Osler's Razor

They should build the wall across the whole border. Then they should put an electric fence behind it. Then they should put another wall behind that. I think that is the only thing that will work.
 

As someone who has worked quasi illegally, this is a nation of immigrants. I approve of punishing employers who hire illegals because they are the ones creating the incentive, gaining the most benefit (cheap labour), and knowingly violating the law with the least legitimate reason for doing such (getting more money). The workers are just trying to better their own situation in life-- and who can blame them for that? Tax them on the money they make at an increased rate if anything-- create an incentive to be DOCUMENTED. On a side note, if an undocumented alien commits a crime I am for throwing the book at them-- there the situation is different.

I do not like the term "illegal immigrant," people shouldn't be deemed illegal for simply trying to better their situation in life. Deportation of "undocumented" aliens doesn't bother me, but lets try and not dehumanize other people who are simply doing what the initial settlers did.

Immigration laws may be necessary to maintain order and legitimate, but I personally am for amnesty of current undocumented immigrants living in the country. As for future undocumented aliens coming across, why don't we focus on using our influence over Mexico to push for better government and reform there? The government is corrupt and in trouble. The drug cartels kill with impunity. Beef up border protection, punish traffickers of humans and drugs, and don't just hand Mexico money and say "good luck"-- make sure the money creates results. If we change the situation in Mexico (or any other country for that matter) for the better we will lessen the need for people to come here illegally. Furthermore, bettering Mexico is good for us-- NAFTA created a partnership between Mexico, Canada and the US and as partners if Mexico is stabilized and less corrupt the US and Canada see a direct benefit of increased trade and market activity.

Off topic, this issue always makes me think of the movie Gangs of New York for some reason, and Daniel Day Lewis and his "natives."
 

To Anon @ 8:52,

What about tunnels, which are frequently used and dug to such depth that radar can't detect them?

What about boats bringing people to Florida? Water wall? Remember Elian Gonzalez?

A wall is costly, must be manned and kept up, and is a band aid for a cut requiring stitches. And an electric fence? Really? Why not just use minute men? We have an energy crisis looming you know.

The only thing that will work is the US just buys Mexico. Then we get (1) their vast oil reserves off the Gulf coast, (2) better chances in the upcoming World Cup, and (3) create a hilarious exchange:

Prospective immigrant: "Let's go to the US!"

Prospective immigrant 2: "We are already in the US."

Prospective immigrant: "WOOOO! PARTY IN THE USA!"
 

If we are going to put people in jail, I agree that we should concentrate on the employers rather than the immigrants. However, I think a better solution is to change the body of law that does not work very well.

We need to create a legal structure that allows for immigration in accord with labor needs and the desire of our neighbors to the South to come to the USA and work hard and send money back to their families in Latin America and, very likely, return at some point.

What we have now is an extremely dishonest system in which we encourage immigrants to come to American illegally--even as we enjoy a whole host of collective benefits at their expense--and then blame them for all our societal problems.

Let's think about some honest ways to reform this system.
 

Well said Waco Farmer.
 

In complete agreement with AWF. Immigrants, documented or otherwise, that are here to work need a way to change their status that is far less onerous and expensive/difficult. Our current system rewards no one but exploitative employers.

Undocumented workers need to be given the legal help to work here legally, and employers need greater oversight to prevent abuses. The solution here is collective representation of worker's rights.
 

I have long thought that we should establish a system that makes it easier for workers to enter and work legally. So long as they are employed and paying taxes, work permits should be available. When employment ceases, and a reasonable time passes to get new employment, so should the legal status.

I recognize, though, that this policy would create all sorts of problems for people who have children in the US while working legally. I have no answer for how to deal with those issues. Part of me thinks, "They knew what it was when they came here," and the other side thinks, "How can we justify separating families?" Conundrum.

More employer based regulation and enforcement is necessary.
 

Lot's of thoughtful discussion. It is very hard to tackle this issue in a thoughtful manner.

We can build all the border walls in the world but without armed guards on the top of the wall (think the old east/west German border) you accomplish little. I do not advocate such a use of these walls. We don't seem to concerned about the pesky Canadians sneaking across our northern border. Have we started building border walls across N. Dakota, Washington State, Wyoming, etc? I venture to say there are also some discrimination issues at play too.

We already have a 'legal' work visa system in the US as well as a 'green' card process. We also have quotas tied to these systems (from what I have heard) that are nationality based. Getting a work visa for a high end job is not to difficult. Converting this visa to a green card is a long, costly process with no guarantees.

The problem with immigration are the immigrants at the low end of the pay scale and what to do with the children of illegals born in the US.

Work visas must be cost prohibitive that they are not pursued. That and there must be a fair amount of corruption (bribery) invovled in the originating country that makes those crossing the border illegally feel it is worth the chance. Can you imagine going into the visa office and stating that you need a work visa so you can work in a meat processing plant?

The children issue could perhaps be managed with an age requirement. If under the age of 'x' you are returned with your parent(s) to the country of origin but you will have dual citizenship for future return when you reach the proper defined age.
 

Christine--

We simply can't remove US citizen children from the US until the reach a certain age. They are citizens as much as I am (though born about 2 miles from the border in El Paso, coincidentally). My father is an resident alien (asylum from Rhodesia). I can't imagine the government telling me that I have to leave until I reach a certain age just because my dad lost his status.

Also, the current work visa system is too onerous for the vast majority of immigrants seeking work in the US. I have a friend in San Antonio who has a master's degree in engineering. He can't get a work visa. Instead, he works as an undocumented gardener.
 

Prof. Osler, I agree with your desire to focus on #4 because it's the economic incentive (primarily) that produces the desire to enter our country, by legal or illegal means. Decreasing the availability of undocumented jobs would also lead to some amount of attrition of those who are already here illegally.

Additionally, as someone who lives 10 minutes north of Mexico and is friends with CBP agents, I also believe that an increased emphasis on border security would be beneficial, particularly in fighting the drug trade.

One problem that remains unaddressed, or at least only minimally addressed, by the comments is what to do with those who have overstayed their visas. Some reports indicate that up to 50% of those in our country illegally entered legally but stayed beyond the expiration of their visas. This is one more argument for #4 and its associated attrition.
 

One problem that remains unaddressed, or at least only minimally addressed, by the comments is what to do with those who have overstayed their visas.

Especially considering that in most cases, USCIS doesn't even sent out a notification that your visa is about to or has expired. The immigrants are charged with knowledge of when they're allowed to be here. Fair? Yes. Realistic and practicable? Doesn't seem to be.
 

"The solution here is collective representation of worker's rights."

I don't think the collective representation of worker's rights has ever been a solution to anything, other than the question, "how do we bankrupt American's auto-makers, make American industries unable to compete with foreign industries, and protect lazy, unskilled workers from getting fired regardless of their performance?"

The solution, the collective representation of worker's rights!!

Oh, and I agree with what almost everyone else has says. Legal immigration should be easier, at least in the sense that if you want to become a citizen, the government should get out of your way as much as possible.
 

AZ forgive me for striking a nerve. My thoughts have to do with children born in the US whose parents enter this country illegally. Not people whose parents come to the country legally or are granted politcal asylum and lose their status for some reason. There is a huge difference between the situations and each would merit different treatment.

And yes, the visa legal entry process is onerous and difficult. The people I know on work visas secured their employment while still overseas and then obtained their visa, not the opposite. Or they were in the US on a student visa and secured employment prior to graduation and a change in their legal status.

I think that just like health care we try to tackle too much at once instead of making incremental changes to the broken systems.
 

I'm a conservative, but the idea of a wall has always bothered me. Of course there is the cost involved with something like that, which is a negative, but a wall makes a philosophical statement about us as a country, that I think is contrary to our foundations as a nation. I don't like our nation being about walls. Still, I don't like illegal immigrants (I'm not going to call them something more PC so as not to hurt their feelings... you are what you are) flooding our country. We are a nation of immigrants, but that doesn't mean you just let everyone through with a free pass.

I like the idea of going at employers who employ illegal immigrants, but I don't think that's a magic pill. People already get away with illegal activity now in the business world. I'm sure these employers will continue to find a way to skirt prosecution and detection, even if we make it harder on them.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

It is semantics. They are criminals in that they did something against the law, but criminals aren't "illegal." Their conduct is illegal. That is the point I am trying to make.
 

Christine - While you are thinking practically about the children issue, you miss a point made, but perhaps not emphasized by AZ Public Defender: a child born in the United States is a citizen by way of the Constitution, not a random statute subject to change when Congress finally decides to pass an immigration bill of some sort. This means that those kids are citizens just like you or me.

I thought it somewhat disingenuous for you to compare our Canadian and Mexican border. First off, the wall does work. Those charged with interdiction of drugs have seen an increase in seizures at the border-crossing choke points. Simply put, the bad guys have been forced to push drugs through the old fashion way of hiding them in vehicles at the legal crossing points. Similarly, the areas without the wall have experienced an increase in border crossings by illegal immigrants. Lastly, Mexico is the primary source of our drugs and illegal immigrants, not Canada. I think you had it right when you referred to Canadians as "pesky," at least with respect to illegal migrant workers and drugs.

The wall may be expensive and it may not be a perfect solution (yes, tunnels can be dug), but the argument that it does no good simply doesn't work.

Whether the wall is the correct move fiscally is a very different discussion. As is the philosophical considerations set forth by Brad.

I think most are in agreement that disincentivising employers through civil or criminal penalties has the greatest merit, but the devil is certainly in the details. For this reason, I believe the status quo is here to stay for a long while. I reach this conclusion because the sweeping changes encouraged by Waco Farmer are not going to happen in this Congress.

Instead, random enforcement of current laws will continue as determined by U.S. Attorney's offices throughout the country. Such a random and arbitrary enforcement, often driven by local political climates, is very disheartening.
 

Sorry-one more thing to add regarding DWP's post. DWP stated:

"[I]t is about not forgetting that documentation does not make you a criminal or a law abiding citizen."

Sorry, in this case it does. A conviction following discovery of an immigrant with forged documentation or no documentation at all makes him / her a criminal.

I get your point about not calling a person "illegal," but it really is a matter of political correctness. I would doubt you have the same concern with the term "legal immigrant." But, bickering about these terms gets us no closer to solving the real problem, which it sounds like we agree upon based on your endorsement of Waco Farmer's comment.
 

If we are keeping immigrants out, and, if to have a productive life, it is almost impossible for them to go anywhere else, then aren't we essentially just shutting them in to live in a place where the government just doesn't work?

This is my logic for the situation. It's like East/West Germany if West Germany was aggressively keeping Eastern refugees away.
 

"We are a nation of immigrants, but that doesn't mean you just let everyone through with a free pass."

Just the first 100+ years of the country's existence right? I am not trying to be PC. I am trying to illustrate that the description is wrong. A body is not illegal. The conduct is illegal.

I am "conservative" too, but I have a hard time rationalizing why the endowed right to pursuit of happiness TJ spoke of when declaring independence miraculously cuts off when a government equivalent of a fire marshal says the building is at capacity.
 

Brian H-- I didn't proofread, and yes you are right.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

and Brian H-- I am a legal immigrant and I don't see how that is anymore applicable. I have a Greencard, but my body didn't morph like a Power Ranger when I got it. Just call me foreigner, but don't capitalize it because that might infringe a trademark.

Also, I deleted the post because it was inaccurate and a rant, so I apologize for polluting the internet with such legal error.
 

One wonders if the original European settlers respected the proper channels of immigration, petitioning the council fires of the Sioux or the longhouses of the Iroquois for permission to move on to the land.

The rights of migrant workers to organize and demand better treatment for themselves has always been a sticking point for some people, because of the incorrigible American attitude toward unions. The only way that lots of little people have the power to bargain with those with the resources and political clout is to organize democratically.
 

I think I failed to convey my point about the terms legal vs. illegal immigrant. If I were to call you a "foreigner," then another "foreigner" would stand up and say that he is not any more foreign than the next immigrant and he would appreciate very much if you called him a legal immigrant, as opposed to all of the illegal immigrants or undocumented aliens that he despises because of the stigma it places on him. No matter what, these are just terms that someone will have a problem with. Thus, it really is a matter of varying degrees of political correctness.

I also think you are being overly critical of the U.S. immigration policy. We lead the world in the number of immigrations allowed each year. Your post suggested to me that the flood gates should be opened because our early history was accepting of everyone for the first 100 years. First, this is not true because the earliest immigration law only allowed white persons to immigrate, and second it is a different world today that 1875. Opening our borders to anyone and everyone has so many problems with it I would not know where to start.
 

Well Brian, I think there is a better way than what we are trying now. And "foreigner" will work for anyone, and was meant as a joke regarding the band.

And it is a different world. A more international world, so perhaps the problem is exacerbated. Maybe that makes it less of a problem, or at least should?

I know how the process works though; it is costly and time consuming because it is run inefficiently. Immigration laws are fine, but our system doesn't acknowledge the reality of what goes on and instead just finds a way to claim it is solved.

Requiring documents is fine, but the reality is with thousands people coming and going the best way is to eliminate the incentive to come. That isn't really what we want to do, because you know the work is the right price.

I just think we should be more honest with ourselves as to who really is the driving force here.
 

They took our joooobbbsss!!!

RRL
 

GAH DERK A DERRRRRRRR!
 

Brian ~ I understand the children born in the US are US Citizens, hence my reference to dual citizenship. If parents are being deported should they be able to leave their children (specifically young children) behind if they can't arrange for their continued care with relatives in the US? Note, I did not attach an age to the children, but being of a legal age to work is probably a starting point.

No longer living in a border state I will refrain from further comment on 'the wall'.

Perhaps the US should consider sponsorship again with regard to immigration? This was how my father's parents came to the US in the 1920's. They were sponsored by someone who was already here.

Perhaps businesses that need workers could take part in some type of sponsorship system.
 

I missed this boat yesterday, but what strikes me is how much agreement there is. I had this talk with a lawyer-friend of mine just last week; he is an independent, and claimed to be "more conservative" on immigration, but when we talked about details, we found we were pretty much on the same page.

Excluding what I think are absurd ideas about walls ("Something there is that doesn't love a wall/that sends a frozen ground swell under it...like an old stone-savage armed"), all of which have historically failed and fallen (way too many differences to compare E/W Germany), and perhaps the "what about the children" question...this quite politically diverse blog agrees.

So why can't we do something? Too many economic interests lobbying Washington for the status quo?