Mexican Military incursion(s) into the United States

[Fuzz]

Doesn't even have to be the border area. I grew up around the suburbs of DC, quiet little town (not mayberry by any means) but your average middle class america town. Then there was the housing boom as the DC sprawl came to county with coporate HQs and everyone trying to get out of the urban areas around DC. This brought a literal tidal wave of illegal immigrants to do the cheap labor for the new construction. They don't assimilate into the society, they set up literal ghettos in apartment complexes or pack 7-8 families into houses. They treat the public schools as a daycare, and yes a lot of citizens do as well, but the proportion of Americans that do it pales in comparison. They are dragging the schools into the ground becuase their kids don't learn or care to learn. They get food stamps, welfare, housing assistance, free breakfast and lunch for their kids at school, all while driving escelades, with iPhones with gold chains etc.; yeah sounds like an exageration but its not I've watched it happen for years in my home town. The other problem prior to this housing boom, we had very little crime, the town overall was pretty safe, now we have the largest concetration of MS-13 gang outside of LA in the Northern VA area. I went home about 4 years ago and noticed the cops were carrying shotguns and AR-15s on racks in their cruisers along with wearingn body armor. I asked my dad why they were now so well armed? Well turns out muggings, home invasions, drive-by shootings, etc. have all become common place. It was on the upswing when I was still there in high school but no where near as bad as it is now. These immigrants aren't really under any threat from local LEOs they literally stand in parking lots waiting for guys in pickup trucks to come by and pick them up to go work for the day, while the LEOs sit. On the other side of the street and watch.

Vertigo I'm with you on opening the boards and making it easier for people to come hear above the table, guest worker programs etc. but please knock this bullshit off about how illegal immigrants aren't a danger or a drag on society or those of us who oppose them are selfish racists becuase it's not fucking true.

[Clark Griswold]

You might not have but Clark essentially did. And when I called him out on it you defended his position.

Keeping it civil, nothing I said was racist and you just read into it what fulfills the fantasy of oppression you have constructed.

[MD]

You might not have but Clark essentially did. And when I called him out on it you defended his position.

Who determines what is a " good addition"? Someone now having to compete for a job with someone willing to work harder, faster and cheaper may say that person is not a " good addition" .

A good addition is someone with no criminal background who is willing to work, contribute to society, pay their taxes, and reap the benefits that come with becoming a citizen; as well as the pathway that leads to that such as LPR (Legal Permanent Resident..otherwise known as a green card holder) and work visa holder.

There's no question that the immigration system for citizenship, as it stands, is in good need of repair. It shouldn't have to take someone a decade, in some cases, to earn their citizenship here. That's where the immigration system portion needs to be revamped.

By the same token, having a completely open border isn't the answer if only due to the known criminal element that will come in. People need to be screened and a process in place to determine when and how many people enter or leave the country. We obviously want those who will make the USA a better place for all, not a worse place if they are already criminals. Look at what happened with the Mariel boatlift in the late 1970s from Cuba: Castro emptied out his jails of actual criminals (not just political prisoners), and allowed them to come here as asylum seekers due to the USA's open-arms policy, which was gravely taken advantage of (and which we allowed to get taken advantage of).

The answer to the illegal immigration problem isn't an easy one. This country was built on immigrants. Deporting everyone and anyone who is here illegally won't work. Allowing anyone and everyone who wants to come in unchecked won't work. The answer lies in the middle, and involves fixing the current outdated and broken immigration system and giving it a tune-up. First and foremost, the border itself needs to be controlled. Not shut down or closed, but just controlled to where we can know who is coming and who is going.

Edited May 18, 2014 by MD

[Fuzz]

If it didn't work in the EU, that is because of they way they implemented it, not because it doesn't work. In North America there is an economic and political union of sovereign states where you can cross sovereign borders with any border control at all. This union even has a common currency, that has been considered by many to be very successful.

You might want to go read up on how the EU's open immigration policies are affecting England, specifically the influx of Romanian cheap labor and the spikes in crime from the new immigrants.

[Learjetter]

In other words, you want to restrict another human's freedoms for your own selfish greed. ...

I will restrict another human's rights when that human commits a crime...like illegally immigrating to the US.

[albertschu]

You might want to go read up on how the EU's open immigration policies are affecting England, specifically the influx of Romanian cheap labor and the spikes in crime from the new immigrants.

I guess EU didn't implement it well. I've never heard anyone from Rhode Island complain of an influx of Michiganian cheap labor and the spikes in crime the new immigrants bring.

People in Florida complain of all the New Yorkers and people in Oregon complain about all the Californians, but no one is suggesting restricting immigration between states.

[SurelySerious]

I guess EU didn't implement it well. I've never heard anyone from Rhode Island complain of an influx of Michiganian cheap labor and the spikes in crime the new immigrants bring.

People in Florida complain of all the New Yorkers and people in Oregon complain about all the Californians, but no one is suggesting restricting immigration between states.

Bad analogy. The EU is not a sovereign nation. The US is. England and Germany are not states of the EU in the same sense a Michigan and Rhode Island are of the US in the least.

[hispeed7721]

I will restrict another human's rights when that human commits a crime...like illegally immigrating to the US.

BINGO!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

Philosophically, I agree with most of what Vertigo has said (sans the racist accusation part).

The problem that he is failing to adequately describe, as others have written, is that with open immigration you have to entirely end the welfare state. That means the end to government funded schools (it is also a form of welfare), the end to ER's having to accept people who can not pay for their treatment, and of course the end of all food stamps, Obamacare, government housing, etc. Also, to maintain the integrity of the Republic, you would have to amend The Constitution to get rid of future anchor babies (this would become much less of an issue once you get rid of government welfare) and you would also need to end all minimum wage laws, implement the Fair Tax, and allow business owners to only employ whoever they want, regardless of any other factors (as Vertigo has also suggested).

Once the above changes are fullly implemented, a more 'true' capitalist system can be economically achieved. Theoretically, the more raw resources and labor you have available, the more economic growth output...however we have many barriers to this economic model in our current system.

As much as I would love to see all of the above occur, the odds of it happening in my lifetime (if ever) is essentially zero...and I would say that we are further getting away (overall) from more Liberty, than getting closer. The vast majority of this country's citizens do not want anything close to true freedom.

[Jughead]

And my whole argument has been to open immigration, thus disincentivizing illegal immigration. So that everyone who wants to immigrate can do so legally.

So, legalizing a problematic issue will solve the underlying problem? Maybe you're on to something--we should legalize murder!!

OK, obvious sarcasm to make the point: the question is whether a sovereign nation has the right to restrict immigration to those would-be immigrants who would add value to their society. (Most here are arguing yes, they do--and, indeed, have the responsibility to do so.) Here's a hint: virtually every human society since the dawn of time has done so. Are you seriosly suggesting that you've got it figured out, if only we'd all make the change?

The idea of "just legalize it" has to be taken in context. OK, so, my flippant example of murder above is an obvious non-starter. How about drug legalization as a parallel? Regardless of which side of that debate you're on, it's a debate that generally revolves around consequences and which is the "better" solution (fighting "war on drugs" vs. legal access). Turn that onto your "open immigration" policy--are you seriously suggesting that there will be no negative consequences (a la others' suggestions that we'd have to turn into a third-world country before immigrants from there would "self deport")??

Your rose-colored glasses never fail to amaze....

[Vertigo]

I will restrict another human's rights when that human commits a crime...like illegally immigrating to the US.

Again for the fourth of fifth time- if immigration was open to all, there would rarely be any illegal immigration.

How about drug legalization as a parallel? Regardless of which side of that debate you're on, it's a debate that generally revolves around consequences and which is the "better" solution (fighting "war on drugs" vs. legal access). Turn that onto your "open immigration" policy--are you seriously suggesting that there will be no negative consequences (a la others' suggestions that we'd have to turn into a third-world country before immigrants from there would "self deport")??

I never said there would be no negative consequences. Almost everything we do as a nation has negative and positive consequences. Do we raise or lower taxes? Do we increase or decrease the speed limit? Do we legalize drugs or crack down even harder? All these questions have both pros and cons no matter which way you decide. But ultimately the most important question, in my mind, is does it restrict or does it increase human freedom and liberty?

Edited May 19, 2014 by Vertigo

[TreeA10]

Still haven't got the address to your house! Based on your theory, they really don't an invitation or a key and can just stroll right in so you don't even need to be there. We'll just send you the bills for our basic needs and services.

[Vertigo]

Still haven't got the address to your house! Based on your theory, they really don't an invitation or a key and can just stroll right in so you don't even need to be there. We'll just send you the bills for our basic needs and services.

Still don't have a clue as to what private property is, do you? No one is forcing you to give up your private property- so your analogy is faulty at best.

I suggest you, an others, read this which states my position much more eloquently than I ever could. I doubt you will though.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-spring/immigration-individual-rights/

[MD]

Still don't have a clue as to what private property is, do you? No one is forcing you to give up your private property- so your analogy is faulty at best.

I suggest you, an others, read this which states my position much more eloquently than I ever could. I doubt you will though.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-spring/immigration-individual-rights/

Here is a key quote from your article you linked above, which is just what I've been saying.

"Open immigration does not mean that anyone may enter the country at any location or in any manner he chooses; it is not unchecked or unmonitored immigration. Nor does it mean that anyone who immigrates to America should be eligible for U.S. citizenship—the proper requirements of which are a separate matter. Open immigration means that anyone is free to enter and reside in America—providing that he enters at a designated checkpoint and passes an objective screening process, the purpose of which is to keep out criminals, enemies of America, and people with certain kinds of contagious diseases."

[Vertigo]

Here is a key quote from your article you linked above, which is just what I've been saying.

"Open immigration does not mean that anyone may enter the country at any location or in any manner he chooses; it is not unchecked or unmonitored immigration. Nor does it mean that anyone who immigrates to America should be eligible for U.S. citizenship—the proper requirements of which are a separate matter. Open immigration means that anyone is free to enter and reside in America—providing that he enters at a designated checkpoint and passes an objective screening process, the purpose of which is to keep out criminals, enemies of America, and people with certain kinds of contagious diseases."

If immigration was free, but still managed so that new immigrants are paying their load then your arguments would be invalid.

But I guess you're to lazy to think about other ways of doing business.

"You MIGHT commit a crime some time in the future" is a shit awful excuse.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

The u.s. is privately owned? If so, by whom?

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Hmm...

[Clark Griswold]

Still don't have a clue as to what private property is, do you? No one is forcing you to give up your private property- so your analogy is faulty at best.

I suggest you, an others, read this which states my position much more eloquently than I ever could. I doubt you will though.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-spring/immigration-individual-rights/

Objectivism is not even remotely possible in the real world, there is a reason people read Ayn Rand when they are 20 and realize it is bullshit when they are 30.

[hispeed7721]

Here is a key quote from your article you linked above, which is just what I've been saying.

"Open immigration does not mean that anyone may enter the country at any location or in any manner he chooses; it is not unchecked or unmonitored immigration. Nor does it mean that anyone who immigrates to America should be eligible for U.S. citizenship—the proper requirements of which are a separate matter. Open immigration means that anyone is free to enter and reside in America—providing that he enters at a designated checkpoint and passes an objective screening process, the purpose of which is to keep out criminals, enemies of America, and people with certain kinds of contagious diseases."

Shack. THIS is exactly what we've all been trying to say. Which, if you think about it, is exactly how our current immigration system is SUPPOSED to work.

But Vertigo, the way you've been explaining things makes it seem like you want anyone to just be able to wander in wherever and whenever they want. As long as it's not private property.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vertigo]

Shack. THIS is exactly what we've all been trying to say. Which, if you think about it, is exactly how our current immigration system is SUPPOSED to work.

But Vertigo, the way you've been explaining things makes it seem like you want anyone to just be able to wander in wherever and whenever they want. As long as it's not private property.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then obviously you haven't been reading for comprehension- see my post above where I quoted myself from two days ago.

And this isn't how our current system is supposed to work- at least that's not how it's designed to work.

Objectivism is not even remotely possible in the real world, there is a reason people read Ayn Rand when they are 20 and realize it is bullshit when they are 30.

You mean they realize they're too lazy to fix the system and instead go along with the status quo, ever eroding our freedoms.

[Clark Griswold]

Top 10 Reasons Ayn Rand was Dead Wrong

Off topic but I just had to.

My favorite reason:

1. Reading Rand creates instant jackasses. Anyone who's been subjected to a friend who suddenly "discovers" Rand knows that reading her works causes people to act like selfish idiots. They combine a patina of "reason" over a self-righteous justification of whatever their "id" happens to want at the time and then insist that they're just pursuing their own self-interest. They also become incredibly boring, about on the level of a newly converted Scientologist.

[hispeed7721]

At best I'd chalk it up to you not communicating what you mean very well, but I agree much more with the quote from the article than from your posts. Maybe it's just a clearer picture of what you are trying to get across.

Real question... I thought that is how the current immigration system was intended to work (obviously not how it is in practice)...so please, educate us on the how it's designed to work

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vertigo]

Top 10 Reasons Ayn Rand was Dead Wrong

Off topic but I just had to.

My favorite reason:

1. Reading Rand creates instant jackasses. Anyone who's been subjected to a friend who suddenly "discovers" Rand knows that reading her works causes people to act like selfish idiots. They combine a patina of "reason" over a self-righteous justification of whatever their "id" happens to want at the time and then insist that they're just pursuing their own self-interest. They also become incredibly boring, about on the level of a newly converted Scientologist.

Would it surprise you to know I haven't read any of her stuff? I've more than likely read material by others who were influenced by her writing, no doubt.

Funny that sentence number 2 in the paragraph is describing everyone else in this topic.

[MD]

Shack. THIS is exactly what we've all been trying to say. Which, if you think about it, is exactly how our current immigration system is SUPPOSED to work.

But Vertigo, the way you've been explaining things makes it seem like you want anyone to just be able to wander in wherever and whenever they want. As long as it's not private property.

Now that we all appear to be on the same page regarding the quote taken from the article; the question now comes to the immigration process itself (also mentioned in that quote, but beyond the scope of the article). The process itself is broken when it can take upwards of 10 years to become a citizen. Too, there needs to be a better accountability process and a larger work visa process for those who desire to work and pay taxes here, but not necessarily reside here or become a citizen [such as migrant workers who come in to work, and return home either daily or after short-terms stays of a week or so]. There has to be an easier way to allow these people the ability to make for themselves, while contributing to this country. This and many other questions are the parts of the entire immigration system that has to be addressed.

And it all starts with controlling the border, as mentioned in the quote from the article. Which we all appear to agree with.

[TreeA10]

Nice lofty and noble reading article that even comments on the scourge of the welfare state. Why exactly do we need to declare war on Iran? Are they denying immigrants unfettered entry? Here's a list from the end of that article. Didn't cut and paste well.

Repeal all laws restricting immigration; do away with all quotas, visas, green-cards, and the like; make open immigration the law of the land.

Establish an objective screening process at designated points of entry along the U.S. border; turn away (or detain) only criminals, enemies of America, and people with certain kinds of contagious diseases.9

Grant unconditional amnesty to all so-called “illegal” immigrants, and apologize to them for the trouble our immoral laws have caused them.

Exclude immigrants from receiving welfare and from using government schools—and exempt them from paying taxes toward these immoral programs.

Declare war on Iran; eliminate its current regime; and announce to the world that, from now on, this is how America will deal with regimes that threaten our citizens, our immigrants, or our allies. Turn next to the Saudi regime. Repeat as necessary.

Reading the harsh laws in Mexico regarding illegals, who does Mexico apologize to?

[Clark Griswold]

Would it surprise you to know I haven't read any of her stuff? I've more than likely read material by others who were influenced by her writing, no doubt.

Funny that sentence number 2 in the paragraph is describing everyone else in this topic.

Fair enough and I will take you at your word for it, I have read Rand (Fountainhead, Shrugged, We the Living) and the objectivist philosophy/viewpoint just seems to believe that they can set up an almost perfect world where we act in our own logical self-interest to the benefit of others and ourselves but they don't seem to factor in that people are inherently illogical and emotional.

How does this relate to our discussion of border security and related immigration policy? By the fact that people let their emotions get the better of them and see only the plight of some of the illegal aliens and let that blind them to a sizeable minority of them that deserve no pity or consideration. Whatever sympathy we have for those less fortunate than us can not outweigh our right and duty for self-protection, self-defense and sovereignty

.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Clark Griswold

[MD]

Reading the harsh laws in Mexico regarding illegals, who does Mexico apologize to?

Yeah, don't know where the Iran angle came from that article.

But on Mexico. Where Mexico could give a rats ass about its northern border with the USA and even encourages illegals to cross; if you go look at their southern border with Guatamala, it could almost give the Korea DMZ a run for its money, figuratively speaking.