Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
My hatstand runneth over

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                               

Secret Way Out For Illegals

So they can avoid a criminal record
  (+6, -9)
(+6, -9)
  [vote for,
against]

This talks about illegal immigrants into the USA, but I'm reasonably sure other countries can occasionally have a similar problem.

Over here in the USA there is growing concern about the total number of people who have entered the country illegally, and are employed in jobs that "should" be offered to US citizens instead (a national unemployment rate of something like 9%, as I write this, has something to do with that concern, growing).

It is known that one reason people enter the USA illegally is because they think they can find jobs that pay more than elsewhere. This tends to be true even when employers, knowing the workers are in the country illegally, rip them off by paying them less than the Official Minimum Wage (they can't complain without getting deported). And another reason shady employers like illegal workers is because the employers can deduct Medicare and Social Security withholding, and keep it for their own pockets (illegals naturally don't have valid Social Security Numbers, and would be revealed if this withholding was properly reported to the Internal Revenue Service).

Every now and then an inspection reveals an employer who has illegal workers, and of course this can fairly promptly lead to the deportation of the workers, AFTER appropriate criminal-type records have been made (to make it easier to identify/catch/deport them again, should they sneak back in).

It seems to me that a lot of illegal workers have a dilemma; they arrived in the USA by some secret means, but they have no equivalent way to leave, without being tagged as criminals. This means they are more-or-less forced to stay until they are caught. I assume they will be caught, eventually, but US citizens need those jobs sooner than "eventually".

The Secret Way Out For Illegals is thus a kind of one-way Underground Railroad designed to let any illegal worker in the USA leave before getting caught --and thereby also getting tagged as a criminal. Appropriate diligence at the borders is still necessary to keep any non-citizen from entering the USA illegally, but I think it is both useful and important to be able to let them get out easily.

Vernon, May 12 2010

I too endorse these arizona laws http://www.dumblaws...ited-states/arizona
They sound great [zeno, May 12 2010]

More brilliance in Arizona http://www.tucsonwe...her-problems-solved
[RayfordSteele, May 14 2010]

How a Mexican citizen can legally visit the USA. http://mexico.usemb...s/how-to-apply.html
[scad mientist, Feb 24 2014]

[link]






       you're both idiots.   

       [V] why can't they just *walk* out ? or drive or take the bus, whatever. It's a foreign country(presumably their original one)'s Customs that greet them on the way out.
FlyingToaster, May 12 2010
  

       Besides, it is soon going to be a nonproblem when mexico the us and canada are forming a single country with their own currency, the amero. Then central america wil follow like hawaii did and the border will only be as wide as panama. Surely that is small enough for you guys to keep safe?
zeno, May 12 2010
  

       Bone for the idea that controlling people's freedom of movement and free association is a good thing
pocmloc, May 12 2010
  

       [+] Bun for improving (albeit marginally) the de- facto freedoms available to these individuals.   

       I understand [pocmloc]'s reservations - [Vernon] does seem to find nothing wrong in violations of the freedom of movement and free association by the state. You can't really blame him for that - it seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that immigration control (for protectionism as opposed to security) is somehow consistent with liberty and the free market.   

       But in an environment where many state- sanctioned violations already occur, this idea would actually help enhance the range of options available to these people. It may not go far enough, but it's a step in the right direction.
arvin, May 12 2010
  

       I was hoping this would be an under-ground railroad terminating in a giant meat-grinding apparatus whose output would be use for tacos and chalupas.   

       I'd post this myself but I've seen enough fish lately.
MikeD, May 12 2010
  

       How do you do this one way out but not in system? With a one-way escape valve? Trap door in the floor?   

       The Feds created a whopper of a mess here. Arizona's 'fix' isn't much more than duct tape in legality and should be challenged by a better solution. For that reason I do not support Arizona's law; it's a badly designed solution to a worse problem.   

       Our immigration system needs some real overhaul. There is a lot of flux in what is defined as legal entry with each passing generation; my forefathers came here before the country existed as an entity, and so were lucky in that regard.   

       I've heard statistically that each immigrant, illegal or legal, adds $19k per year to the economy on average. In a country with a steady birthrate, in a large respect we need these people.   

       The 'number of jobs' # is not entirely a fixed quantity but a function of the economy. In the short term there may be a fixed number of jobs but new industries and more heads needing services stimulate economies in the long run, even if it puts a large strain on the public sector.   

       The long-term solution needs to start with Mexico improving it's own opportunties.
RayfordSteele, May 12 2010
  

       I don't like the presence of illegal workers any more than anyone else, and if had my druthers, would execute at least a few of the employers that hire them (thereby sending the rest of the employers A Serious Message). The death penalty is perfectly suitable for anyone who treats people like slaves.   

       Nevertheless, I reiterate that the illegals currently have a dilemma regarding being able to leave. If an employer starts "feeling the heat" regarding those workers, and lets them go, where can they go? I suspect that at least some of those illegal workers wish they had never entered the USA, and would leave if they had an easy way to do it.   

       And remember, each one that leaves voluntarily potentially leaves a job opening for a citizen. Enabling THAT is the real purpose of this Idea.
Vernon, May 12 2010
  

       At one time there were no emigrants to the USA, only the indigenous Indian communities. So what makes a person wanting to go there now and have a better life any different from those who came from Europe and "claimed" the land? Most of the so called illegals do jobs that no "American" wants in the first place.   

       As for the //execute at least a few of the employers that hire them// statement. Didn't the Nazis already try that?
xenzag, May 12 2010
  

       //anyone who treats people like slaves// You mean people who say where on the earth's surface a person is and isn't allowed to travel and work?
pocmloc, May 12 2010
  

       Although the principle is an admirable one, [-] for referring to undocumented immigrants as 'illegals' in the title.   

       Deliberately refraining from expressing further opinions about immigration here.
gisho, May 12 2010
  

       ah yes, the law, which, "... in its majestic impartiality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridges of Paris, to beg in the streets and to steal bread." (Anatole France)
ryokan, May 12 2010
  

       [xenzag] and [pocmloc], if an employer illegally employs illegal workers just because it is possible to pay them unfairly and otherwise abuse them (e.g., offer a hazardous job with inadequate protection), then in my opinion that is little different (merely a matter of degree, not a matter of kind) from treating them like slaves.   

       As for using the word "illegals", it was simply a way of avoiding something in the news called "racial profiling". [gisho], per your anno below I have altered the first part of the main text, to more specifically indicate the group being talked about here.   

       Finally, something I probably should have mentioned in the main text, I regard this Idea as greatly superior to offering illegals Amnesty, as has previously been done. Amnesty MORE DIRECTLY encourages illegals to think that they can get away with it --it even practically invites others to try it, too. (Apparently, the invitation was accepted!!!) Amnesty also means that all jobs taken by amnestified illegals are very seldom going to become available to pre-existing citizens.   

       As previously mentioned, at this writing the current economic situation is such that many existing citizens would be glad to have even the types of scut-work jobs currently being done by illegals --but those jobs will not easily be made available to citizens as long as the greedy employers can take advantage of the illegals who are sort-of-stuck here, per the dilemma also previously mentioned.
Vernon, May 12 2010
  

       [Vernon], not arguing that using a racially-based term would be worse, but 'illegal immigrants' at least keeps the focus on what they did, while 'illegals' suggests their very existence is a crime. They have done something which happens to be against the law; we can argue as to whether the law is useful or morally sanctionable. It doesn't mean they, themselves, are illegal.
gisho, May 12 2010
  

       Creating a safe way to leave simply creates more flux, doesn't it? Eduardo knows he can enter using some bribed transfer means. Eduardo works awhile, starts feeling the heat, leaves, takes his money with him, and uses said money to reenter when the heat is off.
RayfordSteele, May 12 2010
  

       //You mean people who say where on the earth's surface a person is and isn't allowed to travel and work?//   

       What is so morally reprehensible about wanting some control over who comes and goes to your country? What's so bad about a country wanting to ensure that services, infrastructure, benefits and privileges, all paid for by taxes applied to citizens over many years – are used for the benefit of citizens in preference to whoever sneaks across the border and wants in on a good thing? I think the luxury of thinking that everyone on earth can live in harmony and more importantly plenty, became unrealistic a couple of billion in global population ago.   

       I wouldn't pretend to know what to do about the situation, but making statements like the one above is a little bit naive don't you think?   

       [EDIT - I just want to make clear that I made the above comment (and I stand by it, notice I'm adding a note, not deleting it) based on my own opinion, and also to some degree based on the country I live in (Australia). Please don't assume that means I agree with some of the comments you'll see below by others. I think there is a fundamental and important distinction between our obligation to help citizens of other countries, and the notion of opening our borders to all and sundry. My key concept here is as follows. Imagine that the country I lived in decided to limit it's own population growth - based on available resources, etc - and also to control immigration in order to maintain this balance. Presume my country contributed to the welfare of people in other places as much as practical. Imagine that parts of the rest of the world continued to breed themselves into assured famine and destruction. Comments (like the one I reacted to above) would suggest that my country does not have the fundamental right to control their border in the way described, and hence don't have the right to guarantee our survival, and instead have to starve to death (literally, or figuratively in the resources sense) in the coming centuries along with everyone else, with no choice in the matter whatsoever. I don't like this concept, and reject it outright. It's all fantasy anyway, as I can't imagine a nation in today's world that would actually plan ahead with any real conviction so as to have a chance at long term survival anyways./EDIT]
Custardguts, May 12 2010
  

       You know sometimes in life, there is no right or wrong side of an issue. Sometimes, the complexities of a situation, set it so far from what our tiny little minds can unravel, that we need to stop trying to be right, stop defending that which is not ours to defend, and just try and find some ways to compromise, instead of looking for ways to pick fights with one another.
blissmiss, May 13 2010
  

       Some things, clearly, go right over your head.
blissmiss, May 13 2010
  

       <makes mental note to read this whole mess on the weekend>   

       <then knocks on wood>   

       There needs to be a secret way in for illegal immigrants, too, just to balance the argument.
neelandan, May 13 2010
  

       So this is what america did with its congenital racism — it rebranded it.
“New, improved
Now with 100% nigger-free terminology!”.
Ian Tindale, May 13 2010
  

       //Do you leave the door to your house unlocked all day, and greet with open arms anyone who just wanders in? Well I sure as hell don't//   

       Yeah, but your wife does.   

       (couldn't help myself)
MikeD, May 13 2010
  

       edit.   

       Yeah, but your mom does.
MikeD, May 13 2010
  

       [neelandan], no, the main text here specifically mentions keeping the borders tight against illegal immigration. Think of this Idea as a one-way valve; we want them OUT not in, so we need an easy way to let them out, not in.   

       I notice that none of the prior annotations here talks about one of the real fundamental problems that causes illegal immigration --overpopulation. If a country has people breeding faster than they are providing and increasing resources to sustain that increasing population, then the only way for many individuals to avoid starvation is to emigrate from that country, regardless of the legalities.   

       I also note that there are exactly three cures for overpopulation: (1) Increase resources, (2) decrease the birth rate, (3) increase the death rate. The first is becoming impossible; the world is running out of certain resources (such as land on which crops are grown, every time a farm is converted into housing for that increasing population), and the third is socially unacceptable everywhere. That leaves the second option, only, despite also being socially unacceptable in some places.
Vernon, May 13 2010
  

       //The situation is more akin to someone sneaking into your basement because they had to flee their house after their husband beat them black and blue.//   

       The mexicans don't come to the U.S. black and blue.   

       Your analogy is just as inacurate, but in the oppisite direction.   

       How about this analogy:   

       It's like sneaking into your neighbor's basement because your neighbor's basement provides a more comfortable lifestyle. Your neighbor would have invited you to come stay in his basement, provided you are not a fugitive or felon and under the condition that you pay for your own beer and throw in some cash on wings and pizza, but being the little shit-bag that you are, you snuck in uninvited and ate his wings and pizza and drank his beer.   

       And to [Vernon] : A secret way out of America? Realistcly, I see this being an excellent escape route for criminals and terrorists.
MikeD, May 13 2010
  

       "Spare me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed back from whence they came, I douse my lamp inside this golden door!"   

       bliss, I believe he must be about 3 foot 2.   

       Becoming documented inside this country as an immigrant is a fair bit more challenging than being born here. Yes, there needs to be systemic reform.
RayfordSteele, May 13 2010
  

       21, I rest my case. ( I always like it when the other person helps you look smarter than you really are. I'll take it any way I can get it.)
blissmiss, May 14 2010
  

       //take advantage of the American economy without paying their due taxes//   

       Most do pay taxes, which they cannot later collect on. To a large extent, illegal aliens are propping up SS and Medicare. They pay into it, we take it out. Why do you think the federal government is so reluctant to actually do anything about it? Tough sentencing for employers would solve the problem. The US just can't afford it right now.   

       The laws in this country are written by the rich and for the rich. Illegal immigration benefits the rich, and so do the silly people who listen to and repeat their silly and hypocritical arguments. I suspect that the only thing that rich and poor conservatives share is a deep and abiding racism. They do not share the knowledge that those arguments are patently flawed. Only the rich know that. And they know that a stupid argument is the absolute best way of having nothing done about a situation that benefits them.   

       The Arizona law does not do anything that is not available under current federal and state law. It's a political stunt, and one that gains acceptance due to the racism prevalent in Arizona .   

       Learn a little about constitutional criminal procedure; you do not have to have a law to reestablish the definition of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. When you attempt to do so, you will very likely run up against established law.
nomocrow, May 14 2010
  

       // I suspect that the only thing that rich and poor conservatives share is a deep and abiding racism. //   

       I'm sorry but I find that quite offensive, while I do suspect that your other notions about rich conservatives using poor ones to further their agenda is right on the nose. But I suppose that occurs in both parties now, doesn't it?   

       21Q: here's the reality which you may or may not be grounded in: your need to be right all the time, pick stupid fights, get ultra-defensive, shoot down every other idea, or explain obvious jokes sucked the life out of the bakery like an aged succubus and makes people want to run away screaming.
RayfordSteele, May 14 2010
  

       Please note I've edited my above coment to clarify my position. I don't like the implied connection with other comments you'll see above here which I disagree with.   

       [opts out of further discussion as I don't like where this has headed]
Custardguts, May 14 2010
  

       Sometimes you just rub many people the wrong way, and when you do that, you get called on it. You've yet to accomodate those that are frequently annoyed by it by trying a new route, and so you end up getting brushed off or ignored or attacked, because a personal attack seems about the only way to get you to take notice. No further comment is necessary from me.
RayfordSteele, May 15 2010
  

       It always amazes me when someone thinks being nice is a chore. Or a burden to bear, a thing to be appreciated for.   

       "Nice" should be one's main operating mode, normal tone of being, usually always, never even stop to think about it, "nice", every day, one would think. I think. (And the other stuff, like anger, sadness, frustration, are the more rare occurrence.)
blissmiss, May 15 2010
  

       Our collective consciousness of human history is quite vague, as general as collective consciousness is, and emerges rather slowly as artefactual discoveries are unearthed and contextualized with imagination and guessing. It makes sense then that given history's ethereal character that it is rather difficult to say what was first, then second and what came before for that and thereafter or what-have-you. That's about the history that we know we don't know, but even when we know we know what happened and in what order the first thing becomes alien to the second thing. A came before B, but B being alien from A in the first place, as A was not causative of B, alienates A. This is the disordered state of our collective cognition: the first thing becomes alien in time and space to the second thing. The chicken and the egg, Texans and Mexicans, writing and thought.
rcarty, May 15 2010
  

       Kick ALL immigrants out of America.   

       Restore the country to the original people, the so-called Red Indians.
neelandan, May 15 2010
  

       //Kick ALL immigrants out of America// and their descendents presumably?   

       Didn't the //Red Indians// migrate from Siberia over the land bridge?   

       I have to agree with the logical conclusion here, that enforced extinction of the human species is the only sensible solution. People can be given the choice between euthanasia or sterilisation, so it can't be dismissed as cruel or coercive.
pocmloc, May 15 2010
  

       21 Quest, - don’t get distracted by this “nice/not nice” argument, that’s not what it’s about. You can be as nice or not nice as you like, that’s not the issue. It’s more about the dogmatic opinions you hold and defend. They’re the sort of belief structures that a primitive person or young child or a bigot would demonstrate, all the while, demonstrating an equal lack of flexibility and protecting their fear of moving forward to a new site of knowledge. You see it all the time in life, in a variety of varied circumstances. The people who not only don’t agree with x people because they are y or do z, but consider that the solution is to eliminate x or y or z from their lives. This defensive approach demonstrates acute inflexibility, which, if you were to observe a scale or continuum, would have sophistication and flexibility of thinking at the opposite end.   

       This is what’s causing the smell in here — the fixed unsophisticated approach, not the rudeness or niceness or otherwise. I personally think it’s fine to be unsophisticated and appearing a bit stupid, as I am myself often, but when I am, I know I am, and I allow myself to be. With you, it’s as if you don’t know the possible variation of response available, and of course the consequence of that is that you defend your position (and who wouldn’t, under such a situation).   

       The only thing I’d suggest is that you realise this: Wherever you are in life (and you’re only partway through it), you got there by certain means and methods and they seem to you to be the good ones, because they got you this far. However, other people got where they are using sometimes different means and methods, and they too consider their position successful.   

       But there’s nothing innate at all about your means, methods and ways — they’re merely the first ones you tripped across and found to work. There’s others, and other people use those. Some of those others are pretty useless and unhelpful, with disappointing or tragic results. But some are pretty good, and are more efficient than the ones you already use.   

       The trick is, to appropriate better behaviour that you see in other people, and steal it for yourself, if it works better than what you’ve got. The behaviour isn’t you. You’re you. The behaviour is just a garment you wear. What you’ve got already might have got you where you are now, so it works, but what you don’t ever know is whether there’s another way just around the corner that works ten times better than the one you’re wearing. If there is, and you see it, don’t be afraid to change the behaviour you have for the better one. That sort of flexibility is a winning approach in the long run.   

       (ps, remind me of this when I do what you’re doing (again))
Ian Tindale, May 15 2010
  

       I had noticed some improvement from time to time, and you're right in that it should've been applauded, because change is damn hard, especially when it bumps against history. I know that. I went through something similar early on, and taught the hard way by people who at the same time amazed me by their brilliant creativity and annoyed me by their rough handling of me at the time. I didn't understand and thought they simply had it out for me. But I learned from it. I'm not the jerk you think me to be. Sorry for the thread hijack.
RayfordSteele, May 15 2010
  

       Ian, that is one of the most sensible, inoffensive, bit of advice I think I have ever come across. And so well writ. Who knew you could be so level minded and reflective at the same time.
blissmiss, May 16 2010
  

       I've never been in jail.
nomocrow, May 17 2010
  

       //But I suppose that occurs in both parties now, doesn't it? // Indeed.   

       And sorry about the "Up Your's, racist."
nomocrow, May 17 2010
  

       // Who knew you could be so level minded and reflective at the same time. //   

       We did. That's why we have avoided Assimilating him. He'd be a very bad infkuence.
8th of 7, May 17 2010
  

       //It’s more about the dogmatic opinions you hold and defend. They’re the sort of belief structures that a primitive person or young child or a bigot would demonstrate, all the while, demonstrating an equal lack of flexibility and protecting their fear of moving forward to a new site of knowledge. You see it all the time in life, in a variety of varied circumstances.//   

       Hey, I don't have a dog in this fight, but turnabout is fair play, and there's definitely something to be said about the sanctimonious attitude displayed by people who think their point of view is more sophisticated, liberal or progressive.   

       People consistently conflate so-called liberal concepts as innately more informed, or morally superior. With the self-same lack of flexibility, dogmatic approach and protectionism that you criticise above.   

       I can easily see how [21] gets riled up, with people sneering down their noses at him all the time.   

       We are all fallible. Our viewpoints are limited to our own experience, and there is no universal truth.   

       But we should all agree that playing together nicely is the right thing to do.
Custardguts, Feb 24 2014
  

       Slightly off-topic but... If I'm Mexican, and I want to go on holiday to Dakota, what happens?
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 24 2014
  

       I don't think there's a quota or waiting list for visitor's visas, but it does appear that the process is non-trivial and involves fingerprinting. This is probably meant to discourage those who plan to miss the return flight.   

       See link.
scad mientist, Feb 24 2014
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle