Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Crime & Punishment Illegal Immigration and Appropriate Penalties

US foreign policy is inherantly tied to immigration, both legal and illegal.

IMO, therefore we should not approach this issue with a "cause and effect" logic, but rather from one of personal responsibility.

Every foreign policy decision our country makes (including trade) has it's negative ramifications and to pretend we are not responsible is simply putting one's head in the sand because you don't like what that responsibility entails.

Understanding "globilization" and all that goes with it takes quite a bit of work that most people are simply not willing to do. That is why it is difficult to find a difference between these type of views and the ones we hear from the "talking heads" on the corporate media. In other words, this type of thinking is a direct result of state sponsored propaganda that seeks to confuse the information consumer and detract from the truth.

But once one understands that the recent landslide in undocumented workers is directly related to NAFTA and other central and south American trade agreements, then it is logic (not emotion or nationalism) that demands how we approach the solution.

Building walls or increasing penalties for hiring or illegal immigration is analogous to driving over a tackstrip of nails in your driveway everyday only to replace the tires each time you roll over the tackstrip instead of removing the tackstrip itself.

There has never been a permanent solution to any problem without first identifying the cause of that problem and eliminating it.

Those who want to increase penalties or build walls are not being logical because they refuse to acknowledge the real cause.

Thank you for saying so simply and eloquently what I would have liked to have said.

EmmaG

I do not understand the connection you are making. And even if there were some influence of NAFTA, how do we know it is the primary factor? It seems like immigration has been around for a very long time before NAFTA. And past immigration (both legal and not) has been more closely associated with economics. And particularly associated with economic stress in the areas of emigration and economic opportunity in the areas of immigration.

I tend to agree with you Ardy. We offer greener pa$ture$ and opportunitie$ to those willing to find a way to get in & do work so many of us are unwilling to touch at wage$ we are unwilling to accept. The fact that there are borders and people are crossing it in violation to some laws written by out of touch politicians owned by $pecial Intere$t $pon$or$, often in violation of some other laws, is irrelevant...to those crossing those borders.

We offer greener pa$ture$ just as those countries and those same workers offer our corporations greener pastures to bring their plants south of our borders. That irritates us as well, but, hey, that's legal, provides us with cheaper products and enriches those corporations so they can buy more politicians.

Good post, Roger Waters.

I like your moniker too. Obviously the drugs didn't affect you quite the way they did your namesake.

Welcome to the Machine

That especially goes for American teenagers and twenty-somethings. At my second job (The Crab Shack), "they" get hired expecting to make $16.50/hr right off the bat and not the $8.00/hr that they are paid. They don't last long. We train them and they quit. "They" want immediate gratification without "paying their dues" aka learning the trade. "They" can't even close the shop or clean and sanitize it properly.

We train them, we go over it again - it all goes in one ear and out the other and "they" look at you like you've never told them how do perform their jobs. Frankly "they" suck.

For the record: "They" = American teens and twenty-somethings who haven't gone to college.

one might ask oneself how trade and economic policies since ww2 (and before) have helped bring the current state of affairs, such imbalance that leads to migration.

Neo-colonial policies and relationships (among other factors) re-inforce this imbalance, the stress and opportunity mentioned above. Us foreign policy through the world bank, IMF and direct trade agreement, especially in South America has had a direct effect on migration patterns.

oh and theres also about 4 million displaced iraqis. i wonder if any of them might migrate to the states, theyre not allowed legally......

its not a stretch to say that the effects of the war in vietnam boosted vietnamese migration to the states back in the 70's.

US foreign policy is very pertinent to the topic, its not the only factor, but it is a biggie. (although i state the US, other Richer nations also engage in the economic imbalancing)

To understand the impact of the US policy on immigration, one must take into account that for real world purposes there is no difference between the actions of US corporations (back in the days when there were such things) and those of the government itself.

He is probably referring to the claim that because of NAFTA, US subsidized corn drove Mexican corn farmers (mainly indigeneous people) off the land, who then headed north to take jobs in the border factories and in the US. Of course, as you point out, illegal immigration was a routine matter long before NAFTA. It, at best, simply added to the already heavy migration to America, but was by no means the cause of it.
Yours,
Issodhos