Rule of law! Laughing my butt off!!Arkansan:
I think a country is defined by its ideals more than by its race, in the case of the US, the ideals of freedom, the rule of law, and the blending of cultures. It has always been so. Continued immigration is in keeping with that tradition of national identity.
It is a shame you think so little of the ideals many of us have died to defend.
I find this approach a red herring.
Because we live in a finite world and our infrastructure can only only accommodate so many people at a certain time, and preference must be given to the citizens of a nation for access to those resources over non-citizens.
Why does Mexico need our help? Do you feel that every other country should look like the USA?
You might want to re-think that approach - it would allow discrimination based on anything at all. The government does not in fact allow this. One approach I would wholeheartedly support is the requirement for employers to use the E-Verify system to validate that the individual being hired may legally work in the US.
I would stop pretty much all immigration from Mexico on anything other than a temporary, seasonal basis. If the argument is made that we have a moral duty to help the poor of the world, then lets act on that duty and prioritize the really poor over the not-so-bad-off. Mexico has the 11th largest economy in the world. Guatemalans and Hondurans would love to live like the Mexicans, so, given that there must be some limit on how many we take in, what is the argument that it ought to be the poor Mexican instead of the abjectly poor Guatemalan?
That’s your opinion. I happen to think he’s doing quite well.
Did they build the fence to keep you out completely or keep you from entering through the back yard without permission and force you to knock on the door and ask to be allowed in?
Of course when I said the free-market approach, I meant “other things being equal.” Obviously hiring someone illegally is an overriding criterion, as is discriminating in violation of anti-discrimination laws. I was addressing the situation where two applicants are both legally allowed to hold the job, and no other laws are being violated. I thought you were asking about this scenario and wanting some sort of guidance on who should have preference in that case.LeafByNiggle:
You might want to re-think that approach - it would allow discrimination based on anything at all. The government does not in fact allow this. One approach I would wholeheartedly support is the requirement for employers to use the E-Verify system to validate that the individual being hired may legally work in the US.
The system is simple and puts virtually no additional burden on employers to use, and I would make it a crime punishable by fines for an employer to have anyone on his payroll who fails an E-Verify search.
I don’t see where this expectation comes from, and there is no agreement on ‘what is a good example’
Does this mean you would support the requirement for employers to use E-Verify? I’m sure this is going to come up in Congress when they debate immigration, and it will very likely split entirely along party lines.
In such a case the employer ought to have discretion to hire who he wants (subject to all relevant laws, etc.) This, does, however, lead to another immigration question. How should we control the entry of people who will compete with natives for jobs? As someone else pointed out earlier, laws are not really neutral; they are passed to bring about a desired result, and it would be my desire not to abandon the typical high school graduate to too much competition from non-citizens. “Too much” to be determined.