Mexicans do not have the choice of coming to America or starving in Mexico. That is a well establish lie. Mexico's percapita income is $10K, many times that of most of the third world. Research has shown that Mexicans who come to the U.S. leave a job there and are not unemployed in Mexico. Their choice is for a better life, not escaping penury or starvation.

The solution is a real, double 2,000 mile fence and E-Verify. Notice that Obama and Jorge Bush refused to do either. Bush with only 400 miles of single fencing and no E-Verify nationwide mandate, and Obama doing neither.

quote:

Originally posted by calicowest:
So, what you think?

Maybe this can become a wave across this country.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1031...l-Anchor-Baby-births

It would not pass Constitutional muster. This will go down the same slippery path as Prop 187.

Will be a waste of time, money and effort to attempt to repeal the 14th Amendment amid this economic turmoil by a populace that's barely trying to survive their daily existence.

I agree, its too big a bite to chew on. It feels right but needs cut into smaller pieces to slip through and produce the desired affect.

A single bill, requiring the person who the check is issued to, be a USC. That alone would create a significant impact. It could easily pass under the guise of apparent benefit since the money is in the custody and control of the person cashing the check.

The real reason why illegal immigration has dropped. Not directly because of increased border security but of increased cost charged by the coyotes:

Following the money: What's really behind the slowdown in Mexican border arrests?

In the past year, the U.S. government took strong measures to seal the border with Mexico, deploying 6,000 National Guard troops, sharply increasing the size of the Border Patrol, and installing new detection equipment and barriers.

Around the time these measures were being implemented, the number of arrests at the border began to fall. The U.S. Border Patrol reported this year that arrests are down 10 percent from last year.

Advocates of tougher enforcement point to these facts and say the policy is working, that the crackdown is deterring would-be illegals. But Dawn McLaren, research economist at the W. P. Carey School of Business and a specialist in border issues, has another explanation. The increased presence of security has pushed up the cost of getting assistance in crossing the border. Then labor economics come into play. With the economy on the U.S. side softening, the prospects are declining that workers will find jobs that pay enough to justify the higher price of sneaking across.

And note federale86:

McDowell agrees that economic conditions in the United States are a factor in illegal immigration. The key variable, according to McDowell, is the difference in wages in Mexico and the United States. "The bigger the wage differential, the greater the incentive to migrate," he said. Said McLaren, "They can make more here. We are pulling them here because of the wage differential."

What I was saying. 1st world country (high wages) alongside a 3rd world country (low wages) is the draw. Pure economics. You'll always have an illegal immigration problem here.

wpcarey.asu.edu

This is similar to the bogus argument for making drugs legal. They say, since enforcement is stepped up it drives the cost of acquisition beyond normal means. Thereby increasing crime. A supposed justification for legalization and lowering potential crime. For good measure, and to appease some as yet unknown group. They say it can be taxed. As if that will somehow make it acceptable.

However, one needs to go a step beyond careless shallow rationalization to see truth. One question, why is it illegal in the first place?

With drugs, because of the detrimental affects on society. The losses we would incur far outstrip miniscul gains in tax revenue. This same argument holds for the border stampede.

Wages in too many sectors to mention are suppressed. Social services and entitlements plundered without any offsetting inputs. Tax revenue drops from unreported or lowered wages. To the point now where states like California are issuing IOUs to pay debts. The economy's circle of life depends on each segment holding its own and contributing to the other. At the same time you can't expect one element to blindly contribute for nothing in return. Especially when the contribution is used to subsidize a class not entitled to receive it in the first place. Never in recent history has the anger towards and disengeniousness of the government been so observed.

Away from such poor analogies, the problem is so huge that it needs to be addressed from economic, humanitarian, and legalistic vantage points. Enforcing a dysfunctional system just reinforces further the dysfunction – an exercise in futility!

quote:

Originally posted by Rough Neighbor:
Away from such poor analogies, the problem is so huge that it needs to be addressed from economic, humanitarian, and legalistic vantage points. Enforcing a dysfunctional system just reinforces further the dysfunction – an exercise in futility!

LMAO!!! When did you learn my code???? LOL!!!

Question is, who's economics, who's humanitarian interest, theirs or ours?

The current system is dysfunctional only because it isn't being enforced to the degree it should be and to a larger extent being violated. To say otherwise would be to say our judicial process may be usurped at the convenience of a foreign interest. Just plain un-American commentary.

Whose economics? Mostly USA's. When the US needs something from others, it's according to her terms - when others need something from the US, still, it's according to her terms. That immigrants are a drain to the economy is baloney. It's the opposite that's statistically proven.

Whose humanitarian interest? USCs, LPRs, etc., and all immigrants. Since time immemorial, say even before the 1700s, whose family members need to be re-unified and re-united?

Anyone, I repeat, anyone who can't see anything amiss with the current immigration system that definitely and desperately needs comprehensive reform, has the narrowest personal interest, not of the common good and of the whole country in mind. O yes, that's plain un-American.