Comments on: Monday Question: Immigration Motives

By: tfr

tfr — Wed, 12 May 2010 14:21:10 +0000

Perhaps legalization would simply consist of proof that you are here working and paying taxes. No proof, you’re illegal and deported. This would have to be actually enforced, somehow, so that the incentive to stop working “under the table” would be there. This would also be incentive for employers to hire legally, else lose their workforce. Again, no enforcement and it wouldn’t work.

By: Chris M.

Chris M. — Wed, 12 May 2010 01:57:46 +0000

Citizenship is what the immigration debate is all about. I try to remind myself of the basic tenets of being a citizen in a democratic and generically “free” country when I consider all the points of view on the matter, but I always come back to one of the core basics – that to be a lawful and responsible citizen in this country (or any), one must pay their taxes.

Paying taxes really is the very existence of any nation, whatever the form of taxation or government – we contribute to our central government for the general safety and oversight of us, at least theoretically in a democratic nation. Without taxes, our nation would be

My bottom line point: illegal, or “unauthorized” immigrants are not paying taxes, yet they are living within the bounds of our country and are inherently receiving the benefits that we lawful citizens pay for. Yes, they may not have access to vote or have SS or medicaid or any other institutionalized processes of our nation, but by simply living in this country without paying taxes, it is leeching from the system

As I’ve thought on it, I more often think the best pragmatic solution would be to allow any immigrant that been here for say X years, grant them citizenship, and then clamp down on our borders thoroughly. Then, we won’t displace families (many or most of which I’m sure are decent and simply looking for a better life, much like all our ancestors at some point) and then enforce the border –

is this contrary to a typical libertarian viewpoint…

By: Brad Warbiany

Brad Warbiany — Tue, 11 May 2010 16:41:29 +0000

The sets of:

[what seems to infuriate talk radio listeners]
and
[reality]

seem only to intersect by chance, not design.

By: tfr

tfr — Tue, 11 May 2010 16:15:24 +0000

I’m slowly coming around to legalization, mostly because no other option is viable. The solution would be to end the welfare state to eliminate the attraction for deadbeats, and to provide a realistic legal immigration method for those who’d like to come here to improve themselves. Fat chance of either of these ever happening.

As far as what’s driving the new immigration law, I think a lot of people are seeing a double standard: cops are directed by ICE to release illegals picked up for petty crimes, on the grounds that ICE doesn’t intend to do anything with them, where a citizen accused of the same crime would get dragged through the courts. I don’t know enough about it to say how realistic this is, but that’s what seems to infuriate talk radio listeners.

By: David Z

David Z — Mon, 10 May 2010 15:20:03 +0000

Good luck with this, Brad. I get the same responses over and over and over again, mostly the “rule of law” issue. The most alarming response I got on a recent post about the topic, was from a self-described immigrant who came here ‘legally’, who wholeheartedly disagreed with my calls for both legalization and amnesty.

I usually follow up with something like: would you have been in favor of amnesty for runaway slaves in 1859?

By: Drew

Drew — Mon, 10 May 2010 13:14:41 +0000

The math is simple, as long as the benefits outweigh the penalties the boarder crossing continues. Increasing the penalties increases the drag on the economy by creating an industry that depends on continued border crossings in order to exist. Increasing the job pool by removing the economic policies restricting small business would go a long way towards turning “illegals” into citizens.