How humiliating.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I just reject the whole premise that immigration is bad. And no, don't try to split legal and illegal. The laws on the books are based on the idea that immigration must be limited because only very small amounts are not bad. It flies in the face of the laws of economics. And if the laws weren't hyper restrictive there wouldn't be a black market of immigrants. Rather than get worked up about Romney's hiring practices we should be focusing on paying more attention to whether the people entering the country are decent or not and then letting them in when there is demand for their labor. Instead we pretend the current law of everybody stay the hell out unless you marry an American or can program computers makes any sense at all, while ignoring the border completely, and then try to turn employers into border police. That's brain damage! as Cosby would say. Just one of many issues that leads me to vote Libertarian now.

Don't split it into legal and illegal immigration? How is that possible?

The blame game works like this:

The government is to blame for not controlling the borders.

The company that hired the illegals is to blame for the hiring of the ilegals.

Romney is to blame for not asking that the company prove it's employees were legally working in the country.

Plenty of blame to go around here, but, IMO, Romney shares the least amount of blame, the government shares the next amount and the employer shares the largest amount of blame for actually hiring the illegals.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Don't split it into legal and illegal immigration? How is that possible?

The blame game works like this:

The government is to blame for not controlling the borders.

The company that hired the illegals is to blame for the hiring of the ilegals.

Romney is to blame for not asking that the company prove it's employees were legally working in the country.

Plenty of blame to go around here, but, IMO, Romney shares the least amount of blame, the government shares the next amount and the employer shares the largest amount of blame for actually hiring the illegals.

Again, I disagree with the entire premise of current immigration law. Regulate who enters and keep out criminals, but let free market economics determine whether there is need for immigration or not. Government is LOUSY at regulating the economy, which is basically what hyper restrictive immigration laws are largely about. It's just that most people don't see it that way because, IMO, they have a weak background in economics. Even if we could shut down the flow of immigration into this country, the economic result would not be very attractive for most of us. Yes, there are unique problems that come directly from illegal vs. legal immigration. But you get rid of most of those by allowing more legal immigration. It's kind of like the war on drugs. We can try all day to stop them from entering the country but if there is a demand (ie., employers demanding the labor so they can compete in the marketplace) it does little good.

Think of it from another angle. I doubt there are many if any true socialists or communists on here. But a main tenet of those philosophies is some degree of government central planning of the economy. Unless you subscribe to one of those philosophies you can say that's not a good thing. No one would choose an old Soviet economy over what we have here. Why? Because free market forces are better than government at regulating what the economy does. So apply it to the immigration issue. To ignore the underlying economics causing the immigration is stupid. There are jobs, employers need to fill them and there is a labor force willing to fill them. To enact laws that try to circumvent that is nothing more than an attempt at central planning of one aspect of the economy, and I oppose that.