Citizenship at Birth

[Typhoid]

Since you haven't answered that question directly

I'm pretty sure I've said things like it several times. Maybe you're just choosing not to comprehend that part of my posts for the sake of your argument.

I said:

Get some bouncers to watch my doors and windows. If they start coming through the chimney, put some bouncers on the roof. Especially if the people who are inside my house need work to do, I'd put them to work watching my doors.

Which in the metaphor of the house being the USA, the doors and all openings into it are obviously borders.

Not to mention being that I've said numerous times "The problem isn't people having babies in your country, it's people getting in illegally" I was fairly sure that gave across a "Stop them from getting in illegally" type of thing.

From my first post:

"If you stop people from illegally entering your country, then you wouldn't need to fix the birth right."

From my second post, specifically addressing you:

"I'd argue that all that needs to be watched is obviously the southern US. I mean, that's honestly all this is about - Mexicans and Cubans getting into the US illegally."

You seem to both object to trying to remove incentives, and also appear to reject trying to increase security by force.

What in the blue hell are you flapping your face about?
When have I appeared to reject increasing security by force? When you suggested they shoot pregnant mothers, you mean? When I said I don't agree with you on murdering pregnant women?
Or are you saying I'm against them using force because I haven't said I want them to shoot Mexicans, opposed to just increasing border patrol and security.

So what do you propose we do?

For probably the 4th time - increase border patrol. Is it hard to do? In some ways. Is it impossible? Hell no. Increase security along the US-Mexico border. Does this involve super high fences of barbed wire, missiles, guns, and hunting dogs? No. All it requires at most is a fence, and security towers with guards watching cameras. Do they need a shoot-first mentality? No. No they do not.

And if you give a bullshit answer again citing no direct ideas and just saying "fix it", then I assume you don't think illegal immigration is an issue and like the status quo.

Well, hopefully this time you read all of my post - and not just the parts that you feel like arguing with.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

For probably the 4th time - increase border patrol. Is it hard to do? In some ways. Is it impossible? Hell no. Increase security along the US-Mexico border.

You did not even say that once before, you only used the bouncer metaphor. But we can put that to rest.

So you think that throwing more people on the border will resolve the problem? How many people do we need to put there? It's not like people can just walk across the border as it is now. And even if the way by land is blocked (as it very much is now), people can stil make it over by sea and via under ground tunnels.

I personally don't think that resolves the problem, because that's exactly what we have been trying to do and failing at for years,

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by TheGame

You did not even say that once before, you only used the bouncer metaphor. But we can put that to rest.

As posted by me:

Now, It wouldn't be hard for the US to establish cameras, stations, and employ people to watch that border. Afterall, it does create more jobs, aswell. Two birds.

[TheGame]

Ok and? Lets put the schematics arguement to rest.

US now has cameras, stations, and people employed to watch the border. And the amount of people and cameras has increased and increased over time. Problem resolved? No. So how many people should we put there?

[Typhoid]

So when you try to prove me wrong, it's a fact, but when I do prove you wrong, it's 'semantics'?
Brilliant.

So how many people should we put there?

The obvious answer? More.
Want to know why there should be more? Because the amount now isn't working.

If you have people committing crimes and are running out of jails, you build more jails until you have enough room, you don't change what being a criminal means.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

If you have people committing crimes and are running out of jails, you build more jails until you have enough room, you don't change what being a criminal means.

I don't think that's nessicarily true. I think that changing the incentive structure helps deter crime more then making room for everyone. Case and point. If the penalty for stealing a candy bar from a store was life in prison, there would be a lot less petty theift. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but when you tweak the incentives it has results.

And sometimes the law does have to be changed to be more reasonable about who goes to prison and who doesn't. Building more prisons isn't the only answer.

As long as people think the reward for getting over here is bigger then the risk, it will always be an issue, no matter how many people you station at the border. That's why it hasn't and will never work. imo

[Typhoid]

Case and point. If the penalty for stealing a candy bar from a store was life in prison, there would be a lot less petty theift. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but when you tweak the incentives it has results.

No it wouldn't - because there wouldn't be any more people enforcing that law than there is now.

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but when you tweak the incentives it has results.

Do you have facts on this? What laws are you specifically talking about, where incentives have been changed, and crime has gone down significantly?

As long as people think the reward for getting over here is bigger then the risk, it will always be an issue, no matter how many people you station at the border. That's why it hasn't and will never work.

This is where we differ in thought.

You think "They only want to come here to get Green Cards 30 years in the future."
I think "They want to go there because it's a whole lot better than raising a family in 'Central America'."

The reason you think it will work beautifully in your mind, is that the only reason they're going there in the first place, is to have an American baby.
Rather the fact their neighbourhoods might be plagued with drug gangs, gangs in general, they might have been extorted by gangs, there might be a giant militia war raging. None of the "Birthing a child law" will change the risk for any of those people. At all. Whatsoever.

What will removing the Birth Right law do to stop 5,000 [obviously a random number] single Mexican people from crossing the border? Nothing. Why? Because it has absolutely nothing to do with them.