What's to stop us from being the worlds dumping ground for toxic human waste like felons and terrorists?
Illegal immigrants packing up and leaving Arizona
- Thread starter Reactor
- Start date
What's to stop us from being the worlds dumping ground for toxic human waste like felons and terrorists?
I'm guessing he was born here...which constitutionally makes him every bit as much of a citizen as you. In fact, if anything, it's unAmerican (I hate that word, but the usage is appropriate here) to attempt to make military service an enhancement or precondition for "real" citizenship.
Of course, much like Christians need an atheist to point out what their Bible says, I've noticed that Americans frequently need a dirty foreigner like myself to point out what their constitution actually states...
I love it when you talk dirty to me. The fact that you killed people in defense of a nation state for 6 years does not make me trust your analysis of international migration. If you accept the customary bundle of rights of sovereign states as given, of course the state has a right to control its borders. However, sovereignty has also been used time and again as a justification for genocide, torture, social control and disastrous regulation. Strict sovereignty means placing the rights of the state, the collective, above the rights of the individual. Essentially, I believe that collectives have no rights of their own, they cannot acquire or create new rights, but are merely organizations for the protection of individual rights. To take an extreme example, by forming a street gang, I do not acquire the right to murder my rivals. Those murders and murders I commit on my own time are equally unjust.
I agree with you that something needs to be done about illegal immigration, and that we should increase the legal quotas, but this problem isn't going to go away unless EVEN THE POOR can immigrate legally. It would also be extremely callous to begin massive deportations of people who have established themselves in this country. Thus, amnesty is the only real alternative.
The laws and regulations as they stand make it impossible for people to do something that I believe is lawful, namely, come to the United States in search of a better life. Our "laws" and "The Law" often stand in opposition, and it is naive to conflate them.
I agree with you that something needs to be done about illegal immigration, and that we should increase the legal quotas, but this problem isn't going to go away unless EVEN THE POOR can immigrate legally. It would also be extremely callous to begin massive deportations of people who have established themselves in this country. Thus, amnesty is the only real alternative.
The laws and regulations as they stand make it impossible for people to do something that I believe is lawful, namely, come to the United States in search of a better life. Our "laws" and "The Law" often stand in opposition, and it is naive to conflate them.
I know, however if someone wants to equate citizenship to a stock, the issue of price is inevitable. My experience is the less someone "paid" for their citizenship the less they really value it. So someone like skatetokill who probably hasn't much of anything to earn citizenship, values it less than you or I would.
I love your reading comprehension. Where did I say anything about killing people? Once again you jump on a bulletrain of assumption and illogic and end up in the wrong city. You paint with a very broad brush, and yet seldom provide any actual content. Our Constitution, the one every military and government worker has to swear to uphold and preserve, defines what rights our ancestors gave the Unites States on it's founding. Over 200 years of laws and court decisions define our systems of law. In my case not all of my ancestors were willing members of our country. Some of my ancestors were "migrated" from Georgia to Oklahoma at the point of a gun and cavalry saber.
Controlling the borders, preventing illegal immigration and all the evils that come along with it protects your and my rights. Our rights to work, our rights to a safe work place, our rights to a safe and secure country. What price did you pay for your citizenship? How much is it worth to you?
Did you even read most of the posts? I do beleive in letting more unskilled (AKA poor) worker immigrate legally, once the need for them is established. I want to fix the problem. Not just give amnesty to generation after generation fo illegal immigrant, while maintaining a status quo. I even believe in a guest worker program that would legally let someone come into the country for a limited period (3 months or so) for agricultural jobs that most Americans wouldn't take.
I personally believe that we will need more immigration of unskilled labor. But the legal immigration of unskilled laborers cannot occur until the illegal labor problem is fixed, otherwise illegal aliens will always undercut legal manual laborers. And I think the new Arizona law will prove that. Estimates are much as 10% of the workforce in Arizona is illegal. In some areas it's significantly higher. Some businesses, those who have exploited illegal labor, will suffer. You will pay more for lettuce.
Mass deportations callous? The people knew what they were doing when they illegally immigrated. They knew the risks. They knew they were breaking the law. I want to eliminate the demand end of illegal immigration. The source end resides in other countries that we don't control. These aren't people commuting 25 minutes to work encountering a sudden barrier, these are people who traveled hundreds or thousands of miles.
The law does allow people to come to the United States. Even Unskilled workers have a chance to immigrate, unlike under Mexican law for one. I'd like to change the quotas, and the system to allow more people to legally immigrate.
What is Naive is to think you can allow unlimited uncontrolled immigration to the US, while the rest of the world is built on a system of sovereign countries controlling their borders. While many people would come to the US in search of a better life, many governments would exploit such a system for their benefit dumping their most unwanted people, like murders, rapists, and upper middle class political science students. Like it or citizens in the US are entitled to certain right and benefits. The US is by no means a socialist state, but still these benefits cost money. Even if every immigrant were well meaning and wanted to work, it's unlikely the all could or would be able to find work, leaving taxpayers of a nearly bankrupt government to foot the bill. Systems like Social Security are built with assumptions of the distribution of wealth. Those paying the least into the system, get the largest return on their dollar in retirement. A sudden change in the distribution of population would have drastic effects on the system.
The first thing that needs to be done is a constitutional amendment that removes birthright citizenship. Without that, you may as well build a 100 foot high wall along the Mexican border, because they aren't going to stop coming.
I Couldn't agree more. At the very least birth citizenship should only apply to the children of legal residents or citizens.
So Mexico doesn't want uneducated impoveished illegal aliens pooring across their southern border? I've heard that last year Mexico admitted 239 immigrants. We should follow their lead as a beacon of reason on immigration policy.
Pooring across? Whether that was Freudian or Joyce-ian, I can't tell...
Either way, I can't really blame every Mexican for the actions of the Mexican government, but when the Mexican government is basically pushing the US to open its border and remove immigration controls, there's the deepest hypocrisy.
Either way, I can't really blame every Mexican for the actions of the Mexican government, but when the Mexican government is basically pushing the US to open its border and remove immigration controls, there's the deepest hypocrisy.
To be honest with you I'd be curious to know what benefits they could expect. I'm a US citizen and I don't see much benefit myself (beyond the things mentioned like roads and other infrastructure). On top of that I pay property taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, bla, bla, bla. My health insurance is paid for by my employer and myself and even if it wasn't I wouldn't qualify for any of the social programs my tax dollars are going to fund. That said it pisses me off something awful to hear of people taking advantage of those tax funded systems I can't even qualify for.
One of the recent issues to come up in Massachusetts was in-state tuition for people with no legal status. I'm sorry but, despite my liberal upbringing and generally tollerant views, that just crosses a line. Until my own son can get a free-and-clear tax funded subsidy to help me cover the cost of him going to college (I probably won't qualify for decent financial aid just as my parents didn't) I can't get behind helping those who are outside the system.
Reactor, you say that America isn't a socialist country I've been to socialist countries and there are more similarities than differences. Our social programs are really the only reason anybody can come up with for disallowing immigration. Why don't we talk about reforming entitlements, the real elephant in the room rather than jumping down each other's throats over the illegal immigration issue which accounts for a relatively small drag on our national economy? This is a manufactured issue that distracts us from what really needs debating. I've heard estimates that illegals cost the US 20 billion dollars in public money, but thats a small number distributed across the entire population, and you probably come out even if you consider the lower prices you pay for goods and services.
Obviously there arent good statistics to back this claim, but in my experience, the US has a large and growing black market. People choose to operate outside the law because the law is stupid or poorly enforced (and usually both). We all break the law every single day whether we know it or not. You can't punish people for acting in their own interests, if anything the government institutions should support self improvement to the extent that it doesn't curtail the rights of other people.
Obviously there arent good statistics to back this claim, but in my experience, the US has a large and growing black market. People choose to operate outside the law because the law is stupid or poorly enforced (and usually both). We all break the law every single day whether we know it or not. You can't punish people for acting in their own interests, if anything the government institutions should support self improvement to the extent that it doesn't curtail the rights of other people.
I agree, and it's a typing on an iPhone slip!
skatetokill,
While some entitlement programs may need reforming, the majority for an important safety net which is necessary in any capitalist society with the slightist bit of compassion. Major changes in SSI would harm generations of Americans who have paid into the system, the same for Medicare. And the right to emergency medical care isn't a government entitlement, it's a law. You and I pay for that through higher medical costs.
I've never seen any figure that adequately shows the drain on the economy that illegal immigration causes. You would have to compile wage pressures, benefits paid, crime, infrastructure costs, police, medical... It's mind boggling. The direct cost may be 20 billion dollars a year but I beleive the indirect is many times higher.
You still haven't addressed the issue of human dumping that would occur under an unlimited immigration system. Why wouldn't Mexico and every other country in the world load up full of felons, terrorists, mental health patients, and any other they consider undesirable and dump them at the border?
While some entitlement programs may need reforming, the majority for an important safety net which is necessary in any capitalist society with the slightist bit of compassion. Major changes in SSI would harm generations of Americans who have paid into the system, the same for Medicare. And the right to emergency medical care isn't a government entitlement, it's a law. You and I pay for that through higher medical costs.
I've never seen any figure that adequately shows the drain on the economy that illegal immigration causes. You would have to compile wage pressures, benefits paid, crime, infrastructure costs, police, medical... It's mind boggling. The direct cost may be 20 billion dollars a year but I beleive the indirect is many times higher.
You still haven't addressed the issue of human dumping that would occur under an unlimited immigration system. Why wouldn't Mexico and every other country in the world load up full of felons, terrorists, mental health patients, and any other they consider undesirable and dump them at the border?
as for punishing people for breaking the law to act in their own self interest? We do that every day . Tresspassing, fraud, smuggling, are all punished regularly, and all involved in any illegal alien entry into the US. We also punish theft, robbery, rape and other crimes where people acted in their "own self interest" . If I want to increase my income by claiming to be a doctor and provide false paperwork I'll be punished. Why shouldn't someone else lying about their credentials?
As for self improvement, when did you,I, and other Americans become responsible for the self improvement of other countries? These people have a home country and government, you should reserve your angst for their governments, not America.
As for self improvement, when did you,I, and other Americans become responsible for the self improvement of other countries? These people have a home country and government, you should reserve your angst for their governments, not America.
to expound:
As for punishing people for breaking the law to act in their own self interest? We do that every day.
I'm sure you realize there are three vastly different levels of penalty in our legal system: Civil penalties, misdemeanors, and felonies. Speed by 10 miles an hour, it's a civil penalty. Speed by 25 miles an hour, it might be a misdemeanor. Speed by 25 MPH in a 25 MPH school zone while drunk and weaving in and out of traffic and using kids as speed cones, it will be a felony. We punish theft, robbery, rape, fraud and other crimes where people acted in their "own self interest".
Trespassing, fraud, smuggling, are all punished regularly, severely, and are or can be felonies. In Arizona at least, all are usually involved in any illegal alien entry and employment in the US. Where does it all end? How much crime should I be able to do in my self interest before you think I should be punished? What if I lie on my resume and take a job you would have had? What if I hack the computer system and change my credentials or college records to make them look better? What If I want be self serving to increase my income by claiming to be a doctor and provide false paperwork? Why shouldn't someone else lying about their work credentials? Were is the amount of fraud so significant you think it needs to be punished?
We spend Billions on suppressing human smuggling. It makes the shear level of human smuggling makes it hard to stop hardened criminals, drug smugglers, and terrorists crossing the border. Human smuggling is having a direct effect on your safety. Drop houses run by coyotes in Phoenix frequently result in violence, having a direct effect on my safety. Several Valley area officer from three different agencies have been shot by illegal aliens. In fact almost every officer death or injury for the last six months has been the result of illegal aliens. Where do you draw the line? When do we take action against the counties exporting their criminals to the US? Especially the hypocrites like Mexico that basically all but ban immigration, forgiven workers, and don't provide any benefits to aliens, legal or illegal? All while providing maps and encouragement to their citizens who want to immigrate to the US.
As for self improvement, when did you,I, and other Americans become responsible for the self improvement of people in other countries? These people have a home country and government, Isn't that home government and people responsible for their self improvement? You should reserve your angst for their governments, not America.
Punishing pawns resolves nothing.
I wouldn't want to live under the revolutionary governments either, but we were involved with the right wing dictatorships that destroyed Latin America. Our amnesties in the past were mainly for the refugees. Dominican Republic, Haiti, Grenada, Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico, Chile. The list goes on if you want to go into the truly covert involvement, the training facilities that produced all that ghoulish **** with razor blades and electrodes to the genitals.
Latin America and the U.S. government are in the midst of an ongoing war. In the case of Mexico, we invaded them, occupied their capital, and took half the land in their country. Now they're taking it back. It's called a border dispute.
The fortified border is the reason there are smugglers. If you could just walk right into San Diego like crossing from Maryland into Virginia, all those evil criminals would have to get day jobs.
Attempts at social control create about as many criminals as they lock up, oddly enough.
I wouldn't want to live under the revolutionary governments either, but we were involved with the right wing dictatorships that destroyed Latin America. Our amnesties in the past were mainly for the refugees. Dominican Republic, Haiti, Grenada, Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico, Chile. The list goes on if you want to go into the truly covert involvement, the training facilities that produced all that ghoulish **** with razor blades and electrodes to the genitals.
Latin America and the U.S. government are in the midst of an ongoing war. In the case of Mexico, we invaded them, occupied their capital, and took half the land in their country. Now they're taking it back. It's called a border dispute.
The fortified border is the reason there are smugglers. If you could just walk right into San Diego like crossing from Maryland into Virginia, all those evil criminals would have to get day jobs.
Attempts at social control create about as many criminals as they lock up, oddly enough.
We have supported some of the dictatorships, mainly in turning a blind eye and providing financial and logistical support (allowing pathways for purchasing arms). A lot of the hatred towards this country comes from our support of oppressive governments...as long as they support our position we support them. We dealt with the Taliban until the human rights violations got so bad that Clinton had to back off
Are you seriously calling immigration a border dispute? Do you think there is conspiracy by the Mexican government to take back the land they lost??
You didn't answer any of the questions I posed, again. I don't know why I waste time responding to yours. Your rather limited response, forces me to assume you have no moral or ethical base and to you the ends always justify the means, especially when it benefits you and regardless of who it hurts.
I have no quarrel with asylum/amnesty for political refugees, and most Americans agree with me. They are currently eligible for immigration, above and beyond any quotas. These are not the people we are talking about, they are also a small part of the illegal alien problem, and your even bringing them up is a colossal red herring.
The largest amnesty in history was the "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986" which granted amnesty mostly to mexican illegal aliens. Unfortunately Federal enforcement of the act has been lax, and resulted in the US being in the same boat again. Multi-million dollar businesses laughed at the $1500 fine, and the overworked INS couldn't keep up. Now state and local governments, then ones most directly affected by illegal immigration are having to make laws to cope with the problem.
You are also misusing the term "border dispute". The current borders between the US and Mexico were established in 1845, by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the end of the Mexican - American war, a little over 160 years ago. America purchased the Southwest ( Arizona, Colorado, California and Arizona and parts of New Mexico and Wyoming ) from Mexico, and ensured the property rights of Mexicans already living there. Later the Gadsden Purchase(Treaty of Mesilla) added another patch of land, completing Arizona.
Except for a couple of minor disputes over the changing course of the Rio Grande, I don't know of any dispute the Mexican government has with the border as they currently are.
So are countries are going to dump felons, mentally ill, and whoever else they don't want at our border and they are magically going to become upstanding citizens?
Let's punish their governments too!
I have no quarrel with asylum/amnesty for political refugees, and most Americans agree with me. They are currently eligible for immigration, above and beyond any quotas. These are not the people we are talking about, they are also a small part of the illegal alien problem, and your even bringing them up is a colossal red herring.
The largest amnesty in history was the "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986" which granted amnesty mostly to mexican illegal aliens. Unfortunately Federal enforcement of the act has been lax, and resulted in the US being in the same boat again. Multi-million dollar businesses laughed at the $1500 fine, and the overworked INS couldn't keep up. Now state and local governments, then ones most directly affected by illegal immigration are having to make laws to cope with the problem.
Now you sound like NCLR, LULAC or any of the other organizations trying to subvert the US Government. Why don't you try to balance your reading with a site like www.dontspeakforme.org ? Which gives the opinions of legal hispanic Immigrants.
You are also misusing the term "border dispute". The current borders between the US and Mexico were established in 1845, by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the end of the Mexican - American war, a little over 160 years ago. America purchased the Southwest ( Arizona, Colorado, California and Arizona and parts of New Mexico and Wyoming ) from Mexico, and ensured the property rights of Mexicans already living there. Later the Gadsden Purchase(Treaty of Mesilla) added another patch of land, completing Arizona.
Except for a couple of minor disputes over the changing course of the Rio Grande, I don't know of any dispute the Mexican government has with the border as they currently are.
The fortified border is because of the smugglers, and escalation of violence between the smugglers and Border Patrol. I'm originally from San Diego I know the history of the border, and lived a good deal of it. People in TJ generally can just walk across the border.
And oddly enough, criminals who exploit t a society, cause laws to be made in an attempt to control their behaviors. Perfect synergy.
So are countries are going to dump felons, mentally ill, and whoever else they don't want at our border and they are magically going to become upstanding citizens?
This was included in the original treaty *edit:"(property rights for Mexicans already living there)." However, the United states decided to exclude the 10th article from the treaty upon ratification:
The version of the treaty ratified by the United States Senate eliminated Article X, which stated that the U.S. government would honor and guarantee all land grants awarded in lands ceded to the United States to citizens of Spain and Mexico by those respective governments.
Now, the treaty did have articles which guaranteed citizenship to all "assimilated" people, but this too was altered after the fact:
Article VIII guaranteed that Mexicans who remained more than one year in the ceded lands would automatically become full-fledged American citizens (or they could declare their intention of remaining Mexican citizens); however, the Senate modified Article IX, changing the first paragraph and excluding the last two. Among the changes was that Mexican citizens would "be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States)" instead of "admitted as soon as possible", as negotiated between Nicholas Trist (reppin' the U.S and A) and the Mexican delegation.
Hah, the Gadsden Purchase was like dessert for the U.S' appetite for land.
You are right about the actual border disputes stopping after these events, not too sure Mexico wanted to interfere with its new daddy. But the history of the internal land disputes that were taking place are much less publicized. And trust me, there was some extremely sketchy diplomacy taking place by the Americans at the time (although it is extremely hard to prove actual events from both ends).
Not too sure what you mean by just "walking across". If you mean to say that there is a pedestrian border terminal, then yes. But this terminal is usually backed up with a couple hundred people (sometimes even thousands) depending on the time of day. Now, concerning the actual "fence"...that thing is pretty impressive. Most people who attempt to cross the border illegally are not doing it in the metro area, Trust me.Reactor said:The fortified border is because of the smugglers, and escalation of violence between the smugglers and Border Patrol. I'm originally from San Diego I know the history of the border, and lived a good deal of it. People in TJ generally can just walk across the border.
Crap, sorry for buttig in to your thred!! hah
This was included in the original treaty *edit:"(property rights for Mexicans already living there)." However, the United states decided to exclude the 10th article from the treaty upon ratification:
The version of the treaty ratified by the United States Senate eliminated Article X, which stated that the U.S. government would honor and guarantee all land grants awarded in lands ceded to the United States to citizens of Spain and Mexico by those respective governments.
Now, the treaty did have articles which guaranteed citizenship to all "assimilated" people, but this too was altered after the fact:
Article VIII guaranteed that Mexicans who remained more than one year in the ceded lands would automatically become full-fledged American citizens (or they could declare their intention of remaining Mexican citizens); however, the Senate modified Article IX, changing the first paragraph and excluding the last two. Among the changes was that Mexican citizens would "be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States)" instead of "admitted as soon as possible", as negotiated between Nicholas Trist (reppin' the U.S and A) and the Mexican delegation.
Hah, the Gadsden Purchase was like dessert for the U.S' appetite for land.
You are right about the actual border disputes stopping after these events, not too sure Mexico wanted to interfere with its new daddy. But the history of the internal land disputes that were taking place are much less publicized. And trust me, there was some extremely sketchy diplomacy taking place by the Americans at the time (although it is extremely hard to prove actual events from both ends).
Not too sure what you mean by just "walking across". If you mean to say that there is a pedestrian border terminal, then yes. But this terminal is usually backed up with a couple hundred people (sometimes even thousands) depending on the time of day. Now, concerning the actual "fence"...that thing is pretty impressive. Most people who attempt to cross the border illegally are not doing it in the metro area, Trust me.
Crap, sorry for buttig in to your thred!! hah
Glad to have someone contribute substance. The original treaty has been modified several times, including by the Gadsden purchase. The history of most North and South American countries from Argentina to Canada is full of political and territorial hanky panky. Some of my ancestors are Choctaw, and traveled the "trail of tears" a few years after the Mexican American war. It was a long time ago, it was wrong, but there is no way to unwind history and make it right, and I don't dwell on it.
As far as helping disadvantaged people lets start with the American Indians stuck on Reservations, They've gotten a raw deal and the American Government is directly responsible.
The fence is the wrong answer, all it does is make it even riskier to cross. Most of the illegal alien crossers have been pushed out into the desert. Now they usually cross between Yuma and Sierra Vista, crossing some of the worst desert around, some very sensitive ecological areas, and a bombing range. The fence doesn't remove the reason people come across, nor the reason people leave their home countries. While we cannot, contrary to Neocon beliefs, change every country in the world, we can change our end of the supply and demand equation.
Agreed.
It is crazy how so much stuff has happened throught history, but 99% of people remain oblivious to these facts. They are stories/history that are(is) important to know when forming an opinion on a particular subject.
I also have some Cherokee back there somewhere, and I agree that the reservations are our arid national disgrace. However, that's another thread.
Somewhere back in this discussion you advocated a guest worker program and I'm curious to hear how it would operate. Would your program include a route to citizenship or permanent residence? If not, how would it change the dynamic of lawlessness that you wish to interrupt.
On the issue of smugglers, violence, and the border we can play the chicken and egg game, but I'll come right out and tell you what I believe. If the U.S. government didn't make the goods that Americans demand illegal there would be no smuggling. The turmoil in the southwest (not to mention the fact that narcotics funded terrorists are a serious threat) is probably the best argument I've seen for legalization.
The drug war is an important part of economic conflict I've been talking about. We actually forbid legalization in Latin America (Mexico tried in the last couple years) and we spend billions on crop eradication, interdiction, and training.
If the government wanted to, it could close down FARC and all the cartels, warlords, and narcoterrorists tomorrow, not to mention give a boost to struggling farmers if the import of drugs were regulated rather than prohibited.
Any argument about immigration predicated on previous border arrangements is an abstraction. Mexicans and the many other groups crossing the border illegally are not doing it with any thought of "retaking lost land" or any other like notion.
No guest worker program should inherently include a path to citizenship. Aspiring guest workers should have to apply to a US consul in their country of citizenship (giving incentive for the "honest" illegals working here to depart the country and return documented), or another country in which they're legally present, and be granted status to work in the US for a period of 5 years.
They should be issued an ID card keyed to them biometrically, which can be read via an easy-to-use box that US employers can lease or buy from the government. (Worker puts card in slot, scans fingerprint/retina, box gives red for no match and green for match). Employers who use people without a valid card should face crippling penalties, removing the economic incentive to cheat...plenty of legal guest workers should be available. (Unsure of how it could be enforced on the small scale, for individual gardeners and maids and such--perhaps only licensed businesses should be able to employ them, instead of individuals.) If a worker's card doesn't function or is lost, they would simply report to a USCIS office, have their bios scanned and matched to the central database, and get a new card.
Workers then work in the US legally, and are safe from being exploited as near-slave labor. Their income is appropriately taxed (maybe they shouldn't pay into Social Security, because they won't benefit from it). Workers send money home to Mexico, hopefully gradually improving their family's situation and the situation of the country in general.
Anyone in the US coming into contact with local, state, or (especially) federal authorities who's shown to be illegal is immediately (and callously, thanks...it shouldn't be a pleasant thing) documented and deported. This will gradually reduce the number of illegals in the US, especially the "bad" ones. (Of which there are many--got any MS-13 in your neighborhood? They're all illegal and vicious, except for their kids who are now US citizens, and might be able to eventually legalize their criminal thug parents).
As far as legalizing drugs, that sounds rather utopian, and from a personal-responsibility standpoint, I'm inclined to think people should have the chance to ruin their lives or not. However, such a viewpoint entirely leaves out the societal cost of drugs to people beyond the user, which is vast. Drugs lead to crime to obtain more drugs, regardless of whether the drugs themselves are legal. Look at Amsterdam...the growing crime and general decay are forcing the city to look at its situation and decide that they might need to curb the libertarianism.
Also, the FARC won't simply disappear if drugs are legalized. The networks for illegal production and distribution are in place, and the vast profits from continuing to produce and transport illicit drugs without the proper pharmaceutical safety measures and import taxes, and desperate addicts won't care whether their next fix is from the drugstore or the pusher...they'll just go for the cheaper option.
No guest worker program should inherently include a path to citizenship. Aspiring guest workers should have to apply to a US consul in their country of citizenship (giving incentive for the "honest" illegals working here to depart the country and return documented), or another country in which they're legally present, and be granted status to work in the US for a period of 5 years.
They should be issued an ID card keyed to them biometrically, which can be read via an easy-to-use box that US employers can lease or buy from the government. (Worker puts card in slot, scans fingerprint/retina, box gives red for no match and green for match). Employers who use people without a valid card should face crippling penalties, removing the economic incentive to cheat...plenty of legal guest workers should be available. (Unsure of how it could be enforced on the small scale, for individual gardeners and maids and such--perhaps only licensed businesses should be able to employ them, instead of individuals.) If a worker's card doesn't function or is lost, they would simply report to a USCIS office, have their bios scanned and matched to the central database, and get a new card.
Workers then work in the US legally, and are safe from being exploited as near-slave labor. Their income is appropriately taxed (maybe they shouldn't pay into Social Security, because they won't benefit from it). Workers send money home to Mexico, hopefully gradually improving their family's situation and the situation of the country in general.
Anyone in the US coming into contact with local, state, or (especially) federal authorities who's shown to be illegal is immediately (and callously, thanks...it shouldn't be a pleasant thing) documented and deported. This will gradually reduce the number of illegals in the US, especially the "bad" ones. (Of which there are many--got any MS-13 in your neighborhood? They're all illegal and vicious, except for their kids who are now US citizens, and might be able to eventually legalize their criminal thug parents).
As far as legalizing drugs, that sounds rather utopian, and from a personal-responsibility standpoint, I'm inclined to think people should have the chance to ruin their lives or not. However, such a viewpoint entirely leaves out the societal cost of drugs to people beyond the user, which is vast. Drugs lead to crime to obtain more drugs, regardless of whether the drugs themselves are legal. Look at Amsterdam...the growing crime and general decay are forcing the city to look at its situation and decide that they might need to curb the libertarianism.
Also, the FARC won't simply disappear if drugs are legalized. The networks for illegal production and distribution are in place, and the vast profits from continuing to produce and transport illicit drugs without the proper pharmaceutical safety measures and import taxes, and desperate addicts won't care whether their next fix is from the drugstore or the pusher...they'll just go for the cheaper option.
First something like the Arizona employer sanctions law would have to be part of the package. Until you eliminate the illegal labor market undercutting everything no program will work well. I would also seriously consider a reciprecosity clause, requiring countries who wish to take advantage of the system to have similar laws.
Then, I would let screened, background checked individuals apply for a three to six month worker visa good for work in part time industries, like agriculture. Without illegal labor, guest workers would make somewhat more than illegals do now, and have workplace protections. There would be no "country of origin" percentage limits on guest workers, unlike the current immigration.
Earlier you said something to the effect of the lack of borders would allow people to commute across the border and return home, without being illegal immigrants. This would meet that goal, and alleviate the labor shortage in some industries. MikeD has some ideas about biometrics, and I believe as much as I hate biometrics, they are all but inevitable for Americans citizens and foreign nationals alike.
I would then allow temp workers to apply for citizenship as a separate path, possibly with extra credit for the time they worked on a temp worker visa, but by no means would citizenship be a right for foreign nationals.
I would increase the number of legal immigrants, to address any long term labor shortages, not addressed by the guest worker program. I would more evenly distribute immigration by education and skill levels, significantly increasing the number of unskilled and lower skilled workers, based on the available jobs, instead blindly giving preference to the most educated and skilled workers. It makes no sense to raise the quotas, and have them all filled by people who don't want fill the available jobs. I would increase the overall immigration quota as well, to continue to provide or even increase, the opportunity for more skilled workers to immigrate.
The current social security system requires 10 years, i.e. 120 months of service to qualify for benefits. I would have SSI or something like it witheld from their pay, and revise the bottom end of the scale to allow workers with a set amount of credit get some benefit, although it probably wouldn't come close to what most taxpayers get after a lifetime of full time work.
Then, I would let screened, background checked individuals apply for a three to six month worker visa good for work in part time industries, like agriculture. Without illegal labor, guest workers would make somewhat more than illegals do now, and have workplace protections. There would be no "country of origin" percentage limits on guest workers, unlike the current immigration.
Earlier you said something to the effect of the lack of borders would allow people to commute across the border and return home, without being illegal immigrants. This would meet that goal, and alleviate the labor shortage in some industries. MikeD has some ideas about biometrics, and I believe as much as I hate biometrics, they are all but inevitable for Americans citizens and foreign nationals alike.
I would then allow temp workers to apply for citizenship as a separate path, possibly with extra credit for the time they worked on a temp worker visa, but by no means would citizenship be a right for foreign nationals.
I would increase the number of legal immigrants, to address any long term labor shortages, not addressed by the guest worker program. I would more evenly distribute immigration by education and skill levels, significantly increasing the number of unskilled and lower skilled workers, based on the available jobs, instead blindly giving preference to the most educated and skilled workers. It makes no sense to raise the quotas, and have them all filled by people who don't want fill the available jobs. I would increase the overall immigration quota as well, to continue to provide or even increase, the opportunity for more skilled workers to immigrate.
The current social security system requires 10 years, i.e. 120 months of service to qualify for benefits. I would have SSI or something like it witheld from their pay, and revise the bottom end of the scale to allow workers with a set amount of credit get some benefit, although it probably wouldn't come close to what most taxpayers get after a lifetime of full time work.
Drugs are an entirely different topic.