Sorry to say

biochem wrote:Please explain your reasoning.

Choosing to employ illegals also tends to go hand and glove with other labor law violations such as wages & hours violations. It shouldn't be a surprise that those who choose to violate one labor law would choose to violate others but it always seems to be.

Oh so true. I would assert that that's not the greatest harm hiring illegals do. They tend to send home a significant portion of their take home wages. Home to their country of origin that is. This is effectively importing labor with the attendant outflow of capital associated with any sort of import. Estimates have something on the order of 14-20 million illegals. If they take home $25,000 on average and 95% of them work, they are earning $332 billion. How much of that is kept and how much sent home? 25% puts it at 83 billion.

That money will do wonders back home circulating in the communities where low wage earners work.

PeterZ wrote:I am completely legal. I am a non-native American. My ancestors were not under the jurisdiction of US law. You are so wrong its not even funny. You are not American nor are you a resident, so should be forgiven your ignorance. So, consider your ignorance comments forgiven.

I am an immigrant who broke no laws in gaining my residency and later my citizenship.
As for the jobs illegals perform, a great deal of those jobs are in construction. During the buildout from the housing boom, building sites were heavily represented by Hispanics with very little English. Yes, most were indeed illegal. How many Americans would have worked construction during the housing boom? Quite a few.

Kitchen workers in restaurants are largely illegal. Americans will work there too. I could go on, but don't want to waste either of our time. I would recommend you actually research your opinions of a foreign country in which you neither belong to nor in which you reside.

hanuman wrote:Peter, Peter, Peter, you do realize that all non-Native Americans are the descendants of illegal immigrants, right?

Anyways, to respond to your point, the facts are that the majority of illegal immigrants are working jobs that Americans do not want, and that the agricultural sector in several States will collapse should their illegal labourers be removed. How does any of that contribute to a lowering of the median income? Please explain your reasoning.

Peter, here's the thing. I readily acknowledge that I have no living experience of life in America. That's an important deficit in any discussion concerning the US, and when I am faced by facts, I am more than willing to let myself be persuaded by the opposing viewpoint - or at least to cede the field, if I find myself not fully informed.

On the other hand, I do not consider myself ignorant at all. I frequent a large number of American news outlets, including Fox News, so I would consider myself to be at least as well informed about current affairs in the States as the majority of Americans. That does not negate my living experience deficit, but neither does it mean that I am ignorant.

On immigration I can freely acknowledge that abstract knowledge does not make up for real world experience, so I'll leave the topic to those who have such experience.

Hanuman,
ignorance is not absolute. All I meant was that you were ignorant of this topic. I suppose I bridled to your insinuating incorrectly that I was somehow illegal. Those sorts of comments tend to annoy those to whom they are directed.

Many of our legal citizens who were born in developing countries send significant amounts of money back to their families. Our government has taken the pragmatic approach of including such estimates in our Foreign Aide totals. At least it cuts out the professional middle men like the Red Cross who soak up most of the aide in "administration costs".
I do agree that the illegal workers are usually exploited by unethical bosses, who don't pay proper wages or benefits.

PeterZ wrote:Hanuman,
ignorance is not absolute. All I meant was that you were ignorant of this topic. I suppose I bridled to your insinuating incorrectly that I was somehow illegal. Those sorts of comments tend to annoy those to whom they are directed.

That was meant as a sarcastic reminder that quite likely the vast majority of Americans are living on land that was never formally ceded to European settlers by the peoples that were indigenous to those lands. Surely, if we're going to discuss illegal immigration, we should remember that virtually all of the US territory was forcibly and quite illegally appropriated from the original authorities.

Trouble is those indigenous authorities you mention took it away from previous indigenous occupants using force. What makes the use of force by indigenous peoples legal but the use of force by Europeans illegal. Consider how many different peoples "owned" the Black Hills area prior to the Sioux. Each "owner" used force to obtain it from the previous owner. If those nations can use conquest, why is the US prohibited?

The US did use treaties. Yes they broke many of those treaties as well. No we did not treat the American Indians well at all. But claiming that conquest is legal when used by indigenous peoples but not by the American government is not very defensible. If one wants to claim conquest as a means of gaining territory is illegitimate, then all indigenous peoples in North America are illegal aliens. Heck, that would argue all citizens of any country are illegal. How many current nations did not gain territory through conquest, after all?

hanuman wrote:
That was meant as a sarcastic reminder that quite likely the vast majority of Americans are living on land that was never formally ceded to European settlers by the peoples that were indigenous to those lands. Surely, if we're going to discuss illegal immigration, we should remember that virtually all of the US territory was forcibly and quite illegally appropriated from the original authorities.

PeterZ wrote:Trouble is those indigenous authorities you mention took it away from previous indigenous occupants using force. What makes the use of force by indigenous peoples legal but the use of force by Europeans illegal. Consider how many different peoples "owned" the Black Hills area prior to the Sioux. Each "owner" used force to obtain it from the previous owner. If those nations can use conquest, why is the US prohibited?

The US did use treaties. Yes they broke many of those treaties as well. No we did not treat the American Indians well at all. But claiming that conquest is legal when used by indigenous peoples but not by the American government is not very defensible. If one wants to claim conquest as a means of gaining territory is illegitimate, then all indigenous peoples in North America are illegal aliens. Heck, that would argue all citizens of any country are illegal. How many current nations did not gain territory through conquest, after all?

hanuman wrote:
That was meant as a sarcastic reminder that quite likely the vast majority of Americans are living on land that was never formally ceded to European settlers by the peoples that were indigenous to those lands. Surely, if we're going to discuss illegal immigration, we should remember that virtually all of the US territory was forcibly and quite illegally appropriated from the original authorities.

All of that is very true, yet it simply underscores my point that immigration is a natural human process and that the measures we use to distinguish between 'illegal' and 'legal' immigration is based on moral hypocrisy. Easy to complain about the dark skinned immigrants who enter without legal authorisation, yet ignore the truth that our ancestors did exactly the same thing.

hanuman wrote:
All of that is very true, yet it simply underscores my point that immigration is a natural human process and that the measures we use to distinguish between 'illegal' and 'legal' immigration is based on moral hypocrisy. Easy to complain about the dark skinned immigrants who enter without legal authorisation, yet ignore the truth that our ancestors did exactly the same thing.

No moral hypocrisy at all. We are trying to shift the paradigm away from might makes right to one of the rule of law. Just because our ancestors were less than perfect in executing this new way of viewing immigration, doesn't make viewing immigration through he prism of the rule of law somehow wrong or immoral.

Non citizens or non residents can't claim a moral right to live in a country contrary to prevailing law of that country. This is just as true as a current nation would be morally wrong in taking territory by conquest. the two go hand in hand. Asserting that anyone has the moral right to live anywhere they want is the same moral stance that any nation can claim whatever territory they wish.

I doubt that your country has immigration laws that allow anyone to enter as they wish without some legal process governing entry. Yet you argue that the US should forgo any such process.

PeterZ wrote:

hanuman wrote:
All of that is very true, yet it simply underscores my point that immigration is a natural human process and that the measures we use to distinguish between 'illegal' and 'legal' immigration is based on moral hypocrisy. Easy to complain about the dark skinned immigrants who enter without legal authorisation, yet ignore the truth that our ancestors did exactly the same thing.

No moral hypocrisy at all. We are trying to shift the paradigm away from might makes right to one of the rule of law. Just because our ancestors were less than perfect in executing this new way of viewing immigration, doesn't make viewing immigration through he prism of the rule of law somehow wrong or immoral.

Non citizens or non residents can't claim a moral right to live in a country contrary to prevailing law of that country. This is just as true as a current nation would be morally wrong in taking territory by conquest. the two go hand in hand. Asserting that anyone has the moral right to live anywhere they want is the same moral stance that any nation can claim whatever territory they wish.

I doubt that your country has immigration laws that allow anyone to enter as they wish without some legal process governing entry. Yet you argue that the US should forgo any such process.

Oy, before you accuse me of double standards, do read my post again and pay attention to the two words I bolded.

I am opposed to immigration laws as a matter of principle, with the exception of a thorough background check to keep wanted criminals and dangerous elements out, precisely because I believe that none of us 'natives' have grounds to stand on to determine whether someone else is 'legal' or not.

Didn't accuse you of double standards. I just denoted an apoarent nonsequitor. A community can decide who can join it as can a nation. Asserting that anyone a ignore the wishes of the community and nation and simply move in is more than a little arrogant. If a would be immigrant is unwilling to comply with the wishes of the community the plan on joining, they are likely not to be good neighbors and citizens.

Following the law is essential to living within the social contract we have in the US. That included our immigration laws. If you are unwilling to live in accordance to our social contract, we don't need nor want you.