Question for those that support sanctuary cities/states.

[danielpalos]

I know! Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it. Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards. Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge! The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!

We need a federal ID system for Persons from out of State, for the ease and convenience of the several, United States.

 

[JoeMoma]

You can sugar-coat it any way you want, but the nutty wall idea came from people who want the United States to be an all white country.

The United States is already diverse. Also, it’s not just white people that want the wall.

Two illiterate skanks don't prove much. We use to have an Executive Officer in the state militia that was pro-Confederate flag. He was black. Ask 99 out of 100 people today and the Confederate flag is a racist symbol.

The anti-immigrant argument was developed by a former neo-nazi turned Klansman, turned right wing political hack.

“Two illiterate skanks”! OMG!

 

[JoeMoma]

I know! Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it. Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards. Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge! The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!

Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.

 

[task0778]

How should illegal immigration be controlled? It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote. In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants. How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society? Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!

In my personal opinion...it's complicated.

No, I don't believe in "open boarders" - we need a good immigration and border policy to protect our country.

I think it's important to have a good border security policy. I don't support a physical wall because of it's effect on the natural migrations of wildlife and on border communities. But there are many other good ways of improving security that don't involve a wall.

When it comes to those already here - I am not that concerned unless they commit a violent crime. Then, upon conviction (and jail time) - boot them out. Otherwise I see it as a lesser category of crime...like trespassing. I would rather spend law enforcement dollars on violent crimes - murder, rape, gang violence, drug violence.

I guess I don't understand why an illegal immigrant should be in the same category as a violent rapist.

Well, let's talk about that. First off, an illegal immigrant is not in the same category as a rapist or murderer, do we execute illegals or imprison them for life just for being an illegal? I don't think so. But illegal entry IS a crime, a lesser one as you say. And yet many want to ignore that law, they've created sanctuary cities and even states for lawbreakers, have they not? So, are we a nation of laws or not? We're not if some people are allowed to decide whether some laws should be enforced and some ignored.

And finally, about those who are already here, you're not that concerned if they haven't committed a crime? What about the drain on our social services and programs that millions of extra people consume? You're fine then with an open border policy then, let 'em all in? How many more people do you think this country can manage to accept and afford to provide the same services that our citizens get?

About that wall, I'm not so naive that I believe that wall will deny entry to every person who is trying to cross our border. They'll dig tunnels, they'll go around it, over it, whatever. But it will keep many people out I think, at least stem the flow. So it ain't the answer, not the only one. But it is something that can and should be done. I don't think there's much in the way of natural migrations there, and I'm not seeing much of a negative effect on local communities on our side anyway.

 

[JoeMoma]

How should illegal immigration be controlled? It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote. In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants. How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society? Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!

In my personal opinion...it's complicated.

No, I don't believe in "open boarders" - we need a good immigration and border policy to protect our country.

I think it's important to have a good border security policy. I don't support a physical wall because of it's effect on the natural migrations of wildlife and on border communities. But there are many other good ways of improving security that don't involve a wall.

When it comes to those already here - I am not that concerned unless they commit a violent crime. Then, upon conviction (and jail time) - boot them out. Otherwise I see it as a lesser category of crime...like trespassing. I would rather spend law enforcement dollars on violent crimes - murder, rape, gang violence, drug violence.

I guess I don't understand why an illegal immigrant should be in the same category as a violent rapist.

Well, let's talk about that. First off, an illegal immigrant is not in the same category as a rapist or murderer, do we execute illegals or imprison them for life just for being an illegal? I don't think so. But illegal entry IS a crime, a lesser one as you say. And yet many want to ignore that law, they've created sanctuary cities and even states for lawbreakers, have they not? So, are we a nation of laws or not? We're not if some people are allowed to decide whether some laws should be enforced and some ignored.

And finally, about those who are already here, you're not that concerned if they haven't committed a crime? What about the drain on our social services and programs that millions of extra people consume? You're fine then with an open border policy then, let 'em all in? How many more people do you think this country can manage to accept and afford to provide the same services that our citizens get?

About that wall, I'm not so naive that I believe that wall will deny entry to every person who is trying to cross our border. They'll dig tunnels, they'll go around it, over it, whatever. But it will keep many people out I think, at least stem the flow. So it ain't the answer, not the only one. But it is something that can and should be done. I don't think there's much in the way of natural migrations there, and I'm not seeing much of a negative effect on local communities on our side anyway.

I don’t think A Wall is required to have border security and it may not be the most cost effective way to secure the border. However, combined with other measures to secure the border, The Wall will definitely send a message to the rest of the world that a new sheriff is in town when it comes to illegal immigration.

 

[Humorme]

If you want people to come here "legally," let them come in at a border checkpoint. Issue Worker IDs if necessary. But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical. It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone. You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.

A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy. Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.

Except for those sanctuary cities and states that openly flout that law for purely political purposes.

And why, really, does the anti-immigrant lobby demand that immigration laws be enforced above any other laws? And why do they suggest that improper entry cases be treated like felonies? You don't think that is politics?

If they demanded that the drug laws be enforced to the degree they demand immigration laws be enforced, you would not have any drug problem.

 

[Humorme]

If you deny things like access to public schools, welfare, and other government benefits, what is your problem with undocumented foreigners?

Those things are not denied. If they were denied, I don’t think we would have an illegal immigration problem.

Also, like it or not, our republic has passed laws restricting immigration. Those laws should either be enforced or changed/repealed. I don’t have the right to enter another country without permission. Non-citizens don’t have the right to enter the USA without permission either.

We are essentially giving illegal immigrants squatter’s rights by having this “we are not going to touch you” attitude for those that set up residence without following the rules.

At the expense of severe trolling, I will tell you this:

The ONLY thing keeping people from coming here properly, as differentiated from illegally is a VERY POORLY WRITTEN FEDERAL STATUTE. Those who enforce the laws have one interpretation of the law; those who dominate these boards, promoting intolerance of foreigners have a view... and there is another possible view.

The first view of the statute (and I will not discuss it further than this entry on this thread - so PM me) is that there is a criminal statute, making improper entry a crime. The anti-immigrant lobby dares anyone to challenge them on this (to the point of threatening their lives for what I'll say in my next paragraph.)

The second view is that there is a federal civil law that makes coming here without papers a civil misdemeanor. This has been the prevailing view for decades. It is the basis on which immigration officials have interpreted the law.

Finally, the way the law is written, some laymen believe that one can be charged both criminally and civilly for the same offense. They cannot.

When any law is unenforceable, it should be repealed. And those exercising common sense will remember that employers treat workers as if they are commodities and goods. They are numbers and to put it into the words of the 19th century economist, Otto T. Mallery:

“If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky.”

In short, you can regulate Liberty, but you cannot criminalize it.

10USC246 is federal law; when is the right wing going to be legal to federal law?

I think you're going too far afield...

OTOH, this whole build the wall B.S. is the result of a time when the militia WAS manning the border and protecting private property. National Socialists did not like that and preferred that private property owners not have the Right and the Duty to protect their own land.

 

[Humorme]

How should illegal immigration be controlled? It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote. In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants. How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society? Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!

In my personal opinion...it's complicated.

No, I don't believe in "open boarders" - we need a good immigration and border policy to protect our country.

I think it's important to have a good border security policy. I don't support a physical wall because of it's effect on the natural migrations of wildlife and on border communities. But there are many other good ways of improving security that don't involve a wall.

When it comes to those already here - I am not that concerned unless they commit a violent crime. Then, upon conviction (and jail time) - boot them out. Otherwise I see it as a lesser category of crime...like trespassing. I would rather spend law enforcement dollars on violent crimes - murder, rape, gang violence, drug violence.

I guess I don't understand why an illegal immigrant should be in the same category as a violent rapist.

Well, let's talk about that. First off, an illegal immigrant is not in the same category as a rapist or murderer, do we execute illegals or imprison them for life just for being an illegal? I don't think so. But illegal entry IS a crime, a lesser one as you say. And yet many want to ignore that law, they've created sanctuary cities and even states for lawbreakers, have they not? So, are we a nation of laws or not? We're not if some people are allowed to decide whether some laws should be enforced and some ignored.

And finally, about those who are already here, you're not that concerned if they haven't committed a crime? What about the drain on our social services and programs that millions of extra people consume? You're fine then with an open border policy then, let 'em all in? How many more people do you think this country can manage to accept and afford to provide the same services that our citizens get?

About that wall, I'm not so naive that I believe that wall will deny entry to every person who is trying to cross our border. They'll dig tunnels, they'll go around it, over it, whatever. But it will keep many people out I think, at least stem the flow. So it ain't the answer, not the only one. But it is something that can and should be done. I don't think there's much in the way of natural migrations there, and I'm not seeing much of a negative effect on local communities on our side anyway.

OMG... Please. Let me give you a clue.

I asked a Mexican in front of an audience (and he had several experiences)

Me: Hosea, If you get in an argument with your wife and the police come, what happens?

Hosea: I go to the jail

Me: If you are driving down the road and the police pull you over and you've been drinking, what happens?

Hosea: I go to the jail

Me: If the police ask you for your papers, what happens?

Hosea: I go Mexico

Your alleged "drain" on public services is a myth. Undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they get in government services.

There IS an answer that don't include a wall, National ID, building a bigger and more intrusive government and, especially, telling states who they can and cannot invite into their country.

 

[danielpalos]

If you deny things like access to public schools, welfare, and other government benefits, what is your problem with undocumented foreigners?

Those things are not denied. If they were denied, I don’t think we would have an illegal immigration problem.

Also, like it or not, our republic has passed laws restricting immigration. Those laws should either be enforced or changed/repealed. I don’t have the right to enter another country without permission. Non-citizens don’t have the right to enter the USA without permission either.

We are essentially giving illegal immigrants squatter’s rights by having this “we are not going to touch you” attitude for those that set up residence without following the rules.

At the expense of severe trolling, I will tell you this:

The ONLY thing keeping people from coming here properly, as differentiated from illegally is a VERY POORLY WRITTEN FEDERAL STATUTE. Those who enforce the laws have one interpretation of the law; those who dominate these boards, promoting intolerance of foreigners have a view... and there is another possible view.

The first view of the statute (and I will not discuss it further than this entry on this thread - so PM me) is that there is a criminal statute, making improper entry a crime. The anti-immigrant lobby dares anyone to challenge them on this (to the point of threatening their lives for what I'll say in my next paragraph.)

The second view is that there is a federal civil law that makes coming here without papers a civil misdemeanor. This has been the prevailing view for decades. It is the basis on which immigration officials have interpreted the law.

Finally, the way the law is written, some laymen believe that one can be charged both criminally and civilly for the same offense. They cannot.

When any law is unenforceable, it should be repealed. And those exercising common sense will remember that employers treat workers as if they are commodities and goods. They are numbers and to put it into the words of the 19th century economist, Otto T. Mallery:

“If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky.”

In short, you can regulate Liberty, but you cannot criminalize it.

10USC246 is federal law; when is the right wing going to be legal to federal law?

I think you're going too far afield...

OTOH, this whole build the wall B.S. is the result of a time when the militia WAS manning the border and protecting private property. National Socialists did not like that and preferred that private property owners not have the Right and the Duty to protect their own land.

the law is the law, right wingers.

 

[Humorme]

The bottom line is that YOU would not allow a worthless piece of paper, issued by a tyrannical government deter YOU from taking a job to feed your family. YOU would not allow Donald Trump to tell you that you couldn't go to Mexico and take a job there in order to feed your family - AND have to forfeit your citizenship here just to keep a roof over your family's head.

If I break the law either in the United States or any other country to provide for my family, I better be prepared to pay the consequences of breaking that law. If the consequences are too high, I will most likely find another way.

If you like the laws of communist and totalitarian countries, wouldn't you be happier there than in a free market economy?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

If you want people to come here "legally," let them come in at a border checkpoint. Issue Worker IDs if necessary. But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical. It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone. You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.

A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy. Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.

Except for those sanctuary cities and states that openly flout that law for purely political purposes.

And why, really, does the anti-immigrant lobby demand that immigration laws be enforced above any other laws? And why do they suggest that improper entry cases be treated like felonies? You don't think that is politics?

If they demanded that the drug laws be enforced to the degree they demand immigration laws be enforced, you would not have any drug problem.

The first offense for improper entry is a federal criminal misdemeanor, the second offense is a federal criminal felony. No, it's not politics, it's actual law. SMFH

Blame the local/state leaders telling LEO not to police it when the locals want it policed. It is the politicians placing the priority on the crime. SHRUG

 

[Humorme]

I know! Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it. Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards. Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge! The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!

We've had open borders since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.

EVERY state was the same as a sanctuary state until 1875

Again, your post is indicative of people that refuse to read a thread before participating. That means I have to keep repeating the same stuff over and over.

The build the wall proponents cannot differentiate or delineate between the privileges and immunities of citizenship versus the unalienable Rights of all men. But, that is the reason you allow people to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered, but YOU DO NOT MAKE CITIZENS OUT OF GUEST WORKERS. NEITHER DO YOU GIVE GUEST WORKERS THE BENEFITS / PRIVILEGES / IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP.

 

[Humorme]

If you deny things like access to public schools, welfare, and other government benefits, what is your problem with undocumented foreigners?

Those things are not denied. If they were denied, I don’t think we would have an illegal immigration problem.

Also, like it or not, our republic has passed laws restricting immigration. Those laws should either be enforced or changed/repealed. I don’t have the right to enter another country without permission. Non-citizens don’t have the right to enter the USA without permission either.

We are essentially giving illegal immigrants squatter’s rights by having this “we are not going to touch you” attitude for those that set up residence without following the rules.

At the expense of severe trolling, I will tell you this:

The ONLY thing keeping people from coming here properly, as differentiated from illegally is a VERY POORLY WRITTEN FEDERAL STATUTE. Those who enforce the laws have one interpretation of the law; those who dominate these boards, promoting intolerance of foreigners have a view... and there is another possible view.

The first view of the statute (and I will not discuss it further than this entry on this thread - so PM me) is that there is a criminal statute, making improper entry a crime. The anti-immigrant lobby dares anyone to challenge them on this (to the point of threatening their lives for what I'll say in my next paragraph.)

The second view is that there is a federal civil law that makes coming here without papers a civil misdemeanor. This has been the prevailing view for decades. It is the basis on which immigration officials have interpreted the law.

Finally, the way the law is written, some laymen believe that one can be charged both criminally and civilly for the same offense. They cannot.

When any law is unenforceable, it should be repealed. And those exercising common sense will remember that employers treat workers as if they are commodities and goods. They are numbers and to put it into the words of the 19th century economist, Otto T. Mallery:

“If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky.”

In short, you can regulate Liberty, but you cannot criminalize it.

10USC246 is federal law; when is the right wing going to be legal to federal law?

I think you're going too far afield...

OTOH, this whole build the wall B.S. is the result of a time when the militia WAS manning the border and protecting private property. National Socialists did not like that and preferred that private property owners not have the Right and the Duty to protect their own land.

the law is the law, right wingers.

What is with you and this incessant need to make everything a right wing issue? The left has no monopoly on being right.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

We've had open borders since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.

We did? Why do you suppose those very pilgrams had to obtain the authority of the King of England to come to the New World?

Every state was the same as a sanctuary state until 1875

Why does the Articles of Confederation incorporate immigration into its Confederated Articles?

Again, your post is indicative of people that refuse to read a thread before participating. That means I have to keep repeating the same stuff over and over.

You keep repeating the same stupid shit because everybody else has told you you are wrong, you simply refuse to accept it. SHRUG

The build the wall proponents cannot differentiate or delineate between the privileges and immunities of citizenship versus the unalienable Rights of all men. But, that is the reason you allow people to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered, but YOU DO NOT MAKE CITIZENS OUT OF GUEST WORKERS. NEITHER DO YOU GIVE GUEST WORKERS THE BENEFITS / PRIVILEGES / IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP.

The unalienable rights of man does not grant the right to enter another Nation without that Nations authority. That is an accepted recognition even with the Council of Human Rights. There are no opportunities willingly offered when the illegal is using fake/forged/stolen documents in order to obtain that work. Guest workers are suppose to leave after a given time, they are not allowed to stay beyond that period. Illegals have overstayed that time and should therefor be sent home so the next batch of workers have their opportunity to the same benefits as the illegals have taken.

 

[danielpalos]

If you want people to come here "legally," let them come in at a border checkpoint. Issue Worker IDs if necessary. But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical. It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone. You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.

A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy. Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.

Except for those sanctuary cities and states that openly flout that law for purely political purposes.

And why, really, does the anti-immigrant lobby demand that immigration laws be enforced above any other laws? And why do they suggest that improper entry cases be treated like felonies? You don't think that is politics?

If they demanded that the drug laws be enforced to the degree they demand immigration laws be enforced, you would not have any drug problem.

The first offense for improper entry is a federal criminal misdemeanor, the second offense is a federal criminal felony. No, it's not politics, it's actual law. SMFH

Blame the local/state leaders telling LEO not to police it when the locals want it policed. It is the politicians placing the priority on the crime. SHRUG

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no Prohibition or drug war clause.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

DACA NOW!!!
OPEN BORDERS NOW!!!
or DEATH TO AMERICANS NOW !!!

(That's the way they see it anyway)

 

[Liquid Reigns]

If you want people to come here "legally," let them come in at a border checkpoint. Issue Worker IDs if necessary. But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical. It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone. You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.

A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy. Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.

Except for those sanctuary cities and states that openly flout that law for purely political purposes.

And why, really, does the anti-immigrant lobby demand that immigration laws be enforced above any other laws? And why do they suggest that improper entry cases be treated like felonies? You don't think that is politics?

If they demanded that the drug laws be enforced to the degree they demand immigration laws be enforced, you would not have any drug problem.

The first offense for improper entry is a federal criminal misdemeanor, the second offense is a federal criminal felony. No, it's not politics, it's actual law. SMFH

Blame the local/state leaders telling LEO not to police it when the locals want it policed. It is the politicians placing the priority on the crime. SHRUG

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no Prohibition or drug war clause.

We also have a foreign relations clause. SHRUG

 

[task0778]

Those things are not denied. If they were denied, I don’t think we would have an illegal immigration problem.

Also, like it or not, our republic has passed laws restricting immigration. Those laws should either be enforced or changed/repealed. I don’t have the right to enter another country without permission. Non-citizens don’t have the right to enter the USA without permission either.

We are essentially giving illegal immigrants squatter’s rights by having this “we are not going to touch you” attitude for those that set up residence without following the rules.

At the expense of severe trolling, I will tell you this:

The ONLY thing keeping people from coming here properly, as differentiated from illegally is a VERY POORLY WRITTEN FEDERAL STATUTE. Those who enforce the laws have one interpretation of the law; those who dominate these boards, promoting intolerance of foreigners have a view... and there is another possible view.

The first view of the statute (and I will not discuss it further than this entry on this thread - so PM me) is that there is a criminal statute, making improper entry a crime. The anti-immigrant lobby dares anyone to challenge them on this (to the point of threatening their lives for what I'll say in my next paragraph.)

The second view is that there is a federal civil law that makes coming here without papers a civil misdemeanor. This has been the prevailing view for decades. It is the basis on which immigration officials have interpreted the law.

Finally, the way the law is written, some laymen believe that one can be charged both criminally and civilly for the same offense. They cannot.

When any law is unenforceable, it should be repealed. And those exercising common sense will remember that employers treat workers as if they are commodities and goods. They are numbers and to put it into the words of the 19th century economist, Otto T. Mallery:

“If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky.”

In short, you can regulate Liberty, but you cannot criminalize it.

10USC246 is federal law; when is the right wing going to be legal to federal law?

I think you're going too far afield...

OTOH, this whole build the wall B.S. is the result of a time when the militia WAS manning the border and protecting private property. National Socialists did not like that and preferred that private property owners not have the Right and the Duty to protect their own land.

the law is the law, right wingers.

What is with you and this incessant need to make everything a right wing issue? The left has no monopoly on being right.

No kidding. But I see the Left supporting sanctuary cities and states, in flagrant disregard for federal law. Many if not most are for open borders, come on in and we'll take care of you. We'll worry about whether you are a drug runner or terrorist later. As for the drain on our public coffers , consider this from The Hill:

The total cost of illegal immigration to federal, state and local taxpayers for the nation’s 12.5 million illegal aliens has increased to $116 billion annually, according to a new study released Wednesday by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The study, one of the most comprehensive to date on the issue, investigates the major contributing factors driving the high cost of illegal immigration, and compares that to the revenue state and local governments collect from illegal aliens.

The findings paint a much different picture than what open-border proponents and many in the mainstream media try to portray — that illegal immigration is somehow a net positive to the United States economy.

FAIR found that while illegal immigrants pay billions of dollars in taxes every year, they ultimately cost taxpayers more than seven times what they contribute. The study found that illegal immigrants pay almost $19 billion annually in combined federal, state and local taxes. This estimate is actually considerably higher than what many studies before this have suggested. However, the amount of taxes illegal immigrants pay is dwarfed by the considerable costs that they impose on American taxpayers: nearly $135 billion annually, creating a net deficit of $116 billion.

The majority of the costs to taxpayers, $89 billion (66 percent), are borne at the local and state level. This means that American taxpayers are forced to bear the costs of the federal government’s failure to secure our borders every time they pay school taxes, local tolls, sales and excise taxes. It also means that illegal migrants get a lot of benefits that they don’t pay for.

 

[Coyote]

How should illegal immigration be controlled? It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote. In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants. How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society? Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!

In my personal opinion...it's complicated.

No, I don't believe in "open boarders" - we need a good immigration and border policy to protect our country.

I think it's important to have a good border security policy. I don't support a physical wall because of it's effect on the natural migrations of wildlife and on border communities. But there are many other good ways of improving security that don't involve a wall.

When it comes to those already here - I am not that concerned unless they commit a violent crime. Then, upon conviction (and jail time) - boot them out. Otherwise I see it as a lesser category of crime...like trespassing. I would rather spend law enforcement dollars on violent crimes - murder, rape, gang violence, drug violence.

I guess I don't understand why an illegal immigrant should be in the same category as a violent rapist.

So if Joe Illegal can sneak across the border tomorrow,then he becomes part of the already here category and gets de facto legal status? I think it sends a mixed message to to have “border security” at the border but no means of enforcement within the borders once someone manages to breach that security.

I agree that it is a lessor category of crime than rape and murder and such. Usually Trespassers are at minimum made to leave when they are caught trespassing.

That being said, if we stop giving those here illegally de facto legal status by allowing them access to things like public schools, driver’s licenses, jobs (not using e-verify), etc then there will be much less incentive for new illegal immigration.

It will not affect the economic reasons driving illegal immigration much, all it will do is create an underclass of uneducated people and essentially punish children for the actions of their parents. The first is dangerous the second just plain wrong.

When it comes to enforcement we have a limited pot of money. I would rather prioritize enforcement, concentrating on violent crime, drug trafficking and improving enforcement at the border.

The other part of it is tearing apart families...do we really want to put most of our efforts into that, over other aspects of illegal immigration if they are not causing problems?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

It will not affect the economic reasons driving illegal immigration much, all it will do is create an underclass of uneducated people and essentially punish children for the actions of their parents. The first is dangerous the second just plain wrong.

When it comes to enforcement we have a limited pot of money. I would rather prioritize enforcement, concentrating on violent crime, drug trafficking and improving enforcement at the border.

The other part of it is tearing apart families...do we really want to put most of our efforts into that, over other aspects of illegal immigration if they are not causing problems?

No need to tear families apart.......

The parents are free to go home with their illegal offspring

But the real problem is not solved until there is a REAL deterrence to crossing the border illegally.
Something more unforgettable than the fear (lol) of deportation. Deportation is a running joke.
It simply means a all expense paid trip home only to return again...and again...and again