The "sane, efficient, straightforward pipeline to legal residency and employment" would be something like Ellis Island for the 21st Century:
Yes. Controlled.
But what is happening today is the equivalent of ships filled with immigrants landing on beaches along the entire coastline of the US and disgorging their passengers to fend for themselves.
it appears there's plenty of jobs available for not terribly well educated ESL migrants, not being filled by current US citizens, so either sort out why US citizens aren't taking the work (bet the appalling patchwork of dreadful labour laws, dire minimum wage(s), etc. is to blame), or accept the need for hungry first-gen immigrants and build an intake program that'll actually meet labour needs.
Overpayment of "pandemic support" by the current administration is a major factor. Why would people work when they can loaf around their apartments and rake in almost as much?
There are several bad things that will happen as a result of the: essential tasks will not get done, supplies of essential products will shrink, prices will rise for what is available.
On another thread on this Site there is a discussion about posting problems due to a shortage of packers and movers and drivers.
Wait until food is not grown, processed, or delivered to shops that lack the manpower to stock shelves.
And then there's the offensive sense of entitlement, that these people consider themselves free to suck off of the efforts of others and give nothing in return. The term is "parasite". Why should their hosts have to work harder to pay more taxes to support these parasites?
Many/most Republican states have stopped these unnecessary and harmful overpayments.
I am not so sure that US labour laws are any worse than ours, and, while minimum wages may be less, and vary from state-to-state, there are other compensations less visible - find a US state that charges 13% sales tax, for one (and I believe that some Canadian provinces charge higher).
Despite many similarities, Canada and the US are not the same. Neither are perfect, and each has advantages over the other in some areas and disadvantages in others. And there are differences between the various states as well, which enjoy far more autonomy than Canadian provinces.
As for "hungry first-gen immigrants", they essentially constitute a new serf-class that can be exploited by businesses and the parasites who consider themselves too special to work.
Effective aid to South American countries would also be a good idea.
Perhaps, but how many people in how many foreign countries
should the US support?
What about the US poor?
In our case, what about our indigenous people?
On a smaller scale, how many homeless people should each of us be expected to directly support?
If ICE personnel want to talk "unsafe working environment," go for it! Outside of that, they need to be absolutely, aggressively apolitical and never publicly comment on government policy, especially government policy they disagree with, or that limits their freedom of action, including if that means ignoring criminal activity.
Just like those of us who comment on this Site about military and other government policy?
Freedom of expression.
Re: "fear of Mexicans," I was impugning the motives of those who are opposed to increased legal immigration to the US; the sort of idiot who gets stroppy if they hear something other than English.
Wherever I go in the US, I see signs in Spanish, especially in major businesses. I see people of Hispanic (and other) origin. I occasionally hear accented English and some Spanish. I have not heard any objection. Most Americans, like most Canadians, welcome legal newcomers, especially those who want to fit in and work hard to support themselves and contribute to society.
Outside of very narrowly defined boundaries (civic amenities, education, infrastructure, and health*) the notion of allowing targeted donations or funding of government functions by private citizens is repellent, especially coercive government functions. Want more enforcement? Lobby for it, and for higher taxes to pay for it.
Why is it repellent? Just because it is a novel concept for some? Americans have always had a greater sense of independence than Canadians have. Americans contribute more to charities than Canadians do. People here prefer governments to act as charities instead.
All government functions are funded by private citizens, ultimately. "There is only one taxpayer".
The hero of this tale decided to kick in a little extra, for a specific purpose - and the state willingly and gratefully accepted it.
"Coercive government functions"? Defending border regions from
illegal entrants - criminals by the very act of crossing the US border uncontrolled - is "coercive"? It is
protective. And legal. And a
responsibility of governments.
Remember, crossing into Canada illegally is a crime as well.
"Lobby for it"? How about "
put your money where your mouth is"? That is
exactly what this generous and civic-minded person did. Bravo, him.
"Higher taxes"? He just paid them, on behalf of others. Bravo him.
And that's all that my eyes can take of this red screen. It is like typing in hell.
*Most of these should be paid for by government anyway, but there's no negative outcomes, other than enabling government neglect, related to more theatres, parks, libraries, pools, rinks, hospitals, schools, new bridges, repaired roads, etc.
