View Single Post
Old 04-30-2010, 01:42 PM   #282
dreadgeek
Power Femme

How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl
 
dreadgeek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,842 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852
dreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Thoreau View Post
I am sure if I were an illegal in korea they would pull me over on my rickshaw pretty quickly tho!
Sometimes it is just geography.....land borders on the USA are mexico and canada....the border areas more likeley to have...illegal immigrants....
water borders i.e. flordia which is close to cuba, haiti, dominican republic, more likely to see infulux of illegals from...

We have laws, we have immigration laws,,,they need to be followed by all,,not just a few.
Dont like the law work to change it,,,not ignore it!
Wouldn't it make MORE sense to go after the employers? I mean most people who come here do so for the work. It seems to me that this is almost *all* a demand-side problem. Would you support, for instance, a law that said that if you are an employer and you hire someone without proper documentation that you WILL lose your business? If not, why not? Because if that happened then the flow of people coming here would dry up real fast.

It seems to me that nations have choices how to handle immigration.

We can be a nation that welcomes people and makes a space for immigrants. In that case, we're going to have some folks who try to get in by hook or by crook and we should have some means of dealing with that (I say go after the employers, thus removing the incentive).

We can be a nation that makes it *dangerous* to try to get into the country except by an official point of entry (and given the topography of the area, that isn't as difficult as it might seem).

We can be a nation that makes it *uncomfortable* to be an immigrant here, in which case most sane people will stay where they are unless it's really, really, horrific.

Now, I'm all for strategy number one. It seems that the country is interested in experimenting with strategy number 3 and parts of strategy number 2 (on an ad hoc, vigilante basis). Now, if we're going to go with strategy number 2 then let's go all the way. I have some very interesting ideas about how to make certain that no one EVER tries to cross the border by land ever again. Of course, even as I've thought about those ideas I have also thought that that bites both ways. I might have cause to want to get out of the United States if it were to become sufficiently hostile to non-white people. (Not out of the realm of possibility by any stretch) And I wouldn't want to have to run the gauntlet of what I think would be a near airtight border.
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community.

"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett)
dreadgeek is offline   Reply With Quote