Who else sees the immigration issue as I do - as a no-win scenario? Right now, funding for President Trump's wall has just been removed, albeit temporarily according to Trump, in hopes of increasing the chances of a budget agreement so as to avoid a potential government shut-down. I'm no expert on the matter, obviously, but from what little I do know, I can't help but play devil's advocate here. Unlike much of the populist GOP, I'm not convinced that most of these "undocumented" immigrants from Mexico and South America, anyway, are threats either to Americans' personal safety or their jobs, especially since (unfortunately) they tend to work jobs that many naturally-born Americans won't. For me, the problem is that everyone wants to judge based on morality, but that morality only ever seems to take the side of the American citizens or the undocumented immigrants, never really representing or serving the common good.
I never believed in Trump's wall or that Mexico would pay for it. The President talks about it stemming the flow of drugs, but those that don't get detected by border security are generally smuggled in via underground tunnels or via drops in the desert from low-flying airplanes, which cartel members in the States will at least try to retrieve in the middle of the night even as law enforcement tries to prevent it. At the same time, a judge has blocked President Trump's executive order to decrease funding for sanctuary cities and that just makes no sense to me. I'm against this being done by executive order instead of with Congress, but good or bad, is not the undocumented crossing back and forth across any national border a violation of existing law - "criminal" or not, and regardless of who does or does not enforce it? This seems to me to be a judge preventing the President from enforcing or, at the very least, strengthening a law or set of laws that BOTH are sworn to uphold unless and until it/they are amended or repealed! And, to be clear, we're not talking about an executive order that actually drives these immigrants away. All it does is decrease federal funding going to areas of the country whose local governments INTENTIONALLY ignore people's citizenship status or even go out of their way to protect these "undocumented" people.
My opinion is that we do not need to be aggressively seeking out and rounding up undocumented immigrants for deportation, especially not from Mexico. That said, American society is increasingly dependent upon the federal government. Does that not require the government to have data which is as accurate as possible about how many people there are within its borders? If you know you're going to have to provide food for guests, do you not need to know roughly how many there will be? It's really quite simple, yet the same Democrats who seem to want what would inevitably a tightly controlled and super-standardized socialized healthcare system, employers to pay a higher minimum wage, and the rich to pay more in taxes - presumably to help pay for the increasing number of entitlements and social programs - do not seem to see the dangers inherent in the uncontrolled or, at the very least, unacknowledged growth and rate thereof of a population of people who not only pay ZERO taxes, but also BENEFIT from jobs offered by unscrupulously low-wage employers (who also don't pay taxes on those employees) and have been known to receive unemployment and other benefits traditionally reserved for legal citizens with or without forged documentation or refugee status. How does it benefit these people to let this situation go unchecked?
Yes, with the proposed amnesty they get to stay in America... if they want to... but the reality is that many do not! Many cross back and forth, over and over again, and prefer it that way. This makes the suggestion of amnesty a proverbial TRAP and potential DETERRENT! Why? Because, unless I misunderstand, it might force these immigrants to pay taxes out of what wold likely be already low wages (particularly for the unskilled that only speak Spanish) from employers forced to offer legal and, thus, higher wages and pay taxes on those wages, which could impact the overall number of jobs available. The only real upside for these immigrants might be that they qualify for more government assistance, but that "upside" would almost certainly be short-lived as it would naturally and understandably spawn an even greater, so-called "anti-immigrant" resentment and put such amnesty measures at imminent political risk that would be difficult to defend against. Worse, it risks becoming an excuse for governments like Mexico's to quit trying harder to address the problems that drive their citizens out, in the first place. Ironically, Mexico allegedly has even stricter measures in place to keep people from South America out, but if only one side is expected to take responsibility for the problem of Mexican citizens feeling like they have to leave and get to America any way they can, regardless of laws or why they exist, then no would-be solution is ever really going to work.
Even after all of that, I do not believe in complaining about an issue without at least offering some semblance and/or part of a potential solution. As with other issues such as industrial pollution affecting climate change, I think the government should use more incentives than sticks to deal with immigration. If we don't want these people coming back and forth or staying without the same responsibilities, such as paying taxes, as American citizens, then we need to find ways of making the "path to citizenship" a little quicker and easier. I also think that the way in which we are guarding the border and trying to keep people out is making the task of crossing so harrowing and dangerous that it is backfiring by turning those that try and succeed into heroes, which has to be a factor in the number of Americans that sympathize and the number of sanctuary cities we see popping up or making themselves known since Trump took office. It also turns illegal immigration into an illicit, yet profitable underground business, with Mexicans that save money for years just to be "smuggled" across the border like so much product. Then, their chances of making it alive are too often no better than 50/50, creating even more work for law enforcement on both sides and an untold number of senseless tragedies which stir emotions and make this issue even harder to objectively address. At the end of the day, however, I am against letting these things convince us that, because these people aren't imminent threats, we should just bide our time and turn a blind eye until someone comes up with a compassionate AND effective solution.
In conclusion, I don't think such a solution exists. There will always be downsides and sacrifices. The goal should be deciding upon which downsides and sacrifices we're willing to live with, whether they come with amnesty or with increased (if not stricter or harsher) enforcement of current immigration laws. I tend to favor the latter, but unfortunately, I do not believe anyone has presented an effective way of better enforcing immigration laws with, as it is, acceptable and hopefully mitigated downsides and risks, etc. Until then, that is why this remains (IMO) a no-win scenario.
