(06-05-2018, 02:07 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(06-05-2018, 08:32 AM)mikesez Wrote: But you're (very) wrong to trot out the popular metaphor about a nation-state being equivalent to a home.  First of all, unarmed people and families have been free to cross the borders of empires, city-states, and nation-states throughout the vast majority of recorded history.  

For the history of this nation, the only time period germane to this discussion, that has not been the case.

The history of this nation goes back somewhere between 231 and 242 years.
For more than half of those years, we had open borders.
No attempts were made to restrict immigration until about 1920.

---

(06-05-2018, 12:45 PM)TurndownforWatt Wrote:

(06-05-2018, 11:53 AM)mikesez Wrote: I dont think that the borders should be completely open. But I do think we should allow more legal immigration.  

And while I think we need to deport any illegal immigrant who has committed a crime (and immigrating illegally is a civil infraction, not criminal) I don't see anything wrong with a one-time amnesty on people who have come and not committed crimes, as long as it was coupled with stricter enforcement on employers and payroll companies to discourage illegal immigrants from coming to work without permission.

First.. We WOULD HAVE more legal immigration if we simply controlled our boarders. The hundreds of thousands that cut to the front of the line and cross illegally every year make what you want pretty much impossible. You want more legal immigration..well so do I, but that ain't happening until you stop the epidemic of illegal crossings on the southern boarder...and whoever told you that crossing illegally is not a crime/criminal act and is just a "civil infraction" is a dambarse and you're a idiot if you really believe them.

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-i...gally.html

Second.. as far you wanting a one time amnesty. Well it wouldn't be a "one time", it would be a second time, because we already did that in the 80's when Reagan was president with the promise from democrats and republicans that after we brought everyone out of the shadows that they would finally enforce our immigration laws on the books, they lied and didn't..actaully enforcement got even worse. The same thing would happen again if we just offered amnesty without real concessions from the other side of the aisle..You know like real enforcement of our laws. Until things change and concessions are made (man made barriers/walls and legit boarder enforcement) open amnesty is not a legitimate answer or solution.

The amount of legal immigration we have is dictated by quotas.  The rate of illegal immigration has nothing to do with how those quotas are computed.

Crossing the border illegally is indeed a criminal act.
Most illegal immigrants crossed legally.  They claimed to be tourists or similar things.  

Overstaying a visa is a civil infraction.

Seeking and accepting work for wages without a work permit or work visa is also a civil infraction.

I agree that amnesty and border protection was tried before in the 1980s. In fact, if I recall, there was an instance of it in the 1960s as well. Obviously the effort to secure the border was either not sustained or not effectual.
Starting in 1994, there was a financial crisis in Mexico, and a President in Bill Clinton who was willing to look the other way with regard to businesses employing illegal immigrants. Bush 2 took the same stance. Now that crisis is long gone and Mexicans don't want to immigrate. Now the problem is more with poorer central Americans, but they are fewer in number than the Mexicans were.
In either case, stopping people at the border is not a real solution. The real solution is finding the employers that hire them and punishing them along with the immigrants.

---