What's wrong with having open borders with Mexico?

It worked before we closed them.

In the past, Mexico had an open border.

It allowed workers to come to the U.S. work, and then leave

Because we close the borders

They can't go back.

So we should screen people before coming in for weapons or drugs (what we already do), and then let them come work during farm seasons and then leave.

No I'm a downloadable character

$4.99

Immigration policy in the United States has a complex, convoluted, and in some cases, ugly history. Even so, the events of the past can be used as a guiding principle in modern discussions and help avoid mistakes that were already made; this concept applies heavily to immigration policy and reform. There are several unpleasant developments in U.S. immigration policy, but perhaps the most blaring is the exclusion of the Supreme Court from review of immigration legislation. The Supreme Court is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, body for enforcing civil liberties, for it to be omitted from any legislation, especially that involving people, leaves room for discrimination and corruption. Along with using The Court as a component to immigration legislation, it is in Congress’ best interest to clearly define immigration law, and implement it speedily on national level to avoid broad or misconstrued laws regarding immigration. Also, based off of prior events, it may be best for Congress to take a more liberal and less austere approach to immigration; as the latter approach may yield better results for immigration regulation. All of these factors contribute to the issue and construct of immigration, and immigration reform. It is important to look at immigration with a historical lens, as the events of the past lend themselves strongly to the issue of immigration in contemporary America.

Immigration in the United States, both in past and present, is in large part controlled by Congress, and in some instances or degrees the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, is excluded from the immigration discussion. One of Congress’ enumerated powers, as put forth by the Constitution, is that of naturalization and dealing with the issue of immigration (Article 1, Section 8). Even so, the Supreme Court should not be shirked, as it has a role in all constitutional matters. The 14th amendment to the Constitution provides all people, not just citizens, that they will not be denied the equal protection of the laws. Despite the 14th amendment, many immigrants have been denied equal protection from the law; the most blaring example would be that of Chinese Exclusion. In 1882 Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion law that blatantly barred any Chinese person from becoming citizens or from entering the country. In 1889, the Supreme Court affirmed Congress’ plenary power of immigration in Chae Chan Ping v. United States. The Court reasoned that the Chinese are not citizens, but aliens, and that, “the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy” (Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581). With this case, the court affirmed the Chinese Exclusion Act, and propagated the sentiment that Chinese, as well other “aliens,” did not have the same rights as citizens; which is correct in practice, but contradictory to the essence of the 14th amendment. From the late nineteenth century to the present, the Supreme Court’s power in deciding issues on immigration is still constrained. In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.

I just said that illegal aliens aren't awarded basic rights

Such as not being awarded writ of habeas corpus

When court proceedings are carried out on U.S. soil they're supposed to follow U.S. law

The courts

Doesn't matter

On US soil?

What precedent is that from?

Because when you're in the U.S. US law is applied

So what was your point?

All I'm saying is that older immigration laws worked better for the U.S. and Mexico

Early legislation in regards to constricting Mexican immigration is seen by the Bracero Program. The Bracero Program was initiated by the United States to allow Mexican agriculture workers to freely work on U.S. farms for a temporary time period.

Bracero program worked

Mexico + U.S. was a better relationship and the economy flourished

I think if they allowed people to come and go it would lead to less people being stuck here.

The major problem is that there's no referendum

The people on the left just say they want an open border, but don't offer any advice for changes.

I got the advice right here.

Back with a different type of commentary.

But even if they came here to work they wouldn't be able to vote.

Well they do

There's been push back, and there are laws to stop people from letting too many H1B workers in

What is the larger issue?

Point being that there is pushback to immigrant workers

No there's push back from Politicians, Unions, Workers etc.

Laws against H1B as well

What's wrong with women in tech?

Or minorities in tech?