Are you claiming that Prohibition was passed in order to change the behaviour of alcohol?
Where are you going with this? You've made one vague statement to say that prohibition is like immigration law, and it seems like you don't even understand what prohibition was. It prohibited the sale, transportation for sale, and creation for sale of alcohol. People could still drink it. People could still make it. Businesses could still sell the makings - grape growers in California dramatically increased production and sold blocks of grapes warning people not to put it in water and leave it stand for a few weeks because then it would turn into wine.
Immigration law is designed to prevent people from entering this country without following the proper procedures. The government could destroy illegal alcohol, but it can't destroy illegal aliens. Alcohol could be hidden in warehouses, sheds, and car trunks. If violators saw the police coming, they could destroy the evidence. Illegals have to live and work. They can't kill themselves to avoid prosecution.
I really have no desire to go down this road any further. I believe your analogy fails, but even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter to me. Why? Because the level of enforcement is nowhere near the level I think it should be. When states begin assisting in enforcing the law, like with ICE agents at the local level, and when the Border Patrol has a larger staff and better tools (like better fencing), then we can argue about whether the policy is a failure or not.
Sure there is. Without evidence, it's all just assertion.
You can say that all you want, but you're still wrong. I have provided evidence of money moving out of the country. The property crime rates I cited are factual. The uninsured rates for illegals are factual. The education programs for illegals are factual. And I have personally witnessed illegals living in the ways I describe.
Please save your hand waving for somebody else.
Now it is up to you to show that that in itself has a detrimental effect on "local economies".
It's basic economics. There's a reason that tourism is so valuable - it brings money into the local economy. Every dollar wired out of the area is a dollar not spent locally.
"Wouldn't dollars flowing south help Mexico and other American countries to prosper, raising their standard of living, giving them money to spend on US products, and thereby lowering the incentive to for their people come here in the first place? Isn't that a free market in action?"
LOL. Nope. You're welcome to show some evidence.
Like it or not, this is becoming a global economy. Jingoism and economic isolationism isn't a viable option anymore.
A global economy does not mean that local economies cease to exist. What global economy means is that what happens in one country affects other countries just like what happens in one state/city has always affected other states/cities.
If you want to argue about whether immigration policy is sound or not, start another thread. This thread is about enforcing the
current immigration laws. If you think the USA would be better off with new laws, explain why and argue for the laws to be changed. Personally, I think you, like a lot of other people, only bring up this argument because for emotional reasons you don't like the thought of those poor illegals being sent back to Mexico.
Funny thing, I don't see anybody arguing that we should be sending airplanes to Europe and Africa to fly back their uneducated, unskilled but hardworking citizens. I mean, if it's such a good policy, then let's let the whole world benefit. Why treat Mexicans as special? Why not make quotas for each country?
