• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Modest immigration proposal

Minoosh

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
12,761
No, I'm not going to suggest we eat illegal immigrant children, an idea I saw today on a Fox News message board. However, the Fox comments got me to thinking. One called for sending illegal immigrants to GITMO. It sounded kind of mean, but then I wondered: What if Congress and the president agreed to build a concentration camp? We would call it a concentration camp. We would let people know that if they get caught crossing illegally, or are otherwise determined to be probably here illegally, that they would be detained indefinitely, pending a transparent legal process. Calling the facility a concentration camp might convince some conservatives to literally get out of the way so we could process these children (and grownups) in an orderly way; operating it as a humanitarian concern could secure liberal buy-in. But what could really sell the plan is the practical benefits.

Illegal immigrants would have no danger of leaking into the labor market, which is a big concern. Often they will work harder for less money and under poorer conditions than American workers. This is not fair to American workers, who chose to enter the U.S. legally via their mother's birth canal.

Then we get Congress to pass sweeping legislation to put the migrants to work immediately on vast marijuana farms. Due to climate concerns, we might have to outsource production of other drugs. Coca doesn't do well in the continental U.S., apparently. Opium poppies, I'm not sure about. GITMO might come in to play. The business plan is simple: Produce a great product in staggering quantities.

The product would be seized, pending legislation to feed government-stockpiled drugs to everyone who wants them, in an orderly way. By making all recreational drugs affordable and legal, we would find out quickly who would succumb to addiction and who wouldn't. Those who find heroin or cannabis more alluring than work could go live at the concentration camp, where they would be given a bottomless supply of whatever they want, plus Wi-Fi and munchies.

This immediately solves many problems with gangs and drug cartels. It creates jobs, by both increasing agriculture and removing people who'd rather be stoned and unemployed from the labor market. For each American who chooses to retire in this fashion, a job might be opened up for an immigrant. (BTW, I'm all for making them learn English. I'm an English teacher, among other things). It could save a lot in health-care costs, because drug-related violence would be vastly reduced. Prison costs would go down, because many crimes would disappear, and many prisons could be converted to agricultural use.

This can't really be laissez-faire. The private sector doesn't have the resources to do this. It will take a lot of political will to build the camps, alter drug laws, set up drug-production infrastructure and create an orderly process for the intake of drug addicts into custody (They don't necessarily have to be locked up indefinitely; but while they are being stabilized on the substance regime short-term incarceration might be desirable.) The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, so we have the experience. We also have experience creating agricultural surpluses. The illegal immigrants would be creating actual wealth - too much of it to dump on an open market, IMO. No, the point is to create enough supply to radically alter the supply-and-demand dynamic, making cartels irrelevant, which in turn might improve life in Latin America enough to reduce illegal immigration.

To me this scenario solves a variety of problems. Put people to work who want to work; let people who don't want to work stop working; neutralize organized crime cartels; help addicts reach their "bottoms" so they can figure out what they want out of life and do something about it or not as they see fit. Boomers would get their weed - a bipartisan issue if I ever saw one. The U.S. could become a net exporter of drugs, possibly improving the balance of trade. And actually the problem of prison capacity largely takes care of itself, because with fewer laws to break there will be fewer criminals to lock up at taxpayer expense. Plus, government welfare checks won't be spent on drugs - no need - babies will get their milk or medicine or whatever. Also, it could strengthen America militarily, by offering citizenship opportunities for young people willing to serve in the Armed Forces, and it could even help the environment, reducing degradation due to off-road trafficking, cutting transportation costs and reaping solar energy to both grow the crops and power the farms.

This all seems humane to me, and possibly even constitutional. But I do believe the government needs to take the lead. If lawmakers can focus on getting this up and running it could yield tremendous benefits.
 
This sounds like something written under the influence of the aformentioned substances.
 
What if the migrants, you know, take issue with harvesting drugs? For religious reasons and such? Or do you not think they would have morals like the rest of us?
 
This sounds like something written under the influence of the aformentioned substances.

Medications, but none of the aforementioned.

What if the migrants, you know, take issue with harvesting drugs? For religious reasons and such? Or do you not think they would have morals like the rest of us?

That is a good question and something to plan for. An opt-out provision could provide for alternative employment, perhaps harvesting morally defensible crops such as tobacco and iceberg lettuce. Or, they could waive immigration proceedings and be returned to their native country.

I got to concentration camps. Was the rest worth it?

Biscuit, absolutely yes, for you especially, since you know the terrain for a possible pilot project. The facility where Mexican children were to be taken near Oracle used to be a concentration camp.

http://www.experience-az.com/About/arizona/places/catalinafederalhonorcamp.html

In addition, the state owns Catalina Mountain School, just off Oracle Road. As far as I know it is still closed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalina_Mountain_School

We can call it a labor camp, an interment camp or Camp Punchurticket - the "concentration camp" terminology was an effort to placate patriots such as Adam Kwasman, Russell Pearce and Steve Babeu who might otherwise block the road to the facility. It might sound too draconian for them, but I doubt it.

I am eager for input. Thank you for reading as far as you did.
 
There was never a concentration camp in arizona. We had many WWII prison camps in fact the Phoenix zoo was one, that's why there is a moat around it.

Concentration camp has a connotation that no one should want to be associated with. I care not for appealing to the desires of anyone who would be comfortable or pleased with calling something a concentration camp.
 
There was never a concentration camp in arizona. We had many WWII prison camps in fact the Phoenix zoo was one, that's why there is a moat around it.

I was thinking of interment camps. The link indicated the site was used to house 44 Japanese during WWII. I know about the Phoenix Zoo camp.

There were some German POWs there who got hold of a map and escaped, planning to float down the Gila River to Mexico. When they saw that wasn't going to work, they went back to the camp.

Concentration camp has a connotation that no one should want to be associated with. I care not for appealing to the desires of anyone who would be comfortable or pleased with calling something a concentration camp.

Perhaps there's another term. I don't want to placate psychopaths, but I'd like some form of comprehensive immigration reform to move forward. IMO, that won't happen without a punishment aspect. Not if people are physically trying to block roads to facilities for processing paperwork. The bills so far have included punishment in the form of fines, but that gets labeled "amnesty."

I have watched bill after bill fail - and not just because of the GOP, either. I have just about concluded that it suits both parties to have an undocumented underclass that will eat crap Americans won't eat. In other words, the status quo.

ETA: Detention facility, maybe?
 
Last edited:
If you want concentration camps full of refugees then look at what happens to the boat people (another name for refugees) who come to Australia. This is no joke. See this articles about the issue

The Commonwealth Government is suing its former immigration detention operators for failing to protect it against lawsuits lodged by people kept in detention facilities.

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nat...--operators-20111010-1v59v.html#ixzz37yOXS1vA

An asylum seeker who lost an eye in an outbreak of violence on Manus Island is suing the federal government and security company G4S.

Read more: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...-government-20140701-3b5dp.html#ixzz37yOfb0hS

THE federal government faces a wave of costly litigation for compensation over its treatment of refugees in immigration detention centres, including Villawood, as lawyers examine the cases of scores of former inmates.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ion-centres-20120713-2219u.html#ixzz37yOlOtDm

The Abbott government is potentially facing tens of millions of dollars in compensation payouts in dozens of lawsuits filed by injured asylum seekers, sparking a bitter feud between the Commonwealth and private detention camp operators over who should foot the bill.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nat...ury-claims-20140718-zu0se.html?skin=text-only

In theory locking up refugees is a good idea. However in practice it is a very expensive thing to do and gives only political benefits.
 
If you want concentration camps full of refugees then look at what happens to the boat people (another name for refugees) who come to Australia. This is no joke. See this articles about the issue

Thanks for the links which I will look at in detail today. I hope people understood that my term "concentration camp" was akin in spirit to Earl Long's technique for getting more black nurses hired in Louisiana hospitals. He told black leaders they wouldn't like his methods, then went to work.

I thought the "round 'em all up" rhetoric would appeal to a certain segment of the U.S. population. But I could see that the "send 'em all back to where they came from" part was geographically a lot more complicated than many people think. The camp in Oracle where the road was "blocked" used to be a prison camp, then an interment camp, and I wondered if this fact would help people understand it was being used as a holding facility, not a summer camp. It also occurred to me that a nearby youth prison had been shut down by the state and might still be operable as a housing/processing center.

I didn't know Australia actually did this.

But, this is the kind of feedback I was looking for. We are talking about large numbers of people, and we currently don't have the detention capacity. I see the choices as large-scale detention, small-scale detention or releasing people into the community.
 
Last edited:
Plain old open borders combined with law enforcement cooperation between countries would make more sense.

George W. Bush, John McCain, Ted Kennedy and others tried hard to sell a similar model. Although "open borders" turns some conservatives off, there's evidence that making it harder to cross spurred more seasonal workers to move their families to the U.S. with them. An unintended consequence, I think.

"Securing" the border was always part of immigration reform, and a lot of money has been spent, but for some reason many people still believe that nothing has been done. Since the border will never be 100 percent secure (IMO), calling for the border to be secured before comprehensive reform is a way to postpone dealing with the issue.
 
George W. Bush, John McCain, Ted Kennedy and others tried hard to sell a similar model. Although "open borders" turns some conservatives off, there's evidence that making it harder to cross spurred more seasonal workers to move their families to the U.S. with them. An unintended consequence, I think.

"Securing" the border was always part of immigration reform, and a lot of money has been spent, but for some reason many people still believe that nothing has been done. Since the border will never be 100 percent secure (IMO), calling for the border to be secured before comprehensive reform is a way to postpone dealing with the issue.

True enough. The simple fact is, we'd have to build something significantly more substantial than The Great Wall of China and somehow man it to actually secure the border. It's pretty much an impossible task unless you're willing to put so much manpower into it that you'll effectively break the country (worse than it already is) in doing it. I think we should concentrate on what we CAN do and work with Mexico to find some way to completely open the borders between the two countries. Such a policy would be good for both countries, actually.

Last I knew, Mexico actually already has an open border policy with regard to Americans crossing the border the other way. It's time we find a way to reciprocate. Perhaps we could just go ahead and let them in as long as they register and get ID at the border or something... or accept whatever Mexico uses for identification for our own purposes somehow. Identification is part of the problem. The language difference compounds it, of course.

There might also be something with regard to tax policies that can be used if we allow the legal employment of such people outside of the the current exclusionary green card system. It's even quite possible that the DMV could also issue green cards/immigrant ID, if that makes sense. Some of the extensive background check required for legal immigration can actually come AFTER the preliminary ID is issued, since we will likely eventually find them anyway if they're wanted in Mexico or something.

I actually don't think that this would harm us economically, BTW. I'm sure someone out there can make a case for it, but I'm skeptical that it would compared to the current set of problems if it's done right. First and foremost, it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper than what we do now.

Of course, marijuana legalization might be necessary too, if we were to do this... but we're already part way there.
 
Last edited:
True enough. The simple fact is, we'd have to build something significantly more substantial than The Great Wall of China and somehow man it to actually secure the border.

Hey! Have the immigrants build it! If they stuck to the Mexican side, we could outsource our illegal immigrants (and wall them out at the same time).

Last I knew, Mexico actually already has an open border policy with regard to Americans crossing the border the other way. It's time we find a way to reciprocate.

There's a turnstile. Bienvenidos a Mexico. Love it.
 
Plain old open borders combined with law enforcement cooperation between countries would make more sense.

The only problem there is a key one - At the moment, Mexico is not that much of a country and has not much control of a lot of it's people - Maybe not as bad as Honduras and Guatemala, but I really can't see cooperation with governments/their police when those police are under the impression that bribes are gifts from god/a nice job perc.......

Now, if Mexican police start shooting narco's and coyotes on sight, I'll be happy to listen.......
 
The only problem there is a key one - At the moment, Mexico is not that much of a country and has not much control of a lot of it's people - Maybe not as bad as Honduras and Guatemala, but I really can't see cooperation with governments/their police when those police are under the impression that bribes are gifts from god/a nice job perc.......

Now, if Mexican police start shooting narco's and coyotes on sight, I'll be happy to listen.......

Personally, I doubt that stereotype is as widespread as the American media tends to suggest. On top of that, these aren't problems that we don't also have here occasionally. It may be a somewhat deserved stereotype (I don't know) but I really don't think it can possibly be as pervasive (or as different) as suggested.
 
Last edited:
fuelair hit the nail on the head: Mexico is not much of a country. They have no means to fight the cartels. Hell, the cartels are pretty much in charge of vast swaths of Mexico. That's what all the violence is about. Remember that the Zetas used to be Federal Police.

The government of Mexico is bought and paid for by the cartels. And before the cartels got big, Mexico still wasn't much of a government. The Federales were corrupt, elections were a joke. They have never had much of an interest in stopping people from leaving and now they are actually profiting from helping them get here.

We can't depend on our neighbors to the south to fix the problem. This is our problem. I am all for large-scale detention on the border and expedited immigration trials. This is the solution: You catch them, take care of their humanitarian needs while we detain them, then send them back. Once you release them into communities, you will never see most of them again.

Alternatively, we simply allow them to immigrate and give them legal status. But I think all of us understand the problems such a policy would cause.
 
Maybe we should fix the problem the other direction and just move the southern border to the north side of the Panama Canal.
 

Back
Top Bottom