Solving the West's immigration issue

In the current US presidential election as well as virtually every election that took place in Europe in the last 10 years, immigration has been a key issue. What do you think, should the West open its doors or barricade itself behind walls topped by barred wire?

One thing is for sure, nothing will ever prevent illegal immigrants from getting where a job could help themselves and their family survive. After all, there are illegal immigrants in Australia – a island with shark-infested oceans all around! To prevent illegal immigration, the state ought to often destroy civil liberties (limitation of tourist visas, inquiries into people's marriage, disruption of trade, etc.).

On top of that fighting against illegal immigration is very expensive. The US government is constructing a fence in the middle of the desert (!) and the EU has to deploy several warships in the Mediterranean sea in peacetime (!!). A total waste of taxpayers' money.

Illegal immigration is also an important source of revenue for organized crime. Illegals are often forced to carry drugs to pay for their trip. They are also particularly vulnerable to all forms of violence and illegal women are often forced into prostitution rings.

So the logical option seems to be: free immigration. No more waste government funds, no more Mexican dying of thirst in the desert, no more African drowning in the Med, no more illegals to be afraid, no more useless suffering.

That's usually the liberals' point of view. But the populists and conservatives often answer that immigration legal or otherwise costs a lot of money. Migrants tend to have large families, they often put the public amenities (hospitals, education, etc.) under huge stress.  Whatever money is spent on preventing illegal immigration is actually an investment that benefit the poorer classes of the host country.

Governments thus have to make a dramatic choice: pauperize a bit more the poorer classes of their country or let hundred of foreigners starve, drown and who knows what other awful death.

But this decision is necessary only because the system is fundamentally flawed. Consider that: legal immigration is very difficult but very cheap, on the other hand illegal immigration is very simple but very expensive. An African or a Chinese coming to illegally Europe will often pay thousands of US dollars for the trip, he has no guaranty of arriving alive and he will face less than perfect conditions once in the host country (no legal protection, always under the threat of being brought back to his country, etc.). This money goes directly to organized crime and does not benefit the host country.

Imagine for a second that the 15 millions of illegals in the USA had paid, say, $10,000 to get in to the US government, the state would be $150 bn richer!!! That's one year in Iraq! And this does not includes the taxes these legal migrants would have paid. All in all, that's maybe 20 bn lost every year by the US government, not including all the money that would be saved from not hunting down illegal aliens.

This idea is almost too good to be true. Of course politicians have thought about it. It is in essence what was proposed by the Immigration Bill of McCaine and Kennedy a few years ago. But opposition at the time had proved so strong that the bill wasn't passed and nobody spoke about it afterward. Why?

Because immigration is not only an economic issue but also a cultural one. Americans are afraid of becoming citizens of a Latin America country the same way as Europeans fear that their continent will be overtaken by islamists any time soon.

Of course, part of the money could be invested in giving language classes to the new comers for them to adapt quickly to their new environment, the way Quebec does, but I doubt it would change the anti-migrant leaning of most western public opinions.

Ultimately, the one and only element that prevents a smooth resolution of the immigration issue is racism.

Originally posted by Maharbbal Ultimately, the one and only element that prevents a smooth resolution of the immigration issue is racism.

Some countries may have the feeling they are overwhelmed by immigration. Malta for instance has only 200,000 inhabitants and something like 10,000 illegals parked in a camp plus an unknown number arriving every day. That is called being overwhelmed, on the other hand the US have less than 5 inhabitants per squared kilometer, they won't be overwhelmed any time soon.

More seriously, most of the issues pointed out early arise from the fact that these immigrants are illegal. They are very real but would be solved by the plan I was talking about in my first post, lets call it: pay as you go.

I honestly do not think that the US has any problem with immigrants. I mean, it's an immigrant country from the beginning. It's just a matter of mentality.

My opinion is help to build up third world countries in a sufficient lvl, so that people do not have to leave them.

I have no idea what is the percentage of illegal immigrant with a criminal record in their country, but I bet it is fairly low. Besides, the proposal has never been: lets open the doors wide and let in whoever wants to come. It is a pay-as-you-come scheme.

Besides, the system nowadays is truly flawed as hard-working law-abiding immigrants are rounded up in their workplace whereas these are precisely those who create the least problems.

Besides, illegal immigration is not a crime, it is more like an administrative misdemeanour nothing to do with rape and murder.

I have no idea what is the percentage of illegal immigrant with a criminal record in their country, but I bet it is fairly low. Besides, the proposal has never been: lets open the doors wide and let in whoever wants to come. It is a pay-as-you-come scheme.

Whats the point of borders then? Are you a NAFTA supporter?

Well, I won't comment on illegal immigration in specific.

I personally support immigration as it makes the economy stronger, increases the labour force and generally makes a (western) country "bigger".

However, I do think that in order one country not to be overwhelmed, it should take serious measures to increase the birth rates of its own nation.

The problem is very evident in my country (Greece), because from 1991 to 2001 (census' years) the total population has increased, but the greek population has decreased, and is constantly decreasing. Both Greece and Cyprus receive lots of immigrants, while their birth rates are below 2 children per woman. In 2004, Greece had some 105,000 births, of which 89,000 were greeks and 16,000 were alliens.

Be fair. Deport Schwarzenegger! His performance as an actor deserves that punishment...

Originally posted by pinguin Be fair. Deport Schwarzenegger! His performance as an actor deserves that punishment...

The Mc Cain-Kennedy-Bush plan was the best; grant the current illegals a path to citizenship and tighten the borders at the same time. It is truly ridiculous to suggest that 12 million people should be deported. The cost of such an operation would be massive on the tax payer and terrible for the economy, by lifting 12 million workers out of their jobs. Fruit would be left unpicked, Mc Donalds left unserved... There would be anarchy!