Procrastination

Why are you using words WE and OUR? Are you an American? If so then its alright.

I think that a guest worker program is a far better approach than providing a “one time legalization,” which, as you point out, rewards illegal behavior and sets an expectation for future repeat performances. The guest worker program also has the advantage of providing freer movement back and forth across borders. One unintended consequence of stepped up border patrols is that illegals, which formerly moved back and forth according to the seasons, are now staying in the US because it is just to difficult to get back in!

There are all kinds of people who fall under the “illegal immigrant” classification so I don’t think a single measure will suffice. The “illegal immigration problem” is a meaningless term to me. Without first understanding how these people’s and our lives are adversely affected or threatened by their extra-legal presence within our borders, I don’t see how we can begin to approach this “problem.”

There may be practical reasons to regulate it but migration in search of a better life is not just an American characteristic but a human one. If this is one of the things that our immigration policy is based on then it certainly doesn’t seem evident, for instance when we talk about migrant labor.

As for security, worrying about the intentions of everyone whom our immigration laws make illegal is akin to worrying about the intentions of all Arabic-speaking people in our midst.

Alas, yes, regulating migration is a necessary evil. Having said that, I also feel that being an illegal immigrant is kinda like having gay sex in a place that has anti-sodomy laws.

Seriously, though, if people are not being adequately screened before entering the country then, yes, every attempt should be made to close that hole. My point however was that, for instance, if someone who enters the country through proper channels (including screening) overstays his visa then that doesn’t make him any more dangerous than the rest of us. There may be other reasons to track him down but security isn’t necessarily one of them.

My point however was that, for instance, if someone who enters the country through proper channels (including screening) overstays his visa then that doesn’t make him any more dangerous than the rest of us. There may be other reasons to track him down but security isn’t necessarily one of them.

Overstaying a visa might not automatically make someone more dangerous, but keeping track of all non-citizens in the U.S. seems like it could be useful for many security purposes.

…keeping track of all non-citizens in the U.S. seems like it could be useful for many security purposes.

So would keeping track of all citizens.

aslam: My point however was that, for instance, if someone who enters the country through proper channels (including screening) overstays his visa then that doesn’t make him any more dangerous than the rest of us. There may be other reasons to track him down but security isn’t necessarily one of them.

anon: keeping track of all non-citizens in the U.S. seems like it could be useful for many security purposes.

aslam: So would keeping track of all citizens.

So exactly which point do you wish to make: that keeping track of people who have overstayed visas has no security purpose, or that keeping track of non-citizens does have security purposes, but is unfair/unreasonable/unjust?

So exactly which point do you wish to make: that keeping track of people who have overstayed visas has no security purpose, or that keeping track of non-citizens does have security purposes, but is unfair/unreasonable/unjust?

The point I wish to make is that the distinction between citizen and non-citizen provides little that would be useful for security purposes. Rather than casting the net wider than it already is, it’d be more effective to meticulously gather intelligence that would lead us to the potential miscreants. For this we’d want to enroll individuals from the very populations that we alienate by getting them entangled in our net because they share some broad classifications with our “enemy.”

Zack, you’re correct about the lack of discussion about the constraints on the use of any measures that compromise our privacy and freedom. In the absence of a thorough system of oversight and accountability with the aim of protecting our Constitutional rights, I wouldn’t even consider anything as far-reaching as a nationwide database of individuals’ DNA.

I highly suggest that you find a dictionary and find the word regularizing, I think you might have a hard time because it does not exist. If you are willing to post your comments on the net then make sure that you are not looking foolish. I think the word you may have been trying to use is regulating, look it up. Just some advice for next time.