Stopping the illegal alien invasion

Patrick · Aug 28, 2011

Step one is electing a conservative president - leftwingers and RINOs have no intention of stopping it. The former see it as a means of permanent political power for themselves. If they can get their amnesty accomplished, they will have millions of newly-minted democrat voters, plus tens of millions more in the future by high mexican birthrates and chain migration. The latter want to keep their corporate clients in labor intensive industries supplied with cheap black market labor.

The use of a wall to stop the invasion is a laughable anachronism. There are places where mexican entrepreneurs have built doors into the wall, and will unlock for a price for new invaders.

A high-tech wall, with sensors and so on is possible, but comes with a huge price tag.

Here's what will work: every employee must be verified as a US citizen (or otherwise be a legal worker) with positive ID based on biometrics. A database supporting this, accessible on the internet, will support this. Employers have an affirmative duty to verify the legality of every employee. Scofflaws will be subject to six months in jail and a $100,000 fine, which accelerates for repeated offenses. Further, government services other than emergency health care are illegalized, with criminal penalties for persons who knowingly ignore the law.

With this, the conuntry would be nearly emptied of invaders in a year.

myp · Aug 28, 2011

I have a better idea. Reform or end the entitlement system to counter the free rider problem and establish a free immigration policy after that.

DodgeFB · Aug 28, 2011

myp said:
I have a better idea. Reform or end the entitlement system to counter the free rider problem and establish a free immigration policy after that.

I am against any "free immigration policy! We need to cut back on having children in this country too. Why? We have too damn many people here already. There is a limit on how many people this country can tolerate. We have more than we need now. We don't need to be overrun with people of any kind. Look at other overpopulated countries. We are already moving toward becoming a 3rd world country . It is just like our homes, we can't just open our doors come one come all.

myp · Aug 28, 2011

DodgeFB said:
I am against any "free immigration policy! We need to cut back on having children in this country too. Why? We have too damn many people here already. There is a limit on how many people this country can tolerate. We have more than we need now. We don't need to be overrun with people of any kind. Look at other overpopulated countries. We are already moving toward becoming a 3rd world country . It is just like our homes, we can't just open our doors come one come all.

Population is usually restricted more by technology than land. The United States still has a very low population density and can support a lot more people. Even better, immigration without entitlements leads to economic growth and increased production.

Patrick · Aug 28, 2011

myp said:
Population is usually restricted more by technology than land. The United States still has a very low population density and can support a lot more people. Even better, immigration without entitlements leads to economic growth and increased production.

The low population density is determined by what? Taking the number of people and divinding by total land area? Inculding deserts, alaska, mountain ranges, swamps, and other minimally inhabitable areas? We have no need at all of just more bodies, especially not illterate rural mexican peasants. We need QUALITY immigrants, educated, HIGH IQ people from europe and asia. The american middle class has become accustomed to the entitlements, and they're not going away - any plan predicated on that is a pipe dream.

myp · Aug 28, 2011

Patrick said:
The low population density is determined by what? Taking the number of people and divinding by total land area? Inculding deserts, alaska, mountain ranges, swamps, and other minimally inhabitable areas? We have no need at all of just more bodies, especially not illterate rural mexican peasants. We need QUALITY immigrants, educated, HIGH IQ people from europe and asia. The american middle class has become accustomed to the entitlements, and they're not going away - any plan predicated on that is a pipe dream.

Even if you take people/livable land we are not in a bad situation. And clearly not on the "rural mexicans" considering how many are still hired by farms, businesses, etc. to do work that they can't find others to do at that quality.

Patrick · Aug 28, 2011

myp said:
Even if you take people/livable land we are not in a bad situation. And clearly not on the "rural mexicans" considering how many are still hired by farms, businesses, etc. to do work that they can't find others to do at that quality.

The ol' "work americans won't do" canard. Actually, americans won't do them at the black market wages paid in what are essentially criminal enterprises. When the illegals are sent packing, wages will rise till some american takes the job, or they're replaced by automation.

myp · Aug 28, 2011

Patrick said:
The ol' "work americans won't do" canard. Actually, americans won't do them at the black market wages paid in what are essentially criminal enterprises. When the illegals are sent packing, wages will rise till some american takes the job, or they're replaced by automation.

If they are working for sub-minimum wage, getting rid of those workers likely won't increase the number of above-minimum wage jobs. If you want to allow the Americans to better compete, then abolish the minimum wage.

Patrick · Aug 28, 2011

myp said:
If they are working for sub-minimum wage, getting rid of those workers likely won't increase the number of above-minimum wage jobs. If you want to allow the Americans to better compete, then abolish the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is a separate issue. Even without the minimum wage, the wage paid for jobs held by illegal aliens will rise till americans take them. My point was that the lib implication that the vegetables will rot in the fields and we'll all starve is a typical bit of lib silliness.

myp · Aug 28, 2011

Patrick said:
The minimum wage is a separate issue. Even without the minimum wage, the wage paid for jobs held by illegal aliens will rise till americans take them. My point was that the lib implication that the vegetables will rot in the fields and we'll all starve is a typical bit of lib silliness.

The minimum wage is absolutely not a separate issue. The reason a black market for sub-minimum labor exists is because of the price floor itself. Considering a lot of illegal aliens take those sub-minimum jobs, it is very relevant. Milton Friedman often talked about it.

Patrick · Aug 28, 2011

myp said:
The minimum wage is absolutely not a separate issue. The reason a black market for sub-minimum labor exists is because of the price floor itself. Considering a lot of illegal aliens take those sub-minimum jobs, it is very relevant. Milton Friedman often talked about it.

That makes no sense. If employers are willing to violate federal law and hire illegals, why would they be afraid to hire americans and ignore the minimum wage laws?

myp · Aug 28, 2011

Patrick said:
That makes no sense. If employers are willing to violate federal law and hire illegals, why would they be afraid to hire americans and ignore the minimum wage laws?

Well for one, many Americans expect a minimum wage as per the law. Furthermore, taking a job under minimum wage would mean they are not only breaking minimum wage laws, but also tax laws since they can't tell the government they are working at the rates they are- that often leads to tax evasion, which can be a serious crime. Risk aversion probably plays a big role too- the illegal alien is illegally here anyway and can get deported if caught- taking an illegal job won't make it much worse (and that is the reason they usually come any way).

And then there are other variables that could potentially be the reason as well- what is socially acceptable, quality/consistency, etc.

skeptic-f · Aug 29, 2011

You folks are sadly confused. Both the Republicans and the Democrats, with the exception of a few politicians in the border states, are in favor of illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America. Cheap labor lets some businesses remain profitable, keeps the minimum wage down, and reduces the effect of the demographic bulge of the baby boom generation on the economy.

There are not enough politicians running in 2012 who would support a REAL controlled border and/or REAL crackdown on employers of illegals for such measures to ever be passed and enforced. Not to mention the fact that the next President to pass another amnesty bill will immediately get a couple of million new legal supporters.

If you build the wall, people will complain about the cost, the environment and the racism; if you crack down on employers, people will complain about the cost, the harassment of legitimate businesses and the racism. I'm all in favor of having a vision, but this one has blinkers on that fails to allow for a nasty little thing called reality.

DodgeFB · Aug 29, 2011

myp said:
Population is usually restricted more by technology than land. The United States still has a very low population density and can support a lot more people. Even better, immigration without entitlements leads to economic growth and increased production.

Do we wait until we are jammed up on top of each other like some countries are? We don't have a shortage of people. We have more people than jobs now.

myp · Aug 29, 2011

DodgeFB said:
Do we wait until we are jammed up on top of each other like some countries are? We don't have a shortage of people. We have more people than jobs now.

That last statement is a common economic fallacy. The number of jobs doesn't stay stagnant as the population increases, hence a current job shortage does not mean no new jobs can be made with an increase in population. In fact, in some cases an increase in population can reduce a job shortage.

As for being on top of each other- it won't happen, unless you mean in skyscrapers

DodgeFB · Aug 29, 2011

myp said:
That last statement is a common economic fallacy. The number of jobs doesn't stay stagnant as the population increases, hence a current job shortage does not mean no new jobs can be made with an increase in population. In fact, in some cases an increase in population can reduce a job shortage.

As for being on top of each other- it won't happen, unless you mean in skyscrapers

If we keep building roads, lakes, and shopping centers over the best farming land we deserve to starve. And no I don't want to import food from some other country when it can be grown here. It is getting now where you can't find any privacy in too many places. Traffic 24 hours a day on country roads. Loud music, car horns, squealing tires at 3AM. It gets really old fast.

myp · Aug 29, 2011

DodgeFB said:
If we keep building roads, lakes, and shopping centers over the best farming land we deserve to starve. And no I don't want to import food from some other country when it can be grown here. It is getting now where you can't find any privacy in too many places. Traffic 24 hours a day on country roads. Loud music, car horns, squealing tires at 3AM. It gets really old fast.

We don't necessarily have to import it, but if it is the cheapest that can be an option too. Farming space productivity has gone up a lot over time and is why we can feed the world with so fewer farms than it used to take. Also we have a lot of non-farming land that is open too still.

As for traffic and noise, it's a matter of infrastructure. If there is a market demand for quiet places, places will be kept as such- many neighborhoods already have restrictions on what their residents can do. Also your annoyances, aren't everyones, but even then enough people have the same annoyances as you to not make the world NYC.

DodgeFB · Aug 29, 2011

myp said:
We don't necessarily have to import it, but if it is the cheapest that can be an option too. Farming space productivity has gone up a lot over time and is why we can feed the world with so fewer farms than it used to take. Also we have a lot of non-farming land that is open too still.

As for traffic and noise, it's a matter of infrastructure. If there is a market demand for quiet places, places will be kept as such- many neighborhoods already have restrictions on what their residents can do. Also your annoyances, aren't everyones, but even then enough people have the same annoyances as you to not make the world NYC.

I notice around here when they open a new shopping center (good farm land) an old shopping center ends up abandoned and boarded up. Not bulldozed and the land made suitable for other things.

myp · Aug 29, 2011

DodgeFB said:
I notice around here when they open a new shopping center (good farm land) an old shopping center ends up abandoned and boarded up. Not bulldozed and the land made suitable for other things.

Well that is dictated by property rights by those who own the land. Shouldn't people be able to do as they please with their property so long as it doesn't hurt others? Either way, if that farmland was needed, the owners would be more likely to keep it as such since it would make more money.

DodgeFB · Aug 29, 2011

myp said:
Well that is dictated by property rights by those who own the land. Shouldn't people be able to do as they please with their property so long as it doesn't hurt others? Either way, if that farmland was needed, the owners would be more likely to keep it as such since it would make more money.

Sure, but if I don't mow my grass or pile junk up in the yard the county will make me clean it up. But not old shopping centers and their lots. My opinion is the owners just do it for the tax breaks. When the tax breaks expire they just move on. They don't really care what happens then.

Stopping the illegal alien invasion

Similar threads