OK, and the federal government is not doing its job then. This makes no sense, and quit sounding like a parrot, repeating the same thing over and over.
The USA government is intentionally not doing its job, whether under the Democratic party or the Republican party, for different reasons. The Democratic Party will get easy votes. Many of the corporations that support the Republican party will get access to cheap labor, destroying the power of their hated workers unions. The Republican party has made itself very clear that it wants access to outside labor to "be able to compete with the rest of the world". The American corporations, for example, cannot sell construction equipment to India (where wages are just above survival levels) if the wages of American workers are not low enough. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...dian-Union-Workers,-Aims-to-Cut-Wages-In-Half http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bu...-caterpillars-locomotive-plant-138116998.html Immigration and free trade go hand in hand. America would never be able to compete with the third world to the extent it is doing now if the manufacturing and agricultural corporations had not been able to get rid of all their unionised workers, and instead hire undocumented mexicans, or the impoverished american-born offspring of undocumented mexican workers. http://cis.org/SmithfieldImmigrationRaid-Unionization
First of all, just to be clear, I am speaking about illegal immigration. It is different than immigration. Obama claims to be a union man. He, of course, bailed out the UAW, and sucks up to the NEA, yet he does not take a stand against illegal immigration. Politicians are too worried about their jobs and votes to take a hard stand against illegal immigration. If you think illegal workers are just in the manufacturing and agricultural industries, you may be in for a surprise sometime in the future when they infiltrate other professions. Whatever job you may have, or will have, just may be threatened.
Why make such a distinction if it is not necessary, but for special pleading purposes? Special pleading is usually considered a fallacy. The importation of persons does occur, and not all of it legally. I have no objection to persons importing themselves. Why do you, if it could otherwise solve our illegal problem via Commerce that is well Regulated among the several States of the Union? Why would a War on Illegals do any better than any of our other wars on abstractions?
Like I said, these folks "import" themselves. Nobody is "imported" into the U.S. Your idea via Commerce is a joke.
I am willing to argue that point. Going from one State to another State could be viewed as a form of migration of people. In and of itself, I might agree with your view. But, people are not migrating simply to be US citizenry, but for purposes of providing labor input to our economy. Are you claiming that labor is not some form of Commerce in the US? If not, then why is it regulated? Nobody regulates me doing my chores.
Simply resorting to emotion instead of reason is usually considered a fallacy; why apply it as a philosophy of life?
Brock, I notice that you use the Irish flag as avatar. Interestingly, NYC has thousands of illegal Irish immigrants (as well as thousands more from Israel, Russia, Europe, Canada) all of whom live without the slightest fear of being forcefully expelled the way Hispanics are in the Southwest, Chinese in San Francisco, or Haitians in Florida. As always, it is the government enforcement of the law on a selective basis that is the real problem. Here is but one article on the problem that Lou Dobbs never discussed on his show: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-rodriguez8apr08,0,1081193.column
Why not solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Commerce (and that form of Capitalism) that can well Regulated among the several States of the Union, instead of resorting to more arbitrary forms of Socialism that are usually more expensive?
To the extent protecting our border involves arbitrary forms of command economics instead of Capitalism, it could be said to be a form of Communism under our form of political-economy. Why not solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Commerce (and that form of Capitalism) which can be well Regulated among the several States of the Union, instead of resorting to more arbitrary forms of Socialism that are usually more expensive and less effective?
All illegal immigration is wrong, but let's face the facts: Most illegal immigrants, and the most visible becasue of our southern border, are hispanics. Most of the other illegals tend to assimilate into American society, while the hispanics do not.
Actually, it can solve our problem on a permanent basis via Commerce (and that form of Capitalism) which can be well Regulated among the several States of the Union, instead of resorting to more arbitrary forms of Socialism that are usually more expensive and less effective.
I only have to repeat myself because those of the opposing view don't seem to be able to come up with a valid point or argument for a rebuttal to that specific point and argument, without resorting to fallacies. Otherwise, I usually don't need to repeat myself with persons who actually have an argument and a valid point to make.
You like repeating yourself. No matter how many times you repeat it, it will not make any more sense.
How do you know it won't work if you don't even have a valid argument for a rebuttal? We could be solving our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Commerce and that form of Capitalism, instead of merely resorting the coercive use of force of the State, and that form of Socialism.
Not so. When I lived in Brooklyn, NY there were many illegal Russians, Italians, and Israelis who could not speak a word of English. These people will never need to assimilate because society doesn't touch them as it does with Hispanics.
