Looks Like I have to do Your Job For you -- for inquiring small minds

[Universe Prince]

...use punctuation at the end of your sentences.

[sirs]

Thanks for the suggestion.  I'll take that under advisement. 

[Plane]

If anyone wanted to get serious about slowing the "flood" of immigration and crimes commonly (but usually incorrectly) associated with immigration, he would stop trying to promote strict enforcement of a top-down law enforcement control system that has not worked for immigration control, drug control, alcohol control, pornography control, or pretty much anything at all. Instead, he would promote ending the "war on drugs", ending U.S. agriculture subsidies, legalizing most drugs they way alcohol and tobacco are legal, and opening up trade with other countries. That is what is needed to address the actual underlying issues. Immigration is an issue that will never be solved so long as everyone is focused on cracking down on it rather than the actual problems. Massive immigration is the symptom, not the disease.

Well...

...is it a symptom of a problem that we can exercise some controll over?

If not, then it is quite legitamate to treat the symptoms.

[Universe Prince]

Pooh yi! The answer to your question is in what you quoted. I am not going to start repeating myself to you too.

[Plane]

Pooh yi! The answer to your question is in what you quoted. I am not going to start repeating myself to you too.

  Labor problems and street drugs would not be a problem if we didn't try to controll them?

[Universe Prince]

Labor problems and street drugs would not be a problem if we didn't try to controll them?

Parcheesi on a chess board... Sigh. No, Plane, that is not quite what I said. But thanks for phrasing it as a question.

The "war on drugs" has contributed far more to kidnappings and gang violence than immigration ever has or will. Blaming immigration for the problems creating and fed by the continual prohibition against drugs would be like blaming immigration for the problems of bathtub gin and mafia wars during the alcohol Prohibition of the 1920s. To create a black market in something and then blame the problems that inevitably causes on something else is misdirection at best, though I consider it willful blindness. A great many if not most of the problems associated with the drug trade stem almost entirely from the fact that governments (plural) have created a black market by banning substances. The notion that the problems will go away if we just get more strict with enforcement of the bans and more strict with immigration law enforcement is to willfully be foolish.

Street drugs would not be a problem if we did not try to control them, you ask. The question assumes I have advocated the substances never be controlled in any way. Which is not true, but I'll try to explain my position. If we did away with the prohibition that makes them street drugs, there would still be plenty of means to control them. Regulations on production, regulations on distribution, legal consumption age limits, taxation, et cetera. So there would hardly be a lack of control, but the problems of a black market in the drugs would certainly diminish considerably.

Labor problems would not be a problem if we didn't try to control them, you ask. No, that is definitely not what I said. I spoke of dealing with the root causes of the "flood" of immigration. While you may think doing something that would raise the standard of living for people in Mexico and Latin America in general is some sort of joke, I do not. Why do poor people from poor countries risk death in the desert to come here to work? They want to improve their economic circumstances. If their economic circumstances at home were better, they would have less incentive to come here. So what contributes to their economic situation? Well U.S. agriculture subsidies, for one. Lots of corn and grain gets made cheaply here, thanks to the subsidies. Surplus often gets dumped in foreign markets. Guess what? That means the farmers in those foreign countries have to try to compete with those artificially low prices, reducing their income. So what might we do that would help to control the immigration situation? End the subsidies. But what about U.S. farmers? Well, New Zealand largely eliminated its ag. subsidies and the ag. business there is quite healthy.

Also, we could stand to do more to open up trade. NAFTA wasn't a bad start, but it still tries to exert too much top down control. Start getting the governments out of the way, and let people trade. It's something of a double standard to argue that capitalism works best here in the U.S. when not fettered by too much government control, as many have done, and then insist somehow trade with other countries must be strictly controlled, as many of the same folks have also argued. Necessary controls, like laws against fraud and theft, are in place or can be easily made so. Ending too much government meddling does not mean a lack of control. It means less top down control, which can be harmful, and more of the control that is beneficial, like the invisible hand Adam Smith described.

And speaking of trade, much of the labor problems related to immigration would be dealt with if we relaxed immigration restrictions. Much like the drug trade, the laws restricting immigration have resulted in a black market in the trade of labor. Make coming into the U.S. easier for the majority of people, and the black market problems will diminish significantly. That does not mean relinquishing control of the borders. It means gaining control of the borders with sensible immigration policy, rather than trying to forcibly take control with methods that almost never achieve their supposed intended goals.

It's not like I haven't talked about all this before. Sometimes it seems like everything I say is forgotten. I'm not sure how else to explain the fact that people keep talking to me like I'd just advocated chaos and idiocy be the rule of the land. It's getting to the point that I am beginning to wonder if you all think I am that stupid. Do you think I'm not going to notice I'm getting the same questions and comments over and over? Maybe you think if you just give me the same nonsense over and over I'll start to believe the nonsense because I'm some sort of idiot? I mean, seriously, WTF?

[BT]

Make coming into the U.S. easier for the majority of people, and the black market problems will diminish significantly.

What does that mean? Define easier.

[Plane]

Labor problems and street drugs would not be a problem if we didn't try to controll them?

Parcheesi on a chess board... Sigh. No, Plane, that is not quite what I said. But thanks for phrasing it as a question.

No problem , that seemed to be the question you were answering already.

I appreaciate that you are really trying to be cogent and not recover already discussed and settled facts .

But proven is a strange concept , we all beleive in it , few of us allow it to happen.

[Universe Prince]

Make coming into the U.S. easier for the majority of people, and the black market problems will diminish significantly.

What does that mean? Define easier.

Less difficult. More specifically, I believe the U.S would benefit from ending most of the red tape and fines required for most people to immigrate. As I have explained before, set up numerous check points along the border that function much like the way Ellis island used to function, and let people enter and leave the country with relative ease. Check fingerprints, use facial recognition software, to make sure we're not letting in known violent criminals. Known non-violent criminals, would, I suppose, have their entry determined by the nature of their crimes and/or by police. Anyone showing signs of illness would get looked over by a doctor and put in quarantine prior to entry or sent back. People entering and exiting, and their luggage, would be checked much as we now check people who go to the airport to take a ride on an airplane. Legal entry becomes, instead of a matter waiting months or years or decades and spending several hundreds of dollars in fines and lawyer's fees, a simple and relatively inexpensive process. No more having to sneak across the desert means not having to get paid under the table, or having to buy fake IDs, and no more having to hide from law enforcement.

[BT]

So easier means that if you are fit and don't have a record you should be allowed in.

Would a job guarantee and a sponsor family be allowable in your scenario?

[Universe Prince]

So easier means that if you are fit and don't have a record you should be allowed in.

Easier means less standing in the way of legal crossing the border.

Would a job guarantee and a sponsor family be allowable in your scenario?

If you mean, would immigrants be allowed to have them, yes, of course. If you mean should they be required for legal immigration, I would argue against it.

[BT]

If you mean should they be required for legal immigration, I would argue against it.

I'm listening.

[Universe Prince]

Well, for one, it runs contrary to the whole point of trying to reduce the barriers to legal entry. Crossing the border legally should not be difficult. It being difficult is one of the reasons for the black market in labor and false identification that is causing us problems now. I've just argued we make crossing the border much easier, and now you are asking, basically, if we can't make it difficult again. I don't see the need or the use in what you're asking.

Why should someone who wants to immigrate to the U.S. have to first get someone in the U.S. to guarantee a job? Why can't they come across the border to find work? You expect them to call ahead and hire a head hunter to get them jobs first? Why? What purpose does that serve? Is there some reason to think that immigrants who come here looking for work just stay here if they can't find any? They lose all will to return home by stepping foot across the border? In the history of the country I doubt that has ever been the case. For a long time in this country, immigrants came in without first having a job. They either found work or created their own employment. Many of them would come for temporary work and then go home, something my plan allows to happen with relative ease, which serves the interests of both the immigrants and those here in the U.S. who would hire immigrants for temporary work. Expecting immigrants to get a job guarantee only adds an unnecessary, and probably costly, barrier to entry. And likely increases chances for abuse as the loss of the job is then held as a threat over the heads of those who manage to get in.

And why do immigrants need a sponsor family? What does that even accomplish? People immigrated here for decades without any of them ever having a sponsor family. Why do immigrants now need one? What is the point, except to force them to unnecessarily jump through a hoop. And what happens if they get a sponsor family, and the sponsor family changes their mind? Again, it's just an opportunity for abuse.

So I don't see that anything good is achieved by requiring a job guarantee and a sponsor family.

[BT]

Back in the Ellis Island days that you look back upon so fondly, immigrants had family, friends or fellow villagers they joined when they crossed the pond. It was part of the assimilation process. It is the path my great great grandfather took.They stayed with those folks until they got on their feet. And the reason was there was no state sponsored safety net to take the place of that network.

It is quite different nowadays. And what you are really saying, though I am sure you will accuse me of putting words in your mouth, is that the expectation that immigrants be self sufficient and not a drain on taxpayer resources is unrealistic, draconian and down right punitive.

[Universe Prince]

Is it quite different now days? Yes, people with family inside the U.S. can, under the current system, still have to wait years to be allow legal entry. As opposed to back when it was generally just a matter of getting the money to make the journey. But are you seriously arguing that immigrants today have no family, friends or fellow villagers they can lean on here in the U.S.? I have to scoff. And you also seem to be assuming that permanent migration is the end goal of all immigrants. It isn't.

And no, I'm not saying expecting immigrants to be self-sufficient is unrealistic. I'm saying demanding they all have jobs and sponsor families before they are allowed entry is unrealistic and unnecessary. Demanding all immigrants have jobs and sponsor families before they are allowed entry is not the same as expecting them to be self-sufficient.

But okay, if you want to play this game, sure, why not. What you're really saying is that you prefer the inherent detriments of the current system to the benefits of making legal crossing of the border easier. You're saying it's better to have a black market in labor, lots of people breaking the law to gain entry, and immigrants being a drain on taxpayer resources (having to spend tax dollars to hunt them down, and things like leaving them with little other recourse than emergency rooms in times of health needs), than to make legal immigration relatively easy, allowing people to come here and find work, becoming contributing tax payers and providing economic benefit to themselves and to us.