shall they be turned away?
"People don't so much lose their freedom as gain their enslavement" - [can't remember who said that]
Immigration reform is a classic political football. You have a problem ... so the pols use it as a lever to put something over on the American people. What they really want to establish is a precedent for ...
Nazi-Stalinist style "informing" on family members
It's as old as politics. Here is the reason for it.
The Universal Politician
There is only one politician. He is the one who "knows" what's best for America because he is "God's gift to humanity" and therefore all he need do to ... "insure domestic tranquility" is have the power to ...
For clearly, it is obvious to anyone that if all the people just obey the law, everything will go smoothly ... because ... the law is perfect.
So it is written ... so shall it be.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is just the "truths" that each knows to be in our best interest. The democrat knows that the will of the majority is the will of God and he will ride to power on the promise to give away everyone else's money (whilst pocketing a small sum for managing the transference). Whereas the Republicans know that the rights of the individual are vested with the power of God ... and that these individuals are ... those who have lots and lots of money to invest in their campaigns.
The key ingredient is that each needs power to force compliance, i.e. their will is to be backed up with a gun.
What a politician is not
You will never ... ever ... in all history ... see a politician advocate a policy such as my idea to transfer control of government spending to the people themselves as I did here. Anything that reduces the power of politicians will never be heard about. Anything that increases their power will be heard about and you will have the opportunity to vote yourselves progressively into slavery by small degrees. You won't, however, have the opportunity to vote yourselves OUT by the same method.
Politicians have only one goal. It is the acquisition and use of power as an end in itself. Power is the "ability to destroy the lives of others ... with impunity". The exact equation is
If you don't get it now ... don't worry ... you're gonna' get it all right ...
The Theoretical Effects of Immigration
Suppose we take two countries in complete social equilibrium ... "A" and "B". They can be of differing size. Let us take a quantity "x" from each country and exchange them. What is the effect on each country?
Now suppose that in the above scenario, the red color designates the "social temperature of that culture". I define social temperature as "hot=red" for a more primitive culture and "cool=blue" for a more advanced culture. Then, analogous to heat transfer, the blue culture will lose some of their kool (its advanced status) and the red culture will gain some kool. This is because the advanced culture has more to offer than the less advanced one.
I use cold for advanced and heat for primitive because that is the way it actually is. The advanced culture is more likely to approach matters in a cooler, intellectually detached way than the more primitive which is more likely to go off half cocked without thinking, i.e. the more advanced is more intellectual and the less advanced is more emotional.
Now, such an exchange would result in both cultures becoming resentful of the other because ...
In the case of the cooler culture, they lose some of their earned advancement ... and ... some part of their identity. That is, their sense of "self" is changed rapidly without transition and this feels as though one has lost one's autonomy. They feel that their culture has changed without their participation. Their anticipated rate of advancement has been altered (in this case slowed). They are angry and feel cheated of both some portion of advancement and their right to do it their own way. Of the two losses, Loss of Advancement ... is far less hurtful than ... Loss of Autonomy. As I have explained elsewhere, one's autonomy is one's most important possession and it's loss is akin to enslavement wherein you are told by another what you can and cannot do.
In the case of the hotter culture ... they gain some advancement (perceived as a good thing for them) ... but ... they too lose some of their autonomy because they have not achieved the advance. Their culture has changed rapidly without their complete participation and so they also feel "enslaved" ... and ... they are treated as lesser beings. The result is mutual distrust and resentment, one for the other. The degree of resentment is proportional to the difference in social temperature between the two cultures and the transfer percentage (how many immigrants went across the border compared to the initial population of the destination country). That is ... to both the quantity and quality of the overall transfer.
The actual case between Mexico and the United States is closer to the transfer of many Mexicans to the United States and few Americans moving to Mexico. The reason for the disparity is that Mexico is less advanced than the United States. Thus, in general, one is technologically (physically) better off living in America than in Mexico. Hence, the transfer is more one way than the other. Also, though graft is rampant in the USA, it's even worse in Mexico (shit! is that actually possible?). So, they are politically less advanced as well.
I know that many Americans retire to Mexico. I do not know the number, but suspect that it is much less than the number of Mexicans coming to stay in the United States. If that number is identical, that, of course, obviates the "quantity" aspect of the above rule and the only remaining aspects would be qualitative.
There is also a problem of population density. In the USA the population density is about 30 persons per square kilometer. In China ... about 135. In India ... about 330. In Japan ... about 340. And in Mexico ... about 55. So, you can see that we're not really in trouble here by a long shot as compared to India and Japan. And Japan supports a fairly advanced culture as we all know. Thus, even though the US border is fixed and the population rising due to illegal immigration, that increase is imperceptible except at the local levels in Texas and California, i.e. the border regions.
As to the level of advancement in Mexico as compared to the United States, there is a disparity of less than gargantuan proportions. Mexicans do have electricity. They have cars and traffic lights and hospitals. There are scientific researchers there as in the United States though not as many and China probably has more than the United States (or will soon in the future). I'm going to guestimate that the level of advancement differential between Mexico and the USA, all things considered, is something on the level of USA=8 to Mexico=7. It's certainly not somewhere in the 8 to 2 area and it's definitely not an equality. It's something reasonable.
Now, we have an increase in population yearly ... due to illegal immigration ... of perhaps say, 0.25 percent (it's probably somewhat less) and those people are (remember) unskilled ... so the level of advancement of the illegals is probably more on the order of 8 to 5.
With this estimate, I conclude that the problem of illegal immigration is quantitatively insignificant at the national level, but has some definite significance at the state level particularly in the border states and ... close to that border it might be an overbearing problem, i.e. too much for the local authorities to handle. That is, they can't process, feed, house, school, provide work for ... so many illegal aliens in the short time required.
There was one other issue concerning the fact that most of the illegals earnings were sent back to Mexico. This amount of money is probably less than the amount spent overseas by American tourists. The taxes that illegals don't pay here is also pitiful in quantity because they make very little and if they did make out tax forms they would probably get Earned Income Credit and we'd have to pay them some more for working here. I don't see this as economically significant either.
In short, the whole immigration thing is more of a social identity crisis rather than an economic, monetary problem ... and chiefly local as well. Hence, any proposed solution (from the pols) is likely to be irrational.
What should actually be done?
My recommendations are completely based on the above general facts and are as rational as I can make them. Consequently, there is no chance at all that they could be implemented by "politicians" as this would require an ability to do "forced induction" which, as I have explained elsewhere, is impossible, in principle, for politicians. ;o)
An Open Border with Mexico
In addition to those entering with regular passports and temporary visas, anyone may come into the United States when the following provisions are met.
1) Any adult must be able speak (and read) passable English (and prove it by speaking the language to an examiner). Thus, to come to the United States, you must prove your true desire by "studying" the language so you can fit in right away when you get here. (This could be waved for really old or young people who are just coming to stay with a working immigrant and will be supported by that worker).
So, to come here, you have to see an examiner at the border who will ask you questions in English and you will have to fill out English forms about who you are and where you are going and who you will stay with, etc. You would also get fingerprinted and mug shots for law inforcement info and you'd receive a type of passport with your picture and a number on it to show that you've been righteously processed to work and live in the USA.
Can you fake this ID? No.
This will solve the flood at illegal crossing points, i.e. across the desert and through the woods at risk to life and limb with a coyote at exorbitant prices. It will also, of course, result in a flood of people coming here... perhaps even doubling the influx from illegals. This can be mitigated from the other end. Mexico has a great deal to offer to Americans. There is opportunity there for me (as well as business), like for Americans who are planning to retire. In Mexico, you could actually live on your social security check. This would be a boon to the Mexican economy as well. Imagine droves of retirees going to Mexico to live out their lives where it's warm. There's lots of jobs for Mexicans generated by such retirement as well. I'd go there myself if it were "the thing to do". Certainly, I won't be able to retire anytime in the USA on my presently expected retirement "portfolio". I'm dead meat. I have to work till I die.
For it's part, Mexico would do the same as the United States. To go to Mexico as a permanent resident alien, I'd have to demonstrate my ability to speak Spanish and fill our Spanish forms and that my retirement income was enough to support myself in that country. There would be American retirement communities all over (there are some there now, I'm sure). It could be really good ... if people were more rational. But they are not ... so ... let's just go to war and kill each other ... like the Jews and Palestinians ... forever and ever and ever ....