It's a thing that happens, it gives news stations fodder, and the GOP headaches.

"Illegal immigration: deport them"

Because finding and deporting millions of illegal immigrants (many living in metropolises like LA) is so easy...doubly so if they have a kid here legally but are themselves illegal. Yep, just as simple as that. ;)

Obi, I get what you're saying, and while I don't think a witch hunt is a good solution, if an illegal is caught they should be deported. Right now Obama is letting thousands of illegals into the country because "humanitarian crisis" or some bullshit. If it's that bad, the Mexican government should deal with it. We don't have a responsibility to them.

Selfish answer here because it's kicking the can down the road, but immigration is the best way to ensure that social spending programs don't go bankrupt due to demographic shifts toward older populations with fewer children. We have more than enough land in America to support people, immigrants help ensure the economic vitality of our country, immigrants tend to have a strong work ethic and, personally, really impress me -- it's a BOLD move to leave one country for permanent settlement in another, takes a lot of guts and a real vision to make life better for yourself and your family. Immigrants historically and in modern times bolster the cultural health of our country as well.

America is in a unique position in the developed world. For Europe, immigration has resulted in increased ethnic tensions and social unrest/unease. Europe also doesn't have the space to support immigration. But America? We have the historical foundations for successful immigration: we're a diverse country, with lots of economic opportunity. It's a blessing to be able to welcome greater numbers of immigrants to our country.

There are problems in the current system, because we aren't adequately equipped to handle all the demand to integrate. I'm not enough of an expert on the immigration system to recommend concrete solutions, but I think the general direction is overwhelmingly clear: immigration is good, and we should seek to make it easier to immigrate. I fully support a "back of the line" policy, where illegal immigrants are not deported but are allowed to stay in the country and placed behind legal immigrants in the queue to attain citizenship, in combination with devoting more resources to make the bureaucratic aspect of immigration more streamlined and efficient.

In general...

Legal immigration: good for them.

Illegal immigration: if they aren't committing crimes (aside from illegally immigrating), try to find a way to get them to willingly apply for citizenship and a visa. If they don't, deport them.

If we're talking about the US: decide what exactly it is that we WANT in our immigration laws and then change them to match accordingly. In the meantime, enforce the laws currently on the books without shame and without fear or favor. Possible? I suspect so, although I wouldn't bet large sums of money on it. Likely? I wouldn't bet any sum of money on it.

If we're talking UK or Europe....I have the feeling it's a bit more complicated than all that......

Immigration needs to be gradual and diverse to facilitate integration, emphasis on integration.

I think most people accept that unregulated mass immigration concentrated largely from one group is not workable.

* to immigrate, not to integrate, oops

Man I don't know if I like that I agree with Putin.

But yes, one of my main issues with the current immigration trends is the lack of integration and adopting our culture. Yeah I get the whole "cultural diversity" thing, but it's gotten a bit different. For example, a lot of immigrants come here and don't learn English. And then these people say "WE GOTTA LEARN SPANISH CUZ EVERYONE SPEAKS IT" bullshit.

If I dropped my kids off at a border and said "good luck", it would be an international crime. It would be considered abusive behavior.

If I picked up some kid on the street, and transported him somewhere and kept him in my house, it would be a Federal crime. Probably be called human/child trafficking. It would be kidnapping.

When the same things are done with the consent of the Federal Government and a wink and a nod from Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat party, International/Federal crimes are suddenly acts of compassion.

Fuck the illegal immigrants...ship 'em out and make them get back in line. More to the point, start fucking shooting *dead* the ones crossing the border.

This is the cuter, cuddlier version of Krellin?

"nod from Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat party, International/Federal crimes are suddenly acts of compassion.
"

Obama has been far harder on illegal immigration than Bush. Deportations are way up.

Stop being a partisan hack.

Also if you guys wanted to do something about immigration you'd, you know, take up the immigration bill which you just scrapped.

You Americans can't get enough of that immigration ..... but I suppose it keeps the pizza and taco prices lower

NuLabour would fit right in with the GOP.

"NuLabour would fit right in with the GOP"

Who increasingly are looking like the left of US politics bearing in mind what is happening with the other parties.
But no you do them a disservice, if Ed Miliband thought he was the furthest left he would just move a bit further right and would not stop until he got to Disraeli, because he is a middle-class numpty who doesn't know or understand the concept or the price of class loyalty.
The GOP would kick him out for being too Tea Party

I'll have to catch you when you're not so tired Putin, you're work rate is poor and your sparring leaves a lot to be desired, you'll get another chance but I will be looking for a big improvement, and stick a few little puns in there when the ref is not looking, maybe a couple of below the belt comments .... next time you come looking for me sunshine bring your fricking 'A' game or you'll take one hell of a beating.

Chaqa: You mean that if you were to cross a border, you prefer to do so legally, with full permission of the government?

? Like a good norteamericano?

! Chinga la migra!

I'd open all the worlds borders, let everyone come and go as they choose.

I was lucky enough to win life's lottery and was born in the UK. Why should that luck give me advantages over others that were less fortunate? Am I more deserving of a good education, health care, rule of law and security than someone who happened to have been born in Nigeria or Palestine or South Africa?

I don't understand these notions of only allowing people in if they integrate or speak English or accept our culture / don't try and continue theirs. Should I be free to enjoy webdip and avoid morris dancing because I'm English, but new comers have to dance around with sticks? Should I be allowed to try and campaign for a republic but Johnny Foreigner should be just accept it as a given? My great grand- parents spoke no English and refused to, they were welsh, would they be considered un-British? Forcing someone to learn our language when we, as a nation, have been terrible and learning other languages, just seems so wrong. If people want to isolate themselves, I'm fine with that. I don't think anyone would mind if I never spoke again and cut myself off from all communication. If they choose to learn English, fine - forcing them to is not good.

I realise I may be in a tiny minority here.

If I move to another country I'd be rather displeased with myself if I didn't bother to learn about the habits, customs, language, and history of my new home. Having isolated atomistic and divided communities is a recipe for social disaster. You can't have a community unless some effort is put into it. People who have invested themselves in a community have a right to have some say in how that place is structured.

I agree with you in spirit Maniac and I think the moralistic argument for open borders is really clear and compelling. It's more a practical matter for why open borders isn't functional as a policy -- Putin's already summarized my concerns on the matter earlier. Immigration works best when it's a supplement for natural population growth, which means that it needs to be relatively slow and diverse, like natural population growth would be (speaking from the American POV). That renders compulsory integration (which I agree isn't a reasonable solution) moot as a policy, because as long as immigration is slow and diverse, you won't have large masses of people choosing not to integrate anyway, so the problems associated with it that, say, Europe or the extreme southern American border has seen won't exist.

Pretty clear that you guys have hit peak water in the west. Should that be factored into the discussion?

"Right now Obama is letting thousands of illegals into the country because "humanitarian crisis" or some bullshit. If it's that bad, the Mexican government should deal with it."

The humanitarian crisis being reffered to is not just the situation in Mexico, but countries like El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala that have very high murder and crime rates, so much so that gangs that run extortion rackets control many parts of the major cities in these countries leading to "humanitarian crisis". Illegal Immigrants don;t just come from Mexico, they come from further afeild. Mexico compared to the nations I listed earlier is a much more developed and safe country with more job oppurturtunities and security.

@ PE, you are quite right about kicking the problem down the road. This is even more to the point in the UK. We are sitting on a time bomb.

Immigration is a time bomb but climate change is overhyped.

Your priorities are fascinating.

I am not sure what you mean. If you want to talk about climate change then it might be best to start another thread. Maybe you have something new or interesting to say?

I thought it was rather self-evident. You're on record here eviscerating climatologists for being paid propagandists and skewing data in favor of AGW.

And now you're suddenly against bringing up tenuously related topics.

I've seen it all.

AGW is not necessarily the same thing as climate change. I am on record as questioning the computational modelling of global warming. Questions that time has proved were very valid to ask. I might also be on record for bringing up the mediaval warm period and the so called tree ring 'discontinuity'. I might also be on record for raising the question of the climategate emails and the matter of peer review too. Where do you want to start, ( preferably in another thread and with someone else). In all honesty I do not like talking to you.