I was wondering how you would view just partial implementation of Paul's Proposed Policies, ie just deny them benefits.
What if the govt's (state, city and county) just deny these people social services, ie schools, food, housing, hospitals (many of which have gone bankrupt under the strain of unpaid bills in the SOCAL area)?
Also, what about the concept of anchor babies? Just because you are born on US soil shouldn't automatically confer citizenship, or should it?
They come for economic benefits, welfare, citizenship, and jobs and some of them (La Raza) reconquista - why you would want to annex the US back to the country you just fled is beyond me). It would be interesting to see what effect stopping the welfare and automatic citizenship benefits would have on the rate of immigration. In other words, what effect would it have on immigration if the govt stopped granting economic incentives to come here?
(I think the declining US economy has already sent many back to Mexico (and in the aggregate that is who we are talking about here) as the figure of money going from the US to Mexico has dropped (as I remember it) from about 27 billion last year to 26 billion year over year). I think that is because of the decline in the housing market - many of these people work residential construction. If the jobs are not there, they will stop coming.)
I think the fundamental problem we face here, and this gets back to that extreme distaste with which Steff views the Ron Paul candidacy, is how are we to manage living under govt between now and the time it (might, just maybe) disappear completely (and not be replaced with corporate governance either). (I'm hoping for the concept of sole propriatorship to take root once again - a nation of shopkeepers and small outfits offering various goods and services to the public)