************America is fueled by the disparity between rich and poor.**************

I think that such a conclusory assertion is a tad out there. The disparity is a fact of the human condition. Humans are competitive. Some are just better at it than others.

***********Without immigrants to do the shit work (paying their dues) your cost of living would skyrocket.**********

Maybe maybe not. Most of the things that one might call shit work could be mechanized. However, with a ready stream of cheap labor willing to do it there is no incentive to invest the money and energy to design and engineer the systems to do it.

If that cheap labor dried up because the borders got closed to criminal invasion, the choices, for businesses that use it, would be to either invest in mechanization or to figure a legal way to import the cheap labor. I rather suspect that both measures would be undertaken. Agriculture and construction alone would be positioned well to find ways to import labor lawfully. They could do it now but, there is no incentive for them to incur the cost and liabilities since the criminal invaders are doing it for them for free.
Whenever, a business has to choose between "no cost" and "cost" solution, the business will choose "no cost."

However an alternative to a 50 foot concrete wall along the border may be arising. The government isn't pursuing businesses that shelter and conspire with the criminal invaders but you and I can.

There is a woman in Texas whose husband was recently shot by a criminal invader. She is about to launch a lawsuit against the employer tho facilitated that murder's presence in this country. The legal theory she'll have to use is somewhat new in this particular application. It's going to have to be a tort holding the employer derivatively liable based on their complicity with the criminal invader based on a "known or should have known" standard asserting that "but for" their conduct in having employed this guy her husband would not have been murdered.

It's a stretch because there is no privity between any of them and it's going to rely on the jury's willingness to see the notion of employing that particular species of person ( criminal invaders) as some how creating a situation by some level of recklessness sufficient to invoke liability.

If she gets anywhere - and I mean anywhere at all past Summary Judgment I think it'll spark off a trend. The odds that a court will dismiss pre-trial in SJ are I think rather high, because the lack of privity between them eliminates forseeability. That, coupled with the possibility that the employer may have fulfilled their legal burdens when employing the guy (h might have presented a SS card stolen forged or not it's still an SS card) might compel a court to dismiss pursuant to Texas' analog for the federal Rule 12(b)6 motion. .

If she even gets to trial I'll see that as a success. If she wins anything I'll see that as the making of a new movement. It'd be democracy taking up the slack where the government failed.

Where people like you and I and that woman see that the fact of criminal invaders as some how having put us at a disadvantage or suffered some cognizable harm because of the complicity between the fact of the illegal status of the criminal invader and an employer's recklessness in unlawfully employing them there is a litigation to pursue.

A few dozen such law suits will send shockwaves across the country. Employers who are seeking to eliminate their "costs" will be less liberal when it comes to the scrutiny they put their recruits to.



**************We need to secure our borders against wanton immigration, but we will always need immigration.***********
Yah except criminal invasion isn't immigration it's just a crime.

***********Our entire economic structure is built on it.***********

No it's not. That's a myth foisted upon us all by those entities that make profit from the use of all that cheap labor.

***********If you had to have Americans harvest the farms you'd be paying $9 for a head of lettuce.*************

That would only be because the citizens would have to be paid a lawful wage and the employers would have to provide lawful working conditions. Which I submit that they should also be providing and paying to the criminal invaders. They'd have to if they were accountable to the government for importing them and returning them under some lawful scheme. The whole thing would be subject to oversight.


******So you can bitch, piss, and moan about immigrants, but it is a critical part of the American way.**********

I think your conclusion is inapposite and dead wrong. It's also not supported by anything at all. I mean, you haven't even presented a course of logic that supports it much less any factual information. You merely insist that "so and so" is true.


**********All that talk about Mexicans taking over our culture is bullshit. America has been in the immigrant business for over 200 years. We are the Borg. We take the best part of a new culture; their music, food, hot chicks, liquor, etc, and infuse it to our own culture and discard the rest.*************

That's not the BORG. That is the Marketplace of Ideas. It is a great and wonderful thing. Here: tinyurl.com/3gxfvn


***************America has yet to meet a race we cannot mainstream. I have great faith in this country.**********

So do I but I don't call it mainstreaming. I think of it as the ongoing evolution of the best culture and nation on earth.