What is so wrong about Immigration "Amnesty" , that it makes some types froth at the mouth ?

Really ? , such a simple solution to such a complex problem.

it is a 100 times easier for someone from Germany to immigrate to the US than someone from Mexico.

Have sensible Immigration laws , and I would agree with you . Put making it IMPOSSIBLE for a poor Mexican to immigrate , and then screaming that he did not obey the rules ? does not make sense to me.

Changing the laws could mean bringing them into the system, having them pay a fine, and starting them on the path to citizenship and getting documented.

Amnesty is rewarding people for breaking the rules and putting them ahead of people who came here legally.

I'm all for comprehensive reform that makes it easier for all people to enter this country with minimal hassle, but amnesty isn't a good way to get it done.

is being made to bear the onus of the stupidity.

Give me a break.

not snap our fingers and say that it's all good now.

It's not fair to the people who are already in line and paying the money.

and making SS deposits.

Snapping our fingers to get people in line will devastate tens of thousands of families.

Should we just eliminate immigration then?

Maybe we're just misscommunicating here.

That has been Federal policy. Now, they have to deal with fallout from that and they need to stop doing things in Latin America that create more refugees.

I'm fine with having a fair and consistent immigration policy. But punishing working people who have been paying taxes and making SS deposits and contributing to our economy is unfair.

They have been playing by the rules -- the unwritten rules which nevertheless have been the rules.

That is some seriously well done spin when we are talking about stealing someones SSN number and using it in an illegal manner.

That is spin that Karl Rove would be proud to call his own.


We need immigration reform and a way to make these people legal, but lets not get to disingenuous mmkay?

Theft of money is hardly the only thing in this world that one can steal.

If an individual uses someone else car without permission they stole it. Even if they return the car with a $100 bill in the glove compartment, a theft and personal violation still occurred.


Its ok though. I understand where you are coming from. Just pointing out that if someone on your side doesn't buy the spin, its probably not going to persuade the other side either.

*This* public's interest.

People oppose amnesty because it would be unfair to legal immigrants.

Well, sorry to say, but the legal immigration process is itself completely unfair. It takes years, costs tens of thousands of dollars, is littered with countless legal land-mines that require immigrants to have the services of skilled lawyers to avoid missteps that result in deportation. And sometimes, people get denied green cards, get denied permission to enter the U.S., and get denied citizenship for absolutely no reason at all.

Is it any wonder that people skip that mess altogether and just jump the border?

So yes, I'm in favor of amnesty, or at least amnesty with a price - pay a fine for jumping the border, wait a couple extra years before being allowed citizenship, but being allowed to stay in the country as long as they come clean and stay clean.

Of course, I'm also in favor of overhauling the legal immigration system, and shunting people who today would become undocumented, into becoming legal immigrants.

I think that amnesty is a confusing word, because to a lot of people it just means that everything has been forgiven and those people who were previously illegal are now legal. Easy as pie.



on edit: I found this on the NCLR website.

Q: Does NCLR support an amnesty?
A: No. NCLR supports a path to citizenship for immigrant workers that requires them to earn permanent status over time. Unlike amnesty – which is an immediate and complete pardon – to earn permanent status an immigrant would have to register with the government, undergo a criminal background check, maintain a clean record, pay all taxes, learn English, and pay a fine to the government. This is very different from an “amnesty.”

http://www.nclr.org/content/faqs/detail/43266

makes me "froth at the mouth" I suppose

In fact, it's none of their business. We let them in legally, and they can STFU about who else we let in later.

Besides, "following the law" these days just means you are part of an elite lucky enough to qualify under the restrictive laws. We can expand those laws if we want.

that Amarikuns would be cheated out of ....

If people are afraid that wages would be lowered by having companies hire immigrants...."illegal aliens"..at lower wages...
MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMPANIES PAY THE SAME WAGES TO ALL EMPLOYEES...AND/OR UNIONIZE THE "ALIENS"

I have yet to hear of a case where a company has been significantly punished for hiring people at lower than minimum wage...
whether they were US citizens or not.

to go through the process to obtain a legal status.

It's a very tough question, isn't it?

:hi:

But they know that not everyone has a daddy in government and a wealthy sponsor. I think all but one marched for reform on May 5 and they're all over 65. Loud mouths. lol :)

My ancestors migrated legally to this nation from Denmark and Scotland. But unlike so many of our cousins to the south, they actually had money, time, support and were not fleeing economic deprivation, oppression or death sentences. Lauding them for "doing it right" seems kind of empty when you consider all the circumstances.

Many of the people I know are coming from Russia and eastern Europe. They have neither money nor connections and have made great sacrifices to work within the system. Some of them are fleeing economic deprivation, oppression and abuse. These are the ones who get really worked up at the mention of amnesty. They do support that people have the option of returning to their country of origin and being allowed to begin the process, but not full amnesty.

I realize that there are other areas that are impossible to even access the system. I knew a connected and wealthy Mexican physician who couldn't get a legal status after his education at all, even though his specialty is in a high need areas.

My only point would be is that amnesty is not a simple solution to this complex problem.

is not an option for many, many families, let alone, for families who have raised children here. Waiting there for ten years -- they won't survive that long. It's simply unrealistic.

feel the noose tightening on them all the time. I would like to see all of them granted amnesty, but I fear they will be caught and deported in due time.

I am not arguing against amnesty, just trying to answer the question as to why some people are adamantly opposed to it.

:hi:

This is a terrible time to be a vulnerable person in this country. :(

that allow them to do it legally? That's good luck, not sacrifice.

Some person happens to be the brother of someone who became a US citizen years ago and filed for them. And that brother has enough money to vouch for their support now. all they have to do is wait a lot of years. They don't even have to learn English!

Or they are professionals in a job shortage area. Nurses and the like.

Boo hoo it would be so horrible for them if poor people who would never qualify, who have been exploited to work in the lowest wage jobs and don't have those connections, get a break! We're supposed to cry for the middle class people who don't get to be so elite any more!

Of course, their actual position is a far cry from what their stated ideology would indicate.

;

progressive taxation, and strong unions might be surprised to hear that their support of open borders make them "Free-market libertarian types".

Europeans have put together a much more progressive society than ours and view open borders with each other as a progressive accomplishment that few (other than a few far right-wing parties like the BNP and UKIP in the UK) want to change.

Do you have any idea how paranoid right wingers here are about the mythical North American Union with its open borders? Let's just say that Fox, Rush, Glenn and the others are about as far from open borders supporters as you can get.

As you can see even from people here at DU. They freak out about "what part of illegal dont you get" but ignore many other things that are done illegally by state and federal authorities on nearly a daily basis. They also forget that peoples' circumstances differ, often compelling them to do something illegal in order to survive and sustain. Not to fall to Godwins Law or anything, but an immediate example that comes to mind were all the Germans in 1940 who "broke the law" by harboring Jewish families in their homes.

Did they break the law? Sure. Was it necessary and understandable? Hell yes.

http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/previewing-the-right-wing-playbook-immigration-reform#strategy6

Strategy 6: Stop Reform by Shouting 'Amnesty'

Opponents of any legislation that would provide an earned path to citizenship grabbed onto the word "amnesty" and plastered it even on legislation that required fines and significant other requirements for law-abiding immigrants to earn a path to citizenship. Decrying "amnesty" became a way to oppose any reform short of mass deportation without saying so directly, and we should expect "no amnesty" to be a rallying cry of those who oppose any responsible approach to reform. Indeed, Pat Buchanan has written, "'Comprehensive' is the code word for amnesty." He has insisted that "America is now risking national suicide…if a path to citizenship becomes law, nothing will stop the next invasion." In early 2007, some Republicans waged a campaign to try to keep then-Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida from becoming chairman of the GOP based on his support for comprehensive reform. The anti-Martinez organizing led RNC member Paul Senft to complain, "With some people, the issue of amnesty is a litmus test and anything short of a concentration camp is amnesty."

In 2007, as the 2008 presidential primary campaigns were getting under way, Politico said, "Political pandering was at a peak during a recent Republican presidential forum in New Hamsphire. Most of the 10 GOP White House hopefuls blasted the Senate bill as 'amnesty,' even though it calls for a steep path to legalization for most of the 21 million illegal immigrants."

Response to Denunciations of 'Amnesty'

When pundits or political leaders try, as a number of elected officials and Religious Right leaders have done, to come across as reasonable while obstructing reform, they may say something like, "I support reform, but I can't support amnesty." They should be asked to define "amnesty." If they define it as rewarding lawbreaking, ask them whether it is fair to apply such a sweeping term to a system that would require unauthorized immigrants to pay a fine, learn English, and spend time earning their way toward citizenship. If they call even a policy like that "amnesty," they will be unmasked as obstructionists who are more interested in demagoguery than in finding workable solutions to the question of how to deal with millions of unauthorized immigrants now living and working in our communities. Most Americans understand that mass deportations are not a workable solution; politicians who support that kind of extreme measure shouldn't be permitted to portray themselves as proponents of reform while waving a "no amnesty" banner.

;-)

Anyone who wants to come here gets a free pass.

They must carry that pass - their papers - with them.

Employers check those papers and if they can't be sure of the facts, they can't hire said individual.

If after a number of years said individual is cool with being an almost honest person (like most of us born here) then said person can apply for citizenship.

So....... everyone comes across at the proper places, gets their papers and comes and lives in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Just like most of our families arrived here.

that was supposed to deal with the problem in the 80s... but--surprise--the laws that were supposed to deal with US businesses that were hiring the border crossers were enforced only in small token cases... and the demand exploded so the result has been perceived even more poorly than one which simply didn't work very well. So on one side you have a lot of folks saying we already tried that.

Of course, most of the people on that side of the question tend to blame the immigrants instead of the businesses and individuals that are actually fueling the problem by creating the high demand for cheap labor that they can exploit... In typical right wing fashion, their position reeks of hypocrisy because they simultaneously leap to protect corporations from enforcement and regulation. Add in the racist undertones of their whole social philosophy and you begin to see what anyone with a rational approach is up against.

A great number of con types long for the good old days when Jose and Maria could sneak across the border, work in the fields (keeping prices low), clean houses (off the books), and stay in the shadows... life was so much simpler then. But, gee now there are so many and the local GOP is taking in boatloads of donations now that they've tapped into the racism.

I despise George Bush, but immigration reform was the one issue where he was on the right track. McNumb-nuts was even an immigration reform proponent before he sold out to the right wingers and teabaggers that now own the repub party.

But now, just like the abortion issue, the right is raising so much money railing about the "illegal aliens" that they don't really want a solution. They'll talk tough and use all the racist code words to stay in those teabagger pockets for as long as they can.

Immigration is down right now.

growth in the agricultural field in California and the southwest. If it is down now, it is probably due to multiple factors... bigger border patrol efforts, border violence, high profile smuggling failures, and the like.

Note that the right wing's use of terror fears plays right into the "new" position being taken by McNumb-nuts and his reactionary friends--secure the border first.

Of course, make no mistake, even if and when the border is inarguably "secure" they will fight every real reform effort tooth and nail. It plays to the racist base of their party, it protects big agri-business and the issue is the new cash cow prviding a direct line into teabagger wallets.

So you give 12 million people amnesty do you think that will increase or decrease the flow of illegal immigration?

In another decade you will have 20-30 million illegal immigrants in the country.

I consider amnesty a necessary evil. We simply have no alternative the cost to locate and deport 12 million people would bankrupt us. So likely we need amnesty however I don't support amnesty unless it is part of a comprehensive reform that stops FUTURE flow of illegal immigration.

One thing that makes people wary of amensty is WE ALREADY DID IT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

We have more illegal immigrants in the country to day then before we provided amnesty in 1986.

Shitty jobs in US are still better than opportunities in Mexico.

I mean if they could don't you think Chinese laborer making $0.15 an hour would GLADLY come to the US and work 60,70,80 hours a week at even HALF minimum wage?

Right now in the world there are hundreds of millions of people who would come to the US at drop of the hat if you gave them the opportunity and nothing more than the promise to be wage slave working an 80 hour week, 52 weeks a year with no benefits, vacation, or healthcare.

The US simply can never absorb all the poor desperate people from around the world. We could look the other way and let 100 million illegal immigrants in the US and another BILLION would be waiting for their chance to come across the border.

Real reform will require massive and punitive penalties on employer who hire unauthorized aliens.

I am talking penalties in the ballpark of 10,000% of prevailing annual wage per worker caught on the first offense. Penalties would need to go up from there with criminal charges up to 20 years for people all the way to the top. If you are CEO of home builder and your company employers unauthorized aliens then you go to prison. Maybe a year for first offense, 10 years for second.

Until it is unprofitable to hire unauthorized aliens business will continue to do so. The flip side of that coin is there needs to be some sort of national air tight employment verification system. Something more than the utter crap than anyone can forge their way through.

Without stopping unauthorized immigration at the source (employment) an amnesty is worthless. Anyone thinking otherwise is just fooling themselves.

NAFTA threw hundreds of thousands off of their farms. It doubled the populations in the northernmost Mexican states.

And before NAFTA, refugees from Raygun's dirty wars in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

This group of immigrants didn't come here looking for "the American dream" as a relatively few people used to do. They were forced up here by political violence and by the economies in their respective countries.

The source isn't employment. The source is our regional policy which has never considered for a minute what would happen when we made life unlivable in Mexico (or Nicaragua or Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador).

Is that we have a crappy law. It does not match with any accuracy the natural movements of peoples in the world.

Especially not the hundreds of millions (if not billions) of utterly unskilled people who would still come here by the millions and swamp our economy.

It isn't fair but there will ALWAYS be a limit on who gets to live in the United States. "Natural movement of people" would annihilate what remains of US economic power.

because we're making refugees faster than we can absorb them.

If it wouldn't the immigrants would not come. They'd go to where the opportunity was. We are lucky we are the place people want to come to. I sure would not want to live in a place people did not want to come to.

A law against it does not help.

If it had been against the law for Southeastern Europeans and Eastern Europeans and Irish to come in the 19th century, it would not have worked either.

Laws against stealing run counter to human nature and don't deter 100% of theft. That doesn't mean that the law is "obviously" wrong.

The US has had immigration policies since the 1880's when bringing people here to develop the west was in the public interest.

White citizens are on top and the "filthy illegals" are on the bottom and living in fear. Oh, and they're working on my garden as we speak.

That's JUST the way they like it.

And if someone proposes shipping people to Mexico in boxcars, I'll be the one laying down on the tracks to stop it from happening.

it's a band-aid. It doesn't address any of the issues of continued illegal immigration and exploitation, not to mention the economic effects on labor. You can legalize all the illegal immigrants, you can even make open borders, and the underlying problem is still there. Having a bunch of legal, desperate people still depresses the wages, and still will lead to labor violations.

Even if all the businesses are actually held to good labor standards, the border isn't far, and it's just a hop over to Mexico to be back to low wages and cheap products. Or China. Europe and Canada have incredibly tough immigration rules, but no one is boycotting them. It's because those countries also care about their working class citizens and labor standards. The US cares about economic growth at the expense of the working class. Businesses love illegal immigration, or legal immigration of lots of desperate people. Whatever allows them to pay less for labor.

The US will never seriously go after businesses that employ illegal immigrants, and that's the point. An amnesty every couple of decades keeps the problem tamped down while allowing millions of new cheap labor workers to come into the country.

basically it rewards people for under-cutting the price of native-born labor, so that's why republicans like the idea of an "amnesty"

we can make people compete with guys who've worked decades under the counter for less than minimum wage plus make them compete with slave prison labor and pretty soon we have a world where blue collar etc. type jobs pay nothing for breaking a man's back

just as reagan wished

don't pretend there is anything "progressive" about an amnesty for people under-cutting the price of labor, it's stealing from the person who has to work for a living

if you have inherited wealth and want a slave labor to staff your macmansion i can understand why you support "amnesty" but SOME people actually have to work for a living, and most of those people are democrats

is that it seems to get offered every 25 to 30 years, and future illegal immigrants know this. Giving amnesty to those who are here now gives them the right to complain to government agencies about unfair work practices, and makes them unemployable by the very unscrupulous companies and farmers that employ them now.

It creates demand for a new illegal workforce that will come in to accept whatever crap the employers want to dish out, because the prize at the end of the road is amnesty. The newly legalized will just simply go on the unemployment rolls, which are already bursting at the seams.

If there were an absolute solid way to completely prevent new illegal immigration, then I'd go along with amnesty. I believed all the BS when Simpson-Mazzoli was signed into law in 1986, and even though I have had to jump through hoops to get employed ever since then, it hasn't done diddly-squat to stop illegal immigration.

any solution that seems simple isn't a solution at all, examples include AZ's new immigration law, Amnesty, border fence/wall, even fining employers, etc.

Its a complex problem, and damn near no discussion is made as to WHY people come here in the first place, until you solve that, all the rest is bullshit rhetoric. You can fine employers till the cows come home, and all that will do is make them more careful, you can deport people en mass, and they will return, you can make them all citizens, at least the ones that are here, and more will come to get better jobs than they can get in Mexico. You can build a border fence/wall, and have that multi-billion dollar boondoggle destroyed by a cheap pair of wire cutters, ladder, or shovel.

Like everything else, if you increase the supply of labor on the open market you decrease it's price/value (aka: wages). I find it difficult for people to argue for increasing american wages while simultaneously pining that the labor supply be drastically increased via amnesty. Amnesty will hurt, without a doubt, many unskilled and physical labor trades in america.

Secondly, it is basically rewarding people who circumvent and break the laws.

There needs to be a program in immigration where people seeking a better life and refuge can stay in America while they work at getting their citizenship. No reason to breakup families and deport peaceful aliens home... but you can't just open the gates with a welcome sign.

In fact, normalizing these workers will allow these workers to ask for higher wages because they will not be vulnerable to blackmail, etc.

And as far as rewarding lawbreakers, that's a non-starter. The feds looked the other way, employers looked the other way, the whole society was happy to take their money in return for goods and services. Pointing the finger at the most vulnerable link in that chain, the workers who have been exploited three ways to Sunday, is inconsistent, to put it mildly.

Raygun's dirty wars in Central America that displaced a fifth, nearly a quarter, of the population of El Salvador alone. We got a LOT of people from Central America during those years.

I know you feel as strongly about the issue as I do. Thank you for remaining civil.

They support it because they believe that a path to citizenship for some will be good for current American workers, as well as for those who are now easy to exploit because of their status.

It is the republican partisan mantra now to "Secure the border!" and do nothing more comprehensive. This not only appeals to their racist/xenophobic base, but assures the continued presence of a large pool of easily exploited workers. The border will never be "100% secure" anymore than we'll ever be 100% safe from terrorism. But both can be used by repubs, who know nothing if not how to campaign on fear.

At this point, protecting a local labor market is impractical.

We need Mexico as a partner in our immigration solution. Mexico has to clean up it's corruption and drug wars and build the kind of nation that it's people will want to live in and thrive at home. Part of the money we spend on the two wars could be spent on nation building in Mexico. Then we can assist those who want to move back home voluntarily. It will take a generation but a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. We could give Americans jobs building Mexico!

I want an immigration policy that will be a win win for all of us.

help the oligarchy steal elections from reformers, as Bush helped Calderon steal the last election from Obredor.

The problem is very much with the elites on both sides of the border.

The Obama administration just helped topple a reformer in Honduras for the right wing, corporate friendly oligarchy. Expect a wave of workers to come up from Honduras -- they are probably already here and stilling coming in.

We have a lot more of a hand in all of this than most people believe we do. That's the bad news but in another way, it's also the good news.

Our economic elites are addicted to the easy thievery they can practice in vulnerable Latin American countries, backed by our government and military. That has to stop. We can't keep funding their larceny at the expense of our own jobs or of the quality of life in the Americas.

I don't think there is a book.

But, we followed the last Mexican presidential election very closely in the Election Reform Forum. Bush sent down lawyers, guns and money and when the results were barely in and so "close", he went into the media to congratulate Calderon. There was something like a recount and the election commission was either bullied or threatened into calling it for Calderon. It was a LOT like 2000 here except the Mexican people stayed out on the streets for five months.

As for Honduras, let me see what I remember off the top for tonight. Honduras is basically our landing strip. The political elites there would not mount a coup without a green light. It would be suicide. Before the coup last summer, Death Squads Negroponte paid a visit to Micheletti, the leader of the legislature -- and Micheletti led the coup. President Zelaya was making noise like a reformer. He upped the minimum wage, funded education a little and was looking to poll the public to see if the people wanted a constitutional convention. They, of course, do and have for years. Their constitution was imposed upon them by Reagan and they want to reform it.

Zelaya was dragged out of his bed and kidnapped on a plane that fueled up at our base there and he was dumped in Costa Rica, a country that plays ball with us. When the whole region got behind Zelaya against the coup, Lanny Davis, an old Clinton PR flak went to work for the coup. The Obama administration never cut off aid to Honduras during the coup as it was required to do by law. They never stopped training Honduran officers at the SOA. Our UN ambassador refused to allow the coup to be discussed in the Security Council, sorry I don't remember her name. (Maybe it's Susan something, Rice?) And of course, Clinton's job was to keep Zelaya from returning. She's called this a bloodless coup when in reality, people have been kidnapped and tortured and raped and murdered. Journalists, organizers, teachers, leaders. The latest thing is that a fake "peace and reconciliation" commission was empaneled in DC, not in Honduras,about two weeks ago to whitewash the whole thing. And the perps of the coup have gotten amnesty but not President Zelaya. None of this would have been possible without our State Department.

I'll see what I can put together for you. But, that's the gist of things. And as I said, the bad news is that our policy is pretty directly responsible for driving people north. But that's the good news, too. It's not that stupid people to the south can't run their countries. Not at all.

There's a ton of material on both of these topics but these links give a good quick overview.

Mexican presidential elections
Stealing Mexico, Palast
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00007.htm

(He has several others on this topic)

Out for the Count
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/07/finalmathsinmexico




For the coup in Honduras, also a ton of material. Hondurasoye and NarcoNews did the best compilations but here are a few links that talk about key points.

Obama's First Coup
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=405&topic_id=16714

LATAM Experts Call on Clinton to Oppose Early Elections Option in Honduras
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=405&topic_id=18514

Factchecking Lanny Davis on Honduras
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-grandin/fact-checking-lanny-davis_b_255900.html

Lobbyist Lanny Davis Seeks a Rematch with Obama over Honduras Coup
http://la.indymedia.org/print.php?id=228942&comments=yes

US’ Ice Queen Ambassador Prevents Real Discussion of Honduras Issue At UN
http://hondurasoye.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/us-ice-queen-ambassador-prevents-real-discussion-of-honduras-issue-at-un/

Casualties of the Bloodless Coup
http://inthesetimes.com/article/5084/casualties_of_the_bloodless_coup

The Real Winner in Honduras: The US?
http://hondurasoye.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/the-real-winner-in-honduras-the-us-excellent-analysis-2/

Their economy is growing at about the same rate as ours, and significantly faster than Canada.

Mexico isn't a partner in an immigration solution, they are exploiting a niche - they solve their poverty problem by publishing brochures giving their citizens advice on how to manage once they have crossed the border. Their biggest export is labor. Mexicans working in the US send $21 billion back home. That's a cash cow that they don't want to jeopardize.

policy.

There is collusion on both sides of the border in the political class and workers there and here pay for it.

Must be a big push for immigration reform this year.

for whatever they lack.

it's not unfair to those who come here legally. many who come here legally were able to do so because they are so well off. they are far better off than many who come here illegally.

people with money, those with family here who are able to sponser them. it's not different than luck of being born here.

the worse is when assholes go after kids without documentation. there was a thread attacking a girl who has been here since she was about 8 for wanting loan for college. how the fuck is it her fault that she happens to have been here without documentation. just because she wasn't born into some asshole rich family like Bush where she can be a failure and become president.

people are just fucking assholes.

While other people are working their asses off to immigrate legally.

democratic votes, isn't fair to those who've jumped through all the legal hoops to get in the 'right/legal' way, doesn't solve the problem of more people coming/staying illegally because now you are making them all citizens, and of course some pure racism that people not like 'me' will get to enjoy my lifestyle and be equal to me.

Before we wave a magic wand of amnesty we need to control the flow of people getting in and staying here illegally, that is both people who never were documented and people who just vanished before/after their visas expired. To do that as many have mentioned you need to address the problems in America and Mexico with employers/opportunity etc. There are plenty of the other side that use the argument I've made to do nothing, we need to secure our borders, but they don't want to just secure the borders they want to effectively close them, then start deporting people and have no real interest in making anyone legal or would only do so once they felt a significant number were out of the country.

Securing our borders needs to be tied into some amnesty or path to citizenship that gets tied to dealing with the continuing draw for people to enter the country and stay after visas expire in order for it to work.

and a few are sour grapes because they had the money to spend to dot the I's and cross the T's and resent spending it on what they see as someone getting the same thing for nothing.

Most are huge dipshit hypocrites who know good and well if economic or environmental conditions dictated their monkey asses would be migrating to Mexico as quick as their little legs could carry them.

I'd be careful about any fencemaking, you never know when you may need to cross over it. A super volcano eruption should be motivation enough to silence the bigots and the morons.

They don't like Mexicans.

By them coming here illegally and waiting long enough they can become citizens while other did it the legal way.