Deportations higher under Obama than under Bush

[Kanastrous]

I'm not suggesting that it's easy or fun, but illegal residents have access to more benefits than you might expect. Food stamps, too.

BULLSHIT!

Fucking, fucking BULLSHIT!

Illegal immigrants DO NOT have access to food stamps. How do I know this? When I applied last December I had to prove I was a citizen! God damn, I get SO FUCKING SICK of the lies and misinformation!

They ONLY way an illegal immigrant gets access to food stamps is FRAUD. That is, breaking the law.

Stop drinking the fucking Republican Kool-Aid.

Of course I will acknowledge your experience and stand corrected, about that.

[Broomstick]

Thank you.

I apologize for coming on quite THAT strong, but it really is a sore spot with me. I will also clarify that a few types of legal immigrants may get food stamps, such as asylum seekers, but again, they are LEGAL and must prove their status.

[Kanastrous]

No need to apologize. The point is well taken.

Although it still seems to me that since illegal presence in the country, plus living here, plus working here, plus (to some degree of likelihood) driving here, etc is *all* a big ball of fraud; whatever paperwork-type fibbing is layered on top to claim benefits is still a problem associated with illegal immigration, to whatever degree that illegal immigrants do it.

[PeZook]

I am so fucking SICK of hearing that bullshit - from the smiley I'm assuming you're kidding, but I assure that to many Americans who can not find work that is NO laughing matter!

Yes, Broomie, I was actually kidding.

Your above statement is obviously why the problem isn't immigration per se, but the fact that illegals can be abused by unscrupulous employers. If you're a law-skirting jackass, why would you employ a legal citizen/immigrant if you could pay a much lower wage and treat the guy as a slave by threatening to report him?

In a way, "dem dirty immigrants are stealin' our jobs!" is a valid complaint on some level...

[SirNitram]

Legal channels? Which would those be?

Be related to a US Citizen? That's one.

Spouse or child of a legal, registered resident? Another.

Have a job offer, for a speciality in a field, with an employer who will file the paperwork, conduct another job search, all with around 10k in legal and other costs? Yes.

Prove you're a genius, sports star, or have $1M to invest? Yep!

Otherwise? No. You're not allowed. Go back, you unwashed filth.

[Lonestar]

Um, half the illegals come here legally and then overstay their visas, so unless you're planning to stop all issuances of visas (or you’re willing to micro-chip every tourist who comes here) your little plan just won't work.

I'm sure that all illegals register the method of their entry so we know the exact percentage of illegals that are here by way of overstayed visa.

[Simon_Jester]

We know the ones we catch, Lonestar, especially if we can match them up to an expired visa...

[Death from the Sea]

I'm not suggesting that it's easy or fun, but illegal residents have access to more benefits than you might expect. Food stamps, too.

BULLSHIT!

Fucking, fucking BULLSHIT!

Illegal immigrants DO NOT have access to food stamps. How do I know this? When I applied last December I had to prove I was a citizen! God damn, I get SO FUCKING SICK of the lies and misinformation!

They ONLY way an illegal immigrant gets access to food stamps is FRAUD. That is, breaking the law.

Stop drinking the fucking Republican Kool-Aid.

is it a stretch to think that they won't mind committing fraud in order to get the said govt aid? I can think of a handful of illegals that I have contacted in the last month that mentioned being on WIC, and for some reason I don't know why they try to use the fact that they are on WIC for some kind of sympathy factor as if that makes them a bigger victim. Anyway, while yes, you are supposed to be a citizen to get the govt aid, there are many who don't mind defrauding the govt (really you and me in the end) of any kind of $$$ they can.

[eion]

5) tough, but fair path to citizenship for long-term, law-abiding undocumented immigrants.

How is 'law abiding undocumented immigrant' fundamentally different from 'law-abiding burglar' or 'law-abiding embezzler?' It's an oxymoron. Every last person who violates a law is 'law-abiding,' except for the particular laws they chose to violate...

Undocumented immigration is illegal - which is why for the purpose of clarity honest people call it illegal immigration. The fact that someone contented themselves with just the one ongoing breach of the law by being here illicitly doesn't mean that they ought to get a pass on that ongoing breach.

Unless by 'tough but fair' you mean something along the lines of out you go, back of the line, file your application just like everyone you jumped in ahead of, and you'll get the same consideration as they will. Which would be fair. And tough.

I'm sorry, I should have said "otherwise law-abiding". As Nitram has pointed out there are VERY limited avenues of entry to the U.S. as a legal immigrant, and as someone who attained U.S. citizenship in the easiest way possible, being born here, I find it rather distasteful to tell other people they aren't worthy of the honor.

There are many ways to structure the process, but if I'm a unskilled lettuce picker there is no line for me to get in after I'm booted out of the country. If you've been here 10 years, paid your taxes, haven't committed any violent crimes then you've clearly found a way to support yourself here. If you're willing to pay a significant fine (which goes to border security), spend another 10 years waiting through the bureaucracy to become a legal permanent resident, and then 5 more years taking classes to get your citizenship, who am I to stop you?

Some laws are in fact, unjust, and need to be changed.

[PeZook]

Such an "amnesty", if it could be called that, would cut down on the number of immigrants who can be paid a pittance (since they legalize their stay, meaning they can't be fucked over), thus reducing cuttthroat competition with unskilled American workers. Though it would only work if you created a secure worker's visa to supplement it, so that people could legally come to the US for seasonal work.

The key here is to create a situation where the immigrants are paid a proper minimum wage, and can use legal recourse. Continuing to fight the tide as it is now is a waste of effort.

[eion]

Since there must be an address and a legal id presented to enter with a visa, it should be rather easy to find them when the visa runs out. But then again, maybe not, as the US doesn't have nation-wide databases.

My God, I've been blind. If we just go to the last legal address a person had when their visa expired we'll catch all those dirty illegals and ship them back to Urfuckedistan. But wait; if I, a pure and noble American graced with citizenship in this mighty land by virtue of popping out of my mother’s uterus on the RIGHT side of the border, can move to a new apartment and "forget" to notify the DMV couldn't a dirty, filthy criminal by his very nature illegal intentionally move to prevent those fine men at the INS (Immigrants Need Sending-back) from finding them.

Yeah, you're a moron.

I immigrated in 2006, but I had to reclaim my Hungarian citizenship first, and then had to do paperwork to get my wife into the country. It was not as easy as you might think. Application for a tax number, registration at the place of residence, registration of birth, marriage, proof of income, proof of being insured already, etc... and all in a completely new system, very bad comprehension of the local language, and no help, as my Dad died right after we made that step, and could only help us for a short time.

In other words you had a right of return, which probably had no quota limit per year. So the only obstacle to you was, paperwork? My heart goes out to you and your carpel-tunnel.

How easy do you think it is to get into this country legally?

It was certainly not like I just moved to another state in the same country - i did that a couple of times already in Austria, in the EU, movement between member states is immigration, instead of relocation like in the US.

What am I missing?

The right of residence for more than six months remains subject to certain conditions. Applicants must:
•either be engaged in economic activity (on an employed or self-employed basis);
•or have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. The Member States may not specify a minimum amount which they deem sufficient, but they must take account of personal circumstances;
•or be following vocational training as a student and have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay;
•or be a family member of a Union citizen who falls into one of the above categories.

Right of permanent residence
Union citizens acquire the right of permanent residence in the host Member State after a five-year period of uninterrupted legal residence, provided that an expulsion decision has not been enforced against them. This right of permanent residence is no longer subject to any conditions. The same rule applies to family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who have lived with a Union citizen for five years. The right of permanent residence is lost only in the event of more than two successive years' absence from the host Member State.

My father came to Austria in the early 70's, after crossing the border with nothing than the clothes on his back. So he had it even harder, they didn't even accept his university degree.

And I'm sure the Soviets made it very easy for him to attain his emigration papers. I'm sure he didn't have to give them everything he owned, or else he snuck across the border ILLEGALLY!

So at what point do the conditions become so ghastly in your home country that crossing the border illegally into another, better country becomes an act of courage and defiance? If Mexico was a communist dictatorship would we be welcoming every Juan and Maria at the border tunnel with bananas and “welcome money” (Little Berlin Wall joke there, folks)?

The US only needs one thing to stop the illegal immigration problem, and that is the one thing the Republicans will never allow. Give every company/private person that hires someone illegally a sound thrashing. If the possibility of getting checked and the amount you get fined exceeds the benefits, it will stop. (This would also cut down "black" work)

Yeah, except it is ridiculously easy to forge a social security card and obtain a driver's license.

By way of comparison:

Here is Elvis Presley’s social security card, and one of the kind issued today.

They remain largely unchanged since the creation of social security. They are unlamented, contain virtually no security features, no photograph or other secondary identifying information, and are easier to forge than 1 dollar bills. With a social security card and a driver's license you can prove eligibility for any job in America (Which was actually expressly forbidden by social security cards until recently, they were never meant to be used for any form of identification, whoops), and for the types of jobs undocumented workers get, the boss either doesn't check these documents, or gives them but a cursory look since the guy's only going to be working for the day.

You can't hold employers sufficiently accountable until you give them a work eligability card at least as secure as I the card I use to buy liquor. It's ridiculous on the face of it.

[Lonestar]

We know the ones we catch, Lonestar, especially if we can match them up to an expired visa...

I think that might be a, uh, biased sample? I'm going to make one hell of an assumption and assume it's easier to catch someone who we know is in the country illegally(expired visa) than those we don't know are in the country.

[LaCroix]

Since there must be an address and a legal id presented to enter with a visa, it should be rather easy to find them when the visa runs out. But then again, maybe not, as the US doesn't have nation-wide databases.

My God, I've been blind. If we just go to the last legal address a person had when their visa expired we'll catch all those dirty illegals and ship them back to Urfuckedistan. But wait; if I, a pure and noble American graced with citizenship in this mighty land by virtue of popping out of my mother’s uterus on the RIGHT side of the border, can move to a new apartment and "forget" to notify the DMV couldn't a dirty, filthy criminal by his very nature illegal intentionally move to prevent those fine men at the INS (Immigrants Need Sending-back) from finding them.

Yeah, you're a moron.

Put your outrage back where it belongs. It's hardly my fault that the US is unable to create a working register of residence. This is one of the reasons you have so much problems with illegals, as they can slip away easily. In Austria, you CAN'T get a new flat/house without being registered at another home address before, and they keep track of these movements. Of course, you can get around that with some tricks, but it's hard. In Hungary, you have to carry your laminated card with national id and your address with you all the time, and need it for virtually everything. And I get checked about twice a month in routine controls on drivers and their passengers.

I immigrated in 2006, but I had to reclaim my Hungarian citizenship first, and then had to do paperwork to get my wife into the country. It was not as easy as you might think. Application for a tax number, registration at the place of residence, registration of birth, marriage, proof of income, proof of being insured already, etc... and all in a completely new system, very bad comprehension of the local language, and no help, as my Dad died right after we made that step, and could only help us for a short time.

In other words you had a right of return, which probably had no quota limit per year. So the only obstacle to you was, paperwork? My heart goes out to you and your carpel-tunnel.

Fuck you, stupid moron. It was to say that I used LEGAL channels, and that took me half a year, and I stillhave to extend my wife's visa every five years.

My father came to Austria in the early 70's, after crossing the border with nothing than the clothes on his back. So he had it even harder, they didn't even accept his university degree.

And I'm sure the Soviets made it very easy for him to attain his emigration papers. I'm sure he didn't have to give them everything he owned, or else he snuck across the border ILLEGALLY!

So at what point do the conditions become so ghastly in your home country that crossing the border illegally into another, better country becomes an act of courage and defiance? If Mexico was a communist dictatorship would we be welcoming every Juan and Maria at the border tunnel with bananas and “welcome money” (Little Berlin Wall joke there, folks)?

Well, he escaped at risk of being shot, was regarded guilty of high treason for years, and would have faced at least prison if he ever set foot back to Hungary. And he came as a refugee (which is LEGAL), and used the LEGAL PROCESS to gain right to stay and later gained citizenship by marriage.

If Mexico were to become a dictatorship and the Us would accept these claims to grant asylum, it were legal to cross the border. After all, many Cuban nationals did so when the US regarded them as legal refugees, didn't they?

Yeah, except it is ridiculously easy to forge a social security card and obtain a driver's license.

By way of comparison:
[img]
Here is Elvis Presley’s social security card, and one of the kind issued today.

They remain largely unchanged since the creation of social security. They are unlamented, contain virtually no security features, no photograph or other secondary identifying information, and are easier to forge than 1 dollar bills. With a social security card and a driver's license you can prove eligibility for any job in America (Which was actually expressly forbidden by social security cards until recently, they were never meant to be used for any form of identification, whoops), and for the types of jobs undocumented workers get, the boss either doesn't check these documents, or gives them but a cursory look since the guy's only going to be working for the day.

You can't hold employers sufficiently accountable until you give them a work eligability card at least as secure as I the card I use to buy liquor. It's ridiculous on the face of it.

Part of the problem, like I said. The Us fails to do things right in this area of administration, and mostly because of culture. Most Americans don't want a watertight database and ID system 'watching' them, and without such a system, you can't properly look for those who don't belong.

[LaCroix]

We know the ones we catch, Lonestar, especially if we can match them up to an expired visa...

I think that might be a, uh, biased sample? I'm going to make one hell of an assumption and assume it's easier to catch someone who we know is in the country illegally(expired visa) than those we don't know are in the country.

What I said. You know their name, and where they lived and worked at a certain time. It's much easier to find those people, as you have clues and can ask people about them. Of course you catch a lot of those.

Jose Peseta, who snuck undetected through the desert at night and is now hiding somewhere is much harder to find, practically only if you stumble across him.

[Kanastrous]

Legal channels? Which would those be?

Be related to a US Citizen? That's one.

Spouse or child of a legal, registered resident? Another.

Have a job offer, for a speciality in a field, with an employer who will file the paperwork, conduct another job search, all with around 10k in legal and other costs? Yes.

Prove you're a genius, sports star, or have $1M to invest? Yep!

Otherwise? No. You're not allowed. Go back, you unwashed filth.

This seems to presuppose that any given nation has a standing obligation to admit whoever wants in, for whatever purpose, at whatever time. Well, nations have interests and there is zero reason to expect that any nation should place a prospective immigrant's interests above its own. Now, whether or not you or I consider a given nation's policy smart, or even necessarily in line with how we see its interests is a different question. But I would like to know what underpins the obligation of any state to just accept all comers, and not pick and choose whom to allow in - in fact if anything there's an obligation to the citizens and residents already there, to maintain some standards as to who comes in next, and what effect their arrival may be expected to have.

For my part I have been working toward claiming British citizenship (which is going well) and residency in New Zealand (which is not) but in neither case when things weren't going my way did I find it necessary to bitch that I was being treated like 'unwashed filth' simply because I couldn't get an immigration officer to see things my way. And my father, brother, sister, aunts, uncles, grandparents and cousins, most of whom applied for admission to countries other than the US, do not report having been made out to be 'unwashed filth' simply because those other countries' governments declined to offer them citizenship or residency, either.

[eion]

Put your outrage back where it belongs. It's hardly my fault that the US is unable to create a working register of residence. This is one of the reasons you have so much problems with illegals, as they can slip away easily. In Austria, you CAN'T get a new flat/house without being registered at another home address before, and they keep track of these movements. Of course, you can get around that with some tricks, but it's hard. In Hungary, you have to carry your laminated card with national id and your address with you all the time, and need it for virtually everything. And I get checked about twice a month in routine controls on drivers and their passengers.

The citizens of the U.S. are unlikely to tolerate a law that requires one to carry one's ID (Only about 27% of citizens have an identity card like a passport, there is no national ID card and driver's licenses are no proof of citizenship) with one at all times or to surrender your location to the government at will. As strange as that might sound, certain elements of the U.S. population are constantly on guard against any attempt by the government to control or lock them down.

Based on the results in other countries when the government acquires too much information about its citizenry, I can almost see their point.

A national address registry is a non-starter in the U.S. And it's not the dreaded illegal sympathizers that are against such a measure, it's the fringes of the Republican party.

And exactly how many border stations will I encounter driving from France to Hungary? I'm going to guess none. An illegal or a criminal can slip away just as easily in modern Europe, which is one of the reasons the whole E.U. came about.

In other words you had a right of return, which probably had no quota limit per year. So the only obstacle to you was, paperwork? My heart goes out to you and your carpel-tunnel.

Fuck you, stupid moron. It was to say that I used LEGAL channels, and that took me half a year, and I stillhave to extend my wife's visa every five years.

And was there a limit on the number of former Hungarians who could re-immigrate? Because we have those here, and some of them are quite restrictive, even if you have a doctorate and a job waiting for you here. God help you if you just want to come here and clean hotel rooms.

My father came to Austria in the early 70's, after crossing the border with nothing than the clothes on his back. So he had it even harder, they didn't even accept his university degree.

And I'm sure the Soviets made it very easy for him to attain his emigration papers. I'm sure he didn't have to give them everything he owned, or else he snuck across the border ILLEGALLY!

So at what point do the conditions become so ghastly in your home country that crossing the border illegally into another, better country becomes an act of courage and defiance? If Mexico was a communist dictatorship would we be welcoming every Juan and Maria at the border tunnel with bananas and “welcome money” (Little Berlin Wall joke there, folks)?

Well, he escaped at risk of being shot, was regarded guilty of high treason for years, and would have faced at least prison if he ever set foot back to Hungary. And he came as a refugee (which is LEGAL), and used the LEGAL PROCESS to gain right to stay and later gained citizenship by marriage.

What he did wasn't legal as far as his own government was concerned. He rightly escaped under great pearl and applied for asylum. So with the raging drug violence in Mexico at what point will a Mexican be justified in seeking asylum from the violence here in the U.S., and if the U.S. flatly refuses at what point of bodily harm is the Mexican morally permitted to break U.S. immigration law?

If Austria had just told your father, "Sorry, you didn't go through the proper channels, we're sending you back to Hungary." Would that have been alright?

And wasn’t Hungary considered one of the nicer places to live within the Warsaw Bloc under Kadar with the high standard of living and relatively freedom of movement? Was your father a revolutionary or something? Just curious here.

If Mexico were to become a dictatorship and the Us would accept these claims to grant asylum, it were legal to cross the border. After all, many Cuban nationals did so when the US regarded them as legal refugees, didn't they?

We deport plenty of Cubans back to the hellhole from which they escaped. The last time a lottery was held in Cuba to allow emigration by the general public was in 1998 I believe.

You can't hold employers sufficiently accountable until you give them a work eligability card at least as secure as I the card I use to buy liquor. It's ridiculous on the face of it.

Part of the problem, like I said. The Us fails to do things right in this area of administration, and mostly because of culture. Most Americans don't want a watertight database and ID system 'watching' them, and without such a system, you can't properly look for those who don't belong.

Yes, but all you said was, "DUR, just kick all the illegals out and then all your problems are solved." I offered a five-point comprehensive plan for immigration reform (which included a secure Worker-ID) that fixes most of the cracks in the immigration system, and you swept it all away in favor of universal deportation. It was simplistic and you were rightly mocked for it. But please, keep moving the goalposts closer to my side of the field.

[LaCroix]

The citizens of the U.S. are unlikely to tolerate a law that requires one to carry one's ID (Only about 27% of citizens have an identity card like a passport, there is no national ID card and driver's licenses are no proof of citizenship) with one at all times or to surrender your location to the government at will. As strange as that might sound, certain elements of the U.S. population are constantly on guard against any attempt by the government to control or lock them down.

Based on the results in other countries when the government acquires too much information about its citizenry, I can almost see their point.

A national address registry is a non-starter in the U.S. And it's not the dreaded illegal sympathizers that are against such a measure, it's the fringes of the Republican party.

I see we agree on that.

And exactly how many border stations will I encounter driving from France to Hungary? I'm going to guess none. An illegal or a criminal can slip away just as easily in modern Europe, which is one of the reasons the whole E.U. came about.

Three, but they won't be manned. At the other hand, you will be stopped by police control points near the border occasionally. As I said, there is no border control between Austria an Hungary, anymore, but I do get controlled about twice a month, on either side as I travel across it every day. The border itself is not controlled, but police does make sample controls near the border, on the only road leading there, still, and still does occasional checkpoints all over the countries, as usual in Europe. (They stop you, demand ids from everyone, call the base to check you all and make a walk around the car, before wishing you a good day and letting you pass, and pick the next car out of the traffic.) The Eu traffic laws are not executed to the letter, these checkpoints are still intact and double as border control, aiming to catch immigrants and black work traffic, as well as smuggling of restricted goods (alcohol, tobacco...)

And was there a limit on the number of former Hungarians who could re-immigrate? Because we have those here, and some of them are quite restrictive, even if you have a doctorate and a job waiting for you here. God help you if you just want to come here and clean hotel rooms.

Everybody he gave back their citizenship during a certain time-window was eligible in this amnesty, which was granted for a year or so.

What he did wasn't legal as far as his own government was concerned. He rightly escaped under great pearl and applied for asylum. So with the raging drug violence in Mexico at what point will a Mexican be justified in seeking asylum from the violence here in the U.S., and if the U.S. flatly refuses at what point of bodily harm is the Mexican morally permitted to break U.S. immigration law?

If Austria had just told your father, "Sorry, you didn't go through the proper channels, we're sending you back to Hungary." Would that have been alright?

And wasn’t Hungary considered one of the nicer places to live within the Warsaw Bloc under Kadar with the high standard of living and relatively freedom of movement? Was your father a revolutionary or something? Just curious here.

*snip*
We deport plenty of Cubans back to the hellhole from which they escaped. The last time a lottery was held in Cuba to allow emigration by the general public was in 1998 I believe.

It doesn't matter if the country your leaving doesn't want you to leave, the country you enter is important. And If Austria didn't accept the claim of him being a refugee, he would have been sent back, and lawfully so.

He was a refugee because my family was noble, and rich (before they took everything away) and thus weren't really on the party's birthday present list. He had managed to live relatively well, as he was managing some Balaton hotels back then, so he was not expendable, but he took the first chance to leave before they could find a replacement.

Yes, but all you said was, "DUR, just kick all the illegals out and then all your problems are solved." I offered a five-point comprehensive plan for immigration reform (which included a secure Worker-ID) that fixes most of the cracks in the immigration system, and you swept it all away in favor of universal deportation. It was simplistic and you were rightly mocked for it. But please, keep moving the goalposts closer to my side of the field.

I think you misunderstood me in my first post. I meant, in reply to PeZook, that once all those cheap workers are gone, and there is still a need for menial workers; the state will allow a certain quota of menial workers back legally, lowering the requirements for them because there is a need. In Austria, there were quotas for immigration from Turkey and Yugoslavia for construction workers, as we were in need of them. Considering your view of my post, I now understand your aggressive posting.

[PeZook]

I hate to delve into American exceptionalism, but European-style immigration enforcement is a lot harder in the States. Europe has a much denser population, shorter travel distances and only half the land area (I can't be bothered to find kms of road to patrol, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was massively lower in Europe, too) in addition to an obstinate populace, jurisdiction mess (Federal, interstate, state and municipal police...man!) and some laws that make it really difficult to just do spot checks like these (people mentioned the lack of a national ID...so you'd have to drag every stopped motorist down to a station to do citizenship checks, or create some sort of Big Brother database cops would be able to check from their cars...).

All of these matters coalesce to form an unholy mess when it comes to internally enforcing immigration laws ; Frankly, any immigration reform will require some sort of an ID reform, too, for it to actually work.

You could really use a modern national ID card, to be frank. It makes life massively easier, both for the state and the people living in it, but I'm not dum: it's not gonna happen.

[Magis]

Legal channels? Which would those be?
Have a job offer, for a speciality in a field, with an employer who will file the paperwork, conduct another job search, all with around 10k in legal and other costs? Yes.
...
Otherwise? No. You're not allowed. Go back, you unwashed filth.

Clearly immigration to the United States is more difficult from some countries than from others, but NAFTA makes legal entry for Canadians and Mexicans a very simple process. No visas, no embassies and no 10k in paperwork is required for a great number of people who have job offers. Specialty fields? Um, no, not really unless you classify things like, "computer systems analyst", "scientist" or "teacher" to be specialty fields. Also, the employer doesn't have to file any paper work at all. The individual with the job offer simply needs to stop at the port of entry with the job offer in hand, their diploma, two passport sized photos and fill out a form. It often takes less than 20 minutes. These temporary work permits are good for several years at a time and can be renewed indefinitely.

[eion]

LaCroix,

Sadly the issue is that there isn't just one fix that needs to be made to immigration policy in the U.S., there are about 50, and if you fail to make the vast majority of those at once you'll only make the system worse. You can't secure the border because the demand for low-wage workers is so high and border is so vast. You can't enact strict punishments for employers hiring illegal immigrants because it is too easy to obtain fraudulent documents, etc. It isn't one of those problems that can be fixed by slow incremental changes over time; it requires sweeping, comprehensive reform of a type we haven't seen in 50 years.

It is not a simple problem to fix and anyone who claims it is is either undereducated or lying.

[SirNitram]

Legal channels? Which would those be?
Have a job offer, for a speciality in a field, with an employer who will file the paperwork, conduct another job search, all with around 10k in legal and other costs? Yes.
...
Otherwise? No. You're not allowed. Go back, you unwashed filth.

Clearly immigration to the United States is more difficult from some countries than from others, but NAFTA makes legal entry for Canadians and Mexicans a very simple process. No visas, no embassies and no 10k in paperwork is required for a great number of people who have job offers. Specialty fields? Um, no, not really unless you classify things like, "computer systems analyst", "scientist" or "teacher" to be specialty fields. Also, the employer doesn't have to file any paper work at all. The individual with the job offer simply needs to stop at the port of entry with the job offer in hand, their diploma, two passport sized photos and fill out a form. It often takes less than 20 minutes. These temporary work permits are good for several years at a time and can be renewed indefinitely.

Yea. You want to know the REALITY of those?

You are a corporate slave. Your remaining is conditional on your employer. You can be shipped off for any reason. For example, if you speak up about not making the salary promised or even the minimum demanded by the H1-B laws. Heck, because of non-compatible databases, the Department Of Labor couldn't do anything for a H-1B person.

So, yes, those willing to sell themselves into servitude(and owe whatever the employer says they lost if they leave), they can stay.. Until the employer finds someone who'll do it even cheaper.

[Einzige]

How long will this nonsensical violation of individual liberties be permitted to continue?

Until you demonstrate that there is a legally protected liberty to enter and reside in the country without process and documentation, I don't think you even have a rhetorical question, there. Although it's sure a nonsensical one.

There is a liberty, my autocratic friend, to move freely regardless of State intervention. Moreover, these inane populist calls for border security do nothing more than damage domestic industries and create the conditions for inflation, resulting in individuals paying higher prices for goods at home.

[General Zod]

There is a liberty, my autocratic friend, to move freely regardless of State intervention.

You clearly haven't flown anywhere for the past ten years. The only liberty is the one in your head.

Moreover, these inane populist calls for border security do nothing more than damage domestic industries and create the conditions for inflation, resulting in individuals paying higher prices for goods at home.

Utter rubbish. Plenty of other industries get by just fine with legal labor. Even if they did increase prices, so fucking what?

[Einzige]

You clearly haven't flown anywhere for the past ten years. The only liberty is the one in your head.

The only liberty is the one that I naturally possess and which is being artificially infringed upon by a government that uses the threat of terrorism to impose itself upon me.

Utter rubbish. Plenty of other industries get by just fine with legal labor.

No, not really. If there were no unions, if there were no minimum wage laws - if labour were genuinely free - then prices would be so low as to be nearly so. But because there are, illegals are the next best thing.

Even if they did increase prices, so fucking what?

That's a mighty fine emotional ejaculation you've made there. Bet you had to get really hard to do it.

[General Zod]

The only liberty is the one that I naturally possess and which is being artificially infringed upon by a government that uses the threat of terrorism to impose itself upon me.

"Artificially" infringed upon? That's kind of hilarious, because if it weren't for governments the only liberty you'd have is whatever the strongest person in the pack allowed you.

No, not really. If there were no unions, if there were no minimum wage laws - if labour were genuinely free - then prices would be so low as to be nearly so. But because there are, illegals are the next best thing.

If labor were free, nobody could afford to buy anything.

That's a mighty fine emotional ejaculation you've made there. Bet you had to get really hard to do it.

Why don't you show some evidence that actually backs up your point, instead of mindlessly repeating lolbertarian propaganda and whining about how you don't like my post? If the housing market is any indication, the idea of low prices forever is completely unsustainable. Ohnoes, people might not be able to sustain a high consumption lifestyle anymore! Teh horrorz!