> Of course you know this, but are merely stating this as some kind of "gotcha".
It wasn't meant as a gotcha, just a reminder that lack of English isn't quite the black mark you were making it out to be.
> not with a massive backlog of educated, English-speaking, law-abiding people waiting in the queue.
I don't see much support for reducing the backlog either.
> What do you think happens to the people who have their SSNs used?
I actually don't know. Can you tell me more please? It can't be identity fraud to open lines of credit. As you said, the migrants who use the SSNs are uneducated, relatively unsophisticated people who have very little knowledge of English.
> Then you may hear it right now, businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens should be prosecuted for breaking the law.
It's admirable you say that, but it happens relatively rarely. Making an example (e.g RICO-ing assets) out of a few big fish, and performing consistent enforcement thereafter would provide a strong deterrent to hiring migrants illegally, and a strong disincentive to migrate illegally. It should also cost the government less money; fewer investigations to pursue, fewer government agents and less bureaucracy required. Ask yourself why this doesn't happen, why it's not part of any campaign platform, and who benefits.
> Unfortunately in our current two-party system, the options are "Build the wall" or "Give them all free health care, and a path to citizenship".
"Give them all free health care" (not actually free free, since migrants are also taxpayers) is internally consistent with "Health care is a human right". It may understandably be unpalatable to many, but at least it's honest. "a path to citizenship" appears to have widespread bipartisan support among voters, at least according to some polls I saw long ago, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
The problem is "Build the wall", isn't just less effective than "Punish the employers" at reducing illegal migration to help domestic workers, it's also inconsistent with smaller government. Policies such as the war on drugs, foreign interventions, weakening unions, opposing strong health and safety laws, or denying climate change (we're going to start hearing about climate refugees in North America in the next decade or two) also undermine domestic workers, increase illegal migration, and/or increase the size of the government. It's dishonest.
It wasn't meant as a gotcha, just a reminder that lack of English isn't quite the black mark you were making it out to be.
> not with a massive backlog of educated, English-speaking, law-abiding people waiting in the queue.
I don't see much support for reducing the backlog either.
> What do you think happens to the people who have their SSNs used?
I actually don't know. Can you tell me more please? It can't be identity fraud to open lines of credit. As you said, the migrants who use the SSNs are uneducated, relatively unsophisticated people who have very little knowledge of English.
> Then you may hear it right now, businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens should be prosecuted for breaking the law.
It's admirable you say that, but it happens relatively rarely. Making an example (e.g RICO-ing assets) out of a few big fish, and performing consistent enforcement thereafter would provide a strong deterrent to hiring migrants illegally, and a strong disincentive to migrate illegally. It should also cost the government less money; fewer investigations to pursue, fewer government agents and less bureaucracy required. Ask yourself why this doesn't happen, why it's not part of any campaign platform, and who benefits.
> Unfortunately in our current two-party system, the options are "Build the wall" or "Give them all free health care, and a path to citizenship".
"Give them all free health care" (not actually free free, since migrants are also taxpayers) is internally consistent with "Health care is a human right". It may understandably be unpalatable to many, but at least it's honest. "a path to citizenship" appears to have widespread bipartisan support among voters, at least according to some polls I saw long ago, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
The problem is "Build the wall", isn't just less effective than "Punish the employers" at reducing illegal migration to help domestic workers, it's also inconsistent with smaller government. Policies such as the war on drugs, foreign interventions, weakening unions, opposing strong health and safety laws, or denying climate change (we're going to start hearing about climate refugees in North America in the next decade or two) also undermine domestic workers, increase illegal migration, and/or increase the size of the government. It's dishonest.