What to do with Illegal Immigrants?

[grithin]

One notion is to simply deport them.  But, here arises both the potential for re-entry, and the rather meager current disincentive by penalty for re-entry.

Another notion is restrict social services to citizens, but to what extent illegals can be de-integrated and prevented from using social services is, to me, unknown, and I doubt their usage can be made insignificant.

Another notion is to clamp down on hiring illegals.  This, however, requires an extended big brother reach into employee employer relations, and can be used as a tool by a later corrupted government to restrict hiring of citizens with 'incorrect political views'.

There is another idea of having for profit prisons specifically for illegal immigration.

To halt illegal immigration, you must both make it difficult, and make it penalised - so as to prevent both the initial immigration and repeat immigration.  And, if you simply imprison offenders, you end up with a loss amounting to the cost of holding inmates.  In addition, there are problems created by putting illegal immigrants in the same prisons as legal citizens (integration into criminal networks).

The dynamic would be, either for illegal immigrants or repeat illegal immigrants, there would be some penalisation of years of work in a for profit prison.

The aspect of restricting inmates to illegal immigrants would tend to curve the overreach tendency of for profit prisons.  

I bring this up both because I recently read somewhere that for profit prisons have been renewed as a policy, and because, back in early 2016, I brought this up on another forum and it was terribly amusing responding to emotional accusations of heartlessness with references to soylent green and explorations upon the boundaries of the US's obligation under the treaty wherein they agreed to treat people humanely.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

I think restricting social services, blocking the transfer of money back to home country (thinking of Mexico here), and really cracking down on illegal crime I think is both a humane way to deal with it, and an effective way.

 

From what I've been hearing for years, illegals have been able to run amok with crime due to orders from higher ups, and them simply not being in the system to do anything with. Deport the balls out of illegal criminals. Get their fingerprints and retina scans and bio-images and whatever else so they can be quickly identified if they get back in or try to get back in. If we can get the criminals out, and stop handing out free stuff to the non-violent ones, I don't even care who stays.

[aviet]

One notion is to simply deport them. 

That's part of the problem. They often can't be deported because they may have no documentation. Google up stories of Afghans raping people in Europe and Afghanistan refusing to accept them back. We're stuck with them for life. The guy who committed the Berlin truck attack was investigates in a previous terror plot, but couldn't be deported, because he had no papers. Common countries of origin like Nigeria and Pakistan have made it difficult to send such people back to them. So Germany just let this terrorist loose to commit and act of terrorist.

 

There will always be problems, but currently immigration laws are barely enforced. If you illegally migrate to the EU, you'll be allowed to pretty much go wherever you want, collect welfare and be housed. If you're caught, you'll likely be logged and told where you can go for assistance, but let off to do whatever you want. In the case that you make an asylum application and it's rejected, you'll again likely be left to self-deport. In Britain, Germany and other countries there are schemes set up to pay people to self-deport. I saw one story of a gypsy who went to Germany from Kosovo, was rejected and paid 6,000 EUR to go back. That's about 3 years avg. salary there.

 

In short, if you go to Europe, you're only likely to be sent back if you agree to it. If you're a known ISIS supporter, you'll be let loose to go anywhere in Europe. If you've returned from fighting in Syria, you'll be given welfare and counseling.

 

The solution is doing what Hungary and Macedonia have done. Install a border defense and man it. For anyone that comes in put them in a detention center until they can be deported. Turn the boats back. This is what Australia, Japan and Singapore do.

 

I've been in Serbia twice during the 'migrant crisis'. Plenty of them are going through, but virtually none stay. They are being drawn by massive welfare offered by the likes of Germany. Kill that and it will make no difference between being in Turkey and the EU.

 

But the current political class is incapable of doing any of this. There was a report out today of the EU saying their needs to be a "Marshall Plan" of aid to Africa or 20 million more will come. This is their only response, pay other people to do the dirty of blocking migration (Turkey) or bribe people to leave/not to come in the first place.

 

My answer: If our countries are so great. Close the borders and export our culture. We can only look at erasing borders when cultures harmonise. Right now first world cultures are being over-written by third world ones.

[Tyler H]

I think all that is necessary, and in my opinion the only way, is to stop providing them with the ill-gotten gains of the state.  Those who can produce and add to society will stay and be welcome, and those who can't will either return home, receive voluntary charity, or resort to criminality in which case the use of force against them will be justified and they can be returned to their tax farm of origin.  

 

Also, I don't know why remittances are such a problem all of the sudden.  Austrian economic theory has for a long time outlined the insignificance of trade imbalances with fiat currencies since the currencies must be returned to the nation of origin to be of any value to the selling nation.  Without the promise of force backing backing the paper the money is worthless so the nation who traded goods for paper is holding a meretricious ticking time bomb until they can trade it back for goods from the buying nation.  Any remittances sent back to Mexico will eventually need to be returned and until then are actually retarding some of the inflation we should be experiencing by taking part of the money supply out of circulation in the American economy.  Maybe someone could explain what it is that I'm missing if this is no longer correct.

 

Using force never produces the desired outcome without causing a new problem. The only way to solve these problems is with less coercion and more freedom.  Use the gun of the state to "solve" one problem will only exacerbate another. 

[MaceyUK]

For the UK I would echo Tyler's comments. NO FREE STUFF. watch them self deport when they can't compete in a high IQ economy. Other unhelpful people could go with them. I hear Sweden has lots of free stuff.

[grithin]

Tyler:
" fiat currencies since the currencies must be returned to the nation of origin to be of any value to the selling nation"
This is apparently false.  Not only can you exchange currencies wherever you are, dollars are usually accepted wherever you are.

"Any remittances sent back to Mexico will eventually need to be returned and until then are actually retarding some of the inflation we should be experiencing by taking part of the money supply out of circulation in the American economy. "
This is odd to think that because the dollar is outside the US it some how does not count in the size of money supply.  There is another, more subtle notion, in which, by making dollars available in outside markets, you actually increase the demand for the dollar.  For instance, if I were a vendor in Congo, and I noticed half the buyers had dollars, I might start accepting dollars, and by this, I would be increase the demand for dollars.

"Using force never produces the desired outcome without causing a new problem. "
This statement, and your reference the Austrian school makes me think you may be blinded by ideals.  That is, this statement is also apparently false.



Dylan:
" else so they can be quickly identified if they get back in or try to get back in"
Identified and then what?  The issues remain of:
-    unknown home country
-    home country not accepting
-    no sufficient penalty for re-entry (they will just keep coming back)

"I don't even care who stays."
That's rather r-selective of you.

Something brought up by Ann Coulter, probably in her book Adios America, is something like, without a single new immigrant, the current demographic trends will mean the US will turn socialist in less than a decade (this was before Donald Trump) (immigrants and latinos have more kids).

There is a hopeful notion that perhaps Trump can set an example of Americanism, by which asian and latin american immigrants can follow.  But, this assumes Trump gets to set that example, and that the example will be mimicked by people who might not either have the IQ or the culture to create an American like society.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Dylan:

" else so they can be quickly identified if they get back in or try to get back in"

Identified and then what?  The issues remain of:

-    unknown home country

-    home country not accepting

-    no sufficient penalty for re-entry (they will just keep coming back)

 

"I don't even care who stays."

That's rather r-selective of you.

 

I don't know how to solve the issues of unknown home country and countries not re-accepting, but I think this is part of what Trump is trying to solve with better vetting procedures. As for not sufficient penalty, raise it like crazy.

 

We can always let the non-violent drug users out of the all the prisons and fill them with criminal illegal immigrants that won't say where they came from.

 

As for the "I don't even care who stays", you took it out of context, but I do actually care who stays. I wrote that pretty quickly, specifically for emphasis that if the criminal element is largely solved, illegals are taken off of the welfare doles, and they aren't able to send money home, a large amount of the illegal immigration would be taken care of. After posting it, I did think "Yea, I do care who stays, but my main point is still emphasized."

 

As for Ann Coulter's point: that is a scary number indeed. We need all the momentum from Trump and everyone else working toward reinvigorating the American identity.

[RichardY]

Work towards local autonomy somewhere or don't bother thinking about it. NIMBY. House em in Buckingham Palace and Parliament.

[grithin]

Dylan:

" let the non-violent drug users out "
This actually is a very similar situation to illegal immigration.  A drug user ends up being a net negative value to society - even if you remove illegalization.  And, the problem again becomes how do you prevent these leeches from draining society.  And, the common answer is, remove social programs.  But, the issue with that is, lots of people have been trying to, but there are always too many bleeding hearts and special interests to cut any fat.  

"As for not sufficient penalty, raise it like crazy."
Raise it to what?  They have no money, and imprisoning them in normal prisons would cost tax payers tens of thousands per prisoner per year.

So far, you have presented no argument against using for profit prisons.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

So far, you have presented no argument against using for profit prisons.

 

Was I supposed to?

[Tyler H]

Tyler:

" fiat currencies since the currencies must be returned to the nation of origin to be of any value to the selling nation"

This is apparently false.  Not only can you exchange currencies wherever you are, dollars are usually accepted wherever you are.

You're referring to a microeconomic function that does nothing to disprove the proposition I put forward in regards to the macroeconomic concept of trade imbalance.  China exports good x to the US. China now has some paper IOUs (dollars or treasuries). What value does this paper have?  Only that the US will accept this paper in return for goods equivalent in value to that of x plus interest.  As long as there is reason to believe that this debt will be honored, the paper holds it value and may be saved or traded - but only with the confidence that it can be returned to the US for goods to balance the trade deficit (among other factors, but that being the principal component).  

 

"Any remittances sent back to Mexico will eventually need to be returned and until then are actually retarding some of the inflation we should be experiencing by taking part of the money supply out of circulation in the American economy. "

This is odd to think that because the dollar is outside the US it some how does not count in the size of money supply.

 

There are many ways to divide up the monetary stock, but nevertheless I didn't say it didn't count in the money supply.  I said that particular portion of the money supply is not in circulation in the American economy.

 

 

"Using force never produces the desired outcome without causing a new problem. "

This statement, and your reference the Austrian school makes me think you may be blinded by ideals.  That is, this statement is also apparently false.

 

By all means, please open my eyes to the errors of Austrian economic theory and to how the initiation of force (how I should have phrased it, my mistake) can solve problems?  

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

This statement, and your reference the Austrian school makes me think you may be blinded by ideals.  That is, this statement is also apparently false.

 

 

By all means, please open my eyes to the errors of Austrian economic theory and to how the initiation of force (how I should have phrased it, my mistake) can solve problems?  

 

Apparently false. I like that one.

[mgggb]

One notion is to simply deport them.  But, here arises both the potential for re-entry, and the rather meager current disincentive by penalty for re-entry.

 

Another notion is restrict social services to citizens, but to what extent illegals can be de-integrated and prevented from using social services is, to me, unknown, and I doubt their usage can be made insignificant.

 

Another notion is to clamp down on hiring illegals.  This, however, requires an extended big brother reach into employee employer relations, and can be used as a tool by a later corrupted government to restrict hiring of citizens with 'incorrect political views'.

 

There is another idea of having for profit prisons specifically for illegal immigration.

 

To halt illegal immigration, you must both make it difficult, and make it penalised - so as to prevent both the initial immigration and repeat immigration.  And, if you simply imprison offenders, you end up with a loss amounting to the cost of holding inmates.  In addition, there are problems created by putting illegal immigrants in the same prisons as legal citizens (integration into criminal networks).

 

The dynamic would be, either for illegal immigrants or repeat illegal immigrants, there would be some penalisation of years of work in a for profit prison.

 

The aspect of restricting inmates to illegal immigrants would tend to curve the overreach tendency of for profit prisons.  

 

I bring this up both because I recently read somewhere that for profit prisons have been renewed as a policy, and because, back in early 2016, I brought this up on another forum and it was terribly amusing responding to emotional accusations of heartlessness with references to soylent green and explorations upon the boundaries of the US's obligation under the treaty wherein they agreed to treat people humanely.

I think its important to start by calling them by their proper name--illegal aliens. It is impossible to be an "illegal immigrant" because immigration is specifically a process by which one lawfully enters a country. 

 

As for how to get rid of them, there are three simple and passive ways I can think of off the top of my head.

 

1. End the drug war by federally decriminalizing possession of all illegal drugs, and leave legalization up to the states.
2. Impose draconian laws on businesses that higher illegals over their fellow citizens. Perhaps make it so that the CEO or stockholders or whomever are directly subject to lengthy prison terms, hefty fines, AND liability for any crimes an illegal commits while in their employ.
   1. Require hospitals to call ice if they suspect that someone is an illegal if they come to the er without insurance and cant speak english. 
3. End birthright citizenship and retroactively revoke it.

 

Its important to remember that we have the moral high ground here. They are foreign invaders, pillaging resources from the taxpayers, using their children as hostages to extort us.

[M.2]

I don't know... All this sounds complicated.

Apparently, we in Hungary just beat the living crap out of them at the border, then ask them if they would still like to stay.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-hungary-border-police-guards-fence-beating-asylum-seekers-migrants-serbia-push-back-a7610411.html

 

What we really do, is of course not so simple. If you are interested in what we do that Works for us so well, I have written a very detailed summary under the title: The Truth about the Migrant Criris and Hungary

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

3. End birthright citizenship and retroactively revoke it.

 

OOF! Where do you draw the line on that one?

[mgggb]

OOF! Where do you draw the line on that one?

Ideally ever. Realistically one generation, if your parents were illegal and you haven't had children yet.