Illegal Immigration/Invasion

[BigBallinStalin]

How much GDP per year are y'all willing to sacrifice in order to maintain relatively closed borders?

e.g. if GDP could double if immigration restrictions drastically fell, would you end your position?
(GDP doubling is like everyone in the US getting twice as rich. GDP tends to increase by about 3% per year, so it's an insane amount of prosperity).

Hey! We could double the GDP easily! Just close the police stations and let the cities riot for a few months. The loss of life would be great but after about three months just mobilize, put down the riots and lawlessness and start rebuilding everything that got destroyed. And just to make sure that plenty of stuff gets destroyed, just have a few air wings of the Air force run daily bombing campaigns through every major city, town and village across these United States.

It would be the greatest rebuilding project in the history of the US and it would easily double the (now revised down GDP) GDP.



I dunno, GDP is a horrible metric to determine wealth, but you already know that, don't you BBS?


You know what would double most people's wealth almost overnight? A nice round of deflation and market correction to address the over inflated asset prices of virtually everything in the US. The money in people's wallets could double in value virtually overnight, and double again and again and again! Savers would be the new rich, those in debt would be the new paupers.

The slum lord who owns a ton of shit building would find those buildings become worth a quarter of the value they once held. Those who are rich because of the stocks they hold would find themselves staring at the window and that long fall outside with supreme longing as they watch their positions degrade.

The banks would find themselves smashed because the collateral they have on the loans they made would not be worth a fraction of the cost of the money they lent.

It would be glorious and anyone who is not in debt, has savings, has a recession proof job, skills that are absolutely vital no matter what the economic conditions are, they would all be fine with having any one or more of those option available to them.

Everyone else would be pretty much fucked. But hey, making money ain't always easy. Gotta break a few eggs to double one's worth, it all comes down to whom's eggs are going to be cracked, doesn't it?

Okay, dude. I'm not suggesting the broken window fallacy. Although GDP still has some problems, it doesn't follow to 'throw the baby outta the bathwater' in this context. Try answering the question by substituting "GDP" with "wealth" or "real income" if it makes you so upset to see the letters, GDP.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, PS, how much real income are you willing to deny people in order to maintain your immigration restriction stance? A 20% raise? How about 50%? What about 100%?

[DaGip]

How would you anti-immigration people feel if a bus load of children was forced to turn around from the US and go back through Mexico and then get waylaid by gangs and they were all horrible tortured and executed and thrown into a mass grave? These kids are trying to escape the cartel and gangs that are taking over their countries. It's a war and you do not realize it. These are not immigrants, but refugees. They deserve refugee status! You can stick your rattlesnake flag up your butt!

[patches70]

Okay, dude. I'm not suggesting the broken window fallacy. Although GDP still has some problems, it doesn't follow to 'throw the baby outta the bathwater' in this context. Try answering the question by substituting "GDP" with "wealth" or "real income" if it makes you so upset to see the letters, GDP.

Haha, I never meant to imply that you were suggesting the broken window fallacy, I'm simply saying GDP is not an actual metric of wealth. Like I said, you know that already.

How much resources are we prepared to devote to protecting the border? In terms of manpower, don't we already employ the most border agents than ever before? At least that's some rhetoric I always hear, I don't know if it's true or not.

Build a fence, build a wall, I don't freaking know. I'm not going to try and answer the question because I'm not asking that question. The government wants to not enforce border integrity then there will be consequences for it, some bad, some not so bad. Either way I'll always be able to deal with the consequences cause no matter what conditions are like one can always make their way if they truly want.

And I'm not upset about the letter GDP, it's just that what we think of GDP is often misused, interpreted wrong and used as a poor metric to make decisions with. Sure, using GDP helps with certain analysis but you know as well as I do that through monetary manipulation and the inflation of assets, our current GDP number is bullshit.


There is just too much to go into. How can you ask how much someone is willing to spend when no one knows the actual worth of what it is that they are intending to spend?

Since we don't have anymore price discovery going for quite a while now, when we have the eventual market correction then we'll find ourselves with a whole lot less than we thought we had. Some of us will at least, and by "some of us" I mean the elites especially who rely on the over inflated asset prices in which their "wealth" truly lays.


Like I said, a deflationary spiral will wipe those suckers out, but for the average joe who is living paycheck to paycheck, such a deflationary spike wold be a godsend in which his money would double in actual value as he is able to purchase more things with less money. If he is able to keep his job that is, since his employers would be one of the ones hit hardest by deflation. At least until the whole currency collapses, and by that point our borders would be the least of our problems, wouldn't they? Hell, we wouldn't have to worry about anyone coming at that point would we! Hahah, problem solved in regards to illegal immigration.




What resources are we willing to sacrifice you ask. Ha! You know as well as I do that we've been sacrificing resources hand and fist over everything. We've been using future income and resources now for decades. So use all we want! It doesn't matter until tomorrow and there is always tomorrow so it doesn't matter! At least that's how we've been conducting ourselves for decades which makes it a moot point to ask "how much are we willing to sacrifice" when we've already sacrificed everything our children and our children's children are ever going to make.

So at this point I say just keep throwing money at whatever "problem" we have and feel good about it, because it will only hasten the rude awakening that eventually has to come because of all this squandering. Some try to talk sense to everyone that we are wasting way too much but no one gives a shit. So f*ck it, toss it all on the fire and when the fire dies down and it gets cold, then maybe everyone will finally understand that all this stupid shit all these ideologues keep arguing about means exactly squat.

Throw the baby out with the bathwater, BBS, we tossed out the baby, the bath, the shower, the bathroom, the kitchen, set fire to the house and are now lighting the fuse on the dynamite we have in the basement. That ship has freaking sailed, my friend. We just haven't realized it yet.

[BigBallinStalin]

Holy shit, dude. Can't you answer the question in less than 100 words?

How much would real income/wealth/awesomeness have to rise for all Americans (including new immigrants) in order for you to no longer support the current immigration restrictions? Would a 10% increase make you say, "the current policy must be greatly removed!"? How about a doubling of real income? What about a quadrupling?

[patches70]

Holy shit, dude. Can't you answer the question in less than 100 words?

How much would real income/wealth/awesomeness have to rise for all Americans (including new immigrants) in order for you to no longer support the current immigration restrictions? Would a 10% increase make you say, "the current policy must be greatly removed!"? How about a doubling of real income? What about a quadrupling?

What is the current immigration policy, BBS?

Are there or are there not legal ways to immigrate to the US?
If so, are any ways of entering the country other than those ways illegal?

From what I've seen the US has no real immigration policy at the moment. There are laws on the books, procedures that are supposed to be followed, penalties for not following those laws and procedures and the reality of the situation doesn't seem to be bothering with those laws and procedures.



So, explain the current immigration policy first. Then we are going to be talking about the same thing I guess. I see only an incoherent policy and you want me to answer how the policy should be changed when I can't even figure out what the policy is?
Then jive that perception of what the policy is and the reality. If you can do that I might even be impressed.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, you know, the policy which restricts immigrants into coming into the US. The US legally lets in roughly 150k per year, granted that they meet certain criteria? Add that and the billions spent on homeland security for preventing illegals from entering, for punishing people that hire them, give them shelter, etc. I don't need to look up the exact details because it's hardly relevant. It's commonly understood that the US restricts immigration into the US to a very small amount.

Okay, with that outta the way, you wanna answer that question? Just reread it. There's a current policy that restricts immigration. How big of an increase in real income are you willing to forego in order to maintain the current policy?

[patches70]

Oh, you know, the policy which restricts immigrants into coming into the US. The US legally lets in roughly 150k per year, granted that they meet certain criteria? Add that and the billions spent on homeland security for preventing illegals from entering, for punishing people that hire them, give them shelter, etc. I don't need to look up the exact details because it's hardly relevant. It's commonly understood that the US restricts immigration into the US to a very small amount.

Okay, with that outta the way, you wanna answer that question? Just reread it. There's a current policy that restricts immigration. How big of an increase in real income are you willing to forego in order to maintain the current policy?

Well how about we just enforce current immigration laws and leave the changing of said laws to Congress, who is the only one with the actual, you know, authority to change said immigration laws.

Can you provide an example of a nation with zero immigration restriction of which I can compare costs and benefits?

Immigration is a touchy subject, everywhere. Europe is going batshit crazy over it and don't even get me started on immigration in certain middle eastern nations. Hell, even in Australia if they catch immigrants trying to come there by sea they send the ship back to whatever hellhole it came from and nobody gives a shit about that. The list goes on and on.

So,
In regards to restrictive immigration policies, where does the US stand in relation with the rest of the world? Are we stricter than most nations, or more liberal with our immigration laws than most? Some citations would be nice in that, if you could.

But my default position absent any other evidence is simply enforce current immigration law as it stands. That's not very hard for you to fathom, I hope.

Now tell me how I'm wrong in my position.

Oh, and is the US enforcing current immigration law?
For this question, I offer that it is my perception that we aren't really enforcing our current laws very well and that our Chief executive is making immigration policies on his own instead of allowing Congress to do such things, when as I see from the Supreme Court that it is under Congress' authority. At least that's how it was ruled against Arizona at least.
Am I wrong in my perception? I dunno, I might be, it's just my perception after all.

Oh, and not a single dime more of my money than is already taken should go to the government for anything. They waste enough as it is. If they need money for immigration then they can take it out of the NSA's budget. Or Homeland Security or hell, the FBI for all I care. Just stop taking shit from my wallet.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's interesting that you refuse to put a price on your stance.

But my default position absent any other evidence is simply enforce current immigration law as it stands.

Okay, since you're too scared to answer the question, here's another:

Suppose there were no immigration policies, i.e. a free market in labor. If global real income would thus rise by 30,000%, would you still insist on your 'default position'?

[patches70]

It's interesting that you refuse to put a price on your stance.

Put a price? I didn't?

Oh, and not a single dime more of my money than is already taken should go to the government for anything. They waste enough as it is. If they need money for immigration then they can take it out of the NSA's budget. Or Homeland Security or hell, the FBI for all I care. Just stop taking shit from my wallet.

I think I just put a price didn't I? Too much already.

Okay, since you're too scared to answer the question, here's another:

What? Why is this wrong?-

]But my default position absent any other evidence is simply enforce current immigration law as it stands.

Laws are already on the books. As I understand them I don't have any real problem with them. The US allows by law 700,000 immigrants a year to enter. But in actuality we let in about a million every year on average. So apparently the government doesn't really take it's laws seriously, but meh, I'm not going to go down to the border and enforce the laws, I have other stuff to do. So, whatever.

Suppose there were no immigration policies, i.e. a free market in labor. If global real income would thus rise by 30,000%, would you still insist on your 'default position'?

WTF BBS? Now you're just being silly.
If there were not immigration laws then it'll be pretty easy for the government to enforce that. I suppose the government could still find a way to f*ck even that up.
Is that how much you are claiming real income would rise if we had zero immigration policy? If so, then I say to you- citation needed.
It's a nice fantasy though.

So, are you going to offer some information that I asked for or just run around in hypothetical scenarios which are unrealistic?

What are the US' immigration restrictions compared to the rest of the world?
Are they more restrictive or less restrictive?

What is the cost we are already paying for current immigration policy?
What do we benefit from those costs?
Who's job in the government is it to decide immigration law? The legislative, Executive or Judicial branch?
Are we enforcing current immigration law now?
Can you provide any examples of current nations that have zero immigration restrictions upon which to compare possible costs and benefits with?

Why you insist on me deciding what more or less price I should pay for my position when I have zero idea how much I already pay as it stands now, is beyond me. Why don't you at least tell me how much I'm already paying and I can go ahead and say again, "Nope, that's too much".
Ha!




Being as we are running trillion $ deficits, have over $16 trillion in debt already accrued, I'd say we don't have much of anything left to spend, except our future earnings. And on that I'm very clear, stop spending our future earnings today. I don't give a f*ck what it's proposed intention is for, we can't keep doing that. It's stupid.

Ha, put a price on it, whatever dude, since when have we cared about what anything costs anymore?

[BigBallinStalin]

Wow. Nevermind. Lemme know when you feel like making sense.

[PLAYER57832]

How would you anti-immigration people feel if a bus load of children was forced to turn around from the US and go back through Mexico and then get waylaid by gangs and they were all horrible tortured and executed and thrown into a mass grave? These kids are trying to escape the cartel and gangs that are taking over their countries. It's a war and you do not realize it. These are not immigrants, but refugees. They deserve refugee status! You can stick your rattlesnake flag up your butt!

Refugees from gangs created by US gang members.

Everyone cheering over the exportation of criminals to their "home" countries likes to forget that most of those kids were effectively raised in the US. It was largely the poor treatment those kids got here, in OUR country that made them turn to violence. WE cannot control the gangs in this industrialized, highly technical and stable country, then we throw these trained criminals into a country without a real, effective police force.

Worse, many of the deportees were NOT true violent criminals before being deported. A kid who got a traffic ticket would be exported right along with the convicted drug dealer. But, once deported, they would have little choice but to join one of the gangs to survive.

What a WASTED OPPORTUNITY.
It would be far more humanitarien, but also CHEAPER to train up thse kids, treat them decent, teach them how great our country is and can be... and then, sure, send them home with the SKILLS to rebuild their country into a friend to the US. We had/have the potential to solve this problem, instead we just make it worse.

[Phatscotty]

Hey, PS, how much real income are you willing to deny people in order to maintain your immigration restriction stance? A 20% raise? How about 50%? What about 100%?

Why am I the dictator who is calling the shots?

Is there really only one way to immigrate? no difference between legal/illegal, right/wrong, makes sense/doesn't make sense? Really? none at all? Because that's the way your questions keep laying it out as.

As in another gap; are you accusing me of denying the income of a person who is a 3 time convicted felon with gang tattoo all over their face? Or are you accusing me of denying the income a well mannered 16 year old virgin raised with a mother and a father with strong family values and a 4.0 GPA that had always dreamed of working at NASA and would like to inquire about furthering educational opportunities in America? Oh, so then it's about 'of course not the murderer, the 4.0 has a great shot tho' but then, back to my main point.....how do we know who is who?

And fourthly your questions tries to lame the blame on me for denying someone's income, as if it's not at all true that 10 million unskilled illegal immigrants with no social security number willing to work for less than minimum wage cash jobs has no impact on the 40 million unskilled Americans who are barely getting by on minimum wage because they actually fear the laws, like buying car insurance.

I aint denying foreigners anything, it's you who seems interested in misrepresenting what is in reality denied American citizens and keeping wages artificially low.

And in order for you to have a point in the first place, it would be a lot better if we actually helped people who needed it on a more consistent basis, like Christians in Iraq or homeschooling Christians from Germany, but we send them back. I don't buy that your compassion genuine when it's only given if the immigrant is more than 70% likely to vote Democrat.

[Phatscotty]

How would you anti-immigration people feel if a bus load of children was forced to turn around from the US and go back through Mexico and then get waylaid by gangs and they were all horrible tortured and executed and thrown into a mass grave? These kids are trying to escape the cartel and gangs that are taking over their countries. It's a war and you do not realize it. These are not immigrants, but refugees. They deserve refugee status! You can stick your rattlesnake flag up your butt!

Refugees from gangs created by US gang members.

You keep saying that, so I'm calling you out. Please square your repeated phrase with the following

MS-13
Colima Cartel
Sinaloa Cartel
Sonora Cartel
Tijuana Cartel
Guadalajara Cartel
Gulf Cartel
Juárez Cartel

just to name a few. Just to be clear and so there is no squirming....how are these gangs created by US gang members, and which US gang members are you talking about?

[Phatscotty]

Patches, may not be entirely true, but sometimes BBS just tries to ask seemingly complicated questions, in the hopes that during a possible answer he might get to call you out for not understanding the change of the information the occurs based on his use of the word 'aggregate', hell with the main point. It's a little better than others derangement syndromes, and at least it can challenge you a little bit, and one time I even thanked him for it. During the Benghazi thing I made a thread before it was a thing, where Obama on down the line all made statements about how it was all because some guy made a video insulting Islam that nobody watched, in a sense guaranteeing hundreds of millions of watches (???) and I wasn't clear in my OP and BBS pointed out people didn't know what I was talking about (before it was a big deal, not after) even though I think BBS knew perfectly well what I was talking about. Anyways, finally he got on my nerves to the point I went and got 10 different videos of different Obama admin officials making public statements about the anti-Islam video being the reason our Embassy was attacked (as if that justifies it (???), and videos of the maker of the crappy film headed to prison shortly there-after, on totally different charges of course, and later on I was rewarded. And later after that, all the videos were scrubbed off the internet, and just after that the Entire middle East started to implode.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, PS, how much real income are you willing to deny people in order to maintain your immigration restriction stance? A 20% raise? How about 50%? What about 100%?

Why am I the dictator who is calling the shots?

Is there really only one way to immigrate? no difference between legal/illegal, right/wrong, makes sense/doesn't make sense? Really? none at all? Because that's the way your questions keep laying it out as.

As in another gap; are you accusing me of denying the income of a person who is a 3 time convicted felon with gang tattoo all over their face? Or are you accusing me of denying the income a well mannered 16 year old virgin raised with a mother and a father with strong family values and a 4.0 GPA that had always dreamed of working at NASA and would like to inquire about furthering educational opportunities in America? Oh, so then it's about 'of course not the murderer, the 4.0 has a great shot tho' but then, back to my main point.....how do we know who is who?

And fourthly your questions tries to lame the blame on me for denying someone's income, as if it's not at all true that 10 million unskilled illegal immigrants with no social security number willing to work for less than minimum wage cash jobs has no impact on the 40 million unskilled Americans who are barely getting by on minimum wage because they actually fear the laws, like buying car insurance.

I aint denying foreigners anything, it's you who seems interested in misrepresenting what is in reality denied American citizens and keeping wages artificially low.

And in order for you to have a point in the first place, it would be a lot better if we actually helped people who needed it on a more consistent basis, like Christians in Iraq or homeschooling Christians from Germany, but we send them back. I don't buy that your compassion genuine when it's only given if the immigrant is more than 70% likely to vote Democrat.

The whole point of the question is to put a price on your position.

You see, let's say there's this guy, Bob. Bob likes the current immigration policy. So I ask Bob, "How much real income of the world are you willing to deny in order to maintain the current immigration policy?"

Let's say that Bob says that the current policy is fine unless EVERYONE in the world would have a 200% increase in their real income. So, if it was shown that if immigration restrictions were relaxed and that everyone in the world's income would increase by 200%, then Bob would have trouble defending the status quo.

That's the main point. You have to make tradeoffs, and if given the relevant information, you'd make a more informed decision in regard to current immigration policy.

People often refuse to answer the question because they don't want to be KNOWN as the guy who is denying people x-amount of foregone earnings. They'd rather dawdle about minor issues while consistently refraining from answering the question.

Nevertheless, one's stance on immigration restrictions affects millions of lives. Your opinion entails certain consequences for many people. Will you own up to the consequences? (No, which is why people don't like answering the question. They want a stance which is magically free of consequences). People need to realize how much wealth they are willing to forego for other people (and usually for themselves since lower labor costs gives them lower prices, but whatevs, right?).

[Phatscotty]

Questioning how much it costs to secure the border is not really relevant in the first place. Sure it is when it comes to being overcharged for the cost 150% of course built by non-union workers, but border security as a function of government? That's like questioning on fundamental grounds the cost of the court system. Again, cost is a relevant discussion, but it's not relevant when it comes to whether we should have a court system or not.

Priorities are priorities, and if we can't even handle our priorities, then we are in big trouble.

[Phatscotty]

Hey, PS, how much real income are you willing to deny people in order to maintain your immigration restriction stance? A 20% raise? How about 50%? What about 100%?

Why am I the dictator who is calling the shots?

Is there really only one way to immigrate? no difference between legal/illegal, right/wrong, makes sense/doesn't make sense? Really? none at all? Because that's the way your questions keep laying it out as.

As in another gap; are you accusing me of denying the income of a person who is a 3 time convicted felon with gang tattoo all over their face? Or are you accusing me of denying the income a well mannered 16 year old virgin raised with a mother and a father with strong family values and a 4.0 GPA that had always dreamed of working at NASA and would like to inquire about furthering educational opportunities in America? Oh, so then it's about 'of course not the murderer, the 4.0 has a great shot tho' but then, back to my main point.....how do we know who is who?

And fourthly your questions tries to lame the blame on me for denying someone's income, as if it's not at all true that 10 million unskilled illegal immigrants with no social security number willing to work for less than minimum wage cash jobs has no impact on the 40 million unskilled Americans who are barely getting by on minimum wage because they actually fear the laws, like buying car insurance.

I aint denying foreigners anything, it's you who seems interested in misrepresenting what is in reality denied American citizens and keeping wages artificially low.

And in order for you to have a point in the first place, it would be a lot better if we actually helped people who needed it on a more consistent basis, like Christians in Iraq or homeschooling Christians from Germany, but we send them back. I don't buy that your compassion genuine when it's only given if the immigrant is more than 70% likely to vote Democrat.

The whole point of the question is to put a price on your position.

You see, let's say there's this guy, Bob. Bob likes the current immigration policy. So I ask Bob, "How much real income of the world are you willing to deny in order to maintain the current immigration policy?"

Let's say that Bob says that the current policy is fine unless EVERYONE in the world would have a 200% increase in their real income. So, if it was shown that if immigration restrictions were relaxed and that everyone in the world's income would increase by 200%, then Bob would have trouble defending the status quo.

That's the main point. You have to make tradeoffs, and if given the relevant information, you'd make a more informed decision in regard to current immigration policy.

People often refuse to answer the question because they don't want to KNOWN to deny people x-amount of foregone earnings. They'd rather dawdle about minor issues while consistently refraining from answering the question.

Main point: your stance on immigration restrictions affects millions of lives. Your opinion entails certain consequences for many people. Will you own up to the consequences? (No, which is why people don't like answering the question. They want a stance which is magically free of consequences).

Okay, I'll play along. Just one more thing in what I think is still a loaded question. The word 'deny' as in deny someone income..... I don't understand how an income can be someone's who has never had it before, not to mention who is not even currently a resident, and does not even have a social security number in order to work in the first place. My question, before I delve further, how can someone with no social security number be denied something that requires them to have a social security number? And why would I be the one denying that income?

Is Player's beloved Obamacare 'denying' me a certain share of my take home income that used to go for the better kind of diapers that result in less rashes for my baby girl? Therefore the more often rashes my baby daughter gets are all Players fault?

I deal with the rest of your response separately

[Phatscotty]

Oh, you know, the policy which restricts immigrants into coming into the US. The US legally lets in roughly 150k per year, granted that they meet certain criteria? Add that and the billions spent on homeland security for preventing illegals from entering, for punishing people that hire them, give them shelter, etc. I don't need to look up the exact details because it's hardly relevant. It's commonly understood that the US restricts immigration into the US to a very small amount.

Okay, with that outta the way, you wanna answer that question? Just reread it. There's a current policy that restricts immigration. How big of an increase in real income are you willing to forego in order to maintain the current policy?

Well how about we just enforce current immigration laws and leave the changing of said laws to Congress, who is the only one with the actual, you know, authority to change said immigration laws.

Can you provide an example of a nation with zero immigration restriction of which I can compare costs and benefits?

On the other end of it, we can compare the zero tolerance policies of the current illegal immigrants homelands, or how their country treats our countrymen if we enter their country illegally...

[PLAYER57832]

How would you anti-immigration people feel if a bus load of children was forced to turn around from the US and go back through Mexico and then get waylaid by gangs and they were all horrible tortured and executed and thrown into a mass grave? These kids are trying to escape the cartel and gangs that are taking over their countries. It's a war and you do not realize it. These are not immigrants, but refugees. They deserve refugee status! You can stick your rattlesnake flag up your butt!

Refugees from gangs created by US gang members.

You keep saying that, so I'm calling you out. Please square your repeated phrase with the following

MS-13
Colima Cartel
Sinaloa Cartel
Sonora Cartel
Tijuana Cartel
Guadalajara Cartel
Gulf Cartel
Juárez Cartel

just to name a few. Just to be clear and so there is no squirming....how are these gangs created by US gang members, and which US gang members are you talking about?

#1You are mixing in Mexican Cartels with gangs in other south American countries. Most of this recent immigration, particularly all these unaccompanied kids, is not from Mexico.

#2 Here, an article that explains it reasonably:

I know you dislike NPR (where I probably first heard about this), but here is a quote from a National Geographic article:

But one aspect of the Central American violence that's feeding the border crisis has been largely overlooked: its roots in the gang culture of Los Angeles. Many of the gangs that are destabilizing much of Central America are American-born.

The history of Central American gang violence dates to the 1980s, when civil wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua sent thousands of people north, in search of refuge. Some of those immigrants found their way into gangs in Los Angeles that wound up seeding drug-related violence back home, often after their members were deported by the United States, analysts say.

"These gangs are part of the cultural fabric of the U.S., not Central America," says John Sullivan, a gang specialist with the Los Angeles County sheriff's department. "We deport them, and they're bigger and badder than any gangs there, and they dominate. And now we have areas [in Central America] that are widely destabilized, with a high degree of violence."

That violence has helped to create waves of refugees, many of them children, who have arrived at the U.S. border. The crisis has provoked urgent calls for the White House and Congress to respond to the swelling ranks of children filling detention centers along the southwestern border. The situation has led to finger-pointing among U.S. politicians as well as debates in many American communities over the potential impact of young immigrants on schools and a range of social service programs.

Here is a link to the full article, for context, etc: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... _us_se_c1#

[mrswdk]

we can compare the zero tolerance policies of the current illegal immigrants homelands, or how their country treats our countrymen if we enter their country illegally

I don't think Guatemala is the best country for the US to be emulating, but maybe you'd like to like in a country with an atmosphere bordering on that of a war zone. Might give you a chance to put your gun to some use.

[PLAYER57832]

we can compare the zero tolerance policies of the current illegal immigrants homelands, or how their country treats our countrymen if we enter their country illegally

I don't think Guatemala is the best country for the US to be emulating, but maybe you'd like to like in a country with an atmosphere bordering on that of a war zone. Might give you a chance to put your gun to some use.

I think a more pertinent and interesting discussion would be to compare how the US treats these south American refugees versus how Turkey, etc treat the Syrian refugees.

In Turkey, children born to refugees do not get citizenship papers. Always complicating debates about illegal immigration here is the fact that even if both parents are not legally here, any child born on our soil is given full citizenship rights. Maybe that needs to change. I have qualms about suggesting that. In Turkey, refugee kids not only don't get citizenship, they lack ANY legal papers at all. That means they won't even be able to readily and legally leave, along with not getting education, etc.

I would like to see a system whereby kids born to parents not here legally would get citizenship in their parent's country, not here... though would like to see that paired with more automatic residency and, as I have stated, extra taxes on non-citizens to pay for these extra services.

Further, for the kids who are brought here (or who are born here to illegal parents), I would like to see some kind of service component required. I am NOT comfortable with the child of someone not here legally getting to go to college, even with aid, while many kids of full citizens who are also qualified are denied entry because of cost prohibitions.

[mrswdk]

I would like to see a system whereby kids born to parents not here legally would get citizenship in their parent's country, not here... though would like to see that paired with more automatic residency and, as I have stated, extra taxes on non-citizens to pay for these extra services.

So do you mean somehow taxing people who are illegally residing in the US, taxing their children for being born in your country even though they didn't choose to be or taxing all non-American citizens who live in the US in order to pay for costs generated by illegal immigration?

[PLAYER57832]

How would you anti-immigration people feel if a bus load of children was forced to turn around from the US and go back through Mexico and then get waylaid by gangs and they were all horrible tortured and executed and thrown into a mass grave? These kids are trying to escape the cartel and gangs that are taking over their countries. It's a war and you do not realize it. These are not immigrants, but refugees. They deserve refugee status! You can stick your rattlesnake flag up your butt!

Deported kids are flown back.

If they are simply denied entry... i won't speak for any particular person here, but many interviewed on the radio and TV say it is not our fault, it is the fault of those who sent them and those here who keep giving the impression that they might get a chance to stay. I don't agree, but they just don't want to see it the way you present it.

[PLAYER57832]

I would like to see a system whereby kids born to parents not here legally would get citizenship in their parent's country, not here... though would like to see that paired with more automatic residency and, as I have stated, extra taxes on non-citizens to pay for these extra services.

So do you mean somehow taxing people who are illegally residing in the US, taxing their children for being born in your country even though they didn't choose to be or taxing all non-American citizens who live in the US in order to pay for costs generated by illegal immigration?

Not a tax on the children, no. And, actually I would put a uniform tax on all non-citizens. Most countries have ways of asking non-citizens to pay more than citizens, for various things, to make up for taxes not paid.

There are many reasons why people come here illegally. In the case of the kids we are hearing about now, there is a very strong argument that they are refugees fleeing violence, but a lot are also seeking to join parents already here. The parents generally came for economic reasons.

The PRIMARY legitimate reason for people objecting to illegal immigration is that they are taking jobs... either for lower wages or under poorer conditions than citizens and legal immigrants will AND that they use public resources and overwhelm localities. (claims of increased crime and so forth are incorrect, unless you are specifically referring to teen gang members -- an issue more general, not specific to illegal immigrants) These people are very legitimately having a negative economic impact on localities.

A tax would do 2 things. First, it would provide localities and states with more money to address the needs of these families. Also, since employers would be paying additional for hiring those here without papers, or even just non-citizens, they would be encouraged to hire citizens. Employers truly needing the talent or unable to find reasonable citizen workers would be able to legally hire non-citizens. Most countries have some kind of way to favor citizens. I see no reason why we should be an exception.

In fact, the tax would make these non-citizens more welcome, thus improving conditions for them overall.