Dana Sheets wrote:Things that become fixed, die.
We cannot just throw open our borders - unregulated growth and free migration are not something the US can support if the US intends to keep providing social services to low-income individuals such as a free education, subsidized food and healthcare.
Meta: I would argue that the way our borders are now, while not exactly "wide open", the results show that they are at least stuck in "halfway open" mode.
Dana Sheets wrote:
We choose to provide those social services and corresponding legal protections to maintain what we consider to be an orderly society. Because if you got enough people who can't get their basic needs met - you will end up with a revolution of some kind or another.
Meta: I prefer the term "Gradual cultural displacement and political paradigm shift."
Dana Sheets wrote:
So the question is how to manage an fluid influx of immigration (both skilled and unskilled workers) without making it easy for basic human rights to be violated and without breaking the economies that depend on cheap labor (which are the same economies we live in and expect cheap stuff from).
Meta: Indeed. But the sacrifices necessary to achieve those goals rely upon citizens making economic sacrifices. Americans are so used to cheap domestic help, produce,
and restaurant prices that to get them to change spending habits would be a daunting task. American economics will not allow the disappearance of this class, whether it is filled by Illegal or citizens.
Since the law prohibits substandard compensation, companies would either have to go under the table, move operations to another country with no such regulation, or fund the black market for acquisition of more illegals.
Dana Sheets wrote:
As long as opportunity is greater in the US than in the vast majority of South America people will come to opportunity like moths to flame. So one of the best things we can do is to be a good mentor and partner in the economic development of South America - and in particular in Mexico and Central America since those are the places of most of the undocumented workers.
Meta: This is true I feel but aren't we forgetting that most large companies have no issue (in fact it is preferable) to exploit rather than to build. As it is currently, I think there is not such thing as Corporate responsibility.
Dana Sheets wrote:
I think we should consider buying Tijuana from Mexico. Radical, I know - but I think a logical step as we would be able to develop that area more quickly. (Watch out - I sound like a capitalist)
Meta: But really isn't all we are doing just "expanding" the boarder more south? You can buy a city perhaps, but you can't control it's governance unless it is annexed.
Dana Sheets wrote:
I think we should spend more effort on reducing our need for oil so that we don't have to expend as many resources controlling the tensions in the middle east and could use those fund to encourage development in countries we're allowing to fester away that will only become the next hotbeds of dissent and terrorism that we will ask the next generation to deal with since we couldn't tighten our belt when it came to oil.
Unless you pass legislation which complete;y severs Washington from all ties strictly with oil companies and their subsidiaries, and build a bullet/poison/scandal/bomb proof infrastructure within the senate against retaliation, there can be no change in that area. There is simply too much money at stake, and the corruption and conspiracy is deeper than an X-files episode. Taking on the mob would seem like child's play compared to the Big Oil conglomerates.
Dana Sheets wrote:
Short-term:
Make it clear that social services for undocumented workers are being provided to create greater opportunity for those who will eventually return to Mexico and other South and Central American countries because it will help stem the tide of workers.
Meta:Clear to whom?
The Mexican government? They already know very well, I'm certain.
The Mexican people? I would submit that if the immigrants who are migrating illegally here could understand the levels of economics involved, they would: A.) Not care. B.) Have the wherewithal to obtain employment in their own country.
Dana Sheets wrote:
Make employers of undocumented workers pay higher taxes.
Meta: Then aren't we right back where we started, in the sense that the higher taxes will be ultimately passed onto the consumer?
Dana Sheets wrote:
Offer undocumented workers education but not citizenship. if they want citizenship they must return to their home country and wait in line with everyone else.
Meta: They already have that. Then tell the Teacher's unions that from now on, the gates are open, their workload will quadruple, but pay will not increase. Then tell John Q. Taxpayer they must pay higher taxes above what they are already subsidizing to pay for the "education" of illegals.
Dana Sheets wrote:
Make encouraging development of Mexico and Central American as important an economic security issue as the Middle East.
Meta: That's a good way to go. My question is, our Government has known this for many years. Why hasn't it been given the implementation priority it requires? For that matter, why hasn't Mexico been encouraged to bind their own borders from the North and South as well?
There's something rotten a foot, it seems.
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.
.. the list goes on and on. 
