is passed.

[Michael Tee]

I think XO has a point.  You just can't realistically expect that an open border wouldn't create a lot of economic disruption in the job market.  The wealthy, self-supporting Mexicans aren't the ones who will flock in.  The poor will, and they'll ultimately create a huge drain on the health-care and educational systems, as well as on roads, police, sanitation, etc.  Not because they are Mexicans but just because they are human beings.  I just don't believe that their tax-paying contributions will come anywhere near making up the difference, certainly not in the short term.  I don't know of any economic study that indicates otherwise.

However, I think that there are ways to cope with the influx, which appears to be unstoppable in any event.  One is to cut the enormous waste of fiscal resources that is going into the military and the Middle East - - the cost of the Iraqi War and the annual subsidies to Egypt and Israel for starters.  Secondly is to begin to seriously tax the rich - - they have obscenely more than any human being could seriously require for thousands of lifetimes and the time is long past due when this imbalance should be rectified.

The benefits of the influx are a bigger population.  Ever see the ads that say "Our people are our most important asset?"  I believe in people!  I think they're a great asset.  Anyone who doubts this should look at China.  Wouldn't you like to have an internal market of that size?  A labour pool of that size?  Where's the downside? 

People who live in fear of their own shadow see "criminals!" and worse yet, "terrorists!" in every foreign face.  I would say, the U.S.A. already has one of the highest violent crime rates in the industrialized world.  The contributions that the Mexicans can make to this problem shouldn't be significant.  Besides, wouldn't a lot of Mexican criminals want to stay home, where they can bribe the cops, judges and jailers, terrorize the citizens and generally lead a much more comfortable life than they would enjoy under American law enforcement?  And terrorists?  Give me a break, please.  They are already here and if they're not, they know how to get here.  Getting in is probably the easiest part of their job, so don't rely on immigration as a front line of protection from terrorism.  I'd concentrate more on airport and building security.

[sirs]

People who live in fear of their own shadow see "criminals!" and worse yet, "terrorists!" in every foreign face. ...

Wrong, but nice hyperbole.  Distinct difference in recognizing a potential threat & where it may come from to thinking anyone not from America is a Criminal and/or a Terrorist     

[Universe Prince]

So this means that an undocumented immigrant criminal will have an advantage over local criminals.

Does it? In what way?

We really don't need more criminals in the US and hardly need to be importing them.

I was not aware we were shipping them in. Allowing open immigration does not equate to importing criminals. But I find interesting how some people use the "importing criminals" argument. It is an argument of fear for which many imagined scenarios can be created, but for which there is little evidence. Yes, sometimes immigrants commit crimes. That does not mean they have an advantage, or that immigrants are more likely to be criminals than the rest of us or that we should seek to punish all immigrants from other countries. We do not, after all, punish all people from New York or Washington, D.C., or some other perceived high crime area simply because some them are criminals. Seems to me the "importing criminals" argument is xenophobic at best.

The US, like any prosperous country, cannot allow unrestricted, unsupervised immigration. If we were to do this, we would easily have 100 million Chinese, Filipinos, Moldavians, Nigerians and citizens of whatever impoverished nation wished to come here here within a year or so.

And there is more xenophobia. You say we cannot allow open immigration because poor people from other countries might actually come here. Ooggidy booggidy BOO! Okay, so 100 million poor people come here. Why do they come? Historically they come to make a better life here or at least make money here that the cannot make back home so that they can send the money home and make a better life there. Either way, they are going to contribute their efforts and skills to my society while they are here. I see no reason to be opposed to that.

I should add here that I do not fully understand how people who argue against the greed of capitalism, who make accusations that people who do not want to support government social programs are callous people who want to horde their money, can argue against poor people being allowed to immigrate to America. Arguing that immigration cannot be left unrestricted because poor people will come seems the height of "I've got mine so screw you." It is certainly not a compassionate attitude toward those in need.

It is ridiculous to say that our schools, healthcare and social security systems are already so bad that unrestricted immigration will not make it worse.

That isn't what I said.

There are flawsa in the systems, but they work fairly well most of the time.

On the other hand if we were to just open the borders to whomever wished to come, all our systems would be stressed and many would cease to work at all.

Based upon what evidence do you base that conclusion? But let's say you're right. As I have said before, this is a fault of the systems, not of the people. And using the systems as an excuse to promote fear of foreigners is a crutch. I also find it ironic that these systems that we supposedly must have in this country because we must help the poor are somehow supposedly in danger of helping too many poor. Even more ironic is that people who support the programs because the programs supposedly exist to help the poor are not blaming the system for that danger, but rather the poor for wanting to have some help. Apparently only American poor people are worthy of compassion.

Of course, that calls into question whether the programs have anything to do with compassion for the poor and needy. Personally I think they have more to do with giving people an excuse to not have to do anything. The programs exist less to help the poor and more to assuage the consciences of the people who don't want to have to actually do anything to help the poor. Sure they say it's about helping the poor, but watch how they react to the idea of poor people immigrating to the U.S. They want to stop it. They argue not for helping the poor, but for saving the programs.

[sirs]

Okay, so 100 million poor people come here. Why do they come? Historically they come to make a better life here or at least make money here that the cannot make back home so that they can send the money home and make a better life there. Either way, they are going to contribute their efforts and skills to my society while they are here. I see no reason to be opposed to that.

Nor do I, personally.  Just have them do it legally, like the rest of those coming here legally, and we'd be right as rain

[Universe Prince]

You just can't realistically expect that an open border wouldn't create a lot of economic disruption in the job market.

Moving from a closed or mostly closed border to an open border might cause a change in the job market, but the market would adapt.

The poor will, and they'll ultimately create a huge drain on the health-care and educational systems, as well as on roads, police, sanitation, etc.  Not because they are Mexicans but just because they are human beings.  I just don't believe that their tax-paying contributions will come anywhere near making up the difference, certainly not in the short term.  I don't know of any economic study that indicates otherwise.

Where are all these economic studies that show how the poor immigrants are not going to pay enough in taxes to "contribute" enough to all these programs? For that matter, isn't that the point of government run social programs, to help people in the short term? Seems incongruous to say we must have those programs for the sake of the poor, but we've got to keep the poor away from them.

However, I think that there are ways to cope with the influx, which appears to be unstoppable in any event.  One is to cut the enormous waste of fiscal resources that is going into the military and the Middle East - - the cost of the Iraqi War and the annual subsidies to Egypt and Israel for starters.  Secondly is to begin to seriously tax the rich - - they have obscenely more than any human being could seriously require for thousands of lifetimes and the time is long past due when this imbalance should be rectified.

Or, we could scrap the programs that are themselves a drain on society.

The benefits of the influx are a bigger population.  Ever see the ads that say "Our people are our most important asset?"  I believe in people!  I think they're a great asset.  Anyone who doubts this should look at China.  Wouldn't you like to have an internal market of that size?  A labour pool of that size?  Where's the downside?

I'm glad someone else here sees that.

[Mucho]

Okay, so 100 million poor people come here. Why do they come? Historically they come to make a better life here or at least make money here that the cannot make back home so that they can send the money home and make a better life there. Either way, they are going to contribute their efforts and skills to my society while they are here. I see no reason to be opposed to that.

Nor do I, personally.  Just have them do it legally, like the rest of those coming here legally, and we'd be right as rain

So if your inamorato , the Busidiot, gives 12 million amnesty and makes it legal for another 400000 or so per year to be legal, no problema?

[Universe Prince]

Just have them do it legally, like the rest of those coming here legally, and we'd be right as rain

I'm all for having them immigrate legally. But we need to make that process considerably easier, not harder.

[Michael Tee]

<<Distinct difference in recognizing a potential threat & where it may come from to thinking anyone not from America is a Criminal and/or a Terrorist   >>

And another distinct difference between taking a statement literally and recognizing an obvious exaggeration made to make a point.  The point being in this case that terrorists are always going to infiltrate - - it's the easiest part of their job, the hardest part being to to blow things up that cause mega-deaths.  To sacrifice the advantages of easy mass immigration for the illusory benefits of "stopping terrorism" would be like taking the kids' college fund and blowing it all on a witch doctor's magic charm to protect them from all illness and injury.

[sirs]

Just have them do it legally, like the rest of those coming here legally, and we'd be right as rain

I'm all for having them immigrate legally. But we need to make that process considerably easier, not harder.

Where as I vote to enforce the current legal requirements, vs making anything easier or harder

[sirs]

<<Distinct difference in recognizing a potential threat & where it may come from to thinking anyone not from America is a Criminal and/or a Terrorist   >>

And another distinct difference between taking a statement literally and recognizing an obvious exaggeration made to make a point. 

Frequent insidious use of hyperbole on your part, rarely makes a point, I'm afraid

[Michael Tee]

<<Frequent insidious use of hyperbole on your part, rarely makes a point, I'm afraid>>

That's your problem.  You don't see what you don't want to see.

[sirs]

<<Frequent insidious use of hyperbole on your part, rarely makes a point, I'm afraid>>

That's your problem.  You don't see what you don't want to see.

LOL....you're right there.  I'll endeavor to see reality vs hyperbole

[Michael Tee]

<<LOL....you're right there.  I'll endeavor to see reality vs hyperbole>>

Very funny.  Let me know when you finally see reality.  Tell the rest of the extreme right what it looks like, too.