« ‘Breaking Bread’ on NCTV (updated) | Main | The Iron Lady 87, RIP (addended) »

08 April 2013


Ben Emery

A couple of years ago someone explained to me there is a difference between illegal immigrant and undocumented immigrant. Illegal is someone who is actually in the system but remains despite being told to exit the country and undocumented is someone who has yet made it into the system. By system I mean a record of some kind about their existence within the US. I would guess most immigrants from the south are undocumented while most immigrants from north, east, and west would be illegal.

George Rebane

BenE 711am - It is definitions like that which have caused the confusion - deliberate and spontaneous. As I have noted, immigration is and starts as a two-party process. Without having gone through that, aliens sneaking into the country are simply fugitives from our laws no matter what their desires for residency are. Labeling them as 'immigrants' miscommunicates (as we are now finding) and denigrates the appellation for those who actually stood in line and went through the process as prescribed by law.

Again, the language is rich and expandable, let's not make an established word expand its definitions to uselessness or to support bamboozling the sheeple.

Ben Emery

I don't have a problem with your definition and response. I just thought it was an interesting.

As I have stated before on RR, I think we have an employer problem not an illegal alien problem. No work means no migration. We also need to repeal NAFTA/ CAFTA/ CTPA to help restore some stability in local and state economies including our own. Subsidized industry bringing goods into these nations undercuts local businesses reducing the ability to sustain themselves while at the same time removing the wealth by the transferring of currency from purchasing goods from local business to international companies. This is detrimental to local economies. Those companies will then camp those profits in offshore accounts avoiding taxes at home while still receiving subsides. This is the downfall of free trade agreements. We kept the subsides but dropped the tariffs and have allowed big business make offshore accounts legal and easy.

George Rebane

BenE 945am - It occurs to me that 'importing' humans into a country through attractive immigration policies can be seen as an analogue of importing cheaper/better goods into a country. Both can serve to displace what/who is already there or can conceivably be 'made' there, especially when the target country's growth is low. That such imports and their abetting policies increase the nation's GDP and the aggregate QoL of its citizens has long been confirmed by observing nations that have impeded such importing.

According to your lights, where/how should the line be drawn to strike a proper balance between increasing aggregate QoL and displacing some indigenous workers and businesses? (Responses from all are solicited.)

The comments to this entry are closed.