the difference between illegal and legal immigration: there is none

[aein]

I generally like DU, but the one issue I have to disagree with many of you on is immigration. My position is pretty simple: anybody who wants to come to america, and contribute their labor should be able to come.

It's actually kind of surprising, because its the one issue that unites freepers and a lot of du'ers: they just don't like illegals. Their position is simple: they're taking our jobs, they're consuming our services, they reduce our wages, they're not paying taxes, and, therefore we should deport them. I'm not going to argue the empirical facts: maybe those things are true. But I will argue the simple-minded axiom: "they've broken our laws, they don't deserve to be here." The argument is tautological at best. Why not "they've broken our laws, our laws should be changed." Unless you ardently believe in retributive justice, the latter statement would fulfill your "legal" condition as much as the former. But I'll tell you why should prefer the latter.

If there was one principle that all progressive believe in, it is equality. IT shouldn't matter who you are, your life has as much value as anybody else. Whether you were born poor or rich, you should be able to get into the school of your choice based on merit. If you're a woman, you should be paid the same wage as a man doing the same work.

If progressives say that it doesn't matter what socio-economic station/sex/race you were born into, why should the geographic location matter? What is an immigrant but a person born outside an arbitrary line?

If people are willing to come to this country and do jobs we don't want to do. Why should we stop them? Or rather, since we can't stop them, why should we create a system where we label them "illegals." Aren't they human too? Shouldn't they get a fair cut at being Americans?

[BlueStateModerate]

1. Of course they're human.

They're also criminals, and there's no way around that.

[aein]

3. they aren't criminals, if we stop calling them criminals, did you read the post?

[merwin]

20. They aren't paying taxes, which means they are, by definition, criminals.

I think there shouldn't be caps on immigration, but people coming to live here without going through the proper immigration processes are criminals, and shouldn't be allowed to live here.

It wouldn't be fair to allow non-citizens to reside here and enjoy the benefits of living in the USA without paying taxes.

I believe the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans hate immigrants in general, while Democrats just don't want the illegal immigrants here.

[DIKB]

36. Which taxes are they not paying?

Those who get legitimate jobs use false SSNs usually obtained from people who sell them. Meaning they pay Social Security, income tax, and of course they pay sales taxes as well. Sadly they get no tax refund, so technically they pay MORE taxes.

If you're talking about being paid under the table for services, lawn-care, etc. I know of legitimate citizens who choose to do that too, on both sides, as the employer and employee.

The near complete criminalization of this country is outrageous. They arrested a child for writing on a school desk not too long ago, what next? Hauling little Jeffy off for not paying income tax for money he made at a lemonade stand, or mowing lawns?

[Maine-ah]

39. ah, but then they have broken the law again by obtaining

a fake SS number. That is how identities get stolen too.

something certainly does need to be done, as for what that may be, I'm not really sure.

[DIKB]

42. Where does the real guilt lie?

With the people who decide to sell their identities b/c it covers up their illegal income, or b/c they're just lazy and can mooch off someone else while still having a record of employment, and money paid into their Social Security. One person is knowingly swindling the government for nefarious reasons, the other wants to work to support their family.

I see cases of this, b/c I have family that teaches ESOL and runs into it a lot, that and in rural Arkansas, meth is a serious problem, some of these dealers sell their identities to cover their shady businesses.

I truly think there is enough crime out there without having to hound someone trying to support their family.

[merwin]

156. The way I see it, they are both guilty and deserve to be punished.

And since one of them isn't a citizen of the USA, we can't reasonably fine them. We can't reasonably imprison them, so we deport them.

[Toots]

51. Please list Jeffy's exact physical address and amount earned last calendar year

Thank you. We will be calling..

[hfojvt]

89. unless he earned more than $5,000 (the standard deduction)

or had more than $1,000 in unearned income (and I do not know if this law is the same as it was 20 years ago) then he does not owe any income tax. I think FICA taxes start at $500, but I was not aware of those laws when I was a kid on my paper-route. The FICA taxes were lower in the 1970s too.

[merwin]

154. So, because legal citizens also break the law, that means it's ok for

illegal immigrants to do the same?

Those who get fake SSN's are breaking the law. If you want something else to happen to people who break the law, then work to change said laws.

[DIKB]

177. There is nuance.

If you are capable of seeing it.

Which is worse?

Someone who steals a loaf of bread to feed his children? or Someone who robs old couples of all their savings, only to line his already full pockets?

I'm not saying that neither is wrong, only that there is a "Lesser Evil" and that we shouldn't be attacking those who are ONLY trying to provide for themselves...

I DEFY you to say that you wouldn't provide for your family, even if doing so meant you had to cross an invisible line of legality. But those that DON'T need to, and do so out of GREED alone, THAT is truly evil.

[merwin]

179. I'm not saying i don't agree with you. If i was in that position, I would do it.

If someone feels that they need to cross an invisible line of legality to provide for their family, then that's what they should do. However, if they get caught, they should be sent right back.

[Lost-in-FL]

49. I know republicans that do everything within their power not to pay

taxes. A friend of mine had to divorce her husband afraid if going to jail for tax evasion so no, undocumented immigrants aren't the only ones who do not pay taxes.

[merwin]

157. I don't recall saying that they were the only ones who did it.

And just because Republicans do it, it's still not right for an illegal immigrant to do it.

[Lost-in-FL]

167. No you did not say that...

if you read the post again, I gave an example of others who do not pay taxes. I did not said that isn't a crime either. My guess is that Republicans can opt not to pay taxes but is not alright for immigrants to pay taxes. Somehow it is a big deal I guess.

Big American corporations move overseas (like Halliburton) so they don't have to pay taxes. I don't have any statistics but I would bet that Republicans avoid paying more taxes than those undocumented workers do.

[Bluerthanblue]

168. I'd join you on that wager- .....eom

[loyalsister]

99. By your definition

people who do not work due to disability should be crimilalized non-citizens, along with seniors and children.

Since your qualifyer of citizenship is that they pay taxes to enjoy the benefits of living in the USA.

[Possumpoint]

37. By Definition,

if they cross the border with out permission, they have entered the country illegally. They are illegal.

[aein]

116. but if we gave them our permission, post-hoc, ergo, they are not illegal

[merwin]

158. But that is not the way our system works currently, so they are illegal.

If I get busted for doing illegal drugs, I can't just tell the judge that they should be legal, and therefore I should not be punished. That's ridiculous.

[aein]

180. I can if I get busted, and then been pardoned or given amnesty

If caught, I'm not suggesting they not be punished under current law. I'm just saying the law is currently wrong, and should be changed.

[SoCalifer]

22. Criminals?

How can people who have been here on this continent for thousands of years be considered "illegal" by the descendants of those who "illegally" immigrated here?

Beyond irony that a people who's ancestors were, at first, helped out in their time of need by another people would now refer to these people as "illegal". Especially, also, after the circumstances driving them to have to immigrate away from their families and friends are circumstances caused by the people calling them illegal. Beyond irony.

[lefador]

23. Ain't that the truth...

Indeed: California, Colorado, Nevada, Nuevo Mexico, Tejas, Florida... have Spanish names for a reason.

Mexico can start taking care of their own people and the US can return all the stolen land, deal?

I always find it ironic how people who are themselves descendants of immigrants are so quick at shutting down other people trying to get a piece of the apple pie. I am sure that most people in the reservations could make a case about all those "pale face" illegals...

[SoCalifer]

25. Here, here..

And welcome to the DU lefador..

:hi:

[tblue]

26. Amen to that. "Give me your tired, your poor...." I can't turn my back on the huddled masses.

Wish we had an president who could get the Mexican gov't to work on getting it's own economy on track. But we don't have a president like that.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

43. Welcome to DU lefador, nicely said. I grew up in New Mexico and find all this

hoopla mind boggling. We made that land grab and were extremely fortunate to keep a century plus long civil relationship with our southern neighbor. Until NAFTA, CAFTA, Fox and Bush, that it. MKJ

[Lasher]

46. Where did the Mexicans get their land?

I'm pretty sure indigenous peoples of the area didn't speak Spainish. Shouldn't the southern Mexican states be returned to their rightful owners, the Mayans? Or the Aztecs? No wait, weren't the Olmec there first? Or was that somebody else? And what to do with all those Spainish speaking Mexicans? Back to Spain with every one of them, I guess. Unless Spain took the land from someone else.

And so the US couldn't possibly give Texas to anybody else but the rightful owners, the Comanches. But weren't the Apaches in south Texas because the Comanches had taken their territory to the north in the 1670s? And what about the Kiowa? They were pushed into Oklahoma and Arkansas by the invading Cheyennes and Sioux, who had been displaced from their lands in the great lakes regions by the Ojibwa tribes. But the Comanches already occupied Oklahoma and Arkansas so the Kiwas fought to take it from them. OK, so let's give Michigan to the Cheyennes and Sioux and not those invading Ojibwa - unless there was somebody else there before the Cheyennes and Sioux moved in. Oklahoma to the Kiowa, no the Comanches or whoever was there before them.

Oh forget it. Let's just find Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble and give everything to them. That's the only people who didn't move onto land that was already occupied by someone else. Then none of the rest of us will have anywhere to go so we can all just shoot ourselves in the head.

[blondeatlast]

86. Substitute Irish for Mexican and you've described my family. Amazing to see DUers

twist themselves into knots explaining how it was different when my ancestors came here. We were just as despised as the southern border crossers are now.

I live in Arizona and I never forget I live in Mexican territory. If someone wants to escape the frinding poverty, unemployment, and environmental chaos that is Mexico and beyond to the south, I welcome them. If I didn't, I'd have far fewer friends than I do now.

Welcome to DU--we desperately need your voice here! :toast:

[Possumpoint]

40. I'll Fight You!

Simply, you immigrate to this country legally and I support your right 100% to be here and become a citizen if you so choose. If you enter this country illegally. I want you to leave or be thrown out. Get in line and receive legal permission to enter the country.
I especially don't accept those who are of the mindset that they are reacquiring territory lost in the 1848 treaty of Guadalupe Hidago. They have come to re-extend the borders of Mexico.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

44. They have come to re-extend the borders of Mexico? Is this some kind of

Project For a New Mexican Century? Please, share more, this is intriguing. :hi: MKJ

[The Backlash Cometh]

59. Well, life just got easier.

Let's just go and declare ever nation's constitution null and void, and let the era of chaos begin! Oh, my mistake, we're already there.

[personman]

64. We're a nation of criminals.

But we delude ourselves about it as we are ever so entitled.

We stole half of mexico in a war of aggression.

Borders, laws and nations are all bullshit. We are a nationalist, racist, classist nation that writes and carries out laws in a nationalist, racist, classist fashion. Unjust laws held up by unjust people who worship criminals and their devices hold little interest to me.

-personman

[StefanX]

169. Hello... Do you know what "tautological" means?

The objection you raised was answered in the OP. Re-read it and note the word "tautological". It answers your objection before you even raise it.

Cheers.

[Cleita]

176. They aren't criminals. Criminals hurt and kill people. They lie and cheat.

Look to our present White House for criminals. These very poor people crossed the border illegally. That makes them lawbreakers, not criminals.

[BlueStateModerate]

185. They cheat, eh?

That sounds an awful lot like what the illegal immigrants do.

[Cleita]

194. How are the immigrants cheating? I have never been cheated on

by an immigrant but I sure have been by American citizens. Right now they are trying to cheat me out of my Social Security and Medicare.

[Quantess]

2. Maybe, perhaps, the problem is with Mexico and other such countries?

Why aren't their governments doing more for their own people?

If you have the answer, please tell me.

[aein]

4. why are they not "our people" too?

[Quantess]

5. Wouldn't that be nice.

Unfortunately, that doesn't jive with politics. It's a cruel world.

[aein]

6. why not? am I not i suggesting a political question and a political solution?

"Jive?" Are you saying its unrealistic. I assume that's what you mean. Why not? A guest worker program wouldn't work? After 7 years on the guest worker program, they become full citizens. Does that "jive" with you?

Of course, the proposition in the abstract is very idealistic. But there is a middleground between the ideal and system we have now. Like amnesty or a guest-worker program. We've had amnesty. And other countries have had a guest-worker program.

[Quantess]

18. I agree with you, but I think it's unrealistic.

"it doesn't jive with..." is an old saying. I'm 36 years old, to give you a time frame.

Good luck with your proposition. You'll need it.

[Unvanguard]

16. "They do it too" ranks up there with "God says so"

in the scale of morally bankrupt justifications for action.

[Quantess]

21. Yes, I agree!

But, you meant the morally bankrupt justifications for inaction, didn't you?

[Unvanguard]

27. I meant "action" broadly.

Inaction is a kind of action - at least in the moral sense (it's something that we have real responsibility for, because we choose to engage in it.)

My point was simply that the fact that it is a cruel world does not excuse complicity in that cruelty.

[BlueStateModerate]

7. Be realistic

How could the US be expected to be responsible for every human being in the world? Our government exists to protect our rights, not everyone's desires.

[aein]

8. Of course, the proposition in the abstract is very idealistic. But there is a middleground between t

Of course, the proposition in the abstract is very idealistic. But there is a middleground between the ideal and system we have now. Like amnesty or a guest-worker program. We've had amnesty. And other countries have had a guest-worker program.

Racial Equality is a very unrealistic ideal: because there are some genetic differences between the races. But when we had jim crow: that the idea of racial equality is an unachievable ideal didn't stop anybody from trying to improve things.

[Karenina]

153. "Racial Equality is a very unrealistic ideal:

because there are some genetic differences between the races..."

Would you be so kind to elaborate on the point you're making here?

[aein]

183. This is a touchy point...I'll tread carefully

Well, the ideal is that we should have racial equality. We all accept that. But as a practical matter, it is not *absolutely* do-able: white people burn more easily in the sun (and urm, more or less uncontroversial differences between the races). Asian people are generally shorter, black people taller. Some races stronger, some weaker. I hope I'm not stating any more than the obvious. We can have a system where the race is not recognized as a legitimate difference in making official decisions, but our individualized differences are, at least, in part, determined by race.

The same with sexual equality: woman generally make very poor football players. But if there was a woman who could physically play football, then her sex shouldn't stop her.

Another example: free speech. It's an ideal principle, but not an absolute principle. Free speech doesn't protect a person who falsely yells fire in a crowded theater.

And so with too with the ideal of open-borders: it's not absolutely do-able. We'll always have jingo-ism and nationalism. But the ideal sways us in one way over another (all else being equal): a more open immigration policy.

It's a minor, but important point: just because its not something we can achieve with 100% success, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make things better.

[Karenina]

197. I'm not gonna touch your response

but with this, will kick your thread. Carry on. :popcorn:

[SoCalifer]

15. Maybe because its the U.S. trade

policies which create the situation in the first place causing these poor people to lose their livelihoods? I would say that if persons, such as yourself it seems, don't wish to take responsibility for other people in the world. Then perhaps we should stop our economic warfare on them.

[tblue]

28. You want justice, work for peace. You want nothing but 'legal' immigration, work for justice.

Thank you. How informed are any of us about what our gov't's policies have done to developing nations?

[SoCalifer]

29. Some of us are more informed than others

For starters may I recommend these two videos.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=211108422793632049

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4513202692382805096

[tblue]

30. I'll check those out. Thanks. It's almost like I don't wanna o know what the US has done.

I'm watching..... I don't like bullfighting. I always root for the bull. I consider bulls my Bovine American brothers.

[SoCalifer]

33. There are better

videos out there by PBS. But these two videos do a decent job at showing the conditions people are forced into by multinational corporate trade policies.

One can also find much reading material on the net about NAFTA affects on Mexicans.


And I myself don't like bullfighting either. I hate any kind of miss treatment to animals, and cruelty for entertainment is just down right despicable IMO.

[EFerrari]

91. If we stopped subverting their elections, then maybe you

could make that point.

BushCo helped steal the last one from a progressive. Didn't you see the hundreds of thousands of demonstrators?!

It's not in BushCo's interest for "those countries" to become working democracies. People would stay home.

[NormanYorkstein]

204. the Mexican government is blameless?

Vincente Fox wanted a fair elected but "we" stole it for his party?

[Big Pappa]

9. Sneak

into Mexico and see what happens. Don't get me wrong I love my Mexican buddies. I always see white and black people on the interstate exits begging for money never my Latino friends. They all have jobs doing crap that I would hate. Mostly construction and manufacturing jobs here. But, is there not some way these guys can come here in a way that they are counted, have criminal background checks done, and be given some type of ID that is orderly and safe.

[aein]

10. yeah, lets try to do that

[Big Pappa]

11. Well help me out then

What do we do? Just open the border and say come and get it. There has to be some way of helping these immigrants, while still protecting US citizens.

[SoCalifer]

24. Well for starters

Stop trade policies such as NAFTA and scams such as from the IMF and world bank. Stop flooding their market with cheap U.S. subsidized wheat and corn. Stop creating policies which take away long held communal lands people have been using to grow their own food.

In other words stop corporate greed from creating the problem in the first place and perhaps there wouldn't be so much blow-back.

I am just saying....

[Unvanguard]

32. Generally speaking, stop implementing a global economic system

that pits Mexican and US workers against each other for secure employment at decent wages while a tiny elite minority get obscenely rich off the labor of both groups.

Then we wouldn't even need to have this discussion.

[Morgana LaFey]

106. Best.Post. In. The. Thead.

Bar none.

[blondeatlast]

120. Excellent post. Thank you for a moment of sanity.

:patriot:

[Jcrowley]

48. The border is open

The flow of goods and capital comes and goes unfettered. But when it comes to people that's another story.

Smells like hypocrisy.





WITH THE TREATY INK BARELY DRY, THE VERY CORPORATIONS THAT LED THE PRO-NAFTA FIGHT IN CONGRESS WITH PROMISES OF MORE JOBS AND A CLEANER ENVIRONMENT MOVED SHOPS TO MEXICO. THE COST, SO FAR, IS MORE THAN 35,000 LOST JOBS.

It was not hard to figure out who was who in the halls of the congressional office buildings on November 15, 1993, two days before the vote on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). There were clusters of people wearing labor union caps and jackets; they were lobbying against the trade pact. Then there were the crowds of dark-suited men in matching red, white, and blue neckties; they were with the pro-NAFTA business coalition, USA NAFTA.

The patriotic neckties were just a minor tactic in one of the most expansive lobbying efforts in the history of corporate America. Calling itself a grassroots organization, USA NAFTA gave new meaning to the term by enlisting Fortune 500 companies as captains to whip up support for the agreement in each of the 50 states. An army of more than 2,000 member corporations provided backup.

The USA NAFTA coalition promised that the free trade pact would be all things to all people. It would improve the environment, reduce illegal immigration by raising Mexican wages, deter international drug trafficking, and most importantly, create a net increase in high-paying U.S. jobs. In the final days of the battle for passage, USA NAFTA worked closely with the White House NAFTA war room to sway undecided members of Congress. According to the Wall Street Journal, coalition members studied the fence-sitters' campaign contribution lists and urged the top corporate donors to turn up the heat. Many firms complied by promising new jobs in the member's district or threatening to withhold future contributions.

http://mediafilter.org/caq/CAQ54nafta.html

[Unvanguard]

13. Yes. If we get rid of the other restrictions that currently exist.

Otherwise, you are making the cost of legal immigration so high (or even unreachable) that people have an incentive to break the rules.

[Big Pappa]

17. I can see how

the path here could be made smoother, the problem where I live is the enormous burden the city faces when the population goes up by 35% in 2 years. From schools, housing, and health care all facets of daily life are adversely affected.

[Unvanguard]

19. And whose fault is that?

Immigrant families struggling to attain a good life for themselves, as everyone else does... or politicians who aren't willing to adequately fund public services?

[SammyWinstonJack]

193. Or sneak into Canada and see what happens. Why are other Countries allowed their immigration laws

upheld and defended on DU and the US isn't? I can't emigrate to Canada, they wouldn't have me or my husband, legally or otherwise. They have their immigration laws and we don't qualify, fine, I respect that. So should others who wish to emigrate to the US from their Countries.

[Unvanguard]

12. Well said.

No one is illegal.

Moral consideration recognizes no borders.

[Boojatta]

95. In other words, Iran had no right to hold UK sailors as captives. e.o.m.

[NormanYorkstein]

206. "Solidarity with ALL immigrant workers!"?

Solidarity in the sense of effective action to improve their plight, or "solidarity" in the sense of posting on the internet? Maybe some rocks through the Starbucks windows?

[IChing]

14. the transportation of Labor across the world and societies

to fulfill the needs of capital or leaders
has been only an issue
when human kind started looking into slavery
and freedom.

Let me see
Passover
Right?

And I'm a Buddhist at the most &.

Probably at the least.





Humans, are not subjected for their survival
in their concepts by nations, when the world is melting
to find peace with this war and planet
these people
they travel
and survive.

The concept of a corporate planetary nation state
is not in their survival mode.

[tblue]

31. Think of them as economic refugees. They live under an economically oppressive

regime. And a politically repressive regime. What the hell are they supposed to do to feed their families?

[blondeatlast]

121. That's how I think of them--and the US subverted Mexico's free elections last year.

So I say we can consider them political refugees as well.

[B Calm]

34. If I was a young person that could make 9 or 10 times what I was making

in the USA by going to Mexico, I would go in a heartbeat. I don't see Mexico having a republican guest worker program, so I would probably be an illegal living and working in Mexico..

[SammyWinstonJack]

198. Right and the Mexican Government would deport you for being there illegally. As would any other

Country but some here don't believe we should uphold our immigration laws as other Countries do. :shrug: I don't get that.

[DIKB]

35. I refuse to believe that

the circumstances someone was born into automatically entitle them to a better or worse life. Just cause someone is born here and gets automatic citizenship doesn't mean they deserve it, no more so than * was entitled to his life of having everything handed to him, just b/c of who his parents were.

I'm more of a borderless socialist, I find the idea of capitalism/consumerism and it's byproduct of inherited wealth to be disgusting.

[YankeyMCC]

38. Well said

legal rights != moral rights

Humans will do whatever they need to survive and provide for their families, humans are real moral agents, nations are arbitrary constructs to me it's a no brainier which should take precedence.

Given those realities it seems to me it's the law that needs examination (and I agree it isn't just US immigration law but the home countries too that need some examination and are justly called to doing a better job providing for or at least providing hope to their own people that they can make better lives at home) more than the people trying to make the best lives for themselves.

[cboy4]

41. The thing that really gets me is the hypocrisy.....you know,

the people who say nasty things about "those illegal aliens," yet
have no trouble at all hiring them to do cheap labor. :eyes:

[Jim Sagle]

45. Industrial-strength DLC, cheap labor hogwash!

[Unvanguard]

103. If the immigrant workers didn't compete with workers in the US

they would simply compete with workers exploited to an even greater degree in Mexico.

Indeed, with NAFTA, it probably makes little to no difference to the plutocrats anyway.

[Jim Sagle]

111. They still want to destroy one of the few remaining bastions of relatively high wages.

To the extent that we still are such a bastion.

[Unvanguard]

112. Then let's get rid of them.

And not of the immigrant workers.

[Jim Sagle]

Dupe - self-delete.

[Jim Sagle]

130. If they're here illegally, let's send them back as well.

No other position has any legitimacy.

[Unvanguard]

138. Why?

There is no justice in present immigration laws - thus, there is no injustice in violating them.

[Jim Sagle]

141. Good luck with that.

:rofl:

[Unvanguard]

145. Hmm, somehow I doubt that the millions of illegal immigrants here

are going to be deported anytime soon.

So perhaps it is your side that needs the luck.

[Jim Sagle]

149. Actually we need a crackdown on employers.

Then many illegals would move back on their own.

I guess that's too easy, and not divisive enough.

[Unvanguard]

150. Won't happen either.

You really see the government cracking down on employers... about anything?

[Jim Sagle]

171. That HAS to change. And not just on illegal immigration.

We fight for crumbs while they laugh at us all.

[Unvanguard]

175. Now there we agree! n/t

[Jcrowley]

47. This is a very authoritarian country

and racism always lies beneath the surface. Look at the language of the "They are illegals" that's that stunted argument. Nationalism is a disease.

[blondeatlast]

122. What a heartbreaking image. Damn. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Freedom of movement is a human right.

Human migration has been going on since God booted Adam & Eve out of Eden.

[pscot]

65. Suppose a homeless person migrates into your back yard

Would you feel that was his right?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. I'll deal that when it happens.

Does that happen at your place a lot?

[pscot]

70. They've been known to set up housekeeping in the woods around here

I'm more sympathetic towards that than I am to wide open borders. Let's take care of our own.

[roody]

173. Every being is our own.

[Lost-in-FL]

52. Yes there is a difference

If you cross the border illegally but you have rich American friends in this country that can pay to cheat the system by creating laws that would benefit your segment of the population then you can become a "political refuge" and you can get papers.

Put a Haitian and a Cuban in a boat and guess who is going back? Now, why is not everyone given the opportunity to become a documented citizen like in the case of Cubans? If Cuba is so bloody bad why is the US not doing anything about it? :sarcasm: Why don't we save all Cubans from Castro? :sarcasm:

This is why non Cuban Hispanics sometimes stay home on election day due to the bigotry and double standard they see from both sides, Republican and Democrat. I used to not understand why the Hispanic segment in my area is not involved and reading here I realize why.

It is easier and way CHEAPER to hate illegal immigrants. INS, and all agencies related to immigration and border control would not move a finger or do anything it takes to better their systems cause they can always count on hate and nationalism to mask their incompetence. You hear excuses like "the system is overwhelmed" or "we don't have funds" while citizens scream bloody murder to them illegals destroying the country.

[kenny blankenship]

53. I guess your problem is that you disagree with the law--of this country, and every other country

Oh well.

[Dutch]

57. And with the rule of law generally, it would seem. Oh well....n/t

[bling bling]

61. And every other country...

Pretty much.

[aein]

87. I respect the laws, I want them to be changed.

Do you support legalizing marijuana? Does that make you "disrespectful of the law" if you want the laws to change?

Some laws are unjust. I respect the rule of law, but I don't believe that law is simply what is written down on statutes and cases. There are fundamental/constitutional laws that are higher than those. Equality and economic justice is one of them.

[Exultant Democracy]

54. We are members of humanity and citizens of the world before we are American

They only come here because they are lured by an irresistible bait, a better life for their families. It is a sad state of a affairs when ignorance allows an otherwise good people to see these poor immigrants as a liability when it is clear that they are a resource.

They are criminals the same way jay walkers are, people crossing imaginary lines. Not to me mention that from a historical perspective we just stole most of their country not that long ago, and if I was them I wouldn't respect what I was see as an illegal border either.

[pscot]

63. Humanity is currrently 7 Billion strong and rising

Let's say for the sake of argument that only 10% would like to come to America. Are you OK with tripling the size of our population?

[Exultant Democracy]

71. Are you feeling cramped?

The fact is that if we can fix our education and health care systems I would rather have them here in a country full of opportunity then somewhere else, why? Because I think America is great, if we stopped the 2% of our country that wastes and exploits most of our resources there would be more then enough room and food to go around.

Maybe I'm just silly but I think we should worry about stopping the bad guys and helping the poor, not the other way around.

[pscot]

73. I am feeling cramped.

I'm seeing farmland being swallowed up by pavement, box stores and subdivisions. Sea levels are rising even as the oceans are dying. We're killing one another over oil. Water will be next. World food crops are in deficit because of drought and desertification. That will get worse as we divert food crfops to energy production. The planet is like a dog that has been overwhelmed by fleas. It's not doing well. The issue is not merely immigration. Wake up and look around you.

[Exultant Democracy]

104. I think that is the duh part, the problem isn't immigration

why take it out on the poor and downtrodden the "huddle masses." Blame a major multinational agricultural cooperation or an HMO or an Oil company not some poor immigrant that has only raised your quality of life.

[pscot]

123. This country would be near zero population growth

were it not for immigration. I fail to see how 700,000,000 new Americans would improve the quality of my life.

[Odin2005]

55. A country can only assimilate so many people at one time.

I know that statement will infuriate the cultural relativists and/or the radical multiculturalists (the two are usually go together), but a country should not be letting in more people then can easily assimilate into that country's society and culture, too many immigrants results in ethnic enclaves where immigrants can resist assimilation, creating nations within a nation.

[aein]

88. what's wrong with that?

why is that normatively bad?

[Odin2005]

94. Because it weakens the coheasion of the nation-state, thus letting the corporatists run things.

Weakened nation-states are the Corporatists' wet dream.

You Radical Multiculturalists are the Corporatists' patsies.

[Odin2005]

101. An assay from another forum I post at.

My views are similar to this poster's:

I largely agree with this. IMO, we have been using basically the same vehicle for community bonding since the fourth millennium BC. It is the use of myth to emotionally and politically bind a large group together that is larger than a genetic family. This myth binds this community together by positing an unlikely absolute familial relation ("we are all descended from Jacob"), claiming common adherence to a divine figurehead ("we all follow the emperor, the direct descendent of the sun goddess), or declaring a common ideal ("We the People . . ."). Things of this nature.

Another aspect of this demotic level is often the phenomenon of moral enforcement via divine authority. E.g., "If I steal my neighbor's goat and eat it, he may never know it was me, but Yaweh will". This creation of a self-policing aspect to society helps large numbers of people live together in an urban environment -- a people-dense environment our paleolithic evolution never designed us for. Otherwise, civilization ("the building and maintaining of cities") would not have been possible.

Up that point, an actual reality of relatedness was usually involved with clans and smallish tribes often with no more than a few degrees of consanguinity encompassed. In short, the previous level of community bonding, the human family, had reached the furthest extent of it's use as a leading-edge basic mode of existence.

That in turn replaced the Hominin troop by expanding intimate family bonding from simply mother and child to include a father/male-mate to the equation. The inclusion of a second parent was necessary to support the development of children in the prolonged childhood necessary for the species' new strategy of employing cultural/technological intelligence to thrive in its niche. This new family and its proximate consanguine relatives, which probably developed with the start of Homo erectus, formed the basis for a new level of community that served us well until high population densities developed in certain ecumenes like Mesopotamia.

The most advanced expression today of the narrative-bound Demos is the nation-state. But it is becoming clear that this expression is dysfunctional for the tasks of our developing global reality. Certain limitations, such as language and unreconcilable myths, prevent it from solving our current pressing problems.

So it seems likely a crisis, or series of crises, will push us to evolve (mostly unconsciously) a new platform for human community. This new community will not eliminate the nation-state (or at least certain forms of mythic Demos) but transcend and include it, negating mostly just the aspects not conducive to allowing the larger entity.

Neither is it likely that this new community will come to be based on international (or even transnational) action, but rather something that transcends the nation-state altogether.

Demos did not replace the family (or even in some cases the tribe), nor did it come about by a federation of families -- perhaps in some cases, but then the new entity quickly became something more than a union of tribes in and of itself). Also, what passed for "tribe" in many societies after the advent of civilization often utilized this new mythic tool to breach consanguinity in some cases. The Mongol and Amerind "tribes", for example, were to a large extent arguably just nomadic Demos.

And the new paternally-inclusive human family did not replace the mother-child bond by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree with Akham that something new must, and will be, coming. I don't necessarily agree that civilization is "decrepit". Just not up to the task now before it.

That all said, I see nothing immediately developing or available to become this new mode or vehicle of community. I have a few candidates in mind, but nothing available now. And whatever it is will probably surprise the hell out of us anyway.

So in the meantime I contend that the nation-state, and a community of nation-states, is all we have to work with at the moment, and we might as well make the best of it. That is one reason why I am so against postmodern and multicultural prescriptions -- they would damage or destroy all we have to work with at the moment while nothing is yet available to replace it. And what they would replace it with is worse than what we have now.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

115. Interesting. Care to share with us what forum it is? -nt

[Odin2005]

186. Here's the forum:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/

[Nikia]

56. Unfortunately, we don't have room for everyone who wants to come

There are places in the United States that are already crowded and do not have the infastructure to support many extra people. There are places in the United States that do have infastructure and have experienced depopulation, but most of those places do not have enough jobs.
Liberals, myself included, speak about ideals like living wages for all Americans and limiting sprawl and the damage it causes to the environment. Unrestricted immigration is incompatible with these ideals.
I don't hate illegal immigrants. I know that it is hard for them to come here and many of them continue to live poor after they come here.
We should be working with other countries to encourage them to treat their people better and give them more oppurtunties. This is especially true of Mexico given it proximity to the United States, the fact that many illegal immigrants come from that country, and the fact that it does have a lot of potential to offer people what they need.

[The Backlash Cometh]

58. Open borders is a huge mistake.

You have to have some control or people who come here under the guise of "doing jobs that Americans don't want to do" (which I think is a pile of hokey) may also be people with criminal backgrounds, so we'll have to deal with higher crime rates when the market is tight for harvest.

Going back to an original issue. We do have Americans who are willing to do the jobs. I suggest you go and take a good look at our own Americans who are legal immigrants who are also migrant workers. They're doing the job quite well, and follow the crop rotations. They might even have their own sub-culture which is strong in whatever nationality they came from, because they don't stay in one place for too long. They might rent from federal housing year round to keep a permanent domicile, but they're off to Michigan three months of the year to follow the harvest. THOSE ARE THE AMERICANS YOU'RE SCREWING OVER, CAPICHE? Legal immigrants who are migrant workers.

And, guess what? Because they live incredibly frugal lives and live off church charity and federal aid, they actually save enough to buy their own land. That is, unless you keep bringing in more illegal immigrants, that take their jobs.

[bbgrunt]

60. while I believe in human rights, the people that enter

illegally are pawns of the corporations and government that are being used to drive wages to the level of slavery. you say:

"If people are willing to come to this country and do jobs we don't want to do."

Which is the exact thing that the corporate media constantly asserts. Americans want to work. The statement that there are jobs we don't want to do makes me wonder how we ever survived economically since this implies that Americans simply won't do them.

WRONG!!

Americans will do any kind of work as long as you compensate them fairly.

Such statements show ignorance of the issue. Please note that NAFTA was supposed to help increase wages in Mexico and create an environment where workers there would have an incentive to stay in Mexico. Instead, wages went DOWN in Mexico--increasing the desperation of Mexican workers.

How did that Happen? It sure wasn't because corporate powers in bed with governments wanted to respect humanity.

While I don't believe in turning illegal immigrants in scapegoats, Neither do I believe that appeals to human rights and dignity will improve our position in the economic WAR against lower income people. In fact, it will only exacerbate the problem.

[Fountain79]

62. sigh....

I have worked along side illegal immigrants, shared laughs with them, etc. I have been to Mexico, I have seen the poverty there, I understand completely why people would come up here illegally, yes I used that word, for a better life. Still, let's not get so liberal that we deny a country's right to define it's immigration policy and control how many people can come in. I admit the process is broken and needs to be repaired and improved but simply saying anyone should be allowed in is risky. You are aware of the fact that it is in countries like Mexico's best interest to push for their poorest to be sent here right?

[aein]

93. I support your position

I'm just putting a principle out there, to sway people to one position over another: legalization v. deportation/permanent underclass.

[WinkyDink]

66. Well, laws would seem to define a difference. You are being disingenuous in seeking

a totally open border. Nation-states exist; as such, they have a right to their own laws about citizenship.

Why can the U.S. not have its own laws about immigration, when DU'ers often argue the supposed merits of "respecting other cultures"? THIS culture has IMMIGRATION LAWS.

But hey; any time you want to convince Switzerland to accept me as a citizen, I'll be all for it.

[personman]

178. Because it's an argument for being tolerant of intolerance. nt

[Skidmore]

67. You're right. There is none because

exploitation is exploitation regardless of whether the wealthy of the immigrant's homeland or the wealthy of America are doing it. Doesn't matter. It's exploitation. And our willingness to excuse the employers, large and small, of this nation who pay out under the table and break the laws of the land does by no means make that wrong a right. It is not progressive to force people into an underclass through deceit and illegal behavior. It is corrupt and exploitive and promotes servitude.

[kineneb]

69. translation: concept of sovereign nation-state is obsolete

-labor and capital are now international, as are pollution and climate change; the silly 18th century reasons for the nation-state are outdated, and only cause wars.

-when firms can move their operations to locations with "lower labor costs",
the concept "illegal" immigrant becomes obsolete...

[porphyrian]

72. The people who complain about "illegals" are those who feel they're being slighted by them.

In their minds, rightfully or wrongfully, illegal immigration is an affront to their livelihood. Sometimes the reasons are irrational, sometimes not so much. Most often, however, it is simply some combination of anger and fear being leveled at a convenient scapegoat, proof of the successful manipulation of public perception by the powers that be.

[pscot]

74. Utter Hogwash

N/T

[porphyrian]

75. Oh? Care to explain your rude dismissal, or would you just like to be an ass? - n/t

[Forkboy]

79. heh...like I just said...that'll touch a nerve.

:)

[porphyrian]

80. You called it, your point.

;)

[pscot]

142. What touches a nerve

is having my feelings explained to me. I object to the idea of open borders. That simple declaration has gotten me labeled, variously, a racist, a bigot and a xenophobe. You want to argue, fine. Just don't try to tell me what I'm feeling. I'd like to make one point. In a perfect world, or one with unlimited resources, there would be no hard choices. We don't live in such a world. We are coming up against natural constraints. Our resource base is not only limited, but dwindling. I expect to see gasoline rationing within a decade. The world food supply is in deficit. Demand for ethanol can only make it worse. Most major fisheries are on the verge of collapse. The report of the IPCC is filled with alarming news. The only thing in surplus right now is people. We cannot solve the world population problem without sinking ourselves in the process.

[porphyrian]

144. Utter Hogwash - n/t

[pscot]

172. Oh Golly, that was clever

Remind me never to engage you in repartee. Or bother to respond to your posts in future. My bad for taking you seriously.

[porphyrian]

174. Sucks to be dismissed out of hand, doesn't it?

I don't give a fuck what you do.

[Forkboy]

78. That'll touch a nerve

[mondo joe]

134. Incorrect. I, for one, simply believe a nation is obliged to manage its resources.

That is why I support good fiscal management - of the sort the Bush administration has failed at in every sense.

That is why I support environmental stewardship - which, again, the Bush administration has utterly attacked.

Good foreign policy, maintain infrastructure, etc etc etc.

And immigration management as well.

[porphyrian]

140. I didn't realize you were complaining about the "illegal problem."

That's who I was addressing. And, if you are, I would argue that I'm still correct.

I never said that people can't think breaking the law is wrong.

[slackmaster]

76. Illegal immigrants bypass processes that protect public health and safety

There is a list of vaccinations required for immigration. Also HIV testing and criminal background check.

We don't want people carrying yellow fever or polio coming into the country. Or convicted felons.

[Bluerthanblue]

84. so do wealthy, influential LEGAL immigrants-

money and power don't exempt people from disease-

But it can exempt them from being examined.

[slackmaster]

100. Not relevant, but can you substantiate that?

I was under the impression that vaccination, HIV testing, and background checks were required for all people seeking permanent residency.

My point is that someone jumping the border fence does not get checked, and could pose a risk to public health especially if he or she gets a job that involves handling food.

[Bluerthanblue]

147. no, not the way I should

be able to- and you are right to call me on that.!

I understood your point. I guess I'm a bit hypersensitive about the way some people stereotype some illegal immigrants of 'hispanic' origin.

As for the rich being able to avoid some of rules on immigration, I was thinking in particular of people who have the opportunity to use their influence to make sure they have 'clean records' "legally" even if they don't.
I don't personally have specific proof-(if I did, I'd be foolish to lay it out on a message board)- but I think you'd agree it is not beyond the realm of possibility.

People can carry disease and not be "sick"- Simply travelling to other countries can expose people to illnesses that pose public health risks-

peace,
blu

[Coventina]

77. What gets me is the hypocrisy. My husband's great-grandfather

used another man's passport to get entry into this country, and just stayed.

He was avoiding the draft back in the "old country" (tiny country in Eastern Europe). So basically, he was a no-good, draft-dodging illegal alien.

Now, his grandson (my FIL) speaks loudly and angrily about these damn illegals.

You know what? I'll bet according to Native Americans, we're all a bunch of damn illegals.

[slackmaster]

81. And according to the Native Americans that lived here before current ones,

They are illegals too.

[ComerPerro]

82. I agree with you mostly, but a few differences

Yes, there is a difference between illegal and legal immigrants, that being those who immigrated legally did so, well, legally, through our immigration system.

This is not to say, of course, that I feel illegals are criminal or somehow subhuman as many do. In fact, I think the illegal immigration issue raises some disturbing flaws in our immigration system. Consider: We allow certain select people from certain select countries to come to the US, and we grant them amnesty. We do this because they are seeking a better life, and are trying to escape cruel and brutal and corrput governments as well as overwhelming poverty. But this is exactly why people seek to come here from Mexico. They seek to escape a corrupt government and the oppressive poverty levels.

Those who scapegoat illegals, whatever side of the isle they may be on, are just doing so to avoid addressing the real problems.

First off, I believe there could be diplomatic soutions to the immigration "problem". A creative politician and true leader could find ways to work with the Mexican government to clean it up and raise the nation's standard of living and quality of life. We wasted billions destroying Iraq, and are spending billions more to fix what we broke. Why not spend the effort in a country closer to home, where real change could be instated (rhetorical question, obviously we can't do this because Hiliburton wouldn't profit nearly as much).

Secondly, one issue that I constantly hear raised by opponents of illegal immigration is that they drain our resources. They cost Americans billions in health care costs, they crowd our schools, they tie down our resources with bilingual requirements and English education, etc etc. Its all nonsense, though. This is the richest nation on the planet. Were our priorities in order, we would have such a powerful health care and educational system that the extra new Americans would not even make a noticeable impact.


Hell, though. Sometimes its just easier to point to who is to blame, rather than identify and discuss real problems.

[Bluerthanblue]

83. we're all criminals if you want to come right down to it- how

many of us have NEVER driven above the posted speed limit?

Not signaled before a turn?

Passed on the right?

Pressed our luck on that yellow light, or not come to a complete stop at a stop sign?

how many of us-
have never used unlawful substances, or used alcohol before the legal age?

how many people remember to list any 'barter' deals on their income tax?

have never jay-walked?


you get the point.

I think the OP makes a very good point-

With the exception of full blooded Native Americans- we are all here 'illegally'-

peace,
blu

[aikoaiko]

85. I think your position is insulting to every immigrant who waited their turn, played by the rules,

and paid their dues/taxes in order to be a legal resident.

[aein]

90. I'm one of those legal immigrants, I'm not insulted by my own argument

I came here when I was 5. My parents were garment workers for 10 years. They made 12,000 dollars a year working 14 hours a day. Every day.

[aikoaiko]

96. You're not exactly being honest. you didn't wait you're turn -- you just tagged along.

But even if there are legal residents who agree with your position, I still think its insulting to many others -- including your parents.

[omega minimo]

161. Your argument is that of a five year old

Let's all have cake for breakfast
and brush our teeth with ice cream
national borders are "arbitrary lines" made of licorice
dogs can fly and we all get paid to watch cartoons
laws are "arbitrary lines" that need to be changed
CUZ I SAID SO
and those that broke them when they WERE laws
well THAT DOESN'T COUNT
and anyone who has a different opinion on law and borders and immigration
"just DOESN'T LIKE ILLEGALS."


:thumbsdown:

[aein]

182. Was that suppose to be satire?

A poor attempt.

[omega minimo]

184. It's an illustration of how simplistic and immature your argument is

as you presented it in the OP. It sounds just like a child pounding its fist and saying "BUT I WANNA!!!!"

[aein]

188. Do you have any other criticism other than the fact that it "sounded" immature...like facts or...

reasonable argument? Because it sounds to me like your response is nothing more than the childhood taunt: "you sound like an idiot," which I find really ironic.

[omega minimo]

192. The onus is on you to make your case, if you have "like facts" or logic, not just emotional

arguments that amount to "if they broke the law then the laws are wrong."

If that is the extent of your argument, then you can work on changing the laws, rather than insisting they are irrelevant. That's politics.

[aein]

195. maybe you didn't understand the gist of my argument

let me put this into outline form

1. Other things being equal, the legality argument either can support 1) punishment or 2) legalization
2. We accept equality arguments in other aspects of our lives. Its something, we, as progressives, generally agree with.
3. That equality argument supports legalization.
4. Therefore, other things being equal, we should prefer the "legalization" argument over the punishment argument.

[Unvanguard]

102. The fact that some people have endured needless hardship

does not mean that the needless hardship should be maintained for everyone else.

[aikoaiko]

105. I guess this where I disagree with you, control over borders is a worthy pursuit.

And I respect those immigrants who honor our rules for residence.

[Unvanguard]

108. Borders are just lines on a map.

They are completely arbitrary in designating who has the right to live and work where he or she pleases.

[aikoaiko]

109. what right to live and work where one pleases are you talking about

I certainly don;t have a right to live in any county of my choosing and demand a job/health care/etc.

[Unvanguard]

110. But you do have the right to live here.

Why you, and not someone who happened to be born south (or north) of an imaginary line?

[aikoaiko]

113. I can see from your question that you don't recognize the right of sovereign nations to have

...their own rules. So be it.

The premise of your question is false, people who happen to be born outside of our borders are permitted to work and live in the US if they follow the rules of admittance.

I'll stop responding to this subthread now. You can have the last word.

[Unvanguard]

114. Indeed I do not.

The moral law supercedes the state's whims. Always.

[mondo joe]

128. Funny thing about moral law - it varies from person to person.

Homosexuals may be killed because of "moral law".

Crosses can be burned on the lawn of African American homes because of "moral law".

Abortions can be performed, or prevented, because of "moral law".

[Unvanguard]

132. A difference of opinion does not imply a difference in truth.

Another day we can discuss meta-ethics, though. The point is that a conception of justice must precede any evaluation of the state's laws - sheltering Jews during the Holocaust was illegal, but we would hardly condemn those who did it as disgusting criminals.

[mondo joe]

133. Spoken like those who justify assassinating abortion providers.

:eyes:

[Unvanguard]

136. Indeed, they say the same about the need for laws to be morally justified.

Incidentally, they also breathe, speak, think, eat, and sleep.

Guilt by association has never been a very rational approach to an argument.

[mondo joe]

139. Breathing and sleeping are not choices, but principles are.

My condolences.

[Unvanguard]

146. Hmm, principles.

Most anti-abortion advocates are against rape and murder. Aren't you?

[genie_weenie]

92. Was the European Conquest of the Americas illegal?

If people are willing to come to this country and do jobs we don't want to do. Why should we stop them?

That is a load of hooey. Throughout the history of America, business has been willing and has strived to import people into the US to undercut wages, cause strife and division amongst the lesser classes. The imported were poor, had no organization, often didn't speak english, had no representation, had no protections (either unions or government) were exploited, could be used and abused.

Whether the were Chinese, Italians, Poles, Germans, Irish, African slaves, or nowadays Latin and South Americans the goal was always the same. Exploit them for a generation or two, until they learned they had allowed themselves to be taken advantage of and they fought back.

[Bluerthanblue]

98. not entirely true- while

many of my ancestors came here in the 1600's- there are others who came as a result of oppression in their homeland- My great great Grandparents include people who were driven from their homes by the ruling elite of Scotland (many people have never heard about the Clearances) and Ireland (the more well known 'potatoe famine') They came here only hoping to have a chance of a future- Not "imported to undercut wages, cause strife and division.." among anyone.

"Them" is us- I doubt that even one of us here is a pure 'native'.

Exploitation isn't something that is unique to 'foreign born' people- Look at the coal miners.

How many of them are "foreign born"?

peace,
blu

[AZBlue]

97. Stop illegals from getting any benefits from the govt while citizens can't, and I'll agree with you.

But while they get loads of benefits and citizens can't, I'll have to completely but respectfully disagree. I've seen first-hand how destructive this policy is.

[Morgana LaFey]

107. and which ones are those?

[AZBlue]

165. Which "ones" are you referring to?

Legal citizens who can't get benefits? Some of my family members, for starters.

The illegal citizens who get those benefits instead? Well, I won't name names, so the two I know won't be "outed" here. But in general I'll give you this: the hundreds (maybe thousands) that my best friend's mother has handed government benefits to in her job over the last 10 years and through today - and tomorrow.

[Morgana LaFey]

191. I'm asking you what BENEFITS

It's an invitation to get just a little past your anti-immigrant stance and make yourself clear.

I have NO IDEA what BENEFITS you are claiming illegals get that citizens can't or don't get. Why don't you enlighten me?

[Jcrowley]

117. Everyone's for sale

[mondo joe]

118. Disagree. Every nation has the right, and responsibility, to manage its resources.

That includes immigration.

[Unvanguard]

119. Sure.

But it does not have the right to arbitrarily privilege some over others.

[mondo joe]

124. It does not have the right to privilege some citizens over others, generally. But it does

have the right to grant citizenship (or not), and entry (or not).

[Unvanguard]

125. Why? n/t

[mondo joe]

127. Because that is part of how a nation manages its resources, and for the same reason

that you have the right to grant (or refuse) entry to your home.

[Unvanguard]

129. "Managing" is different from "privileging."

Say I decide that only x quantity of resources should be consumed. Great - but to say that some people should get all, and others none, is a separate policy.

As far as granting or refusing entry into my home, this is part of my right to privacy. No one's right to privacy is violated by immigration.

You might make an argument from some kind of property right, but then you have to contend with the fact that the United States is sovereign over its territory for basically the same reason that all states are: naked force.

And that is not a justification for anything.

Edit: Thanks for giving a real answer to my question, though. They are rare in these discussions.

[mondo joe]

131. Access is a resource. A nation has the right, and resonsibility, to manage its resources

which includes access.

It does not have the right to give different legal privilege to those who fall under its governance (with a few exceptions). But those who are not citizens neither have a right to its resources, nor does the government have a say over those non-citizens.

Property rights, and national boundaries, are not simply a matter of naked force, but of mutual agreement between nations.

If your position were so, in fact, there would be nothing wrong with one country invading another by force - the invaded country, of course, has no right to national boundaries anyway.

[Unvanguard]

135. Human beings are human beings.

Why should we distinguish citizens from non-citizens?

If the government decided tomorrow that all Blacks weren't citizens, and in accordance with this deported them all to Africa, why would that be any less legitimate than declaring that people born south of the border, too, should have no (or severely restricted) access to the benefits of citizenship?

Is it simply a matter of geographic area? How is that anything but arbitrary? No one is responsible for where they happened to be born.

National boundaries are indeed the result of mutual agreements between nations, but the mutual agreements tend to be mutual agreements that are characterized by the threat of force - or, at least, in the periods where most of the world's present states were established, that was the case. The US-Mexico border, for instance, was established as the result of armed coercion in the Mexican-American War.

As for invasions, you are actually right. I see nothing wrong, in and of itself, with one nation establishing its authority in another nation's territory - it's a morally neutral action. However, wars tend to bring deaths, and the expansion of territory seems a pretty bad reason for killing people.

Also, the people living in that territory have the right to decide who rules them.

[mondo joe]

137. I shouldn't expect someone with an anarchy avatar to have any regard for

systems of law, or even self government.

My mistake.

[Unvanguard]

143. Indeed, you are correct that we anarchists generally wonder why

the mere factual matter of the state's capability to enforce its rules (that is, naked force) somehow implies that we are morally obligated to pay heed to its whims.

Of course, we are not the only ones who wonder so.

As for self-government, anarchists have always been the strongest advocates of that. Self-government. Not governing others who do us no harm.

[Madspirit]

126. Texan Here

I agree with you totally and will K&R this thread. I have many "illegal" friends.
Lee

[Irreverend IX]

148. I see lots of emotional ideology...

With no logic to back it up. The US is incapable of absorbing every single person in the world who'd like to come here. "Open borders" would plunge the country into third world hell in a few years. The size of the unskilled labor base would increase exponentially, but there would be no corresponding increase in the demand for goods and services, tax revenue or natural resources. The Mexicans who are now undercutting the American workers would themselves be undercut by people from the most destitute Third-World countries willing to work for a bowl of rice a day.

No open borders advocate I've ever seen post here has had any idea how their childish fantasy would work in the real world. Like it or not, being born within the borders of the United States gives a person privileges within this country that others don't have, just as Mexican-born people have privileges within Mexico that foreigners don't. A nation's duty is to its citizens first and foremost, not to all people in the world, and allowing anyone to become a citizen effortlessly is a betrayal of the preexisting citizens in that it robs citizenship of its value. Yes, some people will starve who might have lived if they could have gotten jobs in the US. But if every such person were to come here, the economy would break under the burden and the US would become little better than what they left behind.

If the Mexicans really want a better life, they should storm their capital and hang their leaders from lampposts. That's probably what would happen if we sealed the border, since they would be left without the easier alternative of sneaking into the US. Despite a decade of Republican sabotage, this country still has a high standard of living and good wages for many professions, and the government's first priority should be to preserve those conditions for the people who are already here, not to attempt the impossible task of giving freedom and prosperity to everyone in the world.

[Unvanguard]

151. At some point we would expect that it would no longer be profitable to come.

At that point, they would no longer come.

What's your worry?

[Irreverend IX]

152. The point when it's no longer profitable to come...

Will be when the US has degenerated into a third-world shithole.

[Unvanguard]

155. Unlikely.

It would be the point where the cost of immigration is greater than the difference between conditions for immigrants from the Third World in the United States and the conditions they would live in if they stayed home.

Illegal immigration has very little negative economic effect on the majority of Americans.

Edit: Think about it. Illegal immigrants do indeed increase the supply of labor - but they also increase consumer demand by paying their wages into the economy, and thus help create demand for jobs.

[Irreverend IX]

160. The conditions for Third World immigrants in the US...

Are a hell of a lot better than the conditions for people still living in the Third World. Living in a tenement in a high-crime area would be paradise for millions of Africans and Indians, and with open borders I'm sure they would sell their kidneys, sign 50-year labor contracts or do whatever else was necessary to get a plane ticket here. What happens then is a massive surge in the US population, but these new citizens won't have any money to pay into the economy and no skills other than menial labor.

Employers, landlords and the like will then begin a race to the bottom, giving the immigrant population the bare minimum of payment and lodging necessary to keep them alive. It would be impossible for Americans to find unskilled labor paying anything more, and let's face it: not everyone can go to college and get an office job.

And illegal immigration has had major economic impacts on the majority. Twenty years ago, you could put kids through college with a job in meatpacking or construction. Then the bosses busted the unions and hired illegals, and now the jobs pay slave wages and cut corners on all the safety standards. White-collar jobs are practically the only work left that offers economic security, and even that sector is being degraded through the proliferation of H1B visas and the like.

With open borders, every job aside from service positions that require English fluency would be given to the lowest bidders among immigrants from developing countries. And since this would force lots of Americans out of work, English-speaking service jobs would also see their wages driven down due to the increased demand.

Under Bush, we've had an employer's market where workers are at the mercy of bosses. With open borders it would become a million times worse.

[Bluerthanblue]

162. I believe you are angry at the wrong group- Also, you are off with

the statement that 20yrs ago you could put "kids" through college with a construction or meatpacking job.

"Community college" perhaps- and not multiple kids at the same time-

White collar work isn't threatened by "guest workers"- How many immigrants to you know who work "white collar"?

And I have to think you made a typing error when you said:

"With open borders, every job aside from service positions that require English fluency would be given to the lowest bidders among immigrants from developing countries. And since this would force lots of Americans out of work, English-speaking service jobs would also see their wages driven down due to the increased demand."

An INCREASE demand for service jobs would = lower wages???

Maybe I'm not reading you correctly-

[Irreverend IX]

164. Plenty of white-collar immigrants...

Working with H1B visas. Just about any job that doesn't require English fluency can be given to immigrants willing to work for cheaper. The reason it doesn't happen in mass quantities now is the controls on immigration, which even now are steadily being eroded by corporations.

An INCREASE demand for service jobs would = lower wages???

Yes, because if a lot more people want service jobs, the market will be skewed even more heavily in favor of employers, who will be able to pay lower wages for jobs that would have commanded high wages in the past.

And I'm not "angry at the wrong people." I want severe crackdowns on the employers who are working to destroy American jobs, but I acknowledge that illegal immigration also has to be prevented to protect US workers. The interests of US citizens should trump the interests of non-citizens in the eyes of the government. It's that simple.

[Bluerthanblue]

159. the gluttony of this country-

which is my home- and the home the home of my ancestors for over 300yrs. is made possible because of the way we USE and manipulate the lives of people in other countries- and THAT IS something that we should be able to do something about.

I live in a rural area where there are many "vacation homes"- We aren't talking a cottage on the lake, we're talking about homes that are valued at over $10,000,000. There are a dozen homes I can think of that are playhouses for the "haves"- homes that are often used less than one week a year, yet which use precious natural resources to maintain them while they sit idle- benefiting no-one.

We can't live in "paradise" and expect that others aren't going to want to come here-
And how can we call ourselves a "democracy" and then 'cherry-pick' those we will "allow to join our club" the "Losers" being people we consider ourselves "above".

If we really desire to live in a more peaceful world- then the best way to achieve that IS to do everything we can to ensure that all people in this world live free and prosperous lives.
Sure, that would lessen the number of "uber-rich"- but there is still room for people who desire to accumulate more than one 'needs'- if that is what fulfills them.

peace,
blu

[Irreverend IX]

166. I'm also disgusted...

By people who own multimillion dollar playhouses, but there's a difference between that level of excess and the comfortable standard of living that many in the US enjoy. If you let every person who wants that standard of living into the country, there will be too many people to maintain it and we'll end up with a Dickensian level of economic stratification. The best way to help people in other countries is to help them create freedom and prosperity in their own societies instead of grabbing a piece of ours, because the US doesn't have unlimited resources.

[aein]

181. Strange, I thought I made a very logical argument...

...on the other side, I see nothing but empirical claims without empirical study or expertise: why don't you cite a study or a report? This un-backed, and hypocritical claims of "third-world shithole" is nothing but another form of white-flight. It's the same reaction as when black people started moving into white neighborhoods.

[alarimer]

163. In my opinion the real criminals are their employers

They are the ones needing to be locked up, their equipment seized, their businesses closed. It would only take a few such cases to be a lesson for others. Of course cheap labor conservatives LOVE illegal immigration because it keeps wages artificially low. They could find plenty of legal help, if they would just pay a living wage. Illegals also can't complain about working conditions, horrendous as they may be (and I have heard stories that curl my hair about that).

I don't have any problem with anyone trying to make a better life for themselves.

[Cleita]

170. I agree with you one hundred percent, but I can tell you on

this issue we are not a majority. It's a pity.

[NormanYorkstein]

187. nationalism may suck

so let them stay at your house

[aein]

189. Gladly, if they pay me rent. Or Build my highways, or cook my food. Or mow my lawn for $2

...oh wait. They do that and more.

[NormanYorkstein]

190. really? you have a cook and gardener?

funny I cook my own food and mow my own lawn.

[aein]

201. I thought we were talking in metaphors. Unless you really have do have an illegal immigrant living..

in your backyard. Why don't you call the cops?

[B Calm]

196. aein, what do you do for a living?

I drive a truck and feel threatened that Mexican labor will end up lowering my wages.

[NormanYorkstein]

199. but they will mow your lawn for two dollars!

[aein]

200. I'm a graduate student.

I can sympathize with you. When NAFTA happened, my parents had to stop being garment workers, because all that work went to mexico. Now, they've moved on. My mother works for an electronics manufacturer. My father makes high-tech chemical-mixing systems.

[NormanYorkstein]

203. graduate student huh? So you don't compete with illegal immigrants

So when you "take up the cause" it's no sweat off your back, because after you graduate with an advanced degree, you won't be competing at the same level in the market.

That's nearly always the case for those who support illegal immigration.

[aein]

202. I see I won't win this by argument. I rather not win it by exhaustion either...

...I won't be responding any longer. I'm glad I could stir up some lively debate.

[truebrit71]

205. Sorry, WRONG. As a LEGAL immigrant nothing pisses me off more than illegal immigrants...

I missed Raygun's blanket amnesty by 8 days. EIGHT days. I came into this country as a student, and fell in love. I wanted to stay, because I had found a new home. But because I followed the rules and adhered to the letter of the law I was penalized. If I had arrived in the US eight days earlier, and could prove that I'd been in the country illegally for the entire time I'd been here. I got to stay...for free..instead I had to go through all sorts of legal hoops and gymastics to stay here...fingerprints, blood samples, physicals, proof of residency, proof of solvency, criminal background check, thousands of $$ to an attorney...but if I had snuck into the country and just NOT got caught I could have stayed for free...

Fuck that.

If you're illegal, get out.

You wanna know the funny part? Because I was a 'foreign' student I wasn't allowed to have a job here...the rationale being that every second I wasn't in school pursuing my degree I should have spent learning to speak English...the fact that I speak it better than the majority of US citizens and came from a country called 'England' was apparently lost on the I.N.S....