Thanks Ranter, this is about the first argument for immigration controls that makes any sense to me when looking at people that want to come here to work and improve themselves.

I could not agree with you more.

Also thanks for the history around immigration law. I have never looked that closely at it. My ancestor came over in 1902 which would mean that my grandfather would not have been illegal at that time. Dang it, I can no longer say my family came here illegally.

I really like that idea. It would likely cause a whole lot of illegals to loose work.

Being the aggressor and removing free will from others is never the right choice. Taking over Mexico would be doing just that. Taking out the Mexican cartels with full military force after congress declared war on them would be good. If Mexico got in the way of that war with the cartels then they would be taking sides in a declared war, which would change everything

I would agree that is a real problem today. However I think the ability to do would be gone if our culture did not protect and pander to those who are here taking a welfare check or working in a criminal society while claiming to be poor.

If it was starve or work at a legitimate job or face real consequences (deportation, execution...) then the people who came were would not be idiots they could pander to, but people who wanted to work hard and earn what they received.

Politicians can only use people this way when the people they are using are gaining something from it. If the people that came here came here to work and improve themselves by the sweat of there own brow then no politician could use them. They empower the politicians when the seek to get unearned gain from the politicians.

It is the culture they come seeking that is the root problem.

No agreement there. We use to put all the immigrants on Ellis Island for a month before they could come in, but we did not worry about following the laws that existed then either.

The fact is we have let people come in from all groups for the entire existence of this country. We did things more intelligently as we did check people out, but we did not stop them from entering.

The laws were all ready on the books in my great grandfathers time. They were ignored then as well, and there was not a problem with:

* People coming in to collect welfare (it did not exist).
* Deadly contagions were stopped because we had everyone sit on Ellis Island for a month - My great grandfather included. The laws were ingored but common sense was used.
* Drug Addiction - 30 days on Ellis kinda killed the addicts.

I would be totally game to stop every one that came in for 30 days like we use to, that makes sense. It is completely reasonable but it gets back to the root cause. Our culture will not tolerate doing anything like that any longer.

American Freebies, altruism and willful ignorance.

Illegal aliens skip the checks for:
• Contagious Deadly Diseases.
• Membership in Groups Seeking the Overthrow of the U.S.A.
• Drug Addictions.
• Illegal Contraband (Drugs, Weapons, Dangerous Animals & Plants).
• Felony Warrants & Records.
• Membership in Criminal Organizations.
and much more.

Why in the world would we encourage that?
That was a problem back in your great grandfather's time which is why we passed the illegal alien laws we have.

IMHO, sir, the real problem is politicians using the
immigrant group as pawns in their grand plan to
permanently take power in the u.s. -- through plain-
old bribery and subjugation of the dependent class
which they are enlarging through this scheme.

this hurts the people coming into this country,
to effectively prevent them from achieving "the
american dream" by that subjugation-by-welfare. -- j

Legal....illegal....whatever....Do we really need
MORE people in this country??? We have
trouble feeding those we already have, for
Pete's sake! Enough!

I still think we should invade Mexico City, take down the government, and take the country over. That will make our southern border really small and lot further south. Then the SEALS and Special Forces can go in and clean up the drug cartels and we'll have a nice warm place to vacation without the hassle of leaving the country. Everybody's happy, there won't be any reason to come north anymore, we'll all be Americans (or maybe Mexicans). And we can now move south unrestricted, where a lot of our movie stars seem to live. We can make it into 7 States as I have said before, so Obama can get it right. I'm sure he'd tell us he knew that when he talked about them before.

We should give the needy NOTHING. Perhaps we can talk about Rocketdyne offline.

What if the employers of illegals were held to be their sponsors and were found to be responsible for all financial liabilities incurred by hospitals, schools and government entities for services to those employees and their dependents?

The enforcement would be by civil suit and I imagine an attorney or two could be found who would press cases on contingency.

Wouldn’t cost taxpayers a dime and would be the mother of all deterrents!

Instead of money (welfare) we should give the needy what they need, bread, Spam, powdered milk, vegetables, a cot to sleep on, the essentials. If they don't like it they can put forth an honest effort to get out off of 'welfare'. Personally I think it should all be charity based, no government mandate.

I remember when unemployment money ran out real quick and you even had to stand in line to get it. I stood in that line once in late 1969, but never made it to the window, never collected a cent. I left in a huff and found a great career within a week where I stayed the next 34 years (Thank you 3M). I sometimes wonder what my life might have been like had I made it to the front of that line. At the time I didn't need much to survive. I had a pretty bad attitude, just got home from the Nam and my old job hired me back but had to lay me off the same day. At least I got a little severance to tie me over, thank you Rocketdyne. This is the way the welfare system should work.

Lets have an adult conversation on this subject. There are a lot of good people working here without papers but there are a lot of criminals without papers too. How about starting by deporting the known criminals? At the same time, issue temporary work permits to good, hardworking and skilled people after a thorough background check and proof that they are not receiving money from the government. People without papers who do not have gainful employment and are receiving government assistance then they need to be next on the list for deportation. Illegal voting and welfare fraud should be grounds for deportation. Start with the worst on deportations. Start with the best when issuing work permits.

Right on! Three-quarters of me is of a very recent Euro mix. I'm all for legal immigration.
The purpose of controlling legal immigration is to keep out--no, try very hard to--keep out people who will likely harm citizens here.
I'm tired of reading about illegals killing innocent Americans.
No more illegals period! Secure the borders.
I read somewhere that our borders are such a joke that other countries laugh at our utter stupidity.

While America was still expanding across the continent, there was plenty of room for immigrants. Once we reached the West Coast, the first legal restrictions on immigration started, with the limitation of Chinese. As the country "filled up" more and more, more restrictions came, until the mid-1900s, when seasonal migrant labor became a "problem." Between harvests, they became unemployed, depending on the public largess to survive. Eisenhower initiated the Bracero Program, a program that allowed the importation of seasonal migrant labor by sponsoring employers, provided they were returned to their homeland at the end of the season. That program worked, and virtually eliminated illegal immigration across our southern border. The Democrats killed the Bracero Program under Johnson, and we have had escalating illegal immigration ever since.

The problem isn't immigration. Restrictions on immigration are very recent. When my grandfather entered the country with my father, then a young boy, there were no immigration restrictions. Immigration restrictions. The first restriction came in 1875, restricting the immigration of convicts and prostitutes. In 1882 came limitations on immigration of Chinese. Also excluded were persons convicted of political offenses, lunatics, idiots, and persons likely to become public charges. The law placed a head tax on each immigrant. In 1885, admission of contract laborers was banned. Provisions were adopted in 1888 --the first since 1798--to provide for expulsion of aliens. In 1903, Immigration law was consolidated. Polygamists and political radicals were added to the exclusion list. In 1907, a bill added people with physical or mental defects or tuberculosis and children unaccompanied by parents to the exclusion list. Japanese immigration became restricted. That was the year my father and grandfather entered the US as immigrants. In 1917, a bill added to the exclusion list illiterates, persons of psychopathic inferiority, men as well as women entering for immoral purposes, alcoholics, stowaways, and vagrants. In 1921 a temporary quota law by nationality was passed. This was the firs quantitative immigration restriction. A permanent quota law was passed in 1924. This bill also established the Border Patrol. Border patrolling and control, principally to limit incursion of Mexican bandit bands, had before then been performed by the Texas unit that later became the Texas National Guard. My father, who was US horse cavalry at the end of WW II, was transferred to this Texas unit and rode border patrol in 1919 and 1920, before his discharge from the Army.

The problem is not and never has been immigration as such. Controlled immigration has always been good for the country. The problem is how to limit the entrance of "undesirables" -- criminals, those with mental or physical illnesses, and others who would likely have to be supported by taxpayer dollars; and how to limit immigration so that the US labor markets do not become overwhelmed by immigrants. The problem is illegal immigration, and what to do about those who enter illegally.

To argue that "illegal immigration" is the problem (vs. immigration) is just a legal agreement - it completely submits itself to the fallacy of authority in the scope of the original post.

Immigration is a problem in welfare states - illegal or otherwise.
The fix is to eliminate subsidy (education/health/jobs/income/food etc.) claims all people have on others (taxpayers).

Barring the likelihood of that - restrict the claims
for as many people as possible - all immigrants ("illegal" or otherwise) would be a category of ineligible welfare state beneficiaries.

It is sad that because of our welfare state, we heavily restrict immigration to the US to many hard working, honest people that are stuck in otherwise hostile, horrible environments.

the culture argument always intrigues me, because I'm not sure I agree that "our" culture is something to preserve more than the freedom. In any culture, limited government, strong property right protections will basically get you the same overall effect. People will lead productive, ingenious lives. I mean there are distinct traditions which are prominent, but how those evolve over time is ok too-people tend to hold onto the customs they feel celebrate life and ignore or denounce superstitious customs which do the opposite. ie, a Jamaican immigrant community in a freer US quits believing in voodoo. But Jamaican immigrants settling in Belize holds onto it because there's little productive opportunity to focus on.

Who are the "hardcore lowlifes"?

The United States is paying a price for some of its citizens actively trying to destroy the rule of law. Once there is no respect for law anymore, either by its lack of enforcement or by its selective enforcement, the society crumbles. That is one of the more important points in several of AR's novels.

In addition, both political parties encourage this ILLEGAL immigration to either enhance their power, please their contributors, or both.

What is different now is a welfare system that rewards sloth and punishes achievement. Moreover, people are encouraged to sign up for the sloth. Thirdly, people who are from other countries are eligible for welfare benefits without having paid into the system. Finally, to reiterate AJ's point, the immigrants from 100+ years ago immigrated legally. Now we have a system where people who immigrate illegally receive preferential status over those who follow the rules.

The cultural changes, or as I think of them, cultural decay are the effect, not the cause.

Lack of respect of or support of the rule of law, undermines everything else. The rule of law is the difference between an organized "civilized" country and barbarous chaos. It takes time to slide from civilized to chaos so there are many gradations in between. But without supporting the rule of law the slide is inevitable.

There are defined lawful processes for both immigration, and changing laws you do not like.
Ignoring the process (rule of law) undermines society as a whole.

I agree with AJ, on his remedies, it is unfortunate that his list is as much as is practical, since at base they are passive measures on the main rather than active ones.

The part everyone seems to want to gloss over in the whole discussion is the first word of the label...ILLEGAL.

Coming here illegally is childishly easy to do, that does not however make it right for someone to do so. Nor should it grant you any rights or anything that can be construed as justification for being allowed to remain.

Illegals of any stripe incur a cost on society, and it is a cost that not only has been growing greater every year, it is a cost this country cannot afford. And the cost is not merely economic, it is social and cultural as well.