Doug.38PR, while I hate to belabor a point, I think that you still are misundertsanding my point. Issues of cultural influence, the supposedly proper direction of cultural development of American society, the cultural origins of American society and law, etc. all pertain to the question of immigration in general, not to the specific issue of illegal immigration, which is the question at hand. A wide-ranging debate about what immigration should or should not be in the broad sense far exceeds the parameters of the issue of illegal immigration. Sweeping judgments and agendas concerning the entire nature of immigration to the United States, and the entire historical development of the United States, do nothing but cloud with ideological baggage the rather concrete issue of the influx of undocumented workers and engender ultimately propagandistic jargon and hollow sloganeering (i.e., the "love it or leave it" type of response, which is laughable at best and blatantly xenophobic at worst).
For example, the obscuring effects of ideology are demonstrated in statements about migration. While I may share some sympathies with the argument that we the 'Americans' stole the land from its native inhabitants, as articulated by ESI Agent, that adds nothing constructive to this debate. With the introduction of that issue, are we meant to choose between vacating the land, or turning a blind eye to historical injustice? Neither choice possesses any realistic or satisfactory resolution, but simply adds rhetorical fire to an already explosive issue; it distracts from the primary question of what is to be done about illegal immigration. Likewise, your statements concerning the fact that all nations are nations of immigrants does not address the specific issue being debated; actually, it undermines your observations on culture. You raise the topic of historical migration, but describe it as an event in the remote past which ended in a stabilization of sorts, a 'settling down' if you will. However, the movement of populations certainly is not static, but is an ongoing feature of human society. The movement of people across the southern border of the United States is yet another example of this, and therefore, a natural feature of how humans exist and operate in the world. In short, they are moving to where resources for subsistence may be obtained, the same process that has motivated many other migrations in world history and the same process that brought most immigrants, legal or otherwise, to this country.
Turning to the more specific issue of illegal immigration, some posters advocated a rigid, militaristic tightening of the borders. While such a tactic could be accomplished, it is not desirable either from a practical standpoint or a moral standpoint. The expense of erecting a 'Great Wall of America' would be so great as to make it unfeasible. A policy of shooting people trying to enter the country for the purpose of trying to better their lot in life is morally reprehensible; a 'reverse Iron Curtain' still belongs in the same category as the original Iron Curtain. While I personally do think that border security does need to be tightened, there is a realistic and moral upper limit to the tightening that should occur.
Others have raised the spectres of crime and strains on public services caused by illegal immigration. These, too, fall more into the category of ideological talking-points. Do people really think that a few 'bad apples' are not going to enter the country along with the masses of those who are here to work, no matter how well policed? Or that a relatively rapid concentration of an impoverished population in any given area will not bring with it at least some increase in criminal activity in that area? Likewise, do people really want to stand in judgment of those same impoverished immigrants taking advantage of public services, that if placed in a similar position, they themselves probably would utilize? It is important to keep in mind that the majority of immigrants, even those from 'south of the border' are here legally, not illegally. Do we want to advocate stripping public services from those legally entitled to them?
The fact that this thread started with speculation concerning the likelihood of a riot sparked by unrest among undocumented workers in Los Angeles clearly illustrates that the ideological baggage and xenophobic fear need to be removed from this debate. With American citizens 'barking' away that they should be charged with felonies, or even worse, fall victims to a mined border, is it any wonder that they feel threatened? Are these actions (peaceful protest) unexpected or unwarranted from a group of people who we label with the broad stroke of the brush as freeloaders and criminals, yet are all too willing to employ in substandard jobs for substandard wages? Give us your backs, but keep your mouths shut?
All the people here on the board that are so willing to give up their neighbors jobs or their neighbors kids jobs better remember it when that neighbor or kid breaks into your house and steals your stuff. You did it by your values. You brought them in because you did nothing to keep them out.
I'm just wondering if you'd clarify the last paragraph for me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and I'm sorry if I am putting words in your mouth, but that sentence of yours left the door open.....