Yes, I have seen the border fence many times and do realize that it does not cover 100% of the southern border. There is a big desert where illegals die every year.
You do realize that many migrant farmer workers are not here illegally but are here under a work visa right?
Yes, I fully realize there are legal farm workers. Just not enough to fill jobs.
Personally I don't care how many immigrants we let in on a yearly basis as long as it is legal. You want 1 million, 5 million, 10 million immigrants per year? Fine change the law. You come here illegally you broke the law and have to pay the consequences.
Who all gets to pay consequences? The workers? The employers? The consumer when prices increase? The economy when jobs aren't filled and work does not get done? Just be clear that arresting illegals does not just punish the illegal workers. It affects the entire US economy. So be careful of what you ask.
I like examples like this "Now if you walk through a yard that is not yours every day for a decade to get to work or school a bit quicker". As they try and take a static picture and say well shame on you, you allowed it once and now you want to cry about it.
What if you purchase a property that has been used as a short cut and don't want your property used as such. Are you not allowed to exercise your property rights? How about when the people who use your property change from using it as a right of way to using it as a trash can, toilette, become disruptive, threaten you and your family, use your property to run drugs, etc. Are you not allowed to defend yourself and your property?
To try and discredit the analogy you load it up with variables that have nothing to do with it. It is a simple analogy about the concept of TACIT APPROVAL.
There are many factors that impact the equation and the results are not the same as they were 70 years ago or 40 years ago. Times change. If I use your logic we should not allow blacks to vote, eat in restaurants white folks frequent, go to the same schools, play on the same athletic teams, ride at the front of the bus, etc. I mean they did not have these rights until the mid 20th century and we should base everything on past behavior and laws right?
A good point, but one that is not accurate because nobody is saying "don't enforce the laws we have now" which you suggest in your post. I, and most folks simply suggest we enforce ALL the laws equally or change the laws to reflect that changing environment you spoke of.
Typical stance of someone who does not have a good argument throw out a statement on racism or white supremacist. I reject your argument and call is at best a spurious correlation.
It is not a spurious correlation. Racism is a solid factor in this issue. Look at the history of the movement to "enforce" immigration laws. See what groups have pushed it and been most vocal. Also note which groups they DON'T go after [white illegal immigrants].
In the Sixties, when blacks were finally getting some level of equality there was active dissent in the South that "if given equal rights they would take our jobs". That has occurred again with the Mexican illegal population.
I understand it hurts to realize there is an element of racism involved when you argue for the xenophobic "lock 'em up and send 'em back" philosophy of immigration reform, damn the consequences to the US Economy.
The "its the law" stance is absolutely bogus. It is used so selectively. Strict enforcement on illegal immigrants issues but "loose interpretation" when it comes to a White House Administration that destroys documents, uses political influence in hiring, things lying is "optional" and falsification of evidence is just fine "if it's for the right reasons".
Which activity do you really think has done the most damage to this country? Workers doing work that nobody else would do, spending money in the economy, supporting the infrastructure or an Administration that falsely sends us to war in Iraq, corrupts the Department of Justice and makes the US the laughing stock of the world? Focus!