In The American Prospect, Jeff Faux argues that the economic pressures on poor Mexicans to immigrate to the US in search of paying work are going to just get more intense for at least the next decade or so. He argues that the best way to relieve that pressure would be to proactively work to improve job growth in Mexico.
The bargain that undergirded the creation of the European Union could serve as a rough model. When the EU was being negotiated, many in France, Germany, Great Britain, and other wealthier countries feared that they would be flooded with workers from poorer nations like Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Greece. To prevent that, the EU provided a substantial transfer of investment funds to generate job growth in the poorer countries. It worked. Despite the EU’s provision for free movement of labor across the borders, when offered reasonable economic opportunities, workers in the poor countries stayed home.
The aim of a renegotiated NAFTA would be to provide for a similar fund for investment in Mexico in exchange for changes in Mexican law and institutions that would allow the income of Mexican workers to rise as their economy grows. These would include guarantees for free trade unions, enforceable minimum wages, and an increase in education, and other social spending. The cost would be about $100 billion, although much of it would be in the form of loan guarantees rather than cash. Not an insignificant sum, but certainly affordable.
Makes too much sense. Sounds kinda Kucinich-y. It’ll never pass.
These would include guarantees for free trade unions, enforceable minimum wages, and an increase in education, and other social spending.
Free trade unions and minimum wages would seem to be decisions Mexico can make for itself. Education pays for itself. And “other social spending” means “give me a dollar, Yankee.”
Pass.
The easiest way for Mexico to boost its economy would be to reform its archaic land ownership laws and allow foreign investment in real estate. And that doesn’t cost me a nickel.
Mexico can fix a lot of their problems by changing their laws, their institutions and their culture so that they have rule of law instead of rule by oligarchy. If their law enforcement structure enforced the laws equally and wasn’t rife with corruption from drug and people smugglers. If workers had recourse to the law when they were cheated. And Robert’s comments on investment and property ownership laws are right on point as well.
This is a country that exports oil. If tax money was fairly collected and equitably distributed and access to capital and the fruits of one’s own labor were protected by law, things like education and social services could be funded internally. The vast majority of the oppressed in Mexico are victims of their own government and of the wealthy families that own it. That’s the mess that needs to be straightened out.
Otherwise, any money we put into Mexico will likely simply be stolen and will never reach the people it’s intended to assist.
There will come a day when Mexico will rue the time that it’s laws and culture encouraged the most self-motivated people in it’s lower economic classes to leave the country.
pointed question: are mexicans the only “unauthorized migrants” in the u.s.?
Free trade unions and minimum wages would seem to be decisions Mexico can make for itself. Education pays for itself. And “other social spending” means “give me a dollar, Yankee.”
Pass.
The easiest way for Mexico to boost its economy would be to reform its archaic land ownership laws and allow foreign investment in real estate. And that doesn’t cost me a nickel.
One guy’s understanding: It is unclear to me that the people who control Mexico’s government have an incentive to reduce illegal immigration to the US. If the US wants to reduce people’s incentive to immigrate, the US will need to give the people who control Mexico’s government an incentive to make the appropriate changes. The fact that WE think the people who run Mexico’s government should already be doing these policies is pretty much irrelevant.
Is this a akin to a shakedown? Yes. Welcome to public policy making.
Now, WHICH specific policies would best promote US interests? That’s less clear to me. Maybe fewer people would leave Mexico if Mexico offered more social safety nets like Europe. Maybe fewer people would leave Mexico if Mexico had the employment opportunities you find in unregulated places like Hong Kong. Then again, the US has interests not merely in reducing illegal immigration, but also in reducing pollution, avoiding dangerous products, etc. So there’s a lot to balance here. But the idea that we should ignore our own self-interest because some monolithic group called Mexicans already has a self-interest in adopting these policies doesn’t make sense to me.
are mexicans the only “unauthorized migrants” in the u.s.?
No. But I understand that people living south of the border represent a large percentage of the illegal immigrant population. To the extent that Mexico offered a better opportunity to these people, they might choose to live in Mexico rather than the US. Admittedly, this wouldn’t stop illegal immigration; it might just mean that immigrants from south of Mexico would stop in Mexico rather than continuing to the US.
Point well taken. No, of course they aren’t.
Which doesn’t mean that policies aimed at improving the Mexican economy are a bad idea, but I should have framed this post more accurately.
Another example: the title of this post really should have said “unauthorized migration,” rather than “unauthorized migrants.” [Update: I changed the title.]
Robert and RonF, what nobody.really said. Why should the Mexican government change its policies in a way that will help the US, if they have little incentive to do so?
It’s important to realize that “Mexican elites” are not the borg. There are competing factions within Mexico, just like there are within every country. Some of those factions favor pro-labor policies that will improve life for people who aren’t rich. Some don’t. The former factions will gain strength, and have a better chance of reaching and holding sway, if their preferred policies are made more viable by US policies.
You know, I’m fine with essentially open borders for non-criminals; if someone wants to work in the US, let them. The harms to the American economy, if they exist at all, are small. Regardless, it seems clear that the benefits for millions of immigrants in improving their lives substantively outweigh the harms done.
But — and correct me if I’m wrong — you two both seem to argue that we should reduce immigration substantially. But can you suggest a non-punitive way of doing so which won’t (horror of horrors!) cost Robert a nickel? Because I’ll never agree to policies that are based on punishing immigrants or a “let the fuckers suffer” attitude towards our country’s neighbors, both because such policies don’t work and because punishing people for wanting to earn a living is wrong.
Finally, let’s not forget that NAFTA is responsible for altering the Mexican economy in such a way that a greatly increased number of Mexicans are forced to come to the US seeking work, even though many of them would prefer to remain at home, if they could afford to. Reworking NAFTA to try and make Mexico a better economic environment for workers seems like a rational response.
If the US wants to reduce people’s incentive to immigrate, the US will need to give the people who control Mexico’s government an incentive to make the appropriate changes.
Well, then, by all means let’s provide them with that incentive. First, start jailing everyone who employs someone who does not in fact have a right to work in the U.S. Second, ramp up both human and technical resources to secure our borders – something that we have the means to do, we simply lack the will (or, more accurately, the Federal government has failed to discern and act on the public’s will in this matter). Third, adopt the same laws to deal with illegal aliens that Mexico has and force anyone who wants any kind of public benefit to prove that they are an American citizen. Finally, change the law that makes anyone born in the U.S. an American citizen regardless of the legal status of the presence of their parents so that a child born on American soil is only automatically granted citizenship if one of their parents is a citizen (I might be persuaded to add “or is a legally resident alien”).
People who can’t work here and can’t get public benefits here and won’t be siring or bearing American citizens are going to go back to where they came from. The presence of 12 million or more people who had been in the U.S. and now need employment, education, public assistance, etc. should provide one hell of an incentive to make some changes.
But — and correct me if I’m wrong — you two both seem to argue that we should reduce immigration substantially.
Robert can speak for himself. But in my case, that would not be accurate. What I’ve argued is that we need to stop illegal aliens from crossing our borders and do whatever we can to get the ones that already have to leave. That has nothing to do with my views on immigration.
I’m trying to recall where I’ve stated that immigration into the U.S. should be reduced. I can’t think of anything, though.
I haven’t addressed your comments on NAFTA because I don’t know enough about the law or it’s effects on the various North American economies to have an opinion worth listening to.
What I think you’re missing, Ron, is the massively negative effect that NAFTA (and other US policies) has had on Mexico. Sure, we could do all the things that you mention above. But it still wouldn’t keep immigrants out, because as bad as it would make things for Mexicans in the US, things would still be worse at home. If your daughter was hungry, wouldn’t you brave everything you mentioned in order to put food on her table? Yeah, me too.
Now, we could be super-duper dickish and make things really horrible here. I’ve heard proposals from the right for long jail terms, executions, lynchings, and slavery as punishment for illegally entering the country. That might work; that might keep immigrants out. That would also divide the country in a way that even Bush has failed to do. Our international relations with the rest of the world would suffer, and we’d probably start seeing some domestic unrest.
Or, we could encourage Mexico (via foreign aid, political pressure, and a cessation of certain trade policies) to improve life for their working poor and deal with their corruption problem. To me this seems a far superior approach. Yes, it will cost some money. Of course, we’re already spending that money, on border patrol, immigration raids, detention centers, and that ridiculous, embarrassing, environmentally destructive fence.
Given two options for solving a problem, one of which makes people’s lives worse and one of which makes them better, then all other things equal I’m inclined to pick the latter. And I don’t understand the inclination of the right, many of whom claim to be love-thy-neighbor/feed-the-poor/turn-the-other-cheek Christians, to pick the former.
And having just finished my workout, the increased blood flow to my brain helped me come up with a few more incentives:
1) No financial institution making loans or handling accounts for illegal aliens will have access to Federal insurance for any of their accounts or loans and will not be allowed to participate in the Federal Reserve system.
2) No state that fails to implement the FAIR ID act will be given Federal grants or loans for their roads and other transportation systems.
3) No municipality that, through either legislation or executive action, directs their police to ignore and/or fail to determine the immigration status of detainees and to refuse to cooperate with Federal immigration laws and officials should get any grants, loans, subsidies, etc. for their LEOs.
4) Anyone applying for any public aid must prove they are a citizen. States or municipalities that do not require such proof should lose all Federal funding. Note, however, that I would not include emergency medical aid and other such things.
If illegal aliens can’t get loans or licenses or public aid and are more likely than now to get arrested for violations of immigration law when they are picked up for anything else, those are 4 more incentives for them to go home.
See, I’m not trying to deport 12 million illegal aliens. I’m getting them to deport themselves.
If your daughter was hungry, wouldn’t you brave everything you mentioned in order to put food on her table?
I’d certainly do something. Right now, “something” is “break numerous American laws constantly for years.” What I’m trying to do is not so much set up a physical barrier to that, but a legal one; I’m trying to remove the profit motive.
So what does that leave? Well, right now what I’m seeing is
we could encourage Mexico (via foreign aid, political pressure, and a cessation of certain trade policies) to improve life for their working poor and deal with their corruption problem.
Foreign aid to Mexico is, in my estimation, likely to enrich those most connected to the Mexican power structure without doing much for actual poor Mexicans. It also makes Mexico a client state of the U.S. and breaks down their sovereignty. It takes my money and gives it to institutions and people I have no control over except to shut off the money spigot. Whereas the steps I propose concentrate on institutions and people I do have control over.
Cessation of certain trade policies sounds reasonable – I reserve judgement on just how reasonable until I see details of what the policies are.
Political pressure? What do you think what I’m proposing is? Not external political pressure. That’s hard to do, changes with elections and just gets us playing games. No, I’m talking internal political pressure.
What would I do if my daughter was starving? What would I do if the government was trampling my rights and keeping me from preserving “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? It seems to me that the best way to bring pressure on the Mexican government and power structure is to make it afraid that 12 million dissaffected citizens/subjects (plus all the others that have never crossed the border but are just as oppressed) are ready to pick up guns, just like we did in 1775 and the French did in 1789 and the English did in 1662 (? – do I have the date right there) and back when Mexico itself had it’s first revolution.
If the Mexican government is pursuing policies that are inimicable to being able to pursue a decent living, the people who are in the best position to fix that and have the responsibility for it are the Mexican taxpayers, not the American ones.
I’m fine with essentially open borders for non-criminals; if someone wants to work in the US, let them. The harms to the American economy, if they exist at all, are small. Regardless, it seems clear that the benefits for millions of immigrants in improving their lives substantively outweigh the harms done.
I favor policies to maximize world welfare, so I support the attitude expressed here.
That said, I wonder about the factual proposition that world welfare would be increased if the US had open borders. There’s some dispute about how adding approx. 12 million people to the labor force affects the wages for unskilled labor; I doubt there would be any dispute about the consequences if we quintupled that number. Opportunity for terrorism would be increased. I suspect support for all kinds of public programs would diminish – from safety net programs to park to schools. And I would expect to see the growth of an Us vs. Them mentality and nativist movements such as the Klan and Pat Buchanan-ism. This sentiment might lead the US to reduce foreign aid as well.
More generally I’d expect to see stresses related to the Tragedy of the Commons. In this dynamic, any facility provided at public expense might be exploited to the point of break-down by people who don’t bear the full cost of their actions. The standard response is to privatize the commons. So along with diminished support for all things public, I’d expect to see the growth of all things private: gated communities, private parks a/k/a country clubs, private security forces. Not so different than we see in Central America now.
The costs may well be worth the benefits. But there would definitely be costs.
I’ll never agree to policies that are based on punishing immigrants or a “let the fuckers suffer” attitude….
Unless we open our borders, I can’t imagine any policy that doesn’t involve punishing (illegal) immigrants. This punishment comes formally from police and prosecutors. And, as RonF observes, it comes informally in the form of dangerous entry, and suppressed wages and lifestyles experienced by people who feel that they cannot avail themselves of the protection of formal institutions like police, courts, schools, hospitals, banks, property records, motor vehicle licensure boards, the Social Security Administration, etc.
I expect informal punishments are more pervasive that formal punishments at reducing illegal immigration. In short, I suspect our “let the fuckers suffer” attitude is the only thing that really moderates illegal immigration at all.
In brief, managed borders = let the fuckers suffer.
Given two options for solving a problem, one of which makes people’s lives worse and one of which makes them better, then all other things equal I’m inclined to pick the latter.
Me, too. I just don’t know that all else is equal. That is, I don’t know that A) the cost of 1increasing the standard of living in Mexico to the level that people wouldn’t want to immigrate to the US illegally would be less than 2) the cost of making life for illegal immigrants so bad that they wouldn’t want to come. While I may or may not like the answer, it’s basically an empirical question at heart.
Pingback: La Chola » Blog Archive » Keeping immigrants out, borders, remembering the forgotten
I’ve said this before in threads relating to illegal immigration. It seems that I need to say it again.
There is nothing you can do, short of improving the economic conditions in the countries of origin, that will stop the problem. My grandfather, a Hungarian Jew, illegally entered Nazi Germany, FFS, because he had a better chance of making money and helping to support his family. He was not the only Jew to do so. Now, I suppose we could make conditions for illegal immigrants worse than those of Jews in Nazi Germany, but I’ll be against that every step of the way.
You might want to start with US corn subsidies, which have wreaked havoc on Mexican family farms.
pointed question: are mexicans the only “unauthorized migrants” in the u.s.?
Nope. In fact, recent issues of the Irish-American News (which, true to stereotype, I pick up in my favorite bars) also play up the immigration dispute because of the number of illegal aliens of Irish nationality. And there’s plenty of Polish illegal aliens in Chicago as well (Chicago has more Poles and people of Polish ancestry living in it than any other city except Warsaw).
What’s your point?
Bjartmarr, if you have a problem with current American farm policies that subsidize production of certain crops (especially when they are paid to large corporations as opposed to family farmers) you will find that you and I will likely have broad points of agreement.
Because I’ll never agree to policies that are based on punishing immigrants
I don’t favor policies that punish immigrants either.
I do favor punishing illegal aliens to a certain extent. But I’m more concerned with making it difficult to impossible for them to live here in the first place.
What’s your point?
amp got my point, thanks.
brownfemipower, and for that matter Amp:
Does this mean that it’s the U.S.’s obligation to “fix” the economy of every country that illegal aliens come from? Hell, Ireland’s economy right now may be in better shape than ours. Seems to me we’ve got enough problems fixing our own economy, never mind taking responsibility for anyone else’s.
Although if there are economic policies of ours such as corn subsidies, etc., that are causing problems for Mexico, etc., then I’m willing to hear arguments that they should be changed. Personally, I’m willing to bet that an energy balance done on fermenting corn into fuel that takes into account the costs of fuel, irrigation, fertilizer, subsidies, etc. will show that it costs as much as making gasoline, if not more. And the increase in demand for corn raises it’s price both here and in Mexico, from what I hear.
Does this mean that it’s the U.S.’s obligation to “fix” the economy of every country that illegal aliens come from?
it depends on what your definition of “fix” is. even extreme right wing hate groups recognize that NAFTA is not good for u.s. citizens economically, which is why they opposed it. is it “fixing” mexico if you obliterate something that is profoundly harmful to yourself?
The thing is, positioning u.s. as a ‘savior’ or inherently ‘superior’ to mexico doesn’t allow space for the recognition of the weak middle class, abandoned working class, and outright attacked poverty stricken people in the u.s. The U.S. can fix things for *all* of us (including the weak middle class, abandoned working calls and outright attacked poverty stricken people in Mexico) if it eliminates NAFTA, CAFTA and the peruvian trade agreement–but it won’t–not willingly at least. these things are too beneficial to corporations that are intimately invested in continuing the idea that there are only a few jobs here and there, and unionization is too expensive, and a livable world wide wage is something only ‘dreamers’ consider feasible.
The u.s. is very close to being almost completly post industrialized–which means, soon, all the jobs will be gone, and we’ll be in the same position the people we fight to keep out are in.
Yeah, this was my question too, because just looking at Southern California, that’s not the case at all. And there’s so many issues involved in each case. For one thing, the gross disparities in how political asylum is allotted out to immigrants in different countries just in Central America or in some of the Caribbean nations for example.
And there’s little discussion about European migrants or undocumented immigrants in most of these conversations as well. Just a general observation and not intended to single this posting out.
But thanks for raising the issue of the role of NAFTA which has been destructive on so many different levels, including for many women. It should be more of a feminist issue in my opinion.
Somehow, I don’t think we *fixed* Mexico’s economy. I don’t think that was ever our intention anyway.
I’m fine with essentially open borders for non-criminals
Ooh, I should mark this on my calendar — the day that I finally get to take a position to Amp’s left (as opposed to the usual pattern of shifting hurriedly leftward when he makes a good point). I’m fine with essentially open borders for non-terrorists. If I don’t get kicked out of the country for a DUI, why should someone else?
Or, we could encourage Mexico (via foreign aid, political pressure, and a cessation of certain trade policies) to improve life for their working poor and deal with their corruption problem.
How possible (if at all) is to change the culture of corruption in a country without also making major structural changes in the government? I am not sure that this is something than can easily be achieved by “encouragement.”
Since this is being offered as a sort-of alternative to other means of stopping illegal immigrants from entering the U.S., it’s important that it be somewhat realistic.
So what are the proponents actually suggesting? That we drop NAFTA and immediately see an effect? A vague proposal like “let’s make things better in Mexico” is sort of hard to use as an alternative.
I live in an area that has a substantial number of non-Mexican illegal aliens, mostly Irish and eastern Europeans. I’m quite comfortable with any and all of the measures I have proposed being applied to them as well. In this instance perhaps it is worth noting that I have substantial Irish ancestry and my wife is 1/2 eastern European.
The thing is, positioning u.s. as a ’savior’ or inherently ’superior’ to mexico …
Which is exactly what I propose we don’t do. I don’t think we should be trying to “fix” Mexico, either by ignoring millions of illegal aliens from that country or by exerting external political pressure on it or trying to use a carrot/stick approach with funding. I think we should make it impossible for illegal aliens to live in the U.S. That will make them go home, and give their home country’s governments an incentive to fix the problems that caused people to leave in the first place.
Now, if we’ve adopted trade policies that are a problem, that’s different, as it’s an action we took and I’m willing to listen to arguements on the topic. Arguments that I have yet to hear – there’s lots of assertions that NAFTA, etc. are causing Mexico problems but no links to anything that would actually back that up.
But regardless; we need to not only make it a lot harder to illegally get into the U.S., we need to make it a lot harder to illegally stay here.
The easiest way to get what you want if this is really your position–that the is to legalize all immigration to the united states and the status of pepople who have already done so. *Poof* no more “illegal” “aliens,” just immigrants!
“That will make them go home, and give their home country’s governments an incentive to fix the problems that caused people to leave in the first place.”
Just not true. The problems have been there for decades prior to the current wave of mass immigration from Mexico (which is by no means the first of its kind), and are likely to persist if the people return. It’s just not as easy as “This is good for everyone!” Mass deportation/repatriation/whatever you want to call it would have negligible benefits for Mexico, and if the cessation of the influx of extra American dollars into the economy is taken into account, it’s likely to have a negative affect. If you don’t really care, or you feel that the benefits to America trump Mexican losses/inert & adverse circumstances, then fine, but it’s better to say that than to pretend that people on both sides of the border are likely to benefit.
Oh, goodness… I meant “effect”, not “affect.”
BTW, much of the language here seems to suggest that the US is responsible for NAFTA. Don’t forget that last “a” (stands for “Agreement”); the Mexican president was in favor of it as well at the time.
And the MExican government, apparently, still is. Which is why it would be strange (and oddly patriarchal) for the US to withdraw from NAFTA in order to benefit Mexico. After all, Mexico can withdraw from NAFTA on its own, whenever it damn well pleases, merely with six months’ notice.* We can’t stop them. And when U.S. politicians start proactively doing things for other countries, which said other countries can do themselves… well, they won’t be in office for long. nor should they be.
*(see, e.g., http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/NAFTA/chap-22.asp#A2205 which covers NAFTA withdrawal. If you want the full text of NAFTA, see http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/NAFTA/naftatce.asp instead.)
So, by this logic, US politicians who passed laws against investment in South Africa with the goal of ending apartheid were (and should have been) cast out of office? Ditto for those passing laws to encourage Cuban governmental reform?
I think you’re conflating the populace of a country with the government of that country. The Mexican government can withdraw from NAFTA, but given the corruption in their government, the Mexican people effectively cannot.
Furthermore, I think you’re forgetting that the whole idea was to reduce illegal immigration into the US. That’s not doing something for Mexico, that’s doing something for the US. That it helps the Mexican people (at the expense of rich Mexican politicians) is just a happy side effect.
Ron:
Yeah, okay. But we also seem to have points of disagreement: I think that the onus is on us, as the party with greater power and thus greater ability to fix the situation, to stop doing the stuff that we’re doing that’s exacerbating the situation FIRST — before we start taking actions to lay the burden on poor unemployed Mexican laborers. Once we’ve cleaned up our own act, only then do I think it’s permissable to take punitive action to force Mexico to clean up theirs (if it is still necessary). To do otherwise is not only ineffective (it’s far easier for us to change the US government than it is for them to change the Mexican government), but it’s also pretty selfish and cruel.
Improving their economy would only be the tip of the iceberg.
Currently the Commander of the Chihuahua state police, Fernando Lozano Sandoval, is being guarded by the El Paso Police Department at Thomas Hospital. In 2008, there have been 17 law enforcement personnel killed in Juarez. Information received from the DEA indicates that a war is occurring between the Vicente Carillo Fuentes Cartel and El Chap Guzman Cartel. Information has been received that Hit Squads from both Cartels are active in Juarez and that some of the targets will flee to El Paso and try to hide there. Information has been received that these hit squads will enter in unguarded isolated crossing of rural Texas and El Paso country to try and kidnap the targeted individuals and take them back to Mexico or act against them here. Emails hav been sent out to Law Enforcement in Texas, advising them to be extra careful during traffic stops, since these hit squads have been instructed to kill LEO’s they encounter.
There are 2 Border Patrol agents in prison right now for the death of a known cartel member, drug guy. He was shot during an altercation, but made it to Mexico with lead in his butt. We extradited him, then he died over here from complications of that shooting~~ now they’re in prison & have been for at least a couple of years. Bush had the opportunity to pardon them, but he chose not to.
No one ever hears about these things though.
Fixing the economy wont help the citizens when the drug cartels are running everything. I dont blame one single person trying to escape from that.
I said:
I’m trying to recall where I’ve stated that immigration into the U.S. should be reduced. I can’t think of anything, though.
and curiousgyrl answered:
The easiest way to get what you want if this is really your position–that the is to legalize all immigration to the united states and the status of pepople who have already done so.
Your paraphrase of my position is invalid. The negative of “should be reduced” does not equal “legalize all immigration”. Controlling immigration (and not rewarding lawbreakers with citizenship and the privileges thereof) is not the same as reducing it.
I think that the onus is on us, as the party with greater power and thus greater ability to fix the situation, to stop doing the stuff that we’re doing that’s exacerbating the situation FIRST — before we start taking actions to lay the burden on poor unemployed Mexican laborers.
That can be a valid point. Just how badly is what we are doing actually excaberating the situation, and how much of this is Mexico’s own doing?
Immigration is the basis of our country. Without it, the U.S. ceases to exist.
? Metaphorically? Literally? Emotionally?
We’ve got 300 million people (oops), and I don’t think we’d all disappear.
Also, note the thread is talking about unauthorized (e.g. “illegal”) immigration, and that AFAIK not a single person has suggested stopping ALL immigration.
Justice_Seeker, that’s a bit of a non sequitir in this context. The issue at hand is not immigration, it’s the influx and presence of illegal aliens that’s the problem at hand.
Sailorman, the Census Bureau’s current estimate of the U.S. population is 304 million. Which makes your point even more valid.
Now, I think that immigration has made the U.S. what it is today and that continuing to favor immigration into the U.S. is essential to maintaining our position in the world. But I think it’s ridiculous to have uncontrolled immigration into the U.S., for lots of reasons. And I think it’s ridiculous to reward illegal aliens with citizenship.
lol. That was a mistype ;)