economic consequences of cracking down on illegal immigration

[Universe Prince]

Much depends on a clear understanding of what the powers of the United States Government as laid out in the constitution really is.

Are drug laws constitutional?

Are immigration laws constitutional?

So if some government action can be argued to not be unconstitutional, that is enough to make it a legitimate use of government in your opinion?

In any case, I suggest that my comment remains valid. How one understands the Constitution regarding the powers and uses of government is going to be, in large part, determined by what one expects the government to do. If one expects the government to protect him from harm in the world, then that person is likely going to agree that anything the government does to protect him from the harm he perceives is constitutional. If, on the other hand, one expects the government to protect individual rights and otherwise leave people alone, then that person is less likely to agree that trying to prevent harm by controlling society is constitutional behavior for the government. Which leads me back to what I said before. Some business hiring people from Mexico does not infringe on my rights. Some dude buying and snorting cocaine does not infringe on my rights. So is trying to forcibly control either of those behaviors a legitimate use of government power or not? You tell me. Please note, I'm not asking if you believe in higher ideals or liberty for all mankind. I'm just asking you to address what you seem to think is the core of the matter, "whether these acts are legitimate uses of government power."

It is not the ideal which we must pine for, it is the real ( as defined by the courts) that we have to deal with.

How about the real as played out in the lives of individuals? The issue is not whether laws regarding immigration are constitutional. The issue is that the laws regarding immigration that are now in place are having a real life detrimental effect on real people, both immigrants and native born folks alike. I'm not saying there should be no laws about immigration. I am saying the laws we do have should be changed or replaced with something more sane and less punitive for people who just want to come work and live here to build a better life and future for themselves and their families. No chaos or anarchy, just fix something that is obviously broken. Getting out of the way of trade in labor. This isn't idealism. This is pragmatism.

For most people dealing with these issues, the issues are not played out in the courts. For most people dealing with these issues, the issues are played out in their everyday lives. I don't criticize the law just for giggles. I criticize the law when I think it is unreasonable detrimental to people's lives. This isn't some academic argument over the legitimacy of the government. This is a real life issue that hurts people where they live in ways unnecessary and unjust. So you can argue constitutionality of whether or not the government having laws about immigration, but that does not address the real problems of people living with the effects of these laws.

In other words, it is the real--not as defined by the courts, but as defined by the consequences in people's lives--that we ought to be addressing.

[BT]

So if some government action can be argued to not be unconstitutional, that is enough to make it a legitimate use of government in your opinion?

It is what it is. The courts are the arbitrators of the laws of the land. The Legislature can change the laws and constitution if they wish. You can support candidates who think as you do. That is the food chain. That is what it is.

Having said that, you as an individual are free to treat people as you wish, complying with the prevailing legalities of the day or not,  as long as you are willing to accept the consequences of your actions.

[Universe Prince]

An excellent non-answer answer, BT.

[BT]

Thank you.

[_JS]

Asia is a very very large continent. Indians are Asians, Iranians are Asians, and so are most Turks, Kazakhs, and even Israelis. Lots and lots of Asians are not Chinese at all.

As far as "Asians" go it seems to have a great deal to do with historical contact.

In Britain the term "Asian" specifically refers to people of Indian or Pakistani origin (perhaps Bangledeshi as well). If you went to the UK (perhaps Ireland as well?) and were referring to the Japanese or Chinese as Asian, you would certainly receive some strange looks.

That's also a heads up if you are reading any of the British papers online and the term "Asian" is being used, as it is more these days in reference to places like Dewsbury, which have large Asian populations = Pakistani Muslim.

In American English we typically refer to the Far East when we use the term "Asian." Though, I agree that it only goes to show how bizarre our view of race is.

[Amianthus]

In American English we typically refer to the Far East when we use the term "Asian." Though, I agree that it only goes to show how bizarre our view of race is.

Actually, it has more to do with our recent (last few hundred years) experiences. In Britain, most "Asians" they've met during that period have come from Middle / Near East. In the US, most "Asians" that Americans have met have come from the Far East. Though, many are meeting lots more Indians these days...

[Christians4LessGvt]

Immigation drains Britain, says Left think tank
By Ben Leapman, Home Affairs Correspondent
BST 30/09/2007

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants are a drain on Britain and its economy, not a benefit, says a Left-leaning think tank.

Migrants from many developing nations fail to pay their way, while those from wealthy countries, such as the United States and Australia,
provide a boost for the economy.

The report, published today by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), sets out to reveal which nationalities are "a debit on Britain's balance sheet".

It found that fewer than half of Britain's 650,000 Somalis, Bangladeshis, Turks and Pakistanis, have jobs and the four communities have the highest levels of benefit dependency.

Britain's fastest-growing migrant group, the Poles, score above-average for employment, but have the lowest hourly pay and make a below-average tax contribution.

Channel 4 commissioned the report for a Dispatches documentary, Immigrants: the Inconvenient Truth, to be shown tomorrow night.

The IPPR, which has close links to Labour, insisted that its report "is not an attempt to cast immigrant communities in a bad or good light".
However, its findings will be seized on by those campaigning for tighter immigration controls.

New government statistics predict a two million rise in population over the next decade due to immigration, more than previous projections.

Liam Byrne, the immigration minister, said last week that the forecast "underlines the need for swift and sweeping changes to the immigration system".

This newspaper revealed last week that one in five crimes in London is now committed by foreign nationals, with Poles, Jamaicans, Irish and Somalis at the top of the list.

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=KAZ1CFX4V4DRNQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/30/nimm130.xml

[Universe Prince]

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants are a drain on Britain and its economy, not a benefit, says a Left-leaning think tank.

'Oh really," says me to meself. 'Hows that work then?' I wonders. But the answer comes straightaway.

Migrants from many developing nations fail to pay their way, while those from wealthy countries, such as the United States and Australia, provide a boost for the economy.

The report, published today by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), sets out to reveal which nationalities are "a debit on Britain's balance sheet".

It found that fewer than half of Britain's 650,000 Somalis, Bangladeshis, Turks and Pakistanis, have jobs and the four communities have the highest levels of benefit dependency.

Britain's fastest-growing migrant group, the Poles, score above-average for employment, but have the lowest hourly pay and make a below-average tax contribution.

'Ah-ha,' says I. 'It's a drain on Britain's welfare state programs, i'n'it,' I thinks to meself. It's not that the immigrants are there infringing on people's rights or causing harm actually. It's that the government run social programs are being hurt. 'Yes, indeed, it's so unfair,' says me in a sarcastic tone, 'to have programs in place to help the poor and then have too many poor.' So I thinks about what is to be done. But before too long I has an answer, don't ya know? Obviously the government run handout system has not only proven to be inefficient, but to have the effect that all government guaranteed handouts have, to create dependency. 'Ah yes,' says I, 'surely they will recognize this problem and seek to rectify it right away.'

The IPPR, which has close links to Labour, insisted that its report "is not an attempt to cast immigrant communities in a bad or good light". However, its findings will be seized on by those campaigning for tighter immigration controls.

New government statistics predict a two million rise in population over the next decade due to immigration, more than previous projections.

Liam Byrne, the immigration minister, said last week that the forecast "underlines the need for swift and sweeping changes to the immigration system".

'What's all this?' I has to ask. They want to mess with immigrations but leave the the broken government handout system alone? 'How can this be?' I asks meself. Their priorities must be all wonky. I guess having a scapegoat is easier than admitting one's own problems. Too bad. They're only going to make things worse. Some folks just have to learn the hard way, don't they?

[_JS]

A few thoughts.

Immigration in Britain is very different than immigration in the United States. First, they belong to the European Union, so that any citizen of the EU (like me) must be allowed to live and work in any European Union nation. Originally that was how NAFTA was conceived, but the best laid plans of mice and men...and all that jazz.

Second, you're reading this out of The Telegraph so you are going to get the right wing view of everything, though better than The Daily Mail I'll grant you.

It is not an uncommon view for Labour, especially Blair's New Labourites to view immigration as a problem. In fact, that is one reason Rupert Murdoch's Sun endorsed Blair every election over the Conservative Party.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"Second, you're reading this out of The Telegraph so you are going to get the
right wing view of everything, though better than The Daily Mail I'll grant you"


it clearly states in the article this study was done by a "Left-leaning think tank"

[_JS]

"Second, you're reading this out of The Telegraph so you are going to get the
right wing view of everything, though better than The Daily Mail I'll grant you"


it clearly states in the article this study was done by a "Left-leaning think tank"

Yes, the study...but not the commentary.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants are a drain on Britain and its economy, not a benefit, says a Left-leaning think tank.

[_JS]

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants are a drain on Britain and its economy, not a benefit, says a Left-leaning think tank.

 

Did you read what I wrote? That is not an unusual belief for the left of Britain.

The right is also against the war in Iraq. They mostly support the NHS. Would you like to do some more comparisons?

[Christians4LessGvt]

yes I read your garbage
you are trying to imply the findings are "right wing"
which in fact is not at all true

[_JS]

yes I read your garbage
you are trying to imply the findings are "right wing"
which in fact is not at all true

That is not what I said at all.

Does no one read anymore?