Armed illegals brazenly crossing the border

[Beiruty]

In City like Dallas, the epicenter of High School Dorp out, I am pretty sure there are tons of young kids who are looking for $12/hr jobs. I am als sure some 50% are immigrants (legal or other wise), and many are so called Anchor babies.

[aardwolf]

I'm pretty sure there are too, but someone with no job skills and no experience (and perhaps limited literacy) isn't worth $12/hour to most employers.

[duns]

2 Thessalonians 3:10

2 Thessalonians 3:10 (King James Version)

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

What has that to do with illegal immigration? Please explain.

[aardwolf]

I'm sorry you ignored the rest of my post but it's all there in plain English.

[duns]

I understand that there are about 12 million of them here most filling low-skilled jobs that Americans don't want. Can you imagine what damage it would do to the economy if they were all expelled?

Can you imagine the good it would do for the economy if those jobs became available during a period of high unemployment?

Can you imagine the good it would do for the country if we told Americans with no job skills they can take those jobs.

You are assuming it is a zero sum game. That there are only a certain number of jobs. History shows that GDP rises in proportion to population. With more employees available, employers can expand their businesses, making more jobs for immigrants and natives alike.

[Oldgringo]

I understand that there are about 12 million of them here most filling low-skilled jobs that Americans don't want. Can you imagine what damage it would do to the economy if they were all expelled?

Can you imagine the good it would do for the economy if those jobs became available during a period of high unemployment?

Can you imagine the good it would do for the country if we told Americans with no job skills they can take those jobs. More importantly, it's their choice to take those jobs or not, but no more welfare handouts. Can you imagine the good it would do if it doesn't matter their sex, race, religion, national origin, family status, or anything else. No more government handouts.

Can you imagine the good it would do for America is we reversed the socialist tide?

In my old whisky ravaged mind, this debate has now come full circle.

[aardwolf]

You are assuming it is a zero sum game. That there are only a certain number of jobs. History shows that GDP rises in proportion to population. With more employees available, employers can expand their businesses, making more jobs for immigrants and natives alike.

I look at China and India and I would rather live here.

[Carry-a-Kimber]

Good thread going here, just curious... What does any of this have to do with General Gun, Shooting & Equipment?? Shouldn't this be moved?

[duns]

You are assuming it is a zero sum game. That there are only a certain number of jobs. History shows that GDP rises in proportion to population. With more employees available, employers can expand their businesses, making more jobs for immigrants and natives alike.

I look at China and India and I would rather live here.

I would rather live here too, but China, India, USA, or pretty much any other part of the world, GDP has risen with population.

[duns]

Good thread going here, just curious... What does any of this have to do with General Gun, Shooting & Equipment?? Shouldn't this be moved?

Yeah, it should not be in this area for sure. I'm not even sure it should be on this forum at all since it's not TX CHL related.

[aardwolf]

Yeah, it should not be in this area for sure. I'm not even sure it should be on this forum at all since it's not TX CHL related.

Says the guy posting half the posts.

[duns]

Yeah, it should not be in this area for sure. I'm not even sure it should be on this forum at all since it's not TX CHL related.

Says the guy posting half the posts.

hey, I'm not the moderator.

[duns]

In my old whisky ravaged mind, this debate has now come full circle.

How so? The OP argued that the border controls needed to be tightened. We've now come quite a long way to establishing that LEGAL immigration needs to be made easier to take pressure off the border.

[OldCannon]

Glad you said "immigrants". Turns out, we have a system for that. Also turns out, we have millions of people south of the border that are contemptuous, deliberately or not, of that system. If we need to streamline that system, great. That doesn't justify illegal actions, and I certainly don't support any actions that coddle those that won't work with the system.

Yes, we need to streamline the immigration system then there won't be the need for fences along the borders. The people who cross the borders illegally in search of work are not "contemptuous" of the system, as you put it, but frustrated by the restrictions.

They're frustrated by the restrictions, soooo....they choose to break the law.

I'm really failing to follow your logic. Please explain your leaps.

I do not know where you got the idea that there are many hurdles for a company to overcome to create a commercial presence in a country. When my UK-based company wanted a commercial presence in the USA, all we had to do was spend about $100 to register a US corporation. That was it. Nothing else. The process to start a US company is exactly the same for foreigners as for US citizens. No extra requirements whatsoever.

Your oversimplify the scenario, because the discussion is about immigration, not about what it takes to create a corporation in the US. A company in the UK can't start a new US corporation and then fly half their employees here to live and work without a due process, which requires visas and adherence to numerous immigration and importation laws.

As I showed, there are zero hurdles to a foreign company forming a US-registered corporation. Having done that, they have the choice of recruiting US-born labor or obtaining visas for foreign labor - same is true for a corporation formed by US citizens. So no difference.

Now we are getting to the crux of the matter: there are hurdles to bringing in foreign labor and the hurdles are the same irrespective of whether the company is owned by US citizens or by foreigners. As a capitalist country, one would have thought that the US would allow the markets to determine how many workers are US-born and how many foreign-born. But that is not the case. Instead, many hurdles are placed on employers if they want to recruit foreigners. We see, for example, Congress placing arbitrary caps on the numbers of H1B visas that can be issued to highly skilled workers. Government fees and associated red tape make hiring foreigners more expensive than hiring natives. And foreigners cannot be paid less than natives - visa regulations require prevailing wage rates and benefits to be provided to foreigners. Do you think that employers would go to all that trouble and expense if they could hire Americans to fill the positions? This supports my original point that trade flows freely across the borders but labor does not, and free-market principles should also allow labor to flow freely across the borders.

Ok, I'm starting to understand your positioning, and I think it's noble, but it almost seems as if you're in denial of the colossal chasm between idealism and reality. I certainly support a free-market system AND a free-trade system (with reasonable exceptions), but we have a system in place that MUST be obeyed before it can be restructured, otherwise the end result is what we have now -- more barriers, more protectionism, and more conflicts. Remember, WE are not inflicting anarchy on their system, it's quite the opposite. Until the laws are obeyed, you can be CERTAIN the laws will get worse (for those south of the border). Frankly, I know a LOT of Mexicans who are quite annoyed that this problem exists, because they work so hard to work within the system, and everybody else undermines their credibility (much like any gun owner gets villified whenever there is a mass shooting).

[The Annoyed Man]

Are you really suggesting they can imprison someone up to 2 years for a "civil offense"? That sounds a lot like the penalty for a felony.

IANAL so I could be wrong. But I understand that despite the severe potential penalty, illegal entry is still a civil offense. I understand that traffic infractions, while still civil offenses, carry a penalty of up to one year in jail. If anyone knows for sure that illegal entry is a crime, I would welcome hearing from them and will retract my statement. Till then, my statement stands.

And mine stands - They don't put you in prison for civil matters. They do put you in prison for criminal matters. You've just had the law, chapter and verse, quoted to you, in which it states that there is a criminal penalty for violation of the law.... ...and you're still insisting it is a civil matter? That's wishful thinking.

Welcome to the U.S., by the way; and thank you for entering legally. But if you are here on a Green Card still, then you are still here as a guest. Please don't try to remake my country into something other than what it is supposed to be until you have the right to vote on these matters. It's kind of like being a guest in my home, and then rearranging the furniture without an invitation to do so.