"How much of a problem is illegal immigration in the UK or the rest of Europe? I've heard of some issues about immigration in France and Germany, but not much from the UK." -

The UK and Ireland share a common travel zone, and are excluded from the Schengen zone (where you can croos borders on continental Europe with border checks, needing a passport, or id) Immigrant workers in Spain and Italy (from North Africa) do various farm jobs at low costs (though recent economic adversity has forced some Spannish back into those jobs)

There is a problem around some French ports where migrants trying to get into the UK are stopped (and sometimes sneak onto trucks going across on ferries) they have been living in shanty towns.

In my expierence in Ireland (which has seen a lot of emmigration until recent years and virtually no immagration beyond 'locals' from the UK coming over) there are many workers from east Asia, and eastern europe (Polish workers in Ireland are free to move here as they are already EU citizens, and helped build up the housing bubble we suffered while sending money home or saving to set up businesses back in Poland - at the time Poland was suffering from some fairly serious brain drain and labour shortages but now that work here has dried up most of the Pole i know have gone back to Poland) There are still a lot of shop front workers and deli workers from Asia (and i can't tell you if they are all Chinese)

It is not a problem, especially compared to the problems caused by the recent banking crisis (too much regulation or too little?)

@ orathaic So mostly a legal sloshing about of labor in the EU, and a limited illegal immigration from N Africa. Quiet a different reality from the US.

within the EU most of the movement is legal (though the UK has set limits to the number of Rumanian and Bulgarian workers to be allowed enter) but I'm fairly sure the illegal immigration from North Africa (or people who came legally but overstayed their visa requirements) is considered a big problem here.

The difference being that new member states who were parts of the former Soviet Union are still relatively poor.

I guess though the legal or guest workers still would be subject to wage and other labor laws. Unless they worked for Ghostmaker.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7667169.stm

a litle bit of info on the issue with the EU.

"Sealing up the borders wouldn't be a bad idea, and then changing the laws so that only children born to US citizens are US citizens. That way we wouldn't have the problem of an illegal mother being here and having a kid, so then they can't deport the mother and leave the kid to fend for himself, ect, ect. Also, although this might sound crazy, it might be a good idea to give the border patrols authority to shoot on sight. I'm not entirely sure if this is the right path, but it's one to think about."

This was in the beginning of the thread, but I couldn't let it go unanswered.

The answer is NO! we cannot have border patrol able to shoot on sight. A lot of the Mexicans come over because they've lost all hope. They're usually dirt poor and are looking for any way out. The risk of death might scare away some, but not nearly enough.

Secondly, everyone would hate it. No one wants people to die. And just imagine if the illegal immigrants came with their own guns. Yeah, let's avoid this.

My favorite people in this thread are the ones who took me seriously...

@ rlumley- lol. I think there are enough redneck types that would honestly think the solution was to shoot them, so your response was believable. :D

"I guess though the legal or guest workers still would be subject to wage and other labor laws. Unless they worked for Ghostmaker." Ghostmaker wants to get rid of the minimum wage law completely (and I agree), so the immigrants would still be subject to the same laws as the normal citizen.

And Draugnar, I'm still waiting for some proof of this slave trade between the U.S. and Mexico that you mentioned.

There should not be any such thing as "illegal immigrants."

What I mean is, no country should have laws about how many people can come in and what kinds of people they can be. People should be able to live in whichever country they like.

The only exception I could abide would perhaps be a place that is very small and cannot hold anymore people. But even tiny Singapore has managed rather nicely to hold a huge number of people.

Immigrants are power. The more the better.

Let me put it this way, for clarity:

If all immigration is legal, then you have documentation of everyone who has entered the country.

The only "illegal" kind of immigration would be if someone on the FBI's most wanted list etc. tried to enter a country. They would be denied, and would have to "immigrate" "illegally." However everyone else, provided they have a reasonable criminal record, should be able to enter any country, so long as their presence is documented.

Meaning they are issued, say, a card that says their name and the name of the country issuing the card and their status. And if the cops pull them over they have to have the card. And it also means they can't vote and stuff. Issue them a kind of social security number (not because they'd get social security..... just in case you were about to freak out about that.)

This would allow you to prevent them from doing "things only citizens get to do" much more easily. It would also solve your "but what about TERRORISTS?????" problem. It would also solve the problem of all the terrible crimes that now result in human trafficking of immigrants as well as low (illegally low) wages. And statistics would be accurate. And Mexicans would hate us less. And the whole world would like us more. And fucking insular white people would start to realize that the world is 83% non-white people, and not only would they REALIZE it, they would have to DEAL with it. As in, learn to live side-by-side with these people.

If these types of laws were put into place, eventually, different kinds of people would live all over, and the idea of the nation-state would break down even more than it already has, and you would have a global government, and see the end of language barriers, race, and war.

But you know. That's not necessarily a worthy goal in everyone's eyes. Usually bigots' eyes.

Put another way: One of the biggest problems with the world, if you look around, is the fact that certain countries are willing to work for very different wages.

So like a Kenyan guy go fishing for $X/hour. A Mexican guy will do it for $1.5X/hour. Chinese guy will do it for $2X/hour. Turkish guy will do it for $3X/hour. French guy will do it for $5X/hour, and the fucking lazy-ass American won't do it for less than $10X/hour.

I'm exaggerating only in that I have not checked my facts. But I think we all know that the disparity is huge. This is primarily due to the fact that rich people live in rich societies live in poor societies, poor in poor societies. If we all lived in ONE society, there would be an international minimum wage, etc.

In general though.... Americans are going to have to learn to be willing to work for a lot less. If we're not willing, then we need to stop whining about outsourcing and getting "left behind" by developing economies.

The reason I say this, and not that hopefully everyone will have an American's wage, is that if everyone in the world made as much as the average American does (and by extension consumed as much as Americans do), we would need a lot more than we have here on Earth to survive longer than a few generations.

So it's either that or kill a whole lot of people. Decision time.

Yeah my rant's done.

Of course it's ultra-idealistic and extreme of me to say, but that's what it boils down to. I'm a moderate guy though. Any moderate policy which moves in the above direction has my support. The EU for instance.

I agree with the majority of this. :)
I like the idea of a card being handed out, but maybe also take their fingerprints and a photo to put into the system. This card would be the equivalent of a license, minus the ability to drive a car.
Get rid of Minimum wage. I know it has been beaten to death already, but minimum wage is a good idea, nothing more. In reality it does a lot more harm then good.

It's called human trafficking. Look it up. Educate yourself. I'm not here to be your research paper it exists and it happens between the US and Mexico just as surely as it happens between the former Soviet block countries and Europe.

You were fine until you hit the "global government" Thucy. I don't want to be part of some "global government". I like my national identity. I think my nation, despite it's flaws, is a great place to live and do not want it brought down to mediocrity by being one with Mozambique or Zimbabwe.

As far as rich/poor and costs of labor... Living in certain places in the world costs more than in others. That applies within a nation as well. So you analysis of the american fisherman charging 10 times the Kenyan is flawed. A Kentucky fisherman may only charge a little more than the Kenyan because Kentucky, despite being a gorgeous state, has a lower cost of living. A Manhattan fisherman may have to charge 100 times the Kenyan because maintaining even a hovel in Manhattan costs more than a palace in Kenya or Kentucky. You can't set a global cost of living when the economy is local. It's Economics 101.

Let me explain it a little better... Economies are local because they have to be. The cost of Maine Lobster is cheaper in Maine than in Tennessee. The cost of Caviar (the real stuff) is cheaper around the Caspian than in Los Angeles. The cost of Oranges in Florida is cheaper than in Michigan. These are facts brought about because the closer to the source of a product, the cheaper it is to get and the fresher (in the case of fruits and veggies or fresh seafood, for instance) it will be. As long as goods must be shipped, shippers charge to do so, and a premium is set on freshness, there will be s disparity in local economies. When you add in quality or rarity of goods, then it starts to effect the values in the local economies even more. Would you pay the same for locally grown corn on the cob fresh from the nearby farm as you would for corn shipped in from another state? I wouldn't! The locally grown corn is fresher and I know the source, so I'll pay more for it. But then I live in a region where corn is a staple for the farmers, along with cabbage and potatoes and tomatoes and carrots and... And it is all excellent. But, if I lived in Florida where there are no miles upon miles and acres upon acres of cornfields, I would pay more for the stuff from SW Ohio and Northern KY (or from Kansas for that matter) than anything somebody somehow managed to get to grow locally because I know it is from a region known for the quality of it's produce.

That is why economies are localized and costs of living and, therefore, wages must be too.

You wouldn't lost your national identity... it just wouldn't be the most important thing to you.

For instance, I identify as a Texan. Very strongly. But I identify more strongly as an American, and even more strongly as a member of the international system.

So I didn't lose even my STATE identity.

And I'm sorry if you think Mozambicans are somehow inferior to you, that you would not even want to share your identity with them.

Whoops, too late, you already do. They are humans with as many rights as you.

And my point was, that the REASON economies are local are because of restrictions on trade and the existence of nations.

And I disagree fundamentally with the idea that certain areas of the globe are destined to have different costs of living than others. The only way I might agree is in the case of say, the Sahara, but even then, measure can be implemented to offset that kind of thing.

I don't think Mozambiques are inferior to me. But they have a standard of living below what I consider acceptable for myself. I'm all for boosting their standard of living and improving the human condition everywhere, but I'm a selfish human who doesn't want to see my condition degrade to make it happen.

As far as a local economy goes and the cost of living... You can't possibly expect the cost of living in Las Vegas or San Antonio where all your perishable goods are shipped in to be the same as Kentucky or Ohio, where farm land is abundant. Shipping costs money. When you add or increase the costs of a step, it increases the costs of the good to the consumer. When the majority of your staples' costs are increased, then your cost of living goes up. It really is simple economics.

It is simple, which is why it is also simple to offset this imbalance.

Alternatively, one can imagine a truly freely mobile world where those places like you describe with inherently high costs of living get literally vacated.

Also, you sort of just proved my point about us selfish Americans. You don't want to degrade your own standard of living. Ok... that's what I expected you to say. But that's why I made the point that, tough luck, that's what has to happen.

This is because, if everyone on Earth had the standard of living an American, we would not have enough to go around more than a generation or so, and the standard of living would degrade in the form of famine, war, other disasters.

"I'm a selfish human who doesn't want to see my condition degrade to make it happen."

But you're arguing here with sympathy for illegal immigrants. The simple economics you're using also show that wages generally go down with an influx into the labour force. Assuming that illegal immigrants aren't involved in high productivity capital intensive lines of work but rather labour intensive industries, their increasing population and decreasing productivity will ultimately serve to lower the average standard of living in America.

I mean, simple microeconomics also shows that minimum wage legislation reduces employment rates. Sure you're helping the people that already have the jobs, but you're doing no favour at all to the starving fellows who can't get jobs because firms naturally reduce their employment in response to minimum wage. An hours worth of labour doesn't have some intrinsic minimum value, it varies depending on what the hour is spent doing. If an additional worker produces only $3 worth of added marginal value in an hour when they're watering strawberry plants, but minimum wage legislation dictates that they must be paid $5 then the strawberry firm will fire workers until the average value added can justify the wage.

I'm still undecided about all this, but I like some of the suggestions so far.

@TGM: This is probably one of the few times I'd agree with you. People who complain about illegal immigration show that their talk about liberty is a load of crap.

But, with all due respect, you have no comprehension about the limitations placed on people who don't have secure access to survival. The "right to life" that's the basis for liberal/libertarian thought is meaningless without a guarantee of the right to the things you need to live. And while that argument can be turned into a slippery slope that creates a nanny state, the other extreme is even more destructive to true human freedom.

"The "right to life" that's the basis for liberal/libertarian thought is meaningless without a guarantee of the right to the things you need to live. And while that argument can be turned into a slippery slope that creates a nanny state, the other extreme is even more destructive to true human freedom."

I'd disagree. People have only the right to life, the right to freedom (liberty), and the right to try to succeed (pursuit of happiness). They are entitled to nothing else.