ReBob wrote:I'm not proposing to treat them as criminals, but the term illegal immigrant isn't wrong.
As said: If the term isn't wrong, then they
should be treated like criminals, which means all of the above aspects (criminal rights such as to a trial with legal representation, a legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, etcetera). I'm only bringing it up as an example because it's one of the more universally recognizable subjects, but the "Illegal Immigrant" thing is to many Americans what the whole "Is Palestine a state or not" thing is to many Israelis. Often times the answer will shift back and forth often depending on what the person talking about, sometimes even switching one-or-more times while still answering the same question.
ReBob wrote:I'm not a proponent of force, but prevention of further immigrants illegally circumventing the system is a good thing.
Yes and no, but that's because the circumstances of the circumventing of the system vary dramatically depending on the individual case. In some cases they're minor things like someone who was on a work visa failing to get a timely enough response to keep it valid, but at this point would someone say that a bureaucratic error that isn't the immigrant's fault is a failing on their part? Worthy of deportation and - most probably - starting a significant part (if not the entirety of) the process over? Another one of the big issues with the matter of immigration in the United States is that many people have one default "case" in mind when they tend to think of undocumented and / or expired immigration. These cases can make good sound bytes and rabble-rousing points when merely putting out talk, but when it comes to taking action the consequences can be something else entirely.
For another example: People often point to economical damage as a cause for universal deportation and massively increased border security. This would work if things were universally based off that one "steal ur job for a penny less" situation. But there are cases wherein deporting undocumented / expired immigrants are much more significant, either in a positive or negative fashion for the economy. Returning to the "sort-of vital infrastructure" point, a lot of farmers can't get anyone other than undocumented / expired migrants to do the work their fields need even when offering native citizens upwards of
fourteen or more dollars per hour, full time, with benefits for what many would consider "untrained" labor. And in these cases the farmers are already significantly increasing the costs out of their pocket to try drawing in work. Does this counteract the other end of the spectrum, jobs wherein there is a dearth of documented citizens who might apply but are undercut by cheap labor? I would not be able to answer that, not being an economist or statistician, but the point is that very few of the plans put forward are actual
plans instead of attempts to buy favor and / or votes without the passing of cash.
primalcaller ergos wrote:However, any country can have their infrastructure completely crippled by a sudden surplus of people flooding in and needing stuff like medical care from facilities that are already overcrowded as it is.
Likewise the reverse also holds true, that a significant deficit of people can cause issues in the work force. If one believes the numbers of approximately ten million persons living in the United States either undocumented or on expired visas, that's almost 3% of the total population. For comparison, roughly nine percent of the United States' population served in the military in some fashion in World War II, and at that time many places were considered to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for labor. Again, no economist or statistician or the sort so I cannot provide handy graphs or academic answers (especially in regards to where these most matter, such as proportional unemployment rates and whatnot), but with your own points in mind I'm sure you agree that the number of "Clap hands and hope the problem fixes itself with money and labor that magically appears for the cause" plans being pushed forward on the matter are mind-boggling?
primalcaller ergos wrote:Which one of these candidates would have what reactions towards stuff going on in the eastern hemisphere that could possible lead to cold war part 2 or world war 3?
Well, a start is to see how many candidates are running on a policy of "Disregard the Iran Deal upon being sworn into office". Generally the only way most of those proposed policies could plausibly work is by either directly invading Iran or by funding another nation to directly invade Iran, and of things that could directly spark a fresh Cold / World War that's fairly high on the list. Likewise another start is to see which candidates are running on a policy of increasing the size of our armed forces and military budget even further: While less likely to directly start a Cold / World War, a massive build-up of troops during a peace-time has a track record of rarely being done for a good cause. I mean, as a bit of a case in point: Consider how many of those proposing for a significant increase in our armed forces / military budget are
also proposing that we scrap the Iran deal in a fashion that would leave "US / US Ally Invasion" the only viable way to counteract any potential nuclear weapon development.
Human (n): Susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature.
Loud & Proud Humanist. Malignant to Misanthropes.