I hate to say it, but @Drachen_Jager has a point. Most countries do rely on immigrant labor, but we specifically and intentionally rely on illegal immigrant labor. Legal immigrants have the protection of labor laws, you can't work them 14 hours a day for $3 an hour with no overtime then stiff them if you feel like it, but you can do that to illegals, it's still better than what they can get at home usually.

While you haven't hired illegals, you have benefited from their cheap labor if you've bought agricultural products from America. I'm afraid we have not decided the cheap labor isn't worth the risk yet.....at best about 45% of us voted that way, which is as good a measure as any. I think if we do eliminate illegal laborers we'll see a backlash over the price hikes that must follow from many of the same people screaming for a wall today.

While some do use border jumping as an alternative to a difficult, long application process doesn't mean that most border jumpers would be accepted...criminal records, illiteracy, homelessness, and desperation can make that process impossible or many. Some have other options, many don't.

Not sure what you mean about being addicts. Addiction is not the only motivation out there, you know....nor is it the only excuse tolerated for inappropriate behavior.

If we are going to start pointing fingers at countries, almost every single country in the world has used immigrant labor to keep itself functional. You can't single out the USA for relying on it, and as I mentioned, the USA is far from being the only country starting to realize that illegal immigration has more negatives than positives.

I have never hired an illegal. It is possible that they US government should increase work visas, I would not care as long as people were here legally. This also isn't 'The Jungle', I am pretty sure that Upton Sinclair would laugh if you compared the living conditions and quality of life that our current immigrants have compared to then.

I disagree with your example, this is not a situation where the people did not have other options. They could have applied to come here legally, choosing not to do so because it is far easier to ignore the law does not make them addicts to a chemical substance.

Wait, so you're saying a bad investment in the past justifies a bad investment in the future?

Maybe it's better to face the realization that you can't control a 3000+ km border and mass Stasi-like raids to root out all existing illegal immigrants (which let's face is what would be required for any total solution) is neither practical nor American? Instead maybe all that wasted money you recognize could be spent on policing to prevent the associated crime?

I mean you've gone so far as to acknowledge money has been wasted so far. Is it really a far cry to realize that this wall idea would fail momentously too? That maybe just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's practical to enforce and that laws should change to manage an unavoidable reality?

Particularly since it should be obvious any company that loses access to immigrant labor can just shift their factories a few km over the border with relative ease, meaning the only jobs created from this wall will be those created in a temporary and ultimately redundant government construction project.

You're half the way there on your logic, just make the final leap already.

Localtraders passes the savings on to you because they have the largest supply of illegal immigrant labor available in the us. Pair that with a record number of beatings in the child labor arena and you get one of the most cohesive undocumented workforces on the net. Localtraders, localtraders, localtraders.com.

Really smart. About as smart as pissing away 49 billion dollars on the US/Mexico border fence.

“Building a fence is like putting a band-aid on a shark bite,” UCSC Republicans President Kelly Hayes said via email. “A more comprehensive solution is needed.”

Hayes says that greater accountability in the form of increased documentation for immigrants, with the possibility of attaining citizenship, would benefit both sides. She argued that it is unfair to U.S. citizens if they were to allow this large group of people to receive the benefits of our society while they do not financially contribute to the country as other citizens do. On the other hand, she acknowledged that it is unfair to undocumented immigrants that they must receive significantly lower wages due to their lack of citizenship.

Both Frank and Ruiz emphasized the notion that President Bush’s stalled proposal underscores the importance of undocumented immigrants to the U.S. economy.

“The U.S. economy would collapse without them,” Ruiz said. He also stated that the same effect would visit the local Santa Cruz economy if this undocumented labor force was suddenly removed.

Frank echoed those sentiments.

“This country runs on immigrant labor, and we should value their work and what they bring to our culture,” Frank said.

http://cityonahillpress.com/article.php?id=139