Re: Citizenship at Birth
 

As posted by me:
:ohreilly:

Re: Citizenship at Birth
 

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?

Re: Citizenship at Birth
 

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

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.

Re: Citizenship at Birth
 

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

Re: Citizenship at Birth
 

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

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


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.

Re: Citizenship at Birth
 

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.

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

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.

Re: Citizenship at Birth
 

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.

Re: Citizenship at Birth
 

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.

Re: Citizenship at Birth
 

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

Re: Citizenship at Birth
 

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.