ajax18 wrote: ... do we have an illegal immigration problem in the USA?
Chap wrote:
Pretty well every country has some measure of illegal immigration, whether from simple illegal border-crossing or overstaying visas.
However, the financial and manpower resources that any country can or should devote to law enforcement are always limited. Rational countries make decisions as to what issues of illegal behaviour deserve the allocation of significant resources on the basis of harm done.
Has it been shown that illegal immigration is a crime that scores high enough in terms of harm done (when compared with hard drug trading, armed robbery, trafficking of women for sexual exploitation, internet fraud and a whole lot more) to justify a major increase in expenditure devoted to reducing it significantly?
I'd like to see the data.
ajax18 wrote:Still waiting for Kevin. I've seen him tell Markk we don't have an immigration problem. Themis's accusation that i'm lying about Kevin's view is bunk. Answer for us Kevin so we can demonstrate that.
OK, my response was water off a duck's back. I'll be more explicit.
Ajax18 asks 'do we have an illegal immigration problem?' That question is however, a good example of the kind of loaded questions that ought to be dealt with in a high-school course on critical thinking. It bundles together two questions:
(a) Does illegal immigration into the US take place?
The answer that any reasonable person gives to that question has to be 'yes', as it would be if 'US' was replaced by the name of pretty well any other country. I mean, even North Korea probably has
some illegal immigration.
(b) Is it a 'problem'? Well, that's a pretty vague word, and I suspect it is used precisely because it is vague. It is designed to bounce anybody who does not deny that
some illegal immigration takes place into sounding as if they believe that there is an urgent issue that demands a solution NOW, which may involve extraordinary measures like wall-building, sending in the military, and so on and so forth.
In reality, however, whether or not illegal immigration into the US does enough harm in comparison with other illegal activity to require an increase in border enforcement, checks on people's status, and so on, depends on a careful balancing of priorities. As I said above,
Has it been shown that illegal immigration is a crime that scores high enough in terms of harm done (when compared with hard drug trading, armed robbery, trafficking of women for sexual exploitation, internet fraud and a whole lot more) to justify a major increase in expenditure devoted to reducing it significantly?
I'd like to see the data.