New Arizona Immigration Law Poll

[Tekania]

Actually mexicans are white or at least half white, as there are only three races in the world Mongoloid: Native americans, asians Negro: Most Africans and Caucasian: Europe and middle east.

Correction: Theres like two more than that i think, but the vast majority are caucasian and mongoloid.

Yeah, but are they white enough?

History says no.

Its also funny because Mexicans are a nationality but a vast amount of people on NS think that Mexicans are a race.

You must be using some new definition of "vast" I have heretofore not known.... There are some, but I wouldn't count their number "vast" (too many yes, 1 is too fucking many really... but still not "vast").

[Muravyets]

Actually mexicans are white or at least half white, as there are only three races in the world Mongoloid: Native americans, asians Negro: Most Africans and Caucasian: Europe and middle east.

Correction: Theres like two more than that i think, but the vast majority are caucasian and mongoloid.

Yeah, but are they white enough?

History says no.

Its also funny because Mexicans are a nationality but a vast amount of people on NS think that Mexicans are a race.

An even vaster number of people in Arizona seem to think so, too. How else do they imagine they can just look at someone and judge they are likely to be here illegally, unless they are judging by the person's appearance. So, they decide someone "looks Mexican" and that means they can't possibly be American, and harassment commences.

Funny how many of those people who l"ook Mexican" aren't from Mexico but from farther south.

Oh, come on, you know that in some people's minds there's just one vast, foggy, wilderness of brown people south of the US border and it's all called "Mexico" and anyone who looks at all like their stereotypical fantasy of a "Mexican" must be from there, no matter what they claim.

[Our Constitution]

I'll ignore the ignorant comments coming from the Salvador Dali fanboy because he's obviously never developed a grasp of basic reading comprehension abilities.

In any case, I'll go over the concept of Jurisdiction, Law, and Foreign Nationals.

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

"and not subject to any foreign power"

If they are "subject to a foreign power" then even if they commit a crime in L.A. the Embassy of that Foreign Nation would be consulted.

Again, the best written illustration of this can be found at:
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisi ... ction.html

"Hello Mexico, we have 10million of your Citizens in our country. Where would you like us to drop them off at?"
"Hello Mexico, we have arrested one of your Citizens on the charge of murder. How would you like us to proceed?"
"Detained Foreign Nationals & Consular Notification"

[The Corparation]

Actually mexicans are white or at least half white, as there are only three races in the world Mongoloid: Native americans, asians Negro: Most Africans and Caucasian: Europe and middle east.

Correction: Theres like two more than that i think, but the vast majority are caucasian and mongoloid.

Yeah, but are they white enough?

History says no.

Its also funny because Mexicans are a nationality but a vast amount of people on NS think that Mexicans are a race.

You must be using some new definition of "vast" I have heretofore not known.... There are some, but I wouldn't count their number "vast" (too many yes, 1 is too fucking many really... but still not "vast").

I think he's using it right refering to the number of illeagals from south of Mexico. From http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/vast

Main Entry: 1vast
Pronunciation: \ˈvast\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin vastus; akin to Old High German wuosti empty, desolate, Old Irish fás
Date: 1585
: very great in size, amount, degree, intensity, or especially in extent or range

[North Calaveras]

Actually mexicans are white or at least half white, as there are only three races in the world Mongoloid: Native americans, asians Negro: Most Africans and Caucasian: Europe and middle east.

Correction: Theres like two more than that i think, but the vast majority are caucasian and mongoloid.

Yeah, but are they white enough?

History says no.

Its also funny because Mexicans are a nationality but a vast amount of people on NS think that Mexicans are a race.

An even vaster number of people in Arizona seem to think so, too. How else do they imagine they can just look at someone and judge they are likely to be here illegally, unless they are judging by the person's appearance. So, they decide someone "looks Mexican" and that means they can't possibly be American, and harassment commences.

Funny how many of those people who l"ook Mexican" aren't from Mexico but from farther south.

Oh, come on, you know that in some people's minds there's just one vast, foggy, wilderness of brown people south of the US border and it's all called "Mexico" and anyone who looks at all like their stereotypical fantasy of a "Mexican" must be from there, no matter what they claim.

There must be just one VAST foggy wilderness of people who hate the US for no good reason.

[The Corparation]

Actually mexicans are white or at least half white, as there are only three races in the world Mongoloid: Native americans, asians Negro: Most Africans and Caucasian: Europe and middle east.

Correction: Theres like two more than that i think, but the vast majority are caucasian and mongoloid.

Yeah, but are they white enough?

History says no.

Its also funny because Mexicans are a nationality but a vast amount of people on NS think that Mexicans are a race.

An even vaster number of people in Arizona seem to think so, too. How else do they imagine they can just look at someone and judge they are likely to be here illegally, unless they are judging by the person's appearance. So, they decide someone "looks Mexican" and that means they can't possibly be American, and harassment commences.

Funny how many of those people who l"ook Mexican" aren't from Mexico but from farther south.

Oh, come on, you know that in some people's minds there's just one vast, foggy, wilderness of brown people south of the US border and it's all called "Mexico" and anyone who looks at all like their stereotypical fantasy of a "Mexican" must be from there, no matter what they claim.

There must be just one VAST foggy wilderness of people who hate the US for no good reason.

If by Vast Foggy wilderness you mean most non-western nations then yes.

[Whole Conviction]

I'll ignore the ignorant comments coming from the Salvador Dali fanboy because he's obviously never developed a grasp of basic reading comprehension abilities.

In any case, I'll go over the concept of Jurisdiction, Law, and Foreign Nationals.

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

"and not subject to any foreign power"

If they are "subject to a foreign power" then even if they commit a crime in L.A. the Embassy of that Foreign Nation would be consulted.

Again, the best written illustration of this can be found at:
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisi ... ction.html

"Hello Mexico, we have 10million of your Citizens in our country. Where would you like us to drop them off at?"
"Hello Mexico, we have arrested one of your Citizens on the charge of murder. How would you like us to proceed?"
"Detained Foreign Nationals & Consular Notification"

No no no no no no no.

The clause you cite is solely to do with determining citizenship. Yes, a Mexican national present in the US is subject to a foreign power. He isn't a citizen. This isn't controversial. There are other laws covering what naturalisation means.

It's NOTHING to do with jurisdiction. The constitution doesn't force the US to consult the Mexican embassy when a MExican national commits a crime, various international agreements do.

And your little dialogue? Not gonna happen. The conversation will be more like 'We have one of your citizens, we're charging him with murder, you can contact his family and provide legal defence or file motions if you wish.' Do you really think the US has to ask politely before they get to try someone for murder? Your'e confusing foreign citizenship with diplomatic immunity.

What exactly are you arguing here? Is your ultimate point that children of illegals shouldn't be citizens? If so, you're going up against a century and a half of precedent.

[Muravyets]

I'll ignore the ignorant comments coming from the Salvador Dali fanboy because he's obviously never developed a grasp of basic reading comprehension abilities.

*toasts marshmallows over flame*

In any case, I'll go over the concept of Jurisdiction, Law, and Foreign Nationals.

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

"and not subject to any foreign power"

If they are "subject to a foreign power" then even if they commit a crime in L.A. the Embassy of that Foreign Nation would be consulted.

Again, the best written illustration of this can be found at:
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisi ... ction.html

"Hello Mexico, we have 10million of your Citizens in our country. Where would you like us to drop them off at?"
"Hello Mexico, we have arrested one of your Citizens on the charge of murder. How would you like us to proceed?"
"Detained Foreign Nationals & Consular Notification"

The federalistblog is the blog of The Federalist Society, a right wing political action group that only presents one biased point of view. Here is their About Us page: http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/

I noticed that they do not actually link to their main site from their blog, nor does their blog contain any obvious link to information about who they are. I had to scroll down that enormous page to find a single copyright notice line, and google their name from that to find who the authors of that blog are. Not very transparent of them, I must say. Don't they want people to know what their political and social prejudices are?

Anyway, OC clearly has stolen this idea of his from a bunch of right wing idealogues without actually applying any thought of his own to it, or else he would have noticed how this interpretation he thinks is so perfect actually conflicts with the wording of the actual Constitution, the reality of how the US legal system operates on Earth, and oh, the dictionary, too.

[Muravyets]

There must be just one VAST foggy wilderness of people who hate the US for no good reason.

I wouldn't know. I don't actually know anyone who hates the US, and I've only ever heard of a few individuals who say they do.

[The Corparation]

There must be just one VAST foggy wilderness of people who hate the US for no good reason.

I wouldn't know. I don't actually know anyone who hates the US, and I've only ever heard of a few individuals who say they do.

So all of those muslim clerics that are always saying how the US is evil love america? So does Kim jung Il too!

[Nordicus]

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/

Well that seems a completely unbiased source of information....oh wait it isn't.

Of course it's not unbiased, on any polarized issue like immigration, it's damn near impossible to find an unbiased source. The question is, do they back up their statements with facts and studies? In this case, yes, they do. They are linking to plenty of studies and newspapers which back up what they are saying. Can you provide anything that can claim even that much for a "no harm" viewpoint?

[Muravyets]

This argument suddenly reminded me of something I saw at my local bus stop the other day. There are these two women who take the same bus as me every day. They're friends. I always thought they were Mesoamerican by their appearance. Turns out I was wrong. A latina woman who apparently was worried that she'd missed her bus tried to ask them a question about the schedule only to have one of them say in un-accented English, "I'm sorry, we don't speak Spanish." After that, curious, I eavesdropped on a little of their private conversations. I have no idea what language they speak to each other, but I think they must be from one of the Pacific island nations. Certainly not Mexico or central America. Pacific or Asian instead.

[Muravyets]

There must be just one VAST foggy wilderness of people who hate the US for no good reason.

I wouldn't know. I don't actually know anyone who hates the US, and I've only ever heard of a few individuals who say they do.

So all of those muslim clerics that are always saying how the US is evil love america? So does Kim jung Il too!

Did I say that? *reads actual words on screen* Why, no, I didn't. Don't you start that bullshit too, please, thanks.

[Our Constitution]

No no no no no no no.

The clause you cite is solely to do with determining citizenship. Yes, a Mexican national present in the US is subject to a foreign power. He isn't a citizen. This isn't controversial. There are other laws covering what naturalisation means.

It's NOTHING to do with jurisdiction. The constitution doesn't force the US to consult the Mexican embassy when a MExican national commits a crime, various international agreements do.

And your little dialogue? Not gonna happen. The conversation will be more like 'We have one of your citizens, we're charging him with murder, you can contact his family and provide legal defence or file motions if you wish.' Do you really think the US has to ask politely before they get to try someone for murder? Your'e confusing foreign citizenship with diplomatic immunity.

What exactly are you arguing here? Is your ultimate point that children of illegals shouldn't be citizens? If so, you're going up against a century and a half of precedent.

No, you're ignoring "Consular Notification"

[Tekania]

No, you're ignoring "Consular Notification"

Consular notification == "Hey, your dude committed a crime, we're going to charge him with this, and here is his court date... nice chatting with you, bye", Consular notification is merely a formal nicety between states to inform a country that their subject broke one of our laws in our land. Foreign Nationals without an order of diplomatic immunity are under the jurisdiction of the government which controls the territory they are standing on at the time.

[Whole Conviction]

No no no no no no no.

The clause you cite is solely to do with determining citizenship. Yes, a Mexican national present in the US is subject to a foreign power. He isn't a citizen. This isn't controversial. There are other laws covering what naturalisation means.

It's NOTHING to do with jurisdiction. The constitution doesn't force the US to consult the Mexican embassy when a MExican national commits a crime, various international agreements do.

And your little dialogue? Not gonna happen. The conversation will be more like 'We have one of your citizens, we're charging him with murder, you can contact his family and provide legal defence or file motions if you wish.' Do you really think the US has to ask politely before they get to try someone for murder? Your'e confusing foreign citizenship with diplomatic immunity.

What exactly are you arguing here? Is your ultimate point that children of illegals shouldn't be citizens? If so, you're going up against a century and a half of precedent.

No, you're ignoring "Consular Notification"

How exactly am I ignoring it? I talked about it directly. I just think that your interpretation of consular notification comes out of someone's imagination rather than the law as practiced. Or are you seriously suggesting that in the real world, a DA has to get permission from the Mexican Embassy to proceed with a murder case against a Mexican Citizen present in the United States?

I read the article you posted, and searched the whole page and comments for 'consular' and 'consulate' and found nothing related to what you're saying there. The article's purely about whether the child of an alien, born in the US, is a US citizen. This has NOTHING TO DO with what you were originally posting about, which was that the US doesn't have jurisdiction over foreign nationals. Your article, sec 1992, all of that, lend absolutely no credibility to that claim. You're using the wrong sources.

[Whole Conviction]

No, you're ignoring "Consular Notification"

Consular notification == "Hey, your dude committed a crime, we're going to charge him with this, and here is his court date... nice chatting with you, bye", Consular notification is merely a formal nicety between states to inform a country that their subject broke one of our laws in our land. Foreign Nationals without an order of diplomatic immunity are under the jurisdiction of the government which controls the territory they are standing on at the time.

Exactly. And importantly, the requirement for that comes not from the Constitution, but treaties.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

I would also say that many of the "Hispanic" groups seem to have aims very similar to Islamic groups like CAIR to bring about Sharia and muslim efforts to Islamize Europe. They seem very quick to defend Illegal Immigration into the United States. What are they up to, you might be tempted to ask yourself.

Yo no sé, si estamos arriba a algo entonces yo no sé lo que el complot anti-Americano quizás sea.

[South Norwega]

I would also say that many of the "Hispanic" groups seem to have aims very similar to Islamic groups like CAIR to bring about Sharia and muslim efforts to Islamize Europe. They seem very quick to defend Illegal Immigration into the United States. What are they up to, you might be tempted to ask yourself.

Yo no sé, si estamos arriba a algo entonces yo no sé lo que el complot anti-Americano quizás sea.

Stop speaking Communism.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I'm afraid I haven't kept up with the back-and-forth in this thread, but I want to make a few observations spread over a few posts that may be redundant and unresponsive, but I believe are relevant to the overall discussion.

1. AZ's SB 1070 has racist authors and racist origins
Arizona Reelects Hard-Core Nativist Politician (Russell Pearce)
Hate Group Lawyer Drafted Arizona’s Anti-Immigrant Law
Profiling Arizona legislator Russell Pearce: Author of immigration law is pals with noted neo-NaziThe Group Behind The Harshest Immigration Bill In America
The Man Behind Arizona's Toughest Immigrant Laws
Lawyer For White Nationalist Group Brags That He 'Helped' Sen. Russell Pearce Write Arizona Immigration Law
Racist roots of Russell Pearce's regressive anti-immigrant laws

2. AZ's SB1070 is widely opposed by law enforcement agencies in Arizona and nationwide -- many because it will require racial profilingand/or will drain resources from real crime-fighting
The Dupnik rebellion: Pima's top cop says "no" to SB 1070
Passage of SB 1070 in Arizona a “Catastrophe” for Police Across the Country
Arizona police officer sues over immigration law
Police Chiefs Warn Controversial AZ Immigration Bill Will Hurt Public Safety
Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police Statement on Senate Bill 1070
Police unions: Immigration bill taxes officers
Raleigh police chief skeptical of Arizona immigration bill
Mesa police unsure of new immigration bill's impact

3. As has alread been noted, many Republicans and conservatives oppose the law and/or have voiced concerns about racial profiling
Rubio says Arizona immigration law raises profiling concerns
Huckabee: New Law Will Open Arizona Up To A ‘Lawsuit Bonanza’
Rove says he has ‘problems’ with AZ immigration law
Lindsey Graham: I Think Arizona Immigration Law is Unconstitutional
Michael Gerson: A test of Arizona's political character
Joe Scarborough Attacks the GOP’s Un-American Arizona Immigration Law
Jeb Bush speaks out against Ariz. law
Former homeland security secretary uncomfortable with new Arizona immigration law

3. At least official Libertarians also seem to oppose SB 1070
LP Monday Message: Don't Blame Immigrants
AZ Libertarian Barry Hess on Immigration Law: a Step toward a “Police State”
AZ Libertarian Candidate for Congress “Adamantly Opposed” to New Immigration Law

I'll get more into the meat of why the law is unconstitutional and racist later. All for now.

[Muravyets]

I'm afraid I haven't kept up with the back-and-forth in this thread, but I want to make a few observations spread over a few posts that may be redundant and unresponsive, but I believe are relevant to the overall discussion.

1. AZ's SB 1070 has racist authors and racist origins
Arizona Reelects Hard-Core Nativist Politician (Russell Pearce)
Hate Group Lawyer Drafted Arizona’s Anti-Immigrant Law
Profiling Arizona legislator Russell Pearce: Author of immigration law is pals with noted neo-NaziThe Group Behind The Harshest Immigration Bill In America
The Man Behind Arizona's Toughest Immigrant Laws
Lawyer For White Nationalist Group Brags That He 'Helped' Sen. Russell Pearce Write Arizona Immigration Law
Racist roots of Russell Pearce's regressive anti-immigrant laws

2. AZ's SB1070 is widely opposed by law enforcement agencies in Arizona and nationwide -- many because it will require racial profilingand/or will drain resources from real crime-fighting
The Dupnik rebellion: Pima's top cop says "no" to SB 1070
Passage of SB 1070 in Arizona a “Catastrophe” for Police Across the Country
Arizona police officer sues over immigration law
Police Chiefs Warn Controversial AZ Immigration Bill Will Hurt Public Safety
Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police Statement on Senate Bill 1070
Police unions: Immigration bill taxes officers
Raleigh police chief skeptical of Arizona immigration bill
Mesa police unsure of new immigration bill's impact

3. As has alread been noted, many Republicans and conservatives oppose the law and/or have voiced concerns about racial profiling
Rubio says Arizona immigration law raises profiling concerns
Huckabee: New Law Will Open Arizona Up To A ‘Lawsuit Bonanza’
Rove says he has ‘problems’ with AZ immigration law
Lindsey Graham: I Think Arizona Immigration Law is Unconstitutional
Michael Gerson: A test of Arizona's political character
Joe Scarborough Attacks the GOP’s Un-American Arizona Immigration Law
Jeb Bush speaks out against Ariz. law
Former homeland security secretary uncomfortable with new Arizona immigration law

3. At least official Libertarians also seem to oppose SB 1070
LP Monday Message: Don't Blame Immigrants
AZ Libertarian Barry Hess on Immigration Law: a Step toward a “Police State”
AZ Libertarian Candidate for Congress “Adamantly Opposed” to New Immigration Law

I'll get more into the meat of why the law is unconstitutional and racist later. All for now.

I really really cyber-love you.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

Now what we need to do is support legislation that will help the local "Neighborhood Watch" to report any foreign invaders.

Foreign invaders, of course, being anyone who looks vaguely Hispanic or Arabic.

Okay then...well I'm latino, but I look Arab.

[New Chalcedon]

I'm afraid I haven't kept up with the back-and-forth in this thread, but I want to make a few observations spread over a few posts that may be redundant and unresponsive, but I believe are relevant to the overall discussion.

1. AZ's SB 1070 has racist authors and racist origins
Arizona Reelects Hard-Core Nativist Politician (Russell Pearce)
Hate Group Lawyer Drafted Arizona’s Anti-Immigrant Law
Profiling Arizona legislator Russell Pearce: Author of immigration law is pals with noted neo-NaziThe Group Behind The Harshest Immigration Bill In America
The Man Behind Arizona's Toughest Immigrant Laws
Lawyer For White Nationalist Group Brags That He 'Helped' Sen. Russell Pearce Write Arizona Immigration Law
Racist roots of Russell Pearce's regressive anti-immigrant laws

2. AZ's SB1070 is widely opposed by law enforcement agencies in Arizona and nationwide -- many because it will require racial profilingand/or will drain resources from real crime-fighting
The Dupnik rebellion: Pima's top cop says "no" to SB 1070
Passage of SB 1070 in Arizona a “Catastrophe” for Police Across the Country
Arizona police officer sues over immigration law
Police Chiefs Warn Controversial AZ Immigration Bill Will Hurt Public Safety
Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police Statement on Senate Bill 1070
Police unions: Immigration bill taxes officers
Raleigh police chief skeptical of Arizona immigration bill
Mesa police unsure of new immigration bill's impact

3. As has alread been noted, many Republicans and conservatives oppose the law and/or have voiced concerns about racial profiling
Rubio says Arizona immigration law raises profiling concerns
Huckabee: New Law Will Open Arizona Up To A ‘Lawsuit Bonanza’
Rove says he has ‘problems’ with AZ immigration law
Lindsey Graham: I Think Arizona Immigration Law is Unconstitutional
Michael Gerson: A test of Arizona's political character
Joe Scarborough Attacks the GOP’s Un-American Arizona Immigration Law
Jeb Bush speaks out against Ariz. law
Former homeland security secretary uncomfortable with new Arizona immigration law

3. At least official Libertarians also seem to oppose SB 1070
LP Monday Message: Don't Blame Immigrants
AZ Libertarian Barry Hess on Immigration Law: a Step toward a “Police State”
AZ Libertarian Candidate for Congress “Adamantly Opposed” to New Immigration Law

I'll get more into the meat of why the law is unconstitutional and racist later. All for now.

Thank you for dragging this back on track. The reich-wingers here were too busy tying Murayvets up for the bonfire (preperatory to roasting her as a witch over a pile of their own flames) to actually address the issue: why this law is wrong.

I've already chipped in my part about why I believe it's anti-Constitutional: I also believe that it's economic suicide, too. The US population is aging - in the future, it will be necessary to provide them with the goods and services needed to keep them in lifestyles they've become accustomed to, and there won't be enough young people (barring immigration) to produce all of those and all of the other things the USA needs, too. You "USA first"-ers should be cheering migration efforts - after all, migration is part of the American Dream, isn't it?

[Dyakovo]

1. A cop could be an ass if he wanted to and arrest even an American who didn't have there license (It's a federal Law)

Source?

Under the Arizona law, its a crime not to carry ID proving your a US citizen, thus nothing would stop a cop who didn't like your attitude could ,if you didn't have ID on you, arrest you.

1) Arizona law is not federal law.
2) Source? for both now.

[Nordicus]

Thank you for dragging this back on track. The reich-wingers here were too busy tying Murayvets up for the bonfire (preperatory to roasting her as a witch over a pile of their own flames) to actually address the issue: why this law is wrong.

Excuse me, but I do believe that I already stated that the law is too intrusive for me to support.

Edit: Also, I would like to say that I was previously under the impression that the law only allowed the police to check with INS to see if a person was legit if they had already pulled them over or otherwise detained them for something other than suspicion of being an illegal immigrant; it was well after 2 AM by the time I read the law last night, so my mind glazed over most of what I was reading. Now that I know it gives them much broader powers than that, I am against the bill, but I am not against the principle of combating illegal immigration.

I just happen to think (unlike some of the people in this thread) that it's still worth trying to enforce immigration policy, just not like *this* law does. It is hardly anyone's fault but her own that Muravyets is unable to keep a straight story for two posts running, and is very vocal in almost-insulting others.

(I even chimed in about other ways to tighten immigration law that would be pretty much immune to racism in enforcement and which would be a heck of a lot less likely to have constitutional issues, but naturally it was ignored by the crowd that just couldn't stop reiterating how racist they felt every single lawmaker in Arizona is...)

I'd rather just give them the power to inspect it whenever they are already pulled over for another reason.

To be honest, I'd say to make it mandatory, so there can be no cries of racism. Well, actually, I'm sure people would still call it racist anyways (there's one "Racist!" screamer in every crowd, it seems), but at least they wouldn't have any solid basis for the claim. Oh, yes, and probably also attempt to check whenever someone is arrested; again, hard to claim racist enforcement if it's done to everyone.

Combine that with stronger regulation of hiring practices to help combat the hiring of illegals, and there's an actual chance it could work. Too bad politicians on each side of the political fence are likely to fight against one of the two portions...

Also, "reich-wingers" is not exactly a term to use when complaining about flaming... you're just adding to the problem you're whining about. Basically, if you'd like to have a civil debate, then a good place to start is to with your own posts; leading by example tends to work better than slinging mud and complaining about the mess.

I've already chipped in my part about why I believe it's anti-Constitutional: I also believe that it's economic suicide, too. The US population is aging - in the future, it will be necessary to provide them with the goods and services needed to keep them in lifestyles they've become accustomed to, and there won't be enough young people (barring immigration) to produce all of those and all of the other things the USA needs, too. You "USA first"-ers should be cheering migration efforts - after all, migration is part of the American Dream, isn't it?

Immigration, however, does not mean that absolutely anyone should be able to waltz into the country unregulated. The big problem with illegal immigration is that quite a number of criminals arrive in the country illegally; other than that and the problem of exploitative employers, I really wouldn't care all that much about the immigration. I would prefer them to come through legal means, certainly, but that is precisely because of the two issues I just pointed out: illegal immigration interferes with regulation (in this case, keeping out criminals, suspected terrorists, and the like) and allows more exploitation.

And it does not matter that we could not possibly get our border to be airtight with not a soul slipping across them; with better immigration laws and enforcement (which, I should mention, would be best to have a streamlined process so that it doesn't take so long to get in if you qualify), hopefully the culture would shift to where individuals would cooperate with the government on reporting illegals (and crime in general), which would help a lot with getting rid of the criminals.


Edit: Added quotes of previous posts.