The Immigration split within Libertarianism

[Dunedain]

I thought this was pretty even handed.

http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2006_10/cox-immigration.html

He explains how mass immigration of the 3rd world itself is a threat to our libertarian ideals. Yet many lilbertarians promote the very mass immigration that is destroying the libert of its citizens.

[Agorism]

I don't think there is a split.

Ron Paul voted against the Reagan and McCain amnesties. But he also opposes national I.D., big brother employee verification schemes, etc.

He does not support the inevitable compromise that will be what the dems want... amnesty in exchange for what the GOP wants...big government power like Guiliani biometric I.D. and wiretapping, etc. That's the worst of both worlds.

[Dunedain]

I don't think there is a split.

Ron Paul voted against the Reagan and McCain amnesties. But he also opposes national I.D., big brother employee verification schemes, etc.

He does not support the inevitable compromise that will be what the dems want... amnesty in exchange for what the GOP wants...big government power like Guiliani biometric I.D. and wiretapping, etc. That's the worst of both worlds.

Did you get a chance to read the article and get the detail? It's quite good and is well worth the 5+ minutes it takes to read it.http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2006_10/cox-immigration.html

[sparebulb]

I don't think there is a split.

Ron Paul voted against the Reagan and McCain amnesties. But he also opposes national I.D., big brother employee verification schemes, etc.

He does not support the inevitable compromise that will be what the dems want... amnesty in exchange for what the GOP wants...big government power like Guiliani biometric I.D. and wiretapping, etc. That's the worst of both worlds.

Yes.

[angelatc]

It's a pretty good article. When I saw that he used doctors as an example, I wanted to point out that the government caps the number of internships available in America.

[constituent]

Nice sig. angela, perhaps I should change mine back...

edit: done. ;)

[constituent]

I thought this was pretty even handed...
He explains how mass immigration of the 3rd world itself is a threat to our libertarian ideals. Yet many lilbertarians promote the very mass immigration that is destroying the libert of its citizens.

Sounds "even handed" to me, lol.

[Dunedain]

I've noticed you simply Ad hominem everyone and have no rational ideas of your own.


Nice sig. angela, perhaps I should change mine back...

edit: done. ;)

[constituent]

I've noticed you simply Ad hominem everyone and have no rational ideas of your own.

yawn... I'm not so sure you know what an Ad hominem is, as evidence by the quote you used to back up your statement.

See, If I called you a f*n idiot or a racist stormfronter troll, those would be ad hom.

Interestingly enough, YOUR POST WAS IN FACT AN AD HOMINEM. Go figure!

Now that you know the difference, please continue...

[TonySutton]

The problem with his explanation is that he explains open borders within our existing broken system. Open borders will certainly make things worse within our current system. Closing the borders does not fix anything in our existing broken system either.

[RyanRSheets]

If you support free trade, you support an open border. That said, I believe it is the right of a people to decide if they will have an open or closed border.

[malkusm]

On the one hand, a person's individual freedom to travel and live as they choose should not be obstructed; that being said, that goal should be pursued within a country's borders, whenever possible.

Right now, the main reason for opposing free immigration is the cost that it puts on the taxpayer to subsidize all of the undocumented person's expenses (medical care, education, transportation, etc.) However, blaming the immigrant is focusing on the symptoms rather than the cause -- the cause is the myriad of taxation and regulation that legal immigration have to pay. Illegal immigrants shouldn't be able to pay into the system less than citizens -- but that doesn't mean we should round all of them up and force them to pay or leave. Free immigration would not be a major issue if we scaled back government expenditures to appropriate levels.

[Dunedain]

If you support free trade, you support an open border. That said, I believe it is the right of a people to decide if they will have an open or closed border.

I support free trade of goods. Trading in people however I do not.

[JustinTime]

On the one hand, a person's individual freedom to travel and live as they choose should not be obstructed; that being said, that goal should be pursued within a country's borders, whenever possible.

Right now, the main reason for opposing free immigration is the cost that it puts on the taxpayer to subsidize all of the undocumented person's expenses (medical care, education, transportation, etc.) However, blaming the immigrant is focusing on the symptoms rather than the cause --

What do people mean when they say that? That illegals are inviolate? Totally off-limits and cannot be punished or sent home? I agree they are the symptom and not the cause, but sometimes symptoms need treatment.

[JustinTime]

I've noticed you simply Ad hominem everyone and have no rational ideas of your own.

I noticed that my first day here. I thought "This dude could be the resident troll, or just lacks the intellect to explain why disagrees with me." I guess one leads to the other.

[RM918]

On one hand I think anyone that hopped the borders should not be allowed citizenship and put in back of the line after they've been deported, on the other hand getting into this country is EXTREMELY difficult legally and although I can see why they do it I feel uncomfortable letting them get away with it (A big slap in the face to legal immigrants). Legal immigration caps are absurd (Only 45,000 of a certain working visa available once a year, and are gone in less than half a day of being available) and need to be drastically eased up - hopefully after the welfare state's been dismantled. I'd also only think about totally open borders after the welfare state is dismantled.

[Chaohinon]

What illegal immigrants have accomplished by successfully resisting the border cartels en masse is nothing short of heroic. I've spent some time working and speaking with asian and hispanic illegals, and they have a well-entrenched underground network of hardworking people who help them not only get from point A to point B, but also link them up with housing and jobs. They're the best agorists around. If only drug, privacy, and anti-war activists could duplicate that kind of success, our work would be nearly done.

This "golden age" of freedom and prosperity that constitutionalists harken back to included the ability of people to move pretty much freely between countries, without having to deal with this Nazi "show me your papers" regulatory culture. For that reason, illegal immigrants should be looked to as a beacon for how we can better achieve our goals, rather than something to be stamped out.

Those of a more radical mindset should be teaching themselves spanish and making inroads with these people :)

[constituent]

What do people mean when they say that? That illegals are inviolate? Totally off-limits and cannot be punished or sent home? I agree they are the symptom and not the cause, but sometimes symptoms need treatment.

which of course leads into...
\/ \/ \/


I noticed that my first day here. I thought "This dude could be the resident troll, or just lacks the intellect to explain why disagrees with me." I guess one leads to the other.

lol, of course you realize that this post is itself an ad hominem? Well, you probably don't...

As an aside, maybe it was your approach.

[Met Income]

By closing the borders, Ron Paul is basically saying he cannot end the welfare state.

[American Nationalist]

I support free trade of goods. Trading in people however I do not.

If you support NAFTA, which eliminated tariffs and liberalized trade, than you have to accept the fact that agreements like NAFTA result in the illegal immigration of millions of displaced Mexicans(particularly small farmers). Free trade ultimately leads to the movement of people.

[American Nationalist]

[QUOTE=Chaohinon;2484924]

Those of a more radical mindset /QUOTE]

Go ahead, make inroads with these people, one radical to another.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/protester-immigration-rally.jpg

[malkusm]

What do people mean when they say that? That illegals are inviolate? Totally off-limits and cannot be punished or sent home? I agree they are the symptom and not the cause, but sometimes symptoms need treatment.

Consider the War on Terror. The government claims that we have to fight terrorists to protect our national security. I agree that, if there is a direct threat to national security, we should take care of it (within the legal framework of our Constitution, and following the theory of Just War).

But we can fight the terrorists for hundreds of years and get no results unless we understand why the terrorists are fighting us to begin with. This is the bigger issue that needs to be addressed; and, as it turns out, if we minded our own business when it comes to foreign policy, we'd have a lot fewer enemies. Similarly, we can fight illegal immigration for hundreds of years to come, but we have to understand why they come here; and while there are reasons such as job opportunities that arise from the free market, most of the reasons are government subsidized: education for their children, health care for their families, citizenship for future generations. Immigration will continue to occur, no matter how much you crack down on it, as long as the benefits remain in place.

The "benefits" are only relative to the situations in other places in the world, and the situations of law-abiding citizens here at home. The problem is not that we need to punish illegal immigrants for doing the economically and morally responsible thing in taking care of themselves and their families. The problem is that we have citizens who are subsidize all of it, who are angry at the immigrants not because they get away with being untaxed, but because they themselves cannot live untaxed, and must pay the taxes of themselves AND the immigrant.

[constituent]

If you support NAFTA, which eliminated tariffs and liberalized trade, than you have to accept the fact that agreements like NAFTA result in the illegal immigration of millions of displaced Mexicans(particularly small farmers). Free trade ultimately leads to the movement of people.

NAFTA ≠ Fair Trade

NAFTA = Managed Trade

[malkusm]

NAFTA ≠ Fair Trade

NAFTA = Managed Trade

Exactly - NAFTA is free trade in name only, and that's the goal - to discredit free trade and have people thinking, "Wow, free trade doesn't work! Look at the bad things that NAFTA did! We must need a government solution!" :rolleyes:

[Dunedain]

What illegal immigrants have accomplished by successfully resisting the border cartels en masse is nothing short of heroic. I've spent some time working and speaking with asian and hispanic illegals, and they have a well-entrenched underground network of hardworking people who help them not only get from point A to point B, but also link them up with housing and jobs.

You are a traitor to your country.

[American Nationalist]

NAFTA ≠ Fair Trade

NAFTA = Managed Trade

Nonsense. It reduced and eliminated tariffs. It is liberalized trade. IT is freer trade than we had before and it is failing. The implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994, brought the immediate elimination of tariffs on more than one half of US imports from Mexico and more than one third of US exports to Mexico. Within 10 years of the implementation of the agreement all US-Mexico tariffs would be eliminated except for some US agricultural exports to Mexico that were to be phased out in 15 years. Most US-Canada trade was already duty free.

We need fair trade and protectionism.

[revolutionisnow]

I do agree that NAFTA is managed trade, there are quotas and regulations on what you can and can not bring in. Real free trade would be free across the board, as long as it was not a threat to security, and would just have a flat tax on it. If you wanted to make it protectionism you could make it a higher tax. If you want to put a 10% tax on imports you could, but it should be the same tax on tires from China as it is on socks from Mexico. As it is now the various lobbies campaign for their own industries interests and shape trade policy.

[Met Income]

Nonsense. It reduced and eliminated tariffs. It is liberalized trade. IT is freer trade than we had before and it is failing. The implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994, brought the immediate elimination of tariffs on more than one half of US imports from Mexico and more than one third of US exports to Mexico. Within 10 years of the implementation of the agreement all US-Mexico tariffs would be eliminated except for some US agricultural exports to Mexico that were to be phased out in 15 years. Most US-Canada trade was already duty free.

We need fair trade and protectionism.

And who decides fair trade? The State? Come on.

[American Nationalist]

And who decides fair trade? The State? Come on.

Yes, the Federal Government sets up proper tariffs. This country was built into an economic superpower on protectionism and will be rebuilt on a fair trade policy.

[inibo]

If you support NAFTA, which eliminated tariffs and liberalized trade, than you have to accept the fact that agreements like NAFTA result in the illegal immigration of millions of displaced Mexicans(particularly small farmers). Free trade ultimately leads to the movement of people.

NAFTA is by no means free trade. NAFTA is managed trade.

Look at this (http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/NAFTA/NAFTATCE.ASP) and tell me how something like could produce anything like freedom.

[Chaohinon]

You are a traitor to your country.

jesus, everything is so simple to you

[American Nationalist]

NAFTA is by no means free trade. NAFTA is managed trade.

Look at this (http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/NAFTA/NAFTATCE.ASP) and tell me how something like could produce anything like freedom.

Of course it isn't pure free trade. But it is freer trade then we had before. Trade Liberalization and the elimination/reduction of tariffs has been detrimental. Freer trade has been a failure.

[Baptist]

Everyone always assumes that we are all libertarians. I am not libertarian. These forums are comprised of Ron Paul Republicans, libertarians, Libertarians, an-caps, constitutionalists, and others.

[malkusm]

This country was built into an economic superpower on protectionism

Ok, the burden of proof is on you...go ahead and prove that the sole reason that this country became an economic superpower was due to protectionism. If you do that, I'll never post here again. :p

[andrewh817]

It doesn't seem like there is much of a split within libertarianism as much as a split between minarchy and anarchy.

[South Park Fan]

Yes, the Federal Government sets up proper tariffs. This country was built into an economic superpower on protectionism and will be rebuilt on a fair trade policy.

Howabout you demonstrate this idea of protectionism on a smaller scale by isolating yourself from the outside world? By your logic, you should become a multibillionaire.

[American Nationalist]

Ok, the burden of proof is on you...go ahead and prove that the sole reason that this country became an economic superpower was due to protectionism. If you do that, I'll never post here again. :p

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h963.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_American_history
http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2009/11/impose_tariffs_on_imported_goo.html

I never said it was the sole reason. But the fact is, tariffs built this nation into an economic superpower. Tariffs correlated to economic growth in America. In 1950, 1/3 of American workers were in the manufacturing sector, now they make up 12 or so %. I know people whose grandparents worked at GM and were able to have 3 kids, have the mom stay at home(own that home), and buy a new car every 4 or 5 years. The fact is, since we have liberalized trade, real wages have not increased since 1973, private and public debt is at it's highest levels, the trade deficit is above 400 billion dollars, we have double digit unemployment and the dollar is hitting all time lows against competing currencies.

[NYgs23]

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h963.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_American_history
http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2009/11/impose_tariffs_on_imported_goo.html

I never said it was the sole reason. But the fact is, tariffs built this nation into an economic superpower. Tariffs correlated to economic growth in America. In 1950, 1/3 of American workers were in the manufacturing sector, now they make up 12 or so %. I know people whose grandparents worked at GM and were able to have 3 kids, have the mom stay at home(own that home), and buy a new car every 4 or 5 years. The fact is, since we have liberalized trade, real wages have not increased since 1973, private and public debt is at it's highest levels, the trade deficit is above 400 billion dollars, we have double digit unemployment and the dollar is hitting all time lows against competing currencies.

If that's the case, as a New Yorker, I should hope that New York places high tariffs and travel restrictions on all of the other states.

[Elm]

If we had a free market here it would include the free movement of people as another mechanism for balance.

We don't, and a government's first duty is to its citizens so until we fix everything else in dismantling the welfare/warfare state we should not have open borders - as the article states it simply creates an influx of socialists.

[constituent]

We don't, and a government's first duty is to its citizens so until we fix everything else in dismantling the welfare/warfare state we should not have open borders - as the article states it simply creates an influx of socialists.

In other words, "If we had a free market it would be great, but since we don't, it's better to trade a little economic/personal liberty for security..."

[JustinTime]

which of course leads into...
\/ \/ \/



lol, of course you realize that this post is itself an ad hominem? Well, you probably don't...

As an aside, maybe it was your approach.

If you dont give anything substantive to reply to and only offer attacks, the opponents only option is to point it out, then of course you can always come back with "thats an ad homiem too"! Its a great strategy if you want to wreck any and all debate.

[JustinTime]

Consider the War on Terror. The government claims that we have to fight terrorists to protect our national security. I agree that, if there is a direct threat to national security, we should take care of it (within the legal framework of our Constitution, and following the theory of Just War).

But we can fight the terrorists for hundreds of years and get no results unless we understand why the terrorists are fighting us to begin with. This is the bigger issue that needs to be addressed; and, as it turns out, if we minded our own business when it comes to foreign policy, we'd have a lot fewer enemies. Similarly, we can fight illegal immigration for hundreds of years to come, but we have to understand why they come here; and while there are reasons such as job opportunities that arise from the free market, most of the reasons are government subsidized: education for their children, health care for their families, citizenship for future generations. Immigration will continue to occur, no matter how much you crack down on it, as long as the benefits remain in place.

The "benefits" are only relative to the situations in other places in the world, and the situations of law-abiding citizens here at home. The problem is not that we need to punish illegal immigrants for doing the economically and morally responsible thing in taking care of themselves and their families. The problem is that we have citizens who are subsidize all of it, who are angry at the immigrants not because they get away with being untaxed, but because they themselves cannot live untaxed, and must pay the taxes of themselves AND the immigrant.

So get rid of taxes and governments?

[constituent]

If you dont give anything substantive to reply to and only offer attacks, the opponents only option is to point it out, then of course you can always come back with "thats an ad homiem too"! Its a great strategy if you want to wreck any and all debate.

Don't worry, when there is something worth dignifying with an ACTUAL response, you'll get one. Of course, you've only been here a month so I shouldn't really expect you to just know that... ;)

[malkusm]

So get rid of taxes and governments?

No, get rid of taxes that burden citizens more than non-citizens.

Examples of taxes that burden citizens and non-citizens equally: Sales taxes, gasoline tax, revenues derived on car registration fees, capital gains, property taxes, etc....

Once we can do that, we can debate whether THOSE taxes are necessary....but the point is that illegal immigrants currently enjoy the benefits of many other taxes, without paying them.

[angelatc]

By closing the borders, Ron Paul is basically saying he cannot end the welfare state.

He has literally said that. At least, he has said we could never just end it overnight.

[KCIndy]

He has literally said that. At least, he has said we could never just end it overnight.

Unfortunately, Dr. Paul is probably correct in that statement.

The problem is, SO MANY people have been indoctrinated to believe that government is there to provide "stuff."

Just go out on the street and ask a random sampling of people, say, 100, the question, "What is the primary job of government?"

Appallingly, the answer most often given will be something along the lines of, "To take care of us," or "To make sure we have things." :(

[JustinTime]

Don't worry, when there is something worth dignifying with an ACTUAL response, you'll get one. Of course, you've only been here a month so I shouldn't really expect you to just know that... ;)

Ive been here twelve days, stupid. If youre going to post childish, non-substantive assholishness, at least get it right.

[JustinTime]

No, get rid of taxes that burden citizens more than non-citizens.

Examples of taxes that burden citizens and non-citizens equally: Sales taxes, gasoline tax, revenues derived on car registration fees, capital gains, property taxes, etc....

Once we can do that, we can debate whether THOSE taxes are necessary....but the point is that illegal immigrants currently enjoy the benefits of many other taxes, without paying them.

So get rid of the income tax, Im down with that.

[malkusm]

So get rid of the income tax, Im down with that.

Yup - the income tax, social security tax, medicare tax, the Fed's "inflation" tax, etc. should be gone.

[Son of Liberty 2]

the income tax, social security tax, medicare tax, the Fed's "inflation" tax, etc. should be gone.
What do you think about replacing them with a land value tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax)?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

I'd like for immigration to end.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What do you think about replacing them with a land value tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax)?

http://mises.org/rothbard/georgism.pdf

It's atrocious! It is not only an assault on the very basis of our rights, it is an assault on the very foundation of the free-market!

[Elwar]

I support free trade of goods. Trading in people however I do not.

What is it about "trading people" that you are against? Especially if individuals freely choose to come or go?

Or are you one of those collectivists who believe that the United States should be made up mainly by "European Americans"?

[American Nationalist]

What is it about "trading people" that you are against? Especially if individuals freely choose to come or go?

Or are you one of those collectivists who believe that the United States should be made up mainly by "European Americans"?

No, I don't think people should be free to come to this country.

I also think America should remain a majority white nation.

[constituent]

I also think America should remain a majority white nation.

...

[American Nationalist]

...

...?

[inibo]

No, I don't think people should be free to come to this country.

I also think America should remain a majority white nation.

The more you make your positions clear the less I find to agree with you about.

[AutoDas]

No, I don't think people should be free to come to this country.

I also think America should remain a majority white nation.

http://www.stolencontinent.org/poster_downloads/not%20your%20land%20large.jpg

[South Park Fan]

No, I don't think people should be free to come to this country.

I also think America should remain a majority white nation.

How sad that you lack the ability to see past someone's skin color.

[libertarian4321]

Open immigration at a time when we have a welfare state would be disastrous. However, I don't think I've ever met a libertarian who supports open immigration given our current welfare state.

Open immigration would not be a major problem, however, if we first eliminated the welfare state.

[Elwar]

No, I don't think people should be free to come to this country.

I also think America should remain a majority white nation.

And the real reason behind being against immigration comes out. At least you're honest about it.

[Met Income]

Open immigration at a time when we have a welfare state would be disastrous. However, I don't think I've ever met a libertarian who supports open immigration given our current welfare state.

Open immigration would not be a major problem, however, if we first eliminated the welfare state.

Right, so instead of going after the cause, we’re going after the effect. It’s backwards logic.

[constituent]

And the real reason behind being against immigration comes out. At least you're honest about it.

He's not against immigration. He's against illegal immigration.

[Elwar]

He's not against immigration. He's against illegal immigration.

So he'd be fine if a law was passed to allow 1 billion brown skinned immigrants into the US per year? Because then it would be legal...

[constituent]

So he'd be fine if a law was passed to allow 1 billion brown skinned immigrants into the US per year? Because then it would be legal...

Well yea, exactly. I'm sure he'd be amenable to that. :D

[Dreamofunity]

http://www.stolencontinent.org/poster_downloads/not%20your%20land%20large.jpg

:D

[revolutionisnow]

Open immigration at a time when we have a welfare state would be disastrous. However, I don't think I've ever met a libertarian who supports open immigration given our current welfare state.

Open immigration would not be a major problem, however, if we first eliminated the welfare state.

It would still be a problem. As long as people can come here and earn salaries and have a standard of living multiple times what they earn in their own countries, people will want to come here. For many years the US did not have a welfare system, why were people coming here if not for the handouts? Transportation was much more primitive and less information was available so it was more demanding and risky to even try to immigrate.

[Elwar]

It would still be a problem. As long as people can come here and earn salaries and have a standard of living multiple times what they earn in their own countries, people will want to come here. For many years the US did not have a welfare system, why were people coming here if not for the handouts? Transportation was much more primitive and less information was available so it was more demanding and risky to even try to immigrate.

They came because this was the land of opportunity. They came because they liked the ideas of Thomas Jefferson and the ideals of creating a great future for themselves. They contributed to the greatness of our country.

With a welfare state they come for other reasons.

[malkusm]

It would still be a problem. As long as people can come here and earn salaries and have a standard of living multiple times what they earn in their own countries, people will want to come here. For many years the US did not have a welfare system, why were people coming here if not for the handouts? Transportation was much more primitive and less information was available so it was more demanding and risky to even try to immigrate.

How many came illegally in those days? Why would an immigrant risk coming into the country illegally, when he/she can get the same benefits that we have to offer as a citizen, without chancing deportation? Why would an immigrant waive the right to vote, drive, or partake in the other benefits of being a citizen, at a net loss for themselves?

[Elwar]

How many came illegally in those days? Why would an immigrant risk coming into the country illegally, when he/she can get the same benefits that we have to offer as a citizen, without chancing deportation? Why would an immigrant waive the right to vote, drive, or partake in the other benefits of being a citizen, at a net loss for themselves?

My grandfather came to America from Poland around the time of WWII. He snuck in under a ladies big dress. He came to get away from Poland and came to a much better place.

I'd be fine living in the US, not having the basic rights of citizens, if I was leaving something much worse.

[malkusm]

My grandfather came to America from Poland around the time of WWII. He snuck in under a ladies big dress. He came to get away from Poland and came to a much better place.

I'd be fine living in the US, not having the basic rights of citizens, if I was leaving something much worse.

That's fine, and that's one example. Both sides of my family came here and went through the legal process to gain citizenship. It was a very minor inconvenience when compared with the huge risk of illegally immigrating, in order to obtain the huge reward of economic and social freedom, and the wealth of being a part of the strongest economy in the world.

Of course, there will still be illegal immigration; but to be honest, it will be largely based on irrational decisions. Absent the incentives of the welfare state, immigration will not be nearly the problem that it is today.

[Met Income]

It would still be a problem. As long as people can come here and earn salaries and have a standard of living multiple times what they earn in their own countries, people will want to come here. For many years the US did not have a welfare system, why were people coming here if not for the handouts? Transportation was much more primitive and less information was available so it was more demanding and risky to even try to immigrate.

There's nothing wrong with coming here and working -- as long as you don't extract benefits from other people through social programs.

[Elwar]

There's nothing wrong with coming here and working -- as long as you don't extract benefits from other people through social programs.

That should be said for people born here as well.

[libertygrl]

Consider the War on Terror. The government claims that we have to fight terrorists to protect our national security. I agree that, if there is a direct threat to national security, we should take care of it (within the legal framework of our Constitution, and following the theory of Just War).

But we can fight the terrorists for hundreds of years and get no results unless we understand why the terrorists are fighting us to begin with. This is the bigger issue that needs to be addressed; and, as it turns out, if we minded our own business when it comes to foreign policy, we'd have a lot fewer enemies. Similarly, we can fight illegal immigration for hundreds of years to come, but we have to understand why they come here; and while there are reasons such as job opportunities that arise from the free market, most of the reasons are government subsidized: education for their children, health care for their families, citizenship for future generations. Immigration will continue to occur, no matter how much you crack down on it, as long as the benefits remain in place.

The "benefits" are only relative to the situations in other places in the world, and the situations of law-abiding citizens here at home. The problem is not that we need to punish illegal immigrants for doing the economically and morally responsible thing in taking care of themselves and their families. The problem is that we have citizens who are subsidize all of it, who are angry at the immigrants not because they get away with being untaxed, but because they themselves cannot live untaxed, and must pay the taxes of themselves AND the immigrant.

From what I understand, ever since Clinton signed the NAFTA treaty, Mexican farmers lost their jobs and so they began coming here in droves. Also, there's a ruling elite in Mexico that doesn't want to provide benefits to their poor citizens. I was always under the impression that Mexico was a poor nation - but it's extremely wealthy. Therefore another question needs to be asked - Why doesn't Mexico take care of its own?

There was definitely some sort of back room agreement between Bush and Fox when they were both in power. It always appeared that Fox was giving Bush his marching orders whenever something came up on illegal immigration.