The SAVE Act

[daveman]

You'e focusing on incidentals like sanctuary cities and wilderness areas. Even if those things went away we would still have an enormous problem. And more funding is not going to fix it.
You never answered the question about ROEs.

Pretending sanctuary cities and wilderness areas where the BP aren't allowed to do their job don't matter is utterly silly.

I haven't looked up the ROE yet. But I guarantee you they're not effective.

 

[daveman]

Because enforcement wasn't done correctly, because it wasn't taken seriously.

The debate on the enforcement of immigration laws has a lot of parallels to drug prohibition. We could, if we really wanted to, stop both illegal immigration and the illegal drug trade. But the question is, do we really want it bad enough to do what it takes?

If we really wanted to put a stop to illegal drug use, we could do it. We could institute mandatory random drug testing of all citizens. We could apply the death penalty to minor drug offenses, etc, etc, ... But most of us don't think it's worth turning our nation into a full-blown police state to curb drug abuse.

Likewise, we could virtually eliminate illegal immigration if we wanted it bad enough. If we erected enough walls and fences, stationed enough armed guards and drones, and punished violators ruthlessly enough, we could put a stop to almost all illegal immigrants. But would it be worth the cost?

Most people aren't willing to answer 'yes' to either one of those questions, which is why we don't see such draconian efforts implemented. Yet that leaves us in a really bad place. Laws that can't be enforced consistently, or that we don't have the will to enforce consistently, make for bad government. They erode respect for the law in general and demoralize those tasked with enforcing laws without solid support to do so.

We need to shit or get off the pot. If we're not willing to 'kick ass and take names' over drug abuse or immigration (I'm not) then we need to replace the existing laws with policy that we are willing to enforce like we really mean it.

I would like at least some serious attempt at securing the border. The cost of illegals is far greater than the benefits, IMO.

The drug war? I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm tempted to say, hey, take what you want, scramble your brains -- just don't expect me to pay for your stupidity or your treatment. But my children ride the school bus, and idiots will drive impaired, even more so if drugs are legalized. The right to use does not trump public safety.

 

[daveman]

Superficially you're right.
But there is a big difference between drugs and immigrants. Immigrants largely add to the economic life of this country, driving down labor costs. Drugs subtract from the life of this country, increasing crime, violence, and health costs.

Actually, illegals do that, too.

 

[The Rabbi]

Superficially you're right.
But there is a big difference between drugs and immigrants. Immigrants largely add to the economic life of this country, driving down labor costs. Drugs subtract from the life of this country, increasing crime, violence, and health costs.

Actually, illegals do that, too.

But in smaller proportions than their American-born counterparts on the socio-economic ladder. If we deported all inner city blacks and rural whites and replaced them with Latin American migrants we would have much less crime and lower health care costs.

 

[daveman]

Superficially you're right.
But there is a big difference between drugs and immigrants. Immigrants largely add to the economic life of this country, driving down labor costs. Drugs subtract from the life of this country, increasing crime, violence, and health costs.

Actually, illegals do that, too.

But in smaller proportions than their American-born counterparts on the socio-economic ladder. If we deported all inner city blacks and rural whites and replaced them with Latin American migrants we would have much less crime and lower health care costs.

Compare inner city Detroit to inner city Mexico City, and you'll see you're wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, illegals do that, too.

But in smaller proportions than their American-born counterparts on the socio-economic ladder. If we deported all inner city blacks and rural whites and replaced them with Latin American migrants we would have much less crime and lower health care costs.

Compare inner city Detroit to inner city Mexico City, and you'll see you're wrong.

Compare a 1980 Impala with a 1993 Ford Focus and you'll see that you are on Planet LaLa.

 

[daveman]

But in smaller proportions than their American-born counterparts on the socio-economic ladder. If we deported all inner city blacks and rural whites and replaced them with Latin American migrants we would have much less crime and lower health care costs.

Compare inner city Detroit to inner city Mexico City, and you'll see you're wrong.

Compare a 1980 Impala with a 1993 Ford Focus and you'll see that you are on Planet LaLa.

Wrong. But I can see why you're upset that your assertion has been shown to be ridiculous.

 

[dblack]

I would like at least some serious attempt at securing the border. The cost of illegals is far greater than the benefits, IMO.

I totally agree.

 

[daveman]

I would like at least some serious attempt at securing the border. The cost of illegals is far greater than the benefits, IMO.

I totally agree.

 

[The Rabbi]

Compare inner city Detroit to inner city Mexico City, and you'll see you're wrong.

Compare a 1980 Impala with a 1993 Ford Focus and you'll see that you are on Planet LaLa.

Wrong. But I can see why you're upset that your assertion has been shown to be ridiculous.

Except that it hasnt. At least not by you.
Want to try that one again?
Immigrants have a lower rate of health care costs and crime than native born Americans of the same socio-economic class.

 

[The Rabbi]

I would like at least some serious attempt at securing the border. The cost of illegals is far greater than the benefits, IMO.

I totally agree.

That's nice. But unproven.

 

[dblack]

I would like at least some serious attempt at securing the border. The cost of illegals is far greater than the benefits, IMO.

I totally agree.

That's nice. But unproven.

Unproven that I agree? (I swear to you it is true.)

Or perhaps you're contending that Dave's desire to see a secure border is fraudulent. (He'll have to speak for himself on that one.)

Or, I guess you could be saying that it is unproven that the cost of illegals is greater than the benefits. If so, then do tell - what are the benefits of having so many criminals in our midst?

 

[The Rabbi]

I totally agree.

That's nice. But unproven.

Unproven that I agree? (I swear to you it is true.)

Or perhaps you're contending that Dave's desire to see a secure border is fraudulent. (He'll have to speak for himself on that one.)

Or, I guess you could be saying that it is unproven that the cost of illegals is greater than the benefits. If so, then do tell - what are the benefits of having so many criminals in our midst?

On your definition everyone in the US is a criminal.

To answer your rhetorical question, it is unproven that illegals cost more than they provide in benefit. I have seen studies both ways.

 

[dblack]

On your definition everyone in the US is a criminal.

I don't recall providing my definition. Here it is: A criminal is someone committing a crime. Crime costs us much more than it benefits us - I think you'll be hard pressed to prove otherwise. I'm am in favor of less crime.

To answer your rhetorical question, it is unproven that illegals cost more than they provide in benefit. I have seen studies both ways.

That does not answer my question. I'll rephrase it, as you seem confused. What are the benefits of 'illegals'? You seem to be implying that there are benefits that outweigh the costs. Surely treating such a large segment of our population as criminals by their very presence costs us. I costs us in tax dollars to finance enforcement, it costs us in lost tax revenue for off their off the books employment, it costs us in terms of our humanity when treating other people as 'subhuman'. Now, what are the benefits of that arrangement?

 

[The Rabbi]

On your definition everyone in the US is a criminal.

I don't recall providing my definition. Here it is: A criminal is someone committing a crime. Crime costs us much more than it benefits us - I think you'll be hard pressed to prove otherwise. I'm am in favor of less crime.

To answer your rhetorical question, it is unproven that illegals cost more than they provide in benefit. I have seen studies both ways.

That does not answer my question. I'll rephrase it, as you seem confused. What are the benefits of 'illegals'? You seem to be implying that there are benefits that outweigh the costs. Surely treating such a large segment of our population as criminals by their very presence costs us. I costs us in tax dollars to finance enforcement, it costs us in lost tax revenue for off their off the books employment, it costs us in terms of our humanity when treating other people as 'subhuman'. Now, what are the benefits of that arrangement?

You didnt have to provide it explicitly because I already gathered what you thought.
And yes, on your definition every one in the US is a criminal.

Since illegals often have fraudulent SS numbers they have benefits taken from their paycheck, which will never be claimed. They work legitimate jobs. Ergo they are providing benefit to the economy. They are typically younger and healthier than the general population, thus use fewer medical resources. They purchase items and pay sales tax. They rent apartments and provide income.
So if your complaint is enforcement costs a lot then the problem is the cost of enforcement, not ilegals. Provide a way for them to be legal and you can reduce enforcement costs dramatically. Even you could see that, right?

 

[dblack]

You didnt have to provide it explicitly because I already gathered what you thought.
And yes, on your definition every one in the US is a criminal.

Jeez.. ok. Apparently, subtlety is not your thing. No worries, I'll spell it out as clearly as I possibly can. I'm agreeing with Dave's statement quite literally and specifically:

I would like at least some serious attempt at securing the border. The cost of illegals is far greater than the benefits, IMO.

But that's not because I think immigrant workers are bad, or costly. What is bad, and costly, is branding someone a criminal who isn't doing anything inherently wrong. I apologize for being coy, or something of a smartass, but I'm trying to make a point. The reason to change our immigration laws to something sane (and yes, that means making it easier for Mexican immigrants to come here an work legally) is so that we can make a serious attempt at securing our borders. We can't do that by pursuing a contradiction.

 

[brokenarrow]

[I remember Winston Churchill.
You're no Churchill.

But you talk like this guy:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skvw5BqTEO0&feature=related]YouTube - ‪Appeasement‬‏[/ame]