Citizenship at Birth

[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.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

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.

No I think it's ONE of the incentives they have for coming here, and not that that single thing would resolve everything. To quote myself.

Nobody is saying that removing this one incentive is the end-all be-all answer for immigration. Of course there's gonna be other reasons for them to want to come, and possibly ways made to bend the rules eventually... but I think it addresses the real problem, which is the incentive to move. Because once they have no good reason to step onto this land illegally, then the problem resolves itself.

When I was asked how the problem should be fixed I responded:

You make a list of reasons why mexicans would rather live here illegally then live in mexico legaly, then try to tip the scale back in Mexico's favor by making the penalty for coming here (or environment when you are here) illegally worse then staying there. Or if possible, tip the scale back by making the environment over there better.

I'm not saying that the idea in the original post will resolve everything, but I think the idea is a step in the right direction vs the "more guys with guns, bigger fences, and more racial profiling" ideas that seem to be put into action

An incentive is an incentive period. The guy who was sitting there thinking that his kid will be born an american with more oppertunity will be stopped if it's changed. And there are people who think that way.

Right now, living here illegally with under the table money is better then living in mexico, that needs to be changed.

[Typhoid]

Right now, living here illegally with under the table money is better then living in mexico, that needs to be changed.

So explain to me exactly how removing the incentive of birth will suddenly change all of this, and make it so Central Americans are on par with the wages of North America [while being in their own countries], removing the main draw.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

So explain to me exactly how removing the incentive of birth will suddenly change all of this, and make it so Central Americans are on par with the wages of North America [while being in their own countries], removing the main draw.

1) As I put in my last post, changing the birth right won't change "ALL" of this. That is obviously not the only reason they come here, but it's one reason they do, and something that easilly can be squashed. The vast majority of the other world powers don't allow this, why should we? I understand why it was put into place, but it's a new age and we have new problems to deal with.

2) Wadges would not have to be the same for the environment here to be worse then being in central america. But some laws may need to be tweaked.

For example, the penalty for harboring illegal immigrants, hireing them, and housing them should be worse. All of them should include jail time. There should be little/no incentive for anyone to hire an illegal, even for normal under-the-table things like mowing lawns etc.

The only reason the environment here is better for illegals is because society makes it better. A study needs to be done on how they make their living here, and that needs to be gutted to the point where they can't make a living here. The drug war plays into this too. You can keep fighting them forever, or try to kill their will to fight. As long as the grass is too green on this side of the fence for illegals, they're going to keep fighting, and people are going to keep slipping through the cracks.

[Bond]

The real question for me in this debate is: where is the statistical evidence stating this is a significant issue?

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Bond

The real question for me in this debate is: where is the statistical evidence stating this is a significant issue?

If you're speaking to immigration in general... to be honest I haven't found statistical evidence that proves or disproves that it is a big issue. The issue becomes bigger and bigger the closer you live to the southern border, but I can't say we're better or worse off then other countries that have stricter laws.

If you're speaking to the issue of natrulization (people being born in the country automatically being citizens)... then I highly doubt it's a significant issue. It's just another small incentive that can be squashed easilly.