I don’t know if there is such a possible thing as “securing the border”. Are we supposed to build a 3000 mile electric fence? Even if that were the case, people can just come in legally on a temporary pretext and then disappear. My opinion is that the US should just make it inhospitable for illegal immigrants. That way, inflows will self regulate. Right after the financial crisis, for instance, illegal immigration stopped, since the US economic environment was not good. It’s like the homeless people problem in San Francisco. As long as the city is friendly to homeless people, they’re going to go there no matter what we do.
US allows immigration because it gets something in return, I guess you’re living in dreamland if you don’t know this or are surprised by immigrants coming here for primarily economic reasons.
^^ Approximately 40% of illegal immigrants overstayed visas, so a truly secure border would potentially stop 60% of new illegals (minus whatever percent cross illegally from Canada).
Legal immigrants are very important to the future of this country.
If people are coming here illegally I don’t see it as being allowed… I’m not suprised by the fact they come here primarily for ecnomic reasons but I want solutions so it’s less parasitic and more symbiotic. There needs to be a solution that makes coexistence more beneficial for both parties. If tomorrow another country became the new it place to go these people mostly would all leave. They have nothing invested in the country and that’s the problem. I wouldn’t expect you to have any real opinion on the matter though.
Well, of the 60% who do not over stay their visas, a large portion will just change their method of immigration - if walking across the border doesn’t work any more, fine, I’ll just get a tourist visa. I won’t stop trying altogether.
Plus, it’s not like we can make the border 100% secure without Terminator robots or some other extreme measure. So let’s say, very optimistically, that enhanced security stops 50% of border crossings. Of the 50% that are stopped, 25% do not move to a different method. So that’s a 7.5% decrease in total illegal immigration using this hypothetical border securing system.
I’m sure the flood of Canadian illegals is massive… Hmm… I actually think its likely more Americans illegally enter Canada. Lots of AWOL and other criminals venture here. We won’t deport folks unless there are guarantees they will only get limited sentences (we won’t deport a murderer to the US without a guarantee he will not face the death penalty, in most cases). So its a good bet if you’re in trouble.
lxwarr, even if immigrants are motivated by economic reasons, they can still contribute to the receiving country. I’m here because the US offered superior education and work opportunities. If tomorrow, I decide to move somewhere else, I will still have paid a huge sum of taxes on the income I earned here, plus I will have paid many US people for all the goods and services that I purchased in the country. When I move to a different country, I will be a vector to market the US brand and culture wherever I go.
Who cares if I do not buy into the American ideology and I think military service is unnecessary in the US? I still helped the country, and the country helped me.
Would you also argue that US companies should be willing to pay the US higher taxes due to solely patriotic reasons? The US remains competitive internationally because it offers decent opportunities for global citizens to form mutually beneficial relationships.
This is a separate argument, of course, from illegal immigration policy. I believe illegal immigration is both unfair to legal immigrants and is parasitic in many cases.
Edit:
“I’m sure the flood of Canadian illegals is massive… Hmm…”
He means non Canadians who enter the US through Canada.
Canada: So polite they welcome murderers.
(Note to self - Head to Canada upon completion of Project Mayhem.)
I agree with some of what you’re saying Ohai. I see benefit in bringing productive people who learn english and like America. Keeping a good workforce keeps American companies competitive. Do I think if you (because you made yourself the example) were not in America your company/function would be worse off? Probably marginally, but some other person (hopefully a citizen) would take that job and make money, pay taxes, buy services just as you did. Was the fact that you were able to come to America and get a great education, work for a great company and become the person you are today more valuable than the marginal increase in your functions productivity? I would say yes, but maybe I am naive. [For the record this is not an attack on you Ohai. I think you’re a cool guy.]
Someone actually made a similar argument about how they paid taxes and therefore they should be a citizen. They then expressed how they have no real loyalty to the country in the long term. Why are these people trying to become citizens? This is not like a hair style and you go to the barbershop every few months to get a new one. I don’t disagree with immigration. I don’t expect everyone to be uber patriotic, but there needs to be some sense of loyalty and investment beyond paying taxes. I really don’t like the idea of people not wanting to do any long term assimilation into American society, but still take advantage of the society. It’s parasitic. I just hope that any comprehensive reform takes this point of view of investment in country.
Don’t worry, I do not take your question personally. However, I do think that your reasoning is based on ideology and that this obscures the logic of the argument.
You need to consider the overall effect of highly educated immigrants on the US economy and society. A country with 2 skilled people for 100 unskilled people is better than a country with 1 skilled person for 100 unskilled people. Your example in the first paragragh assumes that the size of the economy and number of available opportunities does not change with the immigration of skilled workers. This is untrue - if I displaced one US worker from my specific job, that skilled worker will create opportunities elsewhere. Overall, the economy will grow incrementally.
Let’s say Silicon Valley has 100 skilled programmers. If I add 100 more skilled programmers, they will start more companies and produce more technology. The entire eco system will have grown.
It should not matter in the slightest if the immigrant is shown to have benefited more than the receiving country (in dollar terms or whatever). The fact that the country experienced a net benefit is the only relevant point in an economic analysis of immigration policy.
I do not understand why “loyalty” is crucial to this argument. Should US citizens who emigrate to other countries be forced to renounce their US citizenship? Of course it is better if US immigrants are loyal and patriotic. However, if they are not, the US should still take their contribution. Skilled workers contribute to the growth of the economy. They do not simply displace someone else’s spot in a static economy.
^I agree with this completely. However, I do get the sense that when tech companies complain about not getting enough H1-B visas, they’re really complaining that they would have to raise salaries to attract more workers but instead want to just pay some immigrants.
What really pisses me off is the part of his announcement that parents of US citizens (anchor babies) are now eligible for legal work authorization. Are you kidding me? I’ve been a LEGAL immigrant in the US for ten years, am no closer to a green card now than ten years ago, can’t change jobs without government approval and payment of $2-3k in fees, and illegal parents of F*&*ing anchor babies get more freedoms?!
I understand that this is a purely political move to garner democratic votes (particularly since the Dems oppose voter ID laws) but seriously, WTF…
I worry that any immigration reform will ignore/screw people like me over because educated upper middle class from other western countries don’t conjure up the same sob stories of mom and dad illegally immigrating or overstaying a tourist visa and simply not going home because they don’t like where they’re from or don’t want to follow the rules.
I’m all in favor of an open society and if you want to work and live in this country the process should not take 5-10 years but rather a streamlined process that can get the immigrant working legally and quickly as possible. It’s not good business to educate foreign nationals and then ship them back to their country of orgin because of Visa issues (brain drain). Low skilled workers who come to work in the service/labor industry should be allowed to do so and government should get out of the way of this.
Your frustration should be not with parents of “anchor babies” but rather the archaic immigration policy we have in this country. I’m a U.S. Citizen and feel you should be able to trade your labor for a paycheck and not jump through hoops to do that. Don’t fall for scapegoat tactics or nothing will change.
That is my frustration, not with them. I wouldn’t want to live in rural Mexico or whatever either and I’d take advantage if I were them to. My issues are with the President that is allowing these people to stay and work legally without following the rules, and with all the lawmakers that made and allow this insane immigration policy to stand.
Well ditch dehumanizing language from your argument. The immigration law does not follow the rules of economics and their is a huge demand to work in the U.S. and I’m all in favor for allowing You and anyone else who wants to make a living in this country and make this process as easy as possible.
I’m very conflicted. As a libertarian, I’m supposed to be for open borders. As an elitist, I’d prefer everyone stay the hell out of my country.
I guess I’m for open borders as long as I can make fun of the immigrants.
all the illegals clamoring for legal status do know they are going to have to start paying taxes right?
Or are they claiming legal status to try to get free welfare and healthcare? Because we know they already abuse our healthcare anyway, since hospitals are not allowed to check for legal status first
You’re a libertarian-poser.