illegal aliens

[CSyril]

THE OTHER DAY I WAS WATCHING THE NEWS WHEN I HEARD THAT A HIGH SCHOOL VALEDICTORIAN AND HIS FAMILY WERE GOING TO BE DEPORTED 10 DAYS AFTER HIS GRADUATION COMMENCEMENT CEREMONY BECAUSE OF HIS FAMILY ENTERING THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY.  THIS INCIDENT BROUGHT TO MIND MY FEELINGS REGARDING ILLEGAL ALIENS.  I HAVE MIXED EMOTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO THE MATTER OF ILLEGAL ALIENS RESIDING IN A COUNTRY AND THEIR RIGHTS.  I FEEL SORRY FOR THE TEEN AND HIS FAMILY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THEY BROKE THE LAW.  THEREFORE, IT LEADS ME TO ASK THE QUESTION,

[exatreide]

the caps lock key.

[gunner154]

AM I MISSING SOMETHING?

the caps lock key.

Classic ;D

[Andrew]

This happened in Canada. An illegal immigrant named Edwin Raudales came to Canada, went to high school and was about to graduate but it was found out he was illegal immigrant and was going to be deported to his latin american country. He ended up being able to stay.

I am all for immigration, but I am against illegal immigration.

If you want to watch a good 80 minute documentary on what illegal immigrants go through to get to USA and Canada, watch this video:

the fifth estate: Run for Your Life

It also talks about Edwin Raudales who was about to graduate in Canada

[CSyril]

What really irks me about the particular case involving the valedictorian is that although he is an illegal alien, he is a valedictorian for pete

[Beonid]

Trying to deport illegal immigrants from the US is almost impossible task - while you deport the ones that have already arrived, more climb over the fences.

[Sneakgab]

The only thing making these people immigrants (and hence, available for the title/characteristic ''illegal immigrant'') is basically that they were born on the opposite side of an imaginary line on a map defining the boundary of a country. Obviously, there may be economic reasons and considerations that necessitate disallowing some from traveling to and living in certain countries. However, regardless of these issues of practicality, we should remember that somebody being native (or otherwise citizen) to the country they are currently in does not magically make him/her a better person than somebody in that country who  is not a citizen. There are probably many illegal immigrants who are finer than the native drug dealers and what not. Although, it would seem reasonable to think that you would generally find more criminals amongst illegal immigrant since it is generally poor circumstances (the usual motivation for crime) that motivate such immigration in the first place. However, it is not necessary to label all illegal immigrants the same because of this.

I would say that ideally, your nationality (with nations and nationality being generally meaningless concepts) should have no bearing on your treatment and rights.

[CSyril]

No, there is a difference between an immigrant and a illegal immigrant.  It involves one owning a piece of paper stating that they have met the immigrations laws of the destination country, the other is foreigner who either has illegally crossed an international political border (imaginary line on a map), or one who has entered a country legally but the overstays his/her visa.  An illegal alien is considered to be a criminal subject to six months in jail for their first offense.  Also illegal aliens ignore the fact that there are thousands of others legally become immigrants by just jumping the line (or fence in some cases).  When illegal aliens get arrested, its taxpayers who pay of the their court services and imprisonment.  And even if  the illegal aliens that are not criminals they still hurt the nationals by receiving perks including, but not limited to, free medical treatment, food stamps, schooling, and WIC.  It is the taxpayers who end up paying for all of this. When illegal aliens get arrested, it's taxpayers who pay for their court services and imprisonment.  So whatever illegal immigration might possibly do for the  economy (i.e., supply labor for less $$$) is easily outweighed by the burden it puts on taxpayers (over $20 billion annually).

I guess my argument is really moot because nothing will ever be done about it.  Government feels like it has bigger fish to fry.

[Sneakgab]

''No, there is a difference between an immigrant and a illegal immigrant.''

I know that. I never said they are the same. However, obviously to be an illegal immigrant you have to be an immigrant right? That doesn't mean they're the same obviously.

[Gobalopper]

Are there any statistics on how many illegals there are in the US right now? And who is going to do all the jobs they are currently doing if they are forced to leave?

[Anathema]

And who is going to do all the jobs they are currently doing if they are forced to leave?

Legal residents at higher wages, obviously. It's simply not true that there aren't any Americans willing to do such jobs, just not at what's being paid for it. Illegal immigrants furthermore have an advantage in that employers who rely on them don't pay income tax for them, making them cheaper.

I support some restrictions on immigration but any immigration policy also has to be workable, the US' current one regarding the Mexicans clearly isn't.

[Gobalopper]

Well that is why I was wondering how many there are as there are only so many unemployed people.

[Anathema]

I can only remember an estimate of about 10 million.

I don't think that would be a problem...even if they could deport most of them, it wouldn't happen overnight, so things would merely readjust.

Deporting them en masse seems unrealistic, anyway.

[Andrew]

Legal residents at higher wages, obviously.

Higher wages mean higher inflation sadly.

[SWkwisatz]

There is a network in Sweden called No Person Is Illegal which has an idea/program that I partially agree to.

(My English isn

[Caid Ivik]

define - "right to move freely"

The problem is that these people cover themselves from law. They fall into the hands of migration and work agents of the underground, and many of them end up being sold as slaves. Perhaps they are not losing their "natural" or "human rights", but surely are losing any contact with the legal guarantee of them. And which illegal immigrant would search for a legal work? When there isn't an authority supported by a consense of the majority, it usually falls into the hands of a violent minority.

[Sneakgab]

And here I was thinking that me and Edrico were nigh alone in our thoughts regarding the irrelevancies of borders, nationality, patriotism,e.t.c. Before Edrico mentioned I suspected that I might be alone in my thoughts on the matter which might be considered outlandish.

Of course though, we can't just have people moving ANYWHERE. That could result in lands being overpopulated (for example). So people would have practical restriction on where they could move. Basically optimization and planning would be involved. However, the idea of nationality would basically be eradicated.

''

(Well, personally I don't fully agree to the last part. I think we can have representatives that follow our ideas and make changes in our names, and I think power is everywhere and that power isn

[Caid Ivik]

One can move into a foreign country for a short time, find a work (or more likely, find it yet before moving there) and receive a permission for it, and then stay even after his visum went out. Of course, if one doesn't want to bother with visa and permissions, he wouldn't go into the country "on blind" but already with some secure contacts, which would mediate him work and cover as well - what takes its price. These mediators are the problem; and it is sometimes hard to distinguish a legal one from illegal. This phenomenon occurs in any region, were countries differ in wealth. From here, some slovak girls had problems in Italy after being lured by agencies, pretending to have found them legal work there in agriculture...and they ended up being forced to prostitution.

In short, no "rights" can eradicate stupidity of one and temptation to abuse it of another.

[SWkwisatz]

And here I was thinking that me and Edrico were nigh alone in our thoughts regarding the irrelevancies of borders, nationality, patriotism,e.t.c. Before Edrico mentioned I suspected that I might be alone in my thoughts on the matter which might be considered outlandish.

It

[Caid Ivik]

Origin of a certain term/category doesn't necessarily have an effect on its relevance or value. If the "law" was just a concept made by "politics of today" then your statement would be a good argument, but it doesn't seem to be. The concept of "border" is even older, as a certain kind of territorialisation can be observed by various animals as well. Human laws, money and borders are, yes, social constructs, not somehow genetically predestined necessities, but as they take an organic part of the society for quite a few millenia already, they cannot be "taken away" without a proper recompense. It is like if you've forbidden use of roads or marrying; it may help in one thing, but it will complicate many others.

[SWkwisatz]

...but as they take an organic part of the society for quite a few millenia already, they cannot be "taken away" without a proper recompense.

An organic part of society… I make sudden associations with late romanticism. Because you said that “laws, money and borders are…social constructs, not somehow genetically predestined necessities…” and that “they cannot be "taken away" without a proper recompense“, I know that you didn’t mean it like that. Still you make it sound as an inherent necessity to human society (or very close to impossible to change) when you say that they “take an organic part of the society”.

Stranger things than the abolition of national borders have happened in human history.

If the "law" was just a concept made by "politics of today" then your statement would be a good argument, but it doesn't seem to be. The concept of "border" is even older, as a certain kind of territorialisation can be observed by various animals as well.

Yes the term of what is within and what is outside isn’t something new, it's probably as old as humanity. The idea of what is “inside” and what is “outside” has always been different though. The process of building borders (as we know them today) began slowly with the Peace of Westphalia and the early process of nation building (of course there are several other types of borders, but in the discussion of “illegal” immigrants I concentrate on national borders).

Giving the once inside certain rights that the rest don’t have isn’t new either. The Greek polis, for example, already gave certain citizens (the term of citizen was profoundly narrow) several rights while it kept others (the majority) outside of this system of rights.

So yes this isn’t anything new, I think we all can agree on that.

The system/construction of maintaining this order (of rights/no rights and of inside/outside), reproducing it and (most importantly) strengthening it is what I call the politics of today.

Laws, norms and ideas do change over time though. During the middle ages no lords were discussing weather we should have democracy or not (well even though we talk about it today I still don’t think we have any real democracy today, but that’s a totally different discussion), 100 years ago women had no right to vote and 50 years ago segregation in schools, public places, and employment was common practice in the US (I know I’m totally focused on western liberal democracies here). Even though people (and especially a majority of the ruling elite) were against these changes things changed over time. So I think ideas, norms, institutions and laws do change over time, and these changes take a specific direction if we want them to. I’m not saying that it’s simple; I don’t think anyone thinks that. The few examples above weren’t realized just over night, they took time and enormous effort from the people before they changed.

Human laws, money and borders are, yes, social constructs, not somehow genetically predestined necessities, but as they take an organic part of the society for quite a few millenia already, they cannot be "taken away" without a proper recompense. It is like if you've forbidden use of roads or marrying; it may help in one thing, but it will complicate many others.

Of course the eradication of national borders will produce a new system with new problems arising from it, but should the fear of new obstacles and problems make us stop from wanting to change things? My own answer is simply no. We must never stop trying because of fear of what might come from change.

[Caid Ivik]

So you see, every law can be replaced only by another law. Similarily the border system. A territory may move its borders, but it usually abolishes them only in case it is under pressure (namely when it is conquered by a neighbor). And this thing really doesn't depend on whether the country identifies with a nation, city or a dynasty; it was present way before the 30-years war. Some states may agree on a common policy and set something like a Schengen Treaty; but still, it brought also more complications into the process of legal migration between Schengen and non-Schengen states. You say "we must not fear" "we must never stop trying" but in fact not many people want to try. They are homophobes, uninterested in dealing with foreign adventurers who can't even speak their language and understand their advertisments. Strengthening the control of borders brings more benefit for the territory than opening them.

[Sneakgab]

''So you see, every law can be replaced only by another law.''

What makes you say this? There was a time where there was no law, and the only thing required to abolish all law is will. If everybody decided that they would no long accept and authority or law then that would be the end of those things. I'm not saying that would be good or bad. Of course some would say that at the end of the day law is just threat of force altering behavior. Still, people could live without threatening and/or acting regardless of threats.

If everybody in some country decided they respected no government then that would be then end of that country. If this happened in all countries, that would be then of nationality and borders. We might still have law through chieftains and threats but humanity could abolish those to if they wished.

Obviously, this probably won't happen anytime soon but that does not make it impossible.

''strengthening the control of borders brings more benefit for the territory than opening them.''

Of course it need not be a simple line btw closed and opened borders. Immigration laws can be made more and less restricting... ie: increasing allowed stay and whatnot. Has history provided examples of making immigration laws less restricting having a negative impact on the territory in question? Certainly it probably can't provide examples of territories with completely open borders, as one would imagine such territories never existed (I could be wrong though).

[Caid Ivik]

"If everybody" scenarios are wishes, not theories. There is also more to law than threats. It regulates various procedures in dealing with public resources, market, family things and many others. Also the laws about borders have more than just threats towards illegal migrants, they are kind of a bilateral treaty between two sovereign countries. For example, if you open your borders for military forces of another nation, such an act is seen as a sign of allegiance and an involvement in their war.

[SWkwisatz]