Eisenhower had no problem dealing with illegal immigration.

And yes, a border wall. Israel has one, why can't we?

A bit of both, although the former would have the most/best effects, as well as the most politically expedient.

I'm a broken clock on it, but having mounds of regulations isn't good for our economy. With each additional regulation, more costs are added into hiring employees, as well as increasing compliance costs. When regulations cost companies money, there is a huge problem. As it stands, our tax code costs each business about $3,000 simply in compliance costs. Environmental regulations cost about $10,000 - $12,000 per employee on average. Think about the money that is taken out of the economy for complying with regulations.

Reforming regulations to made codes more understandable and easier to deal with is paramount. If a business needs to hire less HR to comply with tax policy, that is good. If a business has to spend less on environmental compliances, because the codes are more streamlined, this is good. As it stands, the Clean Water Act is ~7,000 pages of codes and growing. Reformation is key.

In other markets, deregulation is key. I know derivatives is the issue everyone likes to bring up, but a lot of the problems exist not because of deregulation, but a corporate cronyist attitude that allowed deregulation and government incentivization of various businesses. That is, the government pushed for banks to lend to toxic debtors, and the banks jumped at the chance, knowing they'd be playing with house money. That kind of deregulation is wrong.

The government is horrible about that. They will regulate and restrict industries in what they do (Democrats, mainly), while the Republicans "Relieve" the corps with tax breaks and subsidies... Neither is right, as they are creating red tape, then compensating for it. The red tape simply needs removed and reformed, then go from there.

The whole "risk/reward" statement is at times overblown, because the government really isn't holding business accountable, as they should. How many people went to jail for the financial crisis? No one? Why? Its probably because it wasn't just the traders of toxic assets, but I bet there are enough people in government that would have to be thrown in jail too, but since no one is held accountable..

That....... Really isn't true, though.

An illegal is coming into the country and taking a job, because our government won't let anyone come into the country legally to find a job.

Just ask SamuelRSmith.

I've asked him about trying to immigrate to America for IT work. He cannot come to America and work, outside of a temporary visa. Why? Because our government has a policy that will not let people come to this country unless the immigrant can do a job that an American can't.

So the result is that people simply come in illegally, because they know they can't come legally. Our immigration and naturalization system is broke. Its very similar to economics - if you restrict something severely, people go underground for it.

The easiest answer would be.........To reform the laws made that got is into this mess. Allow immigrants to come to this country and become naturalized - legally - with a defined process, and ensure that everyone gets a chance that wants it. Then, if someone does try to come in illegally, throw them out with no questions asked.

Well that's because he's from the UK.  It's tough as hell to immigrate from one rich country to another unless you have so much to bring it's ridiculious.

We've got a system for letting in people to the country randomly.   It's just the amount of people we allow in per year is based on the US census and expected growth.

The US Census treats illegal aliens the same as citizens.

A better more equitable system woud be great, but you can bet the "hardship" immigration cases would wildly increase if you cut off the supply of illegal immigration that works for under minium wage.

It's not just capitilism. The privledged few in any system always bend the laws to suit them, and only recently, with capitalism, has there been power given to the masses. Communism is the same with government leaders taking more then their share, and it's the same in a true monarchy (ot like UK today) where only royal blood get to make any laws. USA was founded by rich land-owners, people who came here first and claimed right to the most land. George Washington was actually the richest person in the Americas when he helped found the USA, and when you read the original consitution, before the Bill of Rights was passed, it's catered to the rich (excluded women, indians, blacks, slaves and propertyless white males, it also made it so that only the 10% richest could afford to run for senate and president). So no wonder CEO's have only gotten richer and richer, taxes favor the rich heavily (e.g. Protection of Intellectual Property, and Patent protection laws. If you come up with a good idea first, you are entitled to all the profit from that patent until the time of your death, even basic things like inventing a touch screen).

Corporations will never change, and as long as the average senator makes over $200,000 a year (probably more in the USA), laws will always favor the rich. This is why minimum standards on income and healthcare, liberalistic tax laws (higher taxes with higher income), and corporate taxes are nesessary.

I would say that a problem with corporate structures is that, outside of maybe having a corporate culture, they don't have memories.  Old guard leaves, new guys come in, who don't remember the past, and then they push too much, and can take the economy down.  Laws and regulations (and enforcement) are about the only thing society has, in order to retain a memory of the past, and implement wisdom of lessons learned, in order to prevent problems.  Trying to say you just want to let mass amount of failure happen, ends up producing results that society doesn't want.  There is no want to have tent cities pop up all over.

And yes, there is a big issue of accountability missing.  One would need to have a cleaner system.  Problem is that a really clean system is usually engineered and the byproduct of a degree of central planning.  What you get, instead, is a hodgepodge of various interests dumbing down, and legistlators living in a buble detached from reality.  Then you get groupthink in a market that leads to mayhem later.  Everyone gets fooled, and there are no consequences.

Its really not too hard to do, we just have to actually try. Currently Border Patrol Agents hands are very tied in what they can and can't do and were they can and can't operate. All it would take is a wall, some easy surveilance, and actually enforcing the laws we currently and giving the border patrol some teeth. It hasn't happened because peple do not care to do it. CA is a safe haven for illegals, and Arizona is fighting a hard fight against them with the federal government trying to block any progress they make. Fast and Furious has also caused issues down there 9wich funnily enough do not make it to the news). Not sure how Texas and New Mexico do.

Yeah that is unfortunately true. The elite are the enemy, but if you take them you eventually become like them, if you get that status. Just look at before and after of any revolution in history. But you are wrong about the British Monarchy, she gets no political power at all, she can't make any laws, parliament is responsible for all of that. I think, all the queen does is welcome the new government after an election and is just recognised as head of state, that's all. She can't call in a new election or even vote. Royals have very little power, just wealth.

There is no new laws needed. We have them in place already we just choose not to enforce them. There isn't a need to change anything except enforce the laws we have, we enforce them on the northern border, why not the southern border? Politics is the only reason we have an unsecure border

Please describe the border guarding of the United States to the north, and show how it is more severe than what is done with Mexico.