Support NeoGAF

[Shouta]

Nice way of slipping out of the argument vangace. We should all learn from your example and call someone racist when he clearly isn't to get out of an argument =P.

 

[Ripclawe]

Wow that's great that Mexico is an insignificant country now then explain how jobs are being moved for the US to Mexico by the truckloads. Setting up shop in Mexico isn't insignificant to my stock portfolio. And if you look at the way our Administration runs what country is signifigant?

Mexico's economy is built on two things, cheap labor used by foreign companies and encouraging fully, illegal migration to America to work and send the money back. Problem 1 is the cheap labor bit is being taken away from them by China, so they are pushing more for illegal immigration and now demanding open borders with America.

 

[CrimsonSkies]

So how much longer before California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico leave the union and join back up with Mexico? I can't tell much of a difference lately when I travel. I predict soon.

 

[Loki]

From your post it is clear that you are a racist son of bitch. I thought i was having an honest debate with a rationale person but i was mistaken.

:lol

I'm racist? That's rich. Racism has done more to savage my life than it has to most others, though I don't care to elaborate. I am, in all modesty, likely the least racist person you'll ever meet. If France was on our border the way Mexico is and their citizens were doing the same thing these illegal immigrants are, I'd <shock!> say the same exact thing. That doesn't make me a racist-- it makes me a sensible and sane person, quite unlike yourself.

Now if you want me to take you seriously don't tell me you solution is deport them because the government won't do it.

I never argued that the government will do it, I argued that they should do it. Grow a brain, for the sake of humanity.

I'm not saying you're going to be facing rioting from 75% of the populace, just that you would have riots on your hand if force was taken. I don't see how you could assume millions of people would quietly leave, or that their supporters would stand idly by, especially in such a racially charged issue.

Oh well-- que sera sera. Let them riot then-- it matters not imo. If you allow the threat of social unrest to decide what's right, you're in for trouble as people become increasingly unreasonable, and you run the risk of having a vocal (and apparently savage, since they'd RIOT rather than COMPLYING WITH THE LAW) minority dictate policy. This is not sound doctrine.

"Right" is pretty subjective

It really isn't though; the law of the land is the ultimate arbiter, assuming you're going to go the whole "moral relativist" route in terms of personal ethics. They are in the wrong by ANY moral standard, personal or societal.

if you blindly do the "right" thing and damn the consequences, you can end up doing more harm than good. But who cares, you're doing what's "right." Right?

That's correct. Sure, trouble is possible if you embark upon such a radical (yet entirely sensible) endeavor, but you cannot allow mere speculation and trepidation as to what will happen to inform your decisions about sound social policy. That's my point-- none of these arguments you or others are making hold water.

I'm saying that the people who were would be attracted to this kind of thing, and I would think, in many cases, it would bring out the worst in people. If history is any indication, I would be amazed if people stuck to protocol.

Again, speculation, which is not the basis for reasonable policy. All this comment means is that it would be all the MORE important to take steps to ensure that such a thing did not happen if we ever chose to empower a border patrol force.

Better border protection, yes - but mass, forceful deportation?

Well I'm not aware of any polls that specifically asked about deportation, but I find your "forceful deportation" comment amusing-- what other sort is there? If you're in favor of deportation, you're also in favor of using force to get people to comply with that if it came to it. Deportation is the most sensible option we have from every angle-- financially, ethically (they ARE law-breakers, after all--ignoring the other ethical issues), and even strategically, as I think it'd be the easiest measure to implement, regardless of what you're saying. I say that, if anything, let's try it and see how it goes. If mass rioting ensues, and border patrolmen start shooting up illegals for no reason, then we can step back and reanalyze things; to baselessly speculate as to what MIGHT happen, however, is to resign yourself to the status quo and become, in effect, paralyzed.


You're also allowing lawbreakers to implicitly dictate policy; you should think about that, and then tell me whether you think that that's just or sensible. If the rule of law is to maintain its integrity-- indeed, its very meaning-- then it must be enforced uniformly across the board. Obviously there are other areas of "selective legal enforcement" (see: corporations), but this is right up there in terms of its importance.

Maybe I'm totally misjudging your proposal... I didn't think you meant to use these guys were just a border-patrol, I thought they were meant to round up illegal immigrants in the cities and surrounding area and forcefully deport them. And yeah, I'm pretty biased against this idea.

The "border patrol" I mentioned would only police the border. Simultaneously, the INS would be allowed to do its job again (instead of having its hands tied by ridiculous legislation-- see my previous posts); the "rounding up and deporting" would take some time, but eventually it would be done. If we stop the influx during that time, eventually we'll solve the problem entirely (new arrivals + those already here).


At the risk of offending you, I will say flat out that I feel that anyone who opposes the idea of real border enforcement has some seriously screwed up priorities. Seriously. Usually I'm not that blunt, but I don't know how to dance around that view or make it more palatable-- it's just a philosophical difference between us.

I was just trying to get at the point that this simple plan isn't/.

It's a LOT simpler than dealing with the situation we have now, both in terms of red tape and also financial costs.

So to me it sounds like you're saying -

- It's entirely feasable to train a force which will professionally and objectively be able to remove a large portion, if not all, of the illegal immigrants from the US

- You don't think there will be significant reprisal against the training or use of this force, because of wide-spread support for border protection, the illegal status of the immigrants, and because of the typically professional day-to-day behavior of our soldiers and police

- Deportation is the right thing to do; we can't shirk from it just because it might be "unpleasant".

- Amnesty has too high of a cost, and it's wrong

That's a fair account of it, yes. Realize that my moral basis for believing these things is something that I am entirely capable of defending; in fact, if this were two years ago, you'd have already been treated to a 15K word expostulation on my moral reasoning on these matters. Unfortuantely, I don't have the time anymore.


Also, though I don't believe that there would be "significant reprisals" against the use of such a border patrol, I am saying that even if there was, I honestly couldn't care less. Let people "riot", let them subsequently get arrested, and then let them rot in prison for all I care. If they'd like to compound one instance of law-breaking (being here illegally) by committing another (rioting), then they deserve what they get all the more. Those who are against the measures I and others have proposed herein are tacitly condoning the influx of illegals, and that is something I will never do. It's something that nobody should do.


Also, Mexico is our second largest traing partner? That's news to me. I'm not one for economics, nor politics most of the time. It still makes no difference to my overall reasoning, though I will retract my "insignificant nation" comment (which was only intended economically/politically, not in terms of disparaging their nation as a whole-- I just didn't think they had any clout beyond providing cheap labor that our corporations unfairly take advantage of by setting up shop in Mexico).

Hey Loki, whatever happened to you being so busy for the next six months or so that you wouldn't be able to spend any time here on the forums? ;P

Don't remind me-- this place is like heroin. But seriously, I'm done here-- people are free to think that I'm some racist xenophobe, despite the fact that that couldn't be farther from the truth. I have spoken out just as passionately, and at just as great a length, about a number of other issues both domestic and international; if someone wants to overlook those facts in order to paint me as some sort of bigot (see: vangace), then that's their right. My criteria as to what I speak out against are, and have always been, consistent. I stand on the side of reason, truth, justice, and law...if I may be so presumptuous. Usually I wouldn't pat myself on the back like so, but it really irks me to see someone try to impugn my motives when they obviously know nothing about either me as a person or my posting history.


In closing, let it be known (for the denser among us who'd care to assume things about my character) that I have nothing against legal immigration from any nation. The thing is, there are procedures in place for that, and they are being flouted. Our government continuously analyzes how many immigrants our nation, and our economy, can safely absorb each year, and quotas are set up on the basis of this (there is a LOT of politics involved in the quota system-- i.e., country A is allowed 10K immigrants to the US per year while country B is allowed only 5K-- but that's for another topic). Trying to circumvent these processes in any way is contrary to the law, to good sense, and to any notion of propriety that I'd care to countenance.


Then again, who cares-- this country is in the shitter anyway; judging by the specious reasoning of some folks in this thread, it's going to continue to head south (pun horribly intended ). Hopefully Boogie gets laid soon and we can just end this miserable charade we call life.



EDIT: About the whole "rioting" thing, allow me to make a point:

Let us suppose that, somehow, there was a sizeable minority in this country who favored screwing little kids (they do exist, but this is a hypothetical). Let us then suppose that they threatened to riot if we continued to outlaw this disgusting practice. What do you do?

Obviously, screwing kids is a mite more serious than illegal immigration, but the principle holds. On what basis do you set social policy-- THAT is the pertinent issue imo.

 

[ShadowRed]

Because taking the law into your own hands is illegal in and of itself in this country, regardless of your motivations.

For example:
You know someone is a drug dealer? Fine, go tell the cops. If you decide to introduce him to your two friends, Smith and Wesson, you'll be in for a world of hurt yourself.

So people should be thrown in jail because they start a neighborhood watch program? The people who went down to the border were not shooting people or even detaining them. They were patroling, the same as a neighthood watch does. I'm sure if they saw something they would contact the Border patrol and get them involved. Also if I see a crime being commited it isn't against the law for me to take action so long as it's within the same magintude of the crime. If I see a guy beating his wife on the street I can run up and smack him around until he stops his assualt and detain him until the Cops show.

 

[ShadowRed]

When people are losing jobs in Southern California because they would rather pay an illegal 25 cents an hour, people see there's a problem.

Anyone who supports the illegals being in the country and taking jobs is an idiot who should be deported with them...and maybe shot.

Please the jobs that illegals are taking up are farm jobs and servant jobs like cleaning and janitoral type stuff. US citizens are not going to do these jobs. People need to get off this "illegals are taking my job crap." Unless all you've wanted to do in your life is clean toilets and pick oranges chances are illegals aren't taking a damn thing from you. In fact they make it so you can get a head of lettuce for 99 cents rather than 5 bucks or more.

 

[Banjo Tango]

That's a fair account of it, yes. Realize that my moral basis for believing these things is something that I am entirely capable of defending; in fact, if this were two years ago, you'd have already been treated to a 15K word expostulation on my moral reasoning on these matters. Unfortuantely, I don't have the time anymore.

Just wanted to make sure - I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or infer that you're racist, I just wanted to make sure I understood your arguments.

Anyway, looks like we're split on some pretty fundamental levels. This is one of those problems that I've never seen an answer I could really get behind. But, as you said, I don't think we're likely to see an answer from either party arriving any time soon.

Edit:

Obviously, screwing kids is a mite more serious than illegal immigration, but the principle holds. On what basis do you set social policy-- THAT is the pertinent issue imo.

The principle, IMO, is that you don't constrain yourself with hard and strict rules that ignore the consequences of your actions.

Edit 2: Oh, and just to be clear - I wouldn't see the threat of rioting pedophiles as a reason to make it legal, but that's also specific to the situation.

 

[Loki]

Please the jobs that illegals are taking up are farm jobs and servant jobs like cleaning and janitoral type stuff. US citizens are not going to do these jobs. People need to get off this "illegals are taking my job crap." Unless all you've wanted to do in your life is clean toilets and pick oranges chances are illegals aren't taking a damn thing from you. In fact they make it so you can get a head of lettuce for 99 cents rather than 5 bucks or more.

This is specious. Read my previous posts and find the parts that relate to this point.


It's like a chef preparing what is, by any culinary standard, an ATROCIOUS meal, and then some guy who hasn't eaten in 3 weeks wanders over and scarfs it down; the chef goes to the critic, "See? THEY ate it. I'll keep my cooking the way it is."


In this (admittedly hasty) analogy, the chef represents the corporations, the people who wouldn't eat his wretched food are American citizens/residents, and the hungry man is the illegal immigrant. I suppose the critic could be some politically conscious citizen.


The point being that to absolve corporations of their social responsibility-- which is what you do, in essence, when you shift the focus away from them and on to the folks who "won't take those kinds of jobs"-- is foolish. It never deals with important, but seldom asked, question of, "why would no American take these jobs"? In most cases, the answer to THAT question lies in miserable working conditions and paltry compnsation/benefits (read: a minimum wage that hasn't been increased in ages). Beyond all this, however, in my ideal world, welfare recipients-- you know, the people who you and I subsidize-- would be compelled to fill those jobs provided that they are able-bodied. I see no reason why they shouldn't.


Put the focus where it belongs, which is on the people perpetuating the circumstances whereby such a rationale as you propose actually sounds plausible (read: corporations), when it is in fact anything but. It's entirely untenable.

 

[ShadowRed]

This is specious. Read my previous posts and find the parts that relate to this point.


It's like a chef cooking an ATROCIOUS meal by any culinary standard, and then some guy who hasn't eaten in 3 weeks wanders over and scarfs it down; the chef goes to the critic, "see? They ate it. I'll keep my cooking the way it is."


In this analogy, the chef represents the corporations, the people who wouldn't eat his wretched food are American citizens/residents, and the hungry man is the illegal immigrant. I suppose the critic could be some politically conscious citizen.


The point being that to absolve corporations of their social responsibility-- which is what you do, in essence, when you shift the focus away from them and on to the folks who "won't take those kinds of jobs"-- is foolish. It never deals with important, but seldom asked, question of, "why would no American take these jobs"? In most cases, the answer to THAT question lies in miserable working conditions and paltry compnsation/benefits (read: a minimum wage that hasn't been increased in ages). Beyond all this, however, in my ideal world, welfare recipients-- you know, the people who you and I subsidize-- would be compelled to fill those jobs provided that they are able-bodied. I see no reason why they shouldn't.


Put the focus where it belongs, which is on the people perpetuating the circumstances whereby such a rationale as you propose actually sounds plausible (read: corporations), when it is in fact anything but. It's entirely untenable.

I try not to read your posts Loki, not out of malicious but because they are too long. Dude this is a gaming forum not a graduate class. Anyhow are you suggesting that we start paying farm workers and janitorial staffs, 20,000 + yearly, because other than that no US citizen is going to do these jobs. Assuming somehow this did how do you think the rest of the country will react when they go to pick up a head of lettuce and it's 5 + bucks. Or go to Macdonalds for a #1 and find out it cost 10 bucks when it used to be 3. Food prices would bouble or triple for the average family. As far as janitorial jobs office buildings and public areas would be filthy because companies wouldn't keep their staffs at the same level but fire most and overwork the others. I'm aware this is a really fucked up postion I'm taking comcidering that I'm a die hard Democrat and friend to the working class, as well as working class myself, but the ramifications on the countries economy would be astonomical if you got rid of all the illegals and replaced them with citizens.

 

[tenchir]

I try not to read your posts Loki, not out of malicious but because they are too long. Dude this is a gaming forum not a graduate class. Anyhow are you suggesting that we start paying farm workers and janitorial staffs, 20,000 + yearly, because other than that no US citizen is going to do these jobs. Assuming somehow this did how do you think the rest of the country will react when they go to pick up a head of lettuce and it's 5 + bucks. Or go to Macdonalds for a #1 and find out it cost 10 bucks when it used to be 3. Food prices would bouble or triple for the average family. As far as janitorial jobs office buildings and public areas would be filthy because companies wouldn't keep their staffs at the same level but fire most and overwork the others. I'm aware this is a really fucked up postion I'm taking comcidering that I'm a die hard Democrat and friend to the working class, as well as working class myself, but the ramifications on the countries economy would be astonomical if you got rid of all the illegals and replaced them with citizens.

I don't think the prices of food would shoot up that high for various reasons like we import food from other countries, or that some produces(sp?) we grow don't require hundreds of people to take care of. Slightly more expensive food would help to solve one problem this country is known for..... obesity.

 

[Ryck]

You have no idea how retarded these people are. They have them on the radio all the time in San Diego. They ask the psycho bitch who is their spokesperson why they should be allowed to have the rights they want event though they are breaking the law and she's always like "That's beside the point". The radio host is always like "But these people are breaking the law and are in the country illegally", and she throws a fit and starts crying "Think of the children!"

A couple months ago they were pissed that border control was doing sweeps in eastern LA for Illegals and they were throwing a fit that they were being thrown into trucks and dumped off on the other side of the border.

What's worse, in San Diego, the illegals go into hospitals and tell them that they crossed the border for better medical care and they get full medical care for FREE, while legal citizens sit in the waiting room of the emergency room bleeding to death. No lie, this actually happened in San Diego earlier this year.

Edit: Oh this is even better. There are groups of people in San Diego who go down to the border and enforce the border on their own because Border Control is so overworked and understaffed. When they do this, the Illegal Rights groups go up in arms and demand these people be arrested for preventing illegals from sneaking into the country.

Complete truth .........Im also from San Diego and I know exactly what he's talking about, Seriously these Latino Movment Jackasses make me ashamed to be mexican. They completly play to stereotypes and talk like they have a mental deficiency.

 

[Boogie]

Hopefully Boogie gets laid soon and we can just end this miserbale charade we call life.

:lol

 

[Loki]

I try not to read your posts Loki, not out of malicious but because they are too long. Dude this is a gaming forum not a graduate class. Anyhow are you suggesting that we start paying farm workers and janitorial staffs, 20,000 + yearly, because other than that no US citizen is going to do these jobs. Assuming somehow this did how do you think the rest of the country will react when they go to pick up a head of lettuce and it's 5 + bucks. Or go to Macdonalds for a #1 and find out it cost 10 bucks when it used to be 3. Food prices would bouble or triple for the average family. As far as janitorial jobs office buildings and public areas would be filthy because companies wouldn't keep their staffs at the same level but fire most and overwork the others. I'm aware this is a really fucked up postion I'm taking comcidering that I'm a die hard Democrat and friend to the working class, as well as working class myself, but the ramifications on the countries economy would be astonomical if you got rid of all the illegals and replaced them with citizens.

I understand your concerns, but I feel that-- in the best of all possible worlds-- they would be irrelevant. Allow me to elaborate (as I'm fond of doing ):


Speaking broadly, wages and earnings have been depressed for the overwhelming majority of Americans, even as the price of goods and services has risen dramatically. Now, simultaneously, vast amounts of wealth have been created in this country over the last 30 years or so (check the GDP figures)-- the problem is that most of that has ended up in scant few hands.

I propose that if wages rose to where they should be relative to the cost of living (ideally, wages should be rated against the CPI so as to give an accurate estimate of relative value), then it actually wouldn't trouble most Americans to pay an extra dollar or two for common goods and services. My argument against your rationale regarding the "jobs that Americans won't take" is somewhat limited in its context; my point is not to say that ONLY those jobs need to have their compensation raised to appropriate levels (certainly, nobody's advocating a farm-hand making $70K, but a liveable wage would be nice), but rather that EVERYBODY in this country, with the exception of the super-rich, is entitled to more than they're currently getting. In essence, the other 95% of American society has been getting shafted for decades, and this eventually leads to problems such as manifest themselves today-- in our particular example, we have the unjust scenario of seemingly have to choose between deporting illegals, which supposedly would adversely affect our economy, and Americans paying more for goods and services. Viewed in isolation, as a "deportation argument", it would certainly seem that to insist that companies should raise their wages proportional to cost-of-living would be foolish, as it would drive up costs, as you noted.


But now look at the big picture of a society where Joe Smith isn't getting shafted any longer-- it's not hard to imagine. Minimum wage in 1965 adjusted for inflation would be around $10 today-- nearly TWICE what the federal minimum is. On top of this ("oh, it's only twice as much, that's not so big a discrepancy", some might say), realize that costs in nearly EVERY sector of society-- from housing, to education, to healthcare, to utilities-- have risen FASTER than inflation for various reasons. So not only do today's workers have HALF of their ACTUAL purchasing power from 1965, but that "half" is further reduced when considered against the exorbitant prices of goods and services, which, in many cases as I pointed out, has far exceeded the rate of inflation. So in terms of "making a life for themselves", today's workers likely have less than a third (my guesstimate) of the purchasing power they had not 40 years ago. Considering that HUGE amounts of wealth have been created in the US during that time, something smells fishy there, doesn't it? Well it should...


To wrap this up MUCH more quickly than I'd like to (sometimes I have too much to say), allow me to say that yes, right now, if no other reforms were undertaken, if we deported all the illegals and forced companies to hire American workers and adhere to the minimum-wage laws and other labor laws, it would be a big hit on American consumers. Not devastating imo, but it'd raise a few eyebrows no doubt. However, start collecting income tax from the 95% of US-based corporations that pay ZERO income tax, and start closing up those offshore corporate tax shelter loopholes that the IRS estimates we lose between $50-80B per year on, and-- amazingly-- you'll find ample funds to pay these workers their due. Again, realize that I don't argue that these things will happen, only that they should. When discussing moral issues, I tend to divorce my pragmatic side from my idealistic side for the purposes of discussion. Beyond that, this is a largely artificial distinction between "ideals" and what is practicable that I draw here-- because, after all, if idealism is not realized in life, it just means that a people lack the determination and resolution to make it so, not that it cannot be done. I'm a firm believer in idealism and yet I honestly feel that every single measure I've proposed herein could be implemented easily (ignoring the protestations of those with vested interests, obviously). Incrementalism doesn't work in a society that's been co-opted by plutocrats. Hopefully we'll figure this out sooner rather than later.


To make a long story short, try to view my suggestions in an "ideal world" context, and not in isolation; obviously, any measure taken in isolation is going to have seemingly drastic consequences, as you alluded to. When we live in a just and sensible society, however, it won't be so bad at all. I find that this is the biggest problem I have in explaining things to people on the forum, because they carp about such-and-such a thing, not realizing that my view of things is as a whole; my posts are only little snippets-- windows into my world, so to speak. I desire justice for all people, as pretentious as that undoubtedly sounds.


Oh, and here's a novel idea for those who will no doubt exclaim that "if we don't let our billionaires make their billions, nobody will create jobs or innovate!" How about we look at it this way:

In a just and properly constituted society, I feel that a person's motivation after a certain point cannot be merely continued financial gain. Philosophically, it's just indefensible. I say that we should cap all income at $50M per year, with the rest going back into social pograms and infrastructure. Now, people will say that if such a thing came to pass, entrepeneurs would not seek to expand markets and businesses, or innovate. I say that in a proper society, where people have been properly habituated (read: not spoon-fed crass and indulgent materialism their whole lives), people will recognize the true value of what they have ($50M/year is nothing to sneeze at) and will desire to forge ahead anyway even after that "ceiling" has been reached in order to better the society, and to better their fellow man's lot in life. Are altruism and ethics as good a motivator as money? Likely not, but I don't think it'd be as disastrous as some people suppose it would be if you removed the EXTREME excesses of the profit motive from our society in favor of such a scenario as I proposed (again, as before, you can't just remove the profit motive in a vacuum or else it WOULD have terrible effects; I'm speaking of broad social and philosophical shifts here). Will this ever happen? No; this is why I said that you should view my posts as what I feel should transpire. It likely never will, though I sincerely hope that in my lifetime I'm able to see substantive change for the betterment of all of society and not just the elite.



This post was more meandering than I cared for it to be-- I just have so much to say about these things, and not enough time to organize my thoughts like I used to. Oh well, what can you do?

From your post it is clear that you're a noob who doesn't know shit about Loki.

Loki is one of the better posters on the board, even if he is too verbose most of the time.

I see your backhanded compliment and I raise you one:

Cyan is one of the better posters on the board, even if he's a bit terse at times.

(j/k thanks for the e-props )

 

[Boogie]

But seriously, I'm done here

Once again, Loki proves himself to be a damned liar

Just kidding, man, we love ya for it.

 

[vangace]

From your post it is clear that you're a noob who doesn't know shit about Loki.

Loki is one of the better posters on the board, even if he is too verbose most of the time.

and you are.... his bitch i presume

 

[MrAngryFace]

I wish Mexico would get fixed so they'd hate america and we'd have a normal flow of immigrants.

Hey, bring em on, if they wanna live here cool, but its becoming too fucking many. We need to regulate it SOMEHOW.

 

[Boogie]

and you are.... his bitch i presume

Strong words from someone who HASN'T ADDRESSED A SINGLE POINT LOKI HAS MADE.

edit: And I'm Loki's bitch, thank you very much.

 

[DM_Uselink]

I'm Mexican, I've known people who have crossed the border illegaly and were field workers. I live in the border with Baja, and a lot of the people who cross illegaly do so daily; it is a comon practice. They work during the mornings and then head back to their homes in Mexico daily.

Now I dont condone this, it is illegal after all. What I will say, is that no one around these parts will take the jobs these people do. Also not every illegal imigrant comes here to practice illegal acts (other than the act of crossing). The ones I have had contact with are decent people that are just trying to get by. Many come to purchase things or visit places they would normaly not have access to.

Theres also been many reported shootings appearing on the local news, by local farmers when they see illegal imigrants.....some deaths I believe.

And the whole bullshit about letting them have drivers licenses.... there are buses provided by the people who hire them to drive them from the border to the fields.. (I'm only speaking for the area I live in), so I suppose thats something we dont worry about here. In fact, the ones who are field workers have little time to travel across the city, since they are picked up and taken to work then dropped off.

Oh, and its not just Mexicans, South Americans are a big part of the illegal imigrant problem. Also, the government does not propagate Mexicans to enter the US illegaly.

This are just personal observations about the area that I live in.

 

[RaymondCarver]

People are quick to protest anything nowdays. Sometimes, however, there are things worth fighting for.

 

[Loki]

Now I dont condone this, it is illegal after all. What I will say, is that no one around these parts will take the jobs these people do. Also not every illegal imigrant comes here to practice illegal acts (other than the act of crossing). The ones I have had contact with are decent people that are just trying to get by. Many come to purchase things or visit places they would normaly not have access to.

Hate to beat a dead horse, but, again, this doesn't address precisely why most Americans wouldn't take those jobs. In the case of corporations, the reason for those jobs' atrocious working conditions and compensation is clear: corporate greed, same as in every other situation corporations are involved in. In the case of farmers, it's a bit trickier-- certainly the vast majority of farmers are not rich by any stretch, so how could they afford to pay their farmhands 2-3 times what they currently make? Ideally, farm owners would be subsidized by the government (with some of the $10B per year we lose to illegal immigrants) in order that they could pay their workers a reasonable wage. $30-35K per year seems a fair salary for farmhands, especially considering cost of living in those rural areas-- people live (and not entirely immodestly) on $35K per year here in NY, where cost of living is MUCH greater, so I think that's fair compensation. With $10B, you could pay roughly 300,000 farmhands $35K per year. Obviously, my comments about appropriation of funds in this thread are not meant to be taken as rigorous financial analyses; when you're no longer hemmorhaging money, however-- as would be the case if we shored up our borders and deported the illegals already here-- these things and more are entirely possible, and would eventually more than pay for themselves (especially if substantial corporate reform was enacted simultaneously; yeah, I know-- fat chance ). It's called "living in a sane world again."


And obviously, nobody is suggesting that illegal aliens are engaged in other sorts of crime after coming here-- at least I'm not. But that really doesn't change the facts of the issue. I'm not a murderer either-- do I deserve to be subsidized for that fact? Do I have the right to ask the government to overlook the tremendous cost I inflict upon society just because I'm otherwise law-abiding? Sounds silly, doesn't it? Also, I believe that anybody who shoots or otherwise intentionally harms illegal immigrants deserves to be subject to the same penalties that every other murderer or felon is, just so we're clear. As much as others would like to paint me as such, I'm far from some hate-filled racist who despises all illegal immigrants. I actually can sympathize with their plight in many instances, and can easily understand that most of them come here for a better life for them and theirs. That still doesn't make it right, however; it still doesn't excuse the illegality of their very presence here. And mere compassion certainly doesn't help to defray the costs they burden us with. Sometimes we have to balance our compassion and empathy with reason and logic, unfortunate as that might seem to some of the bleeding-hearts on this board (see: vangace). You can't make sound policy only with your heart, nor only with your head. I have been as fair as possible in my analyses herein, believe me.



My opinion on these matters is unwavering. You're free to attribute that to bullheadedness; I prefer to think of it as having done a lot of thinking on certain matters, and having come to firm conclusions about them. I honestly feel that those who disagree have either not given the issue enough thought or are reasoning speciously (which I've tried to speak to herein). On many issues, sensible people will be able to legitimately have divergent opinions; not so with this issue. Some issues are "tricky" to deal with, or sufficiently nuanced-- I do not begrudge others their disagreement in those areas. But defending illegal immigrants in any way, shape, or form? That's where I draw the line, sorry.

 

[Cimarron]

*claps* IAWTP! Loki for president!

 

[Boogie]

*claps* IAWTP! Loki for president!

Okay, I take it back. He's Loki's bitch. j/k

 

[levious]

how did this turn into a discussion of racism? I certainly never meant to accuse anyone of that.

 

[Loki]

how did this turn into a discussion of racism? I certainly never meant to accuse anyone of that.

You didn't-- at least not that I saw. It was vangace who said that and played the tired "if you want illegals deported you must be teh racist" card. In particular, he called me a "racist son of a bitch", which is farcical. I'm not racist, and I'm only a son of a bitch when people are being foolish, and even then only occasionally.

 

[MASB]

You didn't-- at least not that I saw. It was vangace who said that and played the tired "if you want illegals deported you must be teh racist" card. In particular, he called me a "racist son of a bitch", which is farcical. I'm not racist, and I'm only a son of a bitch when people are being foolish, and even then only occasionally.

Maybe Vangace is an equivalent of Ikenna.

As for illegal immigration, something seriously needs to be done about it. The longer we wait, the more drastic and hurtful the solution has to be. Of course the alternative is that nothing is done about it, in which case I see a bleak future for many parts of the US.

 

[vangace]

Nice way of slipping out of the argument vangace. We should all learn from your example and call someone racist when he clearly isn't to get out of an argument =P.

From Loki's posts it is apparent that he is racist towards Hispanics. Look, the reality of the matter is these illegals are here and their numbers will continue to grow. The question is what are we going to do about it? The government won't deport them, and as i have said before it doesn't do us any good to have a situation were there are 10 million illegals running around in California and we have no way of identifying them. Loki keeps on babbling the same shit over and over and yet he does not a propose a solution, and yes he is still a "son of bitch" .

 

[vangace]

Ah, you did get my point!

Yes, some Hispanic people voted for Ahnold. These people were obviously not illegal aliens, if they actually voted. Thus, Ahnold is not "betraying" them.

You still don't get it. Illegal or legal, it doesn't matter these people are the same and most of them are related. So whatever affects the illegals also affects legal Hispanics. Therefore if Anorld does something drastic that affects the illegal Hispanics, their legal counterparts will make him pay at the polls. In other words, they are intertwined.

 

[levious]

You didn't-- at least not that I saw. It was vangace who said that and played the tired "if you want illegals deported you must be teh racist" card. In particular, he called me a "racist son of a bitch", which is farcical. I'm not racist, and I'm only a son of a bitch when people are being foolish, and even then only occasionally.

You'll have to forgive me for not reading your posts completely in this, but could you sum up your argument for me on how illegals cost the US 10Billion a year? I was interested in that issue at least.

 

[Boogie]

From Loki's posts it is apparent that he is racist towards Hispanics.

Yes, his posts are obviously teeming with hatred and vitriol towards hispanic people.

Where's the damn rolleyes smiley when you need it?

 

[Loki]

From Loki's posts it is apparent that he is racist towards Hispanics.

Really? You sure about that? Like I said, racism has done more to damage my own life than it has done to yours-- there's really no question about that. Further, my last true love was a Hispanic girl (Mexican, actually). On top of that, I've spoken out strongly in favor of interracial dating, as seen in this thread. Doesn't really sit well with your preconceptions about me, now, does it? Unless you know a lot of racists who would have no problem marrying or having children with a person of another race; personally, I know of no such racists.


OH TEH NOES!!!1 MUST FIND ANOTHER ANGLE OF ATTACK!!!1 <rolleyes>

Loki keeps on babbling the same shit over and over and yet he does not a propose a solution

I've proposed several. Just because you don't think them reasonable doesn't mean that they're not right there in front of your (obviously blinkered) eyes.

and yes he is still a "son of bitch" .

Unfortunately for you, I doubt many people would agree; in fact, you should worry about your own standing in the eyes of people here if you keep behaving in such an illogical , accusatory manner.

You still don't get it. Illegal or legal, it doesn't matter these people are the same and most of them are related.

Ok, I've had enough of this tired quote; if you're going to keep repeating this, you'd better provide some substantiation. Anecdotes do not count. Show me a single report or study, or even an editorial, that says that most illegal immigrants are related to LEGAL hispanic citizens/residents. Not that this matters in terms of the overall debate, as I and several others have pointed out the flaws in condoning such an irrational, detrimental hive mentality on the part of legal hispanics (if it does in fact exist).

In other words, they are intertwined.

And I'll say it again: if they do, in fact, tangibly support illegal immigration (providing shelter, aid, and political clout), then fuck them too. Don't like that? Tough nuts. People who support clearly wrong and illegal actions in ANY sphere (not just regarding immigration) can take a flying leap off a cliff for all I care. They are not to be placated solely due to their voting clout; unfortunately, the ineffectual and meek politicians of our day would rather perpetuate their own rule than do the right thing. The problem should be explained publicly in clear terms, both ethical and financial, and then decisive action should be taken. Anybody who stands against good sense and the interests of this country and its people is not worth listening to, frankly-- particularly not when the impropriety of illegal immigration is so easily ascertained.

You'll have to forgive me for not reading your posts completely in this, but could you sum up your argument for me on how illegals cost the US 10Billion a year? I was interested in that issue at least.

That figure was the conclusion of a study done by the Center for Immigration Studies, an independent think tank, and the only one in the nation devoted exclusively to examining the issues and policies surrounding immigration in all its forms. The summary of the report can be seen here, and then at the bottom there are links to continue on to the study proper. Their methodology seems to be as accurate and as thorough as one could reasonably expect without physically rounding up all the illegals and questioning them as to their financial habits and the services they avail themselves of. You're free to read it for yourself.


Beyond that, I knew of the tremendous cost of illegal aliens even prior to reading that study, and so did most people. In California-- the state hit hardest by this phenomenon-- hospitals, public schools, and government benefit programs are all in danger of insolvency, and many hospitals have, in fact, closed down entirely, and many others have shuttered their emergency rooms, since that's the source of their biggest losses, as illegals come in for free medical care (which the hospitals are required by law to provide; see: EMTALA) and place an undue strain on the system, particularly during childbirth (which is fully subsidized both during delivery as well as the post-natal care). Read any interview with any hospital chief, education, or government official in California and they will to a man attribute soaring costs and their precarious financial situations largely to illegal immigration. These are not all people with agendas, you know, and it would be difficult to assert that all of them were lying, particularly when independent data buttresses their very points.


In short, I say that deportation is the only sane solution. As mentioned in the report, amnesty would have the effect of raising the cost per year due to illegals from $10.4B to an estimated $29B. Obviously, it is quite inhumane to cut services entirely to illegals because their children had no say in the matter, and do not deserve to be penalized for the criminality of their parents. So keep things as-is, and then undertake efforts at identifying, detaining, and deporting the illegals; that way, we can keep our consciences clear as well-- after all, who wants to see a kid die because he was denied medical care due to his parent's illegal status? Not I. Nor do I desire to see children starve, which is why AFDC to children of illegals (and welfare to their parents) should continue. However, sensible policy would dictate that we must concomitantly seek to shore up our borders and deport those already here, as the situation is getting entirely out of hand.

 

[Outdoor Miner]

There's just no way that's going to happen. Mass deportation? Do you know how many resources that would drain. Let's just assume for a minute that is successful, how are you going to prevent them from spilling over again? Buff (too many MMO's sorry) up the border resources? Now the amount they drain from our economy is just going into keeping them from re-entering.

You would be upsetting a LARGE portion of the Hispanic community in this country. Legal and illegal.

We need to look at the reasons for wanting to come over. Those reasons were mentioned before in this thread: a) American money, from b) American corporations.

 

[Loki]

Mass deportation? Do you know how many resources that would drain.

It would be a one-time cost that would more than pay for itself in the (not so) long-run.

Let's just assume for a minute that is successful, how are you going to prevent them from spilling over again? Buff (too many MMO's sorry) up the border resources? Now the amount they drain from our economy is just going into keeping them from re-entering.

Actually, I honestly don't think you'd need more than 100,000 police officers in addition to the military and border patrols that are already stationed near the border in order to have effective security there. 100K cops at $40K per year is only $4B. Throw in another billion for supplies and we still save nearly $5B per year. Think that's insignificant?


Further, border patrols would only be a temporary fix until more practical solutions (a fence, perhaps? Satellite tracking of the border so that fewer cops could cover larger areas of land effectively? Who knows) can be worked out. Something must be done.

You would be upsetting a LARGE portion of the Hispanic community in this country. Legal and illegal.

Like I said, I don't really give a shit, and neither should anybody else of good sense. "Oh no! You're going to upset a group that is supporting an ILLEGAL, immoral and financially ruinous practice! What shall we do!?" <rolleyes> Spare me, please. Anyone who supports illegal immigration in ANY way needs to get a lobotomy. Beyond that, upwards of 75% of Americans are in favor of immigration reform, and I'd wager that the number who'd be in favor of deportation-- so long as it was undertaken sensibly-- hovers around 50% or better. So who really cares how hispanic feel, then? Particularly since their reasoning is suspect-- if they had LEGITIMATE points or concerns, I'd never say that we should disregard ANY group's views and feelings on an issue. But if they would feel that way about stopping illegal immigration, then they are being entirely irrational; so I don't care much about what they'd think or do. If this country wasn't full of pandering, compromised politicians, but instead was governed by actual men, this would have been done a long time ago (along with dozens of other things in society-- I'm not arguing in a vacuum here, nor do I feel that illegal immigration is THE most pressing issue of the day, though I obviously feel that it is significant enough in its own right).

We need to look at the reasons for wanting to come over. Those reasons were mentioned before in this thread: a) American money, from b) American corporations.

And I fully support stiff penalties for companies who hire illegal workers, in addition to other corporate reform. This still doesn't change the fact of their illegal status.


Even if companies DID stop hiring them, and these people still came over in droves, would you support denying them medical care, public schooling, and all government benefits? Didn't think so. So if you're not going to support that, then you sure as shit should support deportation-- it's the only sensible solution.


Let me ask you-- do other countries allow these things to go on on such a grand scale? Doubtful.

 

[vangace]

There's just no way that's going to happen. Mass deportation? Do you know how many resources that would drain. Let's just assume for a minute that is successful, how are you going to prevent them from spilling over again? Buff (too many MMO's sorry) up the border resources? Now the amount they drain from our economy is just going into keeping them from re-entering.

You would be upsetting a LARGE portion of the Hispanic community in this country. Legal and illegal.

We need to look at the reasons for wanting to come over. Those reasons were mentioned before in this thread: a) American money, from b) American corporations.

He still doesn't get it, let him be man!

 

[Loki]

He still doesn't get it, let him be man!

I'm happy to see you've found a kindred soul, vangace, and that you can smile again after having been abused in this thread by all comers. Care to tell me again exactly how I'm "racist"? Didn't think so...

 

[Incognito]

Really? You sure about that? Like I said, racism has done more to damage my own life than it has done to yours-- there's really no question about that.

how the fuck do you know this? have you analyzed his life from his posts on the forum and reached the conclusion that he's never been a victim of racism?

do you have a crystal ball?

if so, i'd like to have one, too.

and you wonder why people can get the impression that you're pretentious.

 

[teepo]

so basically i take it they'll go to the stores and buy arnold's movies and then burn them...

yeh... lets just make him have a fatter royality check.

 

[levious]

Loki,

do you contend that the illegal population does not make a economic contribution to the US? Or does that 10 billion a year figure balance that out? I'm not arguing what is right, like I said before, I really feel they contribute more than they cost. The proof to me is that no one in power or in big business actually wants to take action on it.

 

[Loki]

how the fuck do you know this? have you analyzed his life from his posts on the forum and reached the conclusion that he's never been a victim of racism?

do you have a crystal ball?

if so, i'd like to have one, too.

and you wonder why people can get the impression that you're pretentious.

And you wonder why people think you're a juvenile prick. Your tag says that you're a troll, not mine.


I actually knew that you'd pop your head in about that comment, believe it or not (you won't believe it, of course, because it's after the fact, but I knew you'd open your mouth about that specific comment-- you're entirely predictable). I didn't say that he has never been a victim of racism, but unless racism has changed him to his very core-- changed his very principles-- then I doubt he's experienced what I have. Racism changed my entire being in ways that you can't even imagine; I'm not exaggerating, nor do I care to elaborate. You're free to think that I'm lying, as you obviously do; I really don't care what you think, to be honest. If he has experienced the same or similar, then more power to him, and I'll apologize for making that statement. Funny how you're quick to pick on my statement, but were notably absent when he was baselessly calling me a racist. Typical Lonestar right there.


And I'll gladly take a poll of who thinks I'm "pretentious" versus who thinks you're a trolling prick any day of the week. Whenever you'd care to.

do you contend that the illegal population does not make a economic contribution to the US? Or does that 10 billion a year figure balance that out? I'm not arguing what is right, like I said before, I really feel they contribute more than they cost. The proof to me is that no one in power or in big business actually wants to take action on it.

The study took that into account; the $10B figure is the net cost to society, even accounting for their contributions.

As for your second point, about them having to be a net GAIN simply because nobody in power or big business (one and the same, nowadays) will take action against them, well, that's just false. Sure, to BUSINESS they are a net gain. The question is whether they are a net gain to society; there are other people here besides disembodied corporate entities, you know. And if you want to know how something can be good for business, yet bad for society at the same time, well then I'd say you haven't been paying close enough attention to the trends in society over the past couple of decades.


What's good for corporations is not necessarily good for the American people, as much as fiscal conservative assclowns would like you to believe otherwise. Don't be fooled.

 

[levious]

The study took that into account; the $10B figure is the net cost to society, even accounting for their contributions.

As for your second point, about them having to be a net GAIN simply because nobody in power or big business (one and the same, nowadays), well, that's just false. Sure, to BUSINESS they are a net gain. The question is whether they are a net gain to society; there are other people here besides disembodied corporate entities, you know. And if you want to know how something can be good for business, yet bad for society at the same time, well then I'd say you haven't been paying close enough attention to the trends in society over the past couple of decades.


What's good for corporations is not necessarily good for the American people, as much as fiscal conservative assclowns would like you to believe otherwise. Don't be fooled.

As said before, forgive me for not throuroughly reading the study and your previous posts.

I also believe that the numbers alone do not express what affect their presence has on society, there's just too many variables. Another reason I forgot to mention about their overall non-burden to the country is the prevelant opinion within the INS' employees that the borders should be opened more. I doubt this has to do with compassion... although it also could be due to laziness.

 

[Incognito]

you haven't the slightest idea of whether or not vangance's experienced racism, and if so, to the exent in which you're describing.

was he wrong in calling you a racist son of a bitch?

yes.

are you wrong for your statement?

yes.

 

[Loki]

you haven't the slightest idea of whether or not vangance's experienced racism, and if so, to the exent in which you're describing.

was he wrong in calling you a racist son of a bitch?

yes.

are you wrong for your statement?

yes.

And yet-- amazingly-- you only popped your head in here to speak out against one of them. How...unsurprising. This goes to my point. Of all the things I've said herein which are pretty much unassailable, you manage to find the one comment which is-- and I knew you'd do it, too. I'll swear to God right here on that fact-- and you know that I wouldn't swear to God and lie. You're banal and predictable.


Many people are victims of racism and yet are still racist themselves; I felt it pertinent to highlight the magnitude of my experience so as to better clarify why I simply cannot be a racist in any way, shape or form. It was necessary to speak to his claims that I am a racist; had I just said "I've been a victim of racism", it wouldn't carry as much weight, because there are lots of people who can claim that, many of whom are still racist (I know several).


Just admit that you make negative (as in "less than zero", not as in "bad") contributions to threads, and be on your merry way Trollstar.

I also believe that the numbers alone do not express what affect their presence has on society, there's just too many variables.

Again, though, that's just speculation. If you're going to insist that a formal, detailed study of an issue carries no weight because "there are too many variables", then you might as well dismiss every study about every area of life ever written. Life has too many variables. Are their figures accurate to the dollar? Definitely not. Are they in the ballpark? Likely so. If you think that a reputable institution could conduct a study and end up being $10,000,000,001 off (which is how much they'd have to be off for illegal aliens to be a net gain), then pass me the pipe.

the prevelant opinion within the INS' employees that the borders should be opened more. I doubt this has to do with compassion... although it also could be due to laziness.

I've never heard that before; I'll do some looking when I get the chance. Hopefully there'll be an essay or editorial somewhere that would elaborate upon the reasons they'd have for thinking that way (if in fact they do). I'll get back to you.

 

[levious]

Again, though, that's just speculation. If you're going to insist that a formal, detailed study of an issue carries no weight because "there are too many variables", then you might as well dismiss every study about every area of life ever written. Life has too many variables. Are their figures accurate to the dollar? Definitely not. Are they in the ballpark? Likely so. If you think that a reputable institution could conduct a study and end up being $10,000,000,001 off (which is how much they'd have to be off for illegal aliens to be a net gain), then pass me the pipe.




I've never heard that before; I'll do some looking when I get the chance. Hopefully there'll be an essay or editorial somewhere that would elaborate upon the reasons they'd have for thinking that way (if in fact they do). I'll get back to you.

I'm sorry for not being clear, the statement about INS employee opinions are from employee's themselve speaking on what they and their co workers think/talk about. I'm from a town that used to house an old INS office in Texas and grew up with a friend who's father worked for INS in DC.

As for the study's validity, you think they don't have an agenda of their own? Are you claiming that they are really an "independent" think tank or something? Nothing I've read about them would lead me to believe that.

Please don't try to insult me, I feel like I've been cordial to you in carrying on this discussion, and this topic is not light-hearted like the usual Jordan Rules topics.

 

[Loki]

I'm sorry for not being clear, the statement about INS employee opinions are from employee's themselve speaking on what they and their co workers think/talk about. I'm from a town that used to house an old INS office in Texas and grew up with a friend who's father worked for INS in DC.

As for the study's validity, you think they don't have an agenda of their own? Are you claiming that they are really an "independent" think tank or something? Nothing I've read about them would lead me to believe that.

Please don't try to insult me, I feel like I've been cordial to you in carrying on this discussion, and this topic is not light-hearted like the usual Jordan Rules topics.

I totally meant no offense with anything I said; if the "pass the pipe" comment was what made you think that way, well, that's why I put the smileys there. If it was anything else I said that led you to believe that I was being rude or insulting, let me know and I'll be glad to explain; I honestly meant no offense. If I did, I certainly wouldn't be saying this (you don't see me apologizing to Lonestar, after all ).


As for the reputation of the CIS, well, I only did some cursory research, and they seem to be fairly well-regarded and cited in many places. As to their leanings, if any, I have no idea-- I said that they were a non-partisan, independent think tank because that's what they say about themselves on their site. In addition, the other sites I've visited and things I've read in searching for info on this topic seem to have a favorable enough opinion of them; I didn't see any outright claims of bias. If you've heard otherwise, I'd be happy to hear it, and I'll look into it. (Un)forutunately, this was the only thorough, formalized study I could find on illegal immigration specifically. Its findings are similar to those of studies conducted by the Urban Institute, the National Research Council, and tax inquiries conducted by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Treasury, as noted in their methodology section.


So I'm not sure what else I could say...

 

[levious]

seems like it depends on what paper you read, LA Times doesn't seem to offer an opinion on them, but the Wash Post seems to say they're a right-winged think tank. I don't really know either I guess, I didn't realize how recent the study was either, just screams scare tactics to me, and reminds me of a lot of the "English-First" studies of about ten years ago.

Sorry, guess I read into your posts with more of a condencending attitude then you really meant.

 

[explodet]

THEY TOOK ER JEERRRBS

 

[Loki]

What should be noted is that my stance has nothing to do with the fact that they're "taking errrr jobbbs". The only time I speak about jobs when talking about illegal immigrants is when others start talking about how, if we deported them, nobody would "fill derrr jobbbs". Not that you directed that comment at me or anything-- I'm just saying.


levious:

No problem. I just typed in "illegal immigration financial impact, cost, study" into google and went through a several pages of results-- that study was all I could find. Further, the methodology is right there for anyone to read if they think they were being shady with things.


Obviously every think-tank is potentially biased, being composed of human beings; it is a matter of organizational culture that determines whether those in charge of those institutions allow that personal bias to seep through to the profesional work they put out. Personally, I've seen nothing to believe that the study was so gravely flawed that they are $10B off, that's all I'm saying. Also, even if they turn out to be "right-leaning", what does that prove? Republicans are dead-silent on illegal immigration, being beholden, as they are, to corporations. Also, one needs only to read the interviews and editorials by Californian officials in every sector to realize the adverse economic impact that illegal immigration has. There's just no way that they're a net gain for the economy.


Even looking past mere financial concerns (which are enormous), however, I would be opposed to illegal immigration strictly on moral grounds; in that sense, it doesn't really make a difference to me personally whether or not the figures are correct (though I believe them to be until shown otherwise).

 

[levious]

really? On strictly moral grounds I'm for completely opening up the border.

Most republicans are pretty moderate, I wouldn't insult the party as a whole by associating it with what I perceive as extreme right thinking.

 

[Loki]

really? On strictly moral grounds I'm for completely opening up the border.

Most republicans are pretty moderate, I wouldn't insult the party as a whole by associating it with what I perceive as extreme right thinking.

I'm far from "extreme right" in my thinking; as I said, all polls show broad consensus on this issue among the American people. As for my stating that I am morally opposed to illegal immigration, I meant that I am morally opposed under our current laws and paradigm. Sure, if our laws were changed and our societies exhibited more parity, there would be no objection. As it stands, however, it's still illegal, and besides, a country cannot handle unlimited immigration from another country. No other nation does anything remotely like that-- hell, they don't even permit what we permit right now in regards to illegal immigration. It's not doable imo.