Actually, if you'll check, yes, the other first-world democracies DO often have a significant illegal immigrant problem. The fact that you did not think they did simply shows how little you are paying attention to what's going on in other nations.
Check out
Australia, which has significantly fewer illegals than we do in raw numbers...but also has a much smaller citizen population than we do. That, and they're an island, and as such is much harder to get to in the first place.
Then there's
Italy, where 65K illegals were caught (as opposed to how many weren't caught) in the first half of this year. Again, that's far fewer than ours...but not only does Italy have a smaller population and weaker economy, but the ones traveling there have to cross a much larger body of water - the Mediterranean - than our Rio Grande.
Even
Greece - yes, GREECE, as bad as their economy is - has such a bad illegal immigrant problem that England (!) is spending 2M pounds in order to fight illegal immigration in Greece! And it's so bad that
they're spending precious tax drachmas there to put up an "electronic shield" along all their borders.
So...next time, check your assumptions before you present them as facts.
NOW...back to the topic at hand (because illegal immigration is not a direct measure of poverty): You asked what's the best way to fight poverty. What nations have the highest standards of living? The socialized first-world democracies (which includes America, because yes, we DO have a lot of socialism here) have the highest standards of living...and thus the lowest rates of real poverty. And what nations have the higher rates of poverty? Easy. Nations with small governments, low effective taxes, and weak regulation.
And I should thank you - you've given me a great new rhetorical point with which to present conservatives the
sustained failure of their economic dogma...and the
sustained success of the socialized first-world democracies (which, again, includes America).