Handling illegal immigration

[warpus]

In the US I see the party in power doing something to restrict immigration, the opposition criticizing it

One of the problems in the U.S. is that they allowed all these illegal immigrants to settle there, turned a blind eye to it, allowed them to take on jobs nobody wants to do, etc.. Now decades later, after families have set up shop here, all of a sudden the rules are changing.

Obviously you want strict regulations wrt immigration, and you want good ways to deal with people who try to circumvent that. But if you allow these people to settle in your country for decades, that's sort of on you when millions of people end up taking advantage of it.

 

[Synobun]

Of course it's nonsense, for the same reason this statement is nonsense:

"Those opposed to people driving cars without a licence are all actually just against people driving cars in general, whether they have a licence or not."

That's a completely different statement tho.

Doesn’t your post that illegal immigrants are willing to work in poor conditions for very low wages actually go against your argument that they’re not taking jobs from the working class who simply expect decent jobs?

I’m not totally convinced illegal immigrants are stealing jobs in large numbers, it could be employers would still have trouble filling those jobs regardless and it can also bring up prices if they employ people legally, like one of the reasons the Asian nail salons are so cheap.

BUT, I’m not so convinced that illegal immigrants taking jobs from the working class isn’t a cause of concern and anyone who is concerned about it is just racist against “brown people.”

And the idea that there should be no borders at all and everything will turn out fine - sounds pretty far fetched.

I mostly agree with you on borders. I think, if society continues to advance, that nation-states will ultimately become irrelevant. But definitely not today.

As for the rest, you have to ask yourself if it's worth sacrificing the amenable cost of goods. Products can be so cheap because the supply chain is backed by slave wage labour, either overseas or right here at home. If illegals working in the fields or hidden away in quasi sweatshops is so abhorrent and critically detrimental to society, then you also have to accept that the things you can pay so little for will suddenly cost far more... and you still won't have a job because you still won't be willing to have the work the illegals had to put up with.

The comment about name calling was addressed to Lexicus. As for the facts, they do support my position. I posted a well-sourced article with citations, whereas the people who support immigration have presented nothing so far. As for the abortion data, think of that whatever you will, but I think this was originally about budget and crime data, something which the article covers

This is essentially the global warming thread. Consensus has already reached a position so there's less need to provide links with every message, but then someone comes in with a far-off opinion and says: "See, I have links and you don't. It means I'm right and you're wrong. I am very smart." You came in with an agenda already prepared and then deviously stroke your chin when everyone else doesn't have a portfolio of statistics at the ready to oppose you.

More to the point, in regards to you specifically, this isn't really worth it. You link to this stuff in every thread, the thread gets locked, and then you go radio silent for a couple weeks before doing it again. You always mention facts but your arguments inherently rest on the backs of self-admitted right-wing radicals and blog sites that intentionally package their 'reports' and 'studies' in as hostile language they can muster. Reputable studies don't need to do this, and using charged language to make your point is a classic tactic to put readers and oppositions on the defensive while spurring on rhetoric in your supporting base.

There isn't much of a point in sitting down and tackling the argument step-by-step with statistical evidence and studies that don't need to call people degenerates and unwanted. It's easier to just point out that your facts always coincidentally end up painting entire demographics as unworthy scum and that's not a fact at all.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's a completely different statement tho.

Well yeah, but they're both nonsense for the same reason.

 

[Synobun]

Well yeah, but they're both nonsense for the same reason.

Feel free to bless the masses with the reason.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Obviously you want strict regulations wrt immigration[...].

I'm unsure about this, myself. Every time I turn around, I'm hearing or reading about the benefits of immigration to this country (note that I'm not treating every country the same here, I'm only thinking about the United States). A year or two ago, I heard the President of the University of Pennsylvania talking about how some of her graduate and PhD students wanted to start businesses here, but had to leave because of visa requirements. If someone wants to talk about jobs leaving the country, there goes some of them. Obviously this was anecdotal information, not any kind of study, but it was an anecdote from the president of a major university, not some Shmoe who thinks we should value her opinion just because she has a pulse.

A big part of my stance on immigration is that it seems like every claim people make against immigrants and immigration turns out to be wrong: "They're more likely to commit crime." "They don't pay taxes." "They're trying to impose Sharia law." "They take our jobs." I think conservatives have done a lot more to cement my liberal views than liberals have. I think a lot of the hysteria is completely fabricated and/or imaginary.

So, I guess the bottom line is that I'm not at all convinced that strict regulation of immigration is a good thing and we just need to work out the details. I'm open to that idea, but it seems like every time somebody on the Right opens their mouth, I'm moved further to the Left.

(Literally as I write this, the radio program I have on is talking about the US Supreme Court's decision to uphold Trump's travel ban, and I have to willfully suppress the knee-jerk reaction to just assume that it's a bad decision without even reading it. We've gotten to the point where I just assume any decision to back a conservative position on almost any issue is badly-reasoned, ill-informed, and bigoted. If it's the goal of American conservatives to turn me into a radical, left-wing socialist, they're doing a fine job.)

 

[Synobun]

I'm unsure about this, myself. Every time I turn around, I'm hearing or reading about the benefits of immigration to this country (note that I'm not treating every country the same here, I'm only thinking about the United States). A year or two ago, I heard the President of the University of Pennsylvania talking about how some of her graduate and PhD students wanted to start businesses here, but had to leave because of visa requirements. If someone wants to talk about jobs leaving the country, there goes some of them. Obviously this was anecdotal information, not any kind of study, but it was an anecdote from the president of a major university, not some Shmoe who thinks we should value her opinion just because she has a pulse.

A big part of my stance on immigration is that it seems like every claim people make against immigrants and immigration turns out to be wrong: "They're more likely to commit crime." "They don't pay taxes." "They're trying to impose Sharia law." "They take our jobs." I think conservatives have done a lot more to cement my liberal views than liberals have. I think a lot of the hysteria is completely fabricated and/or imaginary.

So, I guess the bottom line is that I'm not at all convinced that strict regulation of immigration is a good thing and we just need to work out the details. I'm open to that idea, but it seems like every time somebody on the Right opens their mouth, I'm moved further to the Left.

(Literally as I write this, the radio program I have on is talking about the US Supreme Court's decision to uphold Trump's travel ban, and I have to willfully suppress the knee-jerk reaction to just assume that it's a bad decision without even reading it. We've gotten to the point where I just assume any decision to back a conservative position on almost any issue is badly-reasoned, ill-informed, and bigoted. If it's the goal of American conservatives to turn me into a radical, left-wing socialist, they're doing a fine job.)

You combat immigration by making your country an undesirable place to be. This applies not only to those wanting to come over but also to those who are already living in the country.

If your society is good, you will have people trying to join it by any means necessary. Legally or illegally. You're better off offering a path to above-board contribution than you are trying to lock things down.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Feel free to bless the masses with the reason.

Well... they're both self-evidently untrue sweeping statements. The idea that everyone who has a problem with illegal immigration ultimately just hates "brown people" is ridiculous. I can't think why it even needs explaining that it is.

 

[warpus]

I'm unsure about this, myself. Every time I turn around, I'm hearing or reading about the benefits of immigration to this country (note that I'm not treating every country the same here, I'm only thinking about the United States). A year or two ago, I heard the President of the University of Pennsylvania talking about how some of her graduate and PhD students wanted to start businesses here, but had to leave because of visa requirements. If someone wants to talk about jobs leaving the country, there goes some of them. Obviously this was anecdotal information, not any kind of study, but it was an anecdote from the president of a major university, not some Shmoe who thinks we should value her opinion just because she has a pulse.

A big part of my stance on immigration is that it seems like every claim people make against immigrants and immigration turns out to be wrong: "They're more likely to commit crime." "They don't pay taxes." "They're trying to impose Sharia law." "They take our jobs." I think conservatives have done a lot more to cement my liberal views than liberals have. I think a lot of the hysteria is completely fabricated and/or imaginary.

So, I guess the bottom line is that I'm not at all convinced that strict regulation of immigration is a good thing and we just need to work out the details. I'm open to that idea, but it seems like every time somebody on the Right opens their mouth, I'm moved further to the Left.

(Literally as I write this, the radio program I have on is talking about the US Supreme Court's decision to uphold Trump's travel ban, and I have to willfully suppress the knee-jerk reaction to just assume that it's a bad decision without even reading it. We've gotten to the point where I just assume any decision to back a conservative position on almost any issue is badly-reasoned, ill-informed, and bigoted. If it's the goal of American conservatives to turn me into a radical, left-wing socialist, they're doing a fine job.)

I don't understand why you can't have all of the things you want and strict and well thought out immigration regulation.

I'm an immigrant myself, and it took us a long time to finally settle here in Canada and eventually become citizens. We had to jump through a lot of hoops to make it happen. Immigration regulations in Canada are more strict than in the U.S. I believe.. and it seems to work as a system. Canada is not overwhelmed with immigrants and the rate at which we accept them is reasonable. Some people think it's too much, some think it's not enough, but for the most part legal immigration is working out well for us here. Most complaints regarding immigration related issues here in Canada are related to all the people crossing the border illegally.

Every country has a limited set of resources and a limited number of people it can theoretically accept each year as immigrants. It would be amazing if we had unlimited resources, but we don't, so there's of course going to be practical limits as to how many people can be accepted. As such it makes perfect sense to figure out the regulations that work for your country and stick to them.

Maybe your disagreement is with the word "strict"? I'm not saying that this should imply that we only let in 5 people a year. It just means, make sure that the people being admitted are the people we want. We can only let in so many people a year, so we have no choice but to prioritize who gets let in and who doesn't. This implies strict immigration regulations, so that the whole system can function smoothly and the country doesn't end up in a position where we're taking on too many immigrants, or too little... or taking on too many immigrants who just can't figure out how to integrate into our society. It's why we mostly take on well educated legal immigrants here, as far as i know anyway. This is an investment in the future of this country, you need a solid plan for that, and you need to be strict about enforcement.

 

[Synobun]

Well... they're both self-evidently untrue sweeping statements. The idea that everyone who has a problem with illegal immigration ultimately just hates "brown people" is ridiculous. I can't think why it even needs explaining that it is.

I should have known you'd go for your tried-and-true literalist counterargument.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I should have known you'd go for your tried-and-true literalist counterargument.

I mean, this is what you said:

Yes, yet those opposed to those darned illegals also end up outing themselves as being opposed to anyone that doesn't happen to share their skin colour and culture, be they legal or not. The post after yours demonstrates it fairly well.

You didn't say "some of those" or "sometimes" did you? It looks like a pretty blanket statement to me. If you don't want me to think that's what you mean, you could try saying what you actually mean perhaps.

 

[NovaKart]

People seem to forget we’re discussing illegal immigration here, not legal. So, those benefits of those engineers and graduate students probably don’t apply.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well the problem is that if you're the kind of person who views any and all border restrictions as a crime against humanity, there's no real difference between illegal and legal immigration in the first place. To them it's a distinction that isn't even worth making. I can understand that, but unfortunately they don't seem able to understand/believe that it's possible to have a different opinion without being an inhuman monster.

 

[luiz]

They also seem to ignore the fact that in every country in the world, a majority of the population is against mass immigration (at least as far as I know. But it wouldn't surprise me if somebody shows up with some poll saying that a majority of Vanuatu supports completely opening their borders and thus "proving" me wrong).

Basically, if we have a modicum of respect for democracy, we need to control immigration. And if being opposed to mass immigration and fully open borders makes one a racist monster, then most people are racist monsters. Which would cast into serious question if it's even worth it pursuing goals of brotherhood, universalism and whatnot.

 

[EgonSpengler]

You combat immigration by making your country an undesirable place to be. This applies not only to those wanting to come over but also to those who are already living in the country.

If your society is good, you will have people trying to join it by any means necessary. Legally or illegally. You're better off offering a path to above-board contribution than you are trying to lock things down.

I agree. I think it was the Attorney General who stated that separating children from parents was meant to act as a deterrent to those who hadn't yet entered the country. I'm not sure it has any value at all in processing the people who have already been detained here (if anything, I would expect it to complicate and slow that process). He clearly wants the United States to be viewed as unwelcoming and willing to hurt people, including children.

Well... they're both self-evidently untrue sweeping statements. The idea that everyone who has a problem with illegal immigration ultimately just hates "brown people" is ridiculous. I can't think why it even needs explaining that it is.

Well, here's one example that just came up today: President Trump was explicit about his travel ban being a "Muslim ban." He wasn't even trying to obfuscate. Also, the distinction between illegal and legal immigration is a little bit of a misdirect, because we decide who's legal and who isn't, and why. Trump, for one (and, by extension, everyone who supports his policy position on this issue), is saying that we need to redefine who's legal and who isn't, and he's specified Muslims and people from "[stuff]hole countries" as people who should be deemed illegal, and people from Norway as who should be legal.

I don't understand why you can't have all of the things you want and strict and well thought out immigration regulation.

I don't, either.

Every country has a limited set of resources and a limited number of people it can theoretically accept each year as immigrants. It would be amazing if we had unlimited resources, but we don't, so there's of course going to be practical limits as to how many people can be accepted. As such it makes perfect sense to figure out the regulations that work for your country and stick to them.

Right, and here in the US, we haven't really done that. We've made immigration harder than it needs to be, and some of us want to make it even harder, and to draw distinctions among the people applying, based on religion and country of origin. We are miles from figuring out what works. Frankly, I'm not convinced that everyone in this country even wants to figure out what works - there are people in the US who are very frank about wanting the country to be White and Christian.

Maybe your disagreement is with the word "strict"?

It is, yes. Sorry, I should have spelled that out.

I'm not saying that this should imply that we only let in 5 people a year. It just means, make sure that the people being admitted are the people we want.

Right. The debate in this country is about what we want, although not everybody is honest about that (claiming that immigrants are more likely to commit crimes is one smokescreen that people use, for example). The president of the university wants her graduates; other people want low-cost labor; President Trump wants fewer people from certain countries.

We can only let in so many people a year, so we have no choice but to prioritize who gets let in and who doesn't. This implies strict immigration regulations, so that the whole system can function smoothly and the country doesn't end up in a position where we're taking on too many immigrants, or too little... or taking on too many immigrants who just can't figure out how to integrate into our society. It's why we mostly take on well educated legal immigrants here, as far as i know anyway. This is an investment in the future of this country, you need a solid plan for that, and you need to be strict about enforcement.

The integration question is an interesting one. I'm more of a "salad bowl"-guy than a "melting pot"-guy, if you know those terms. One of my political science professors was a hardcore melting pot-woman. She was from Lithuania originally, if I remember. I wonder if people who've immigrated are more likely to support the melting pot model, while people who were born here are more into the salad bowl model? I'm just thinking out loud.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's not. I mean, look at the scenario that they're talking about here: Mohamed the engineer decides to work, what, third-world wages and it's driving down native-born American engineers' wages?
That's just nonsense. Where I grew up, New Jersey, there are lots of immigrant-heavy fields like pharmaceuticals that require lots of education. Those people aren't getting paid third-world wages because they're sending remittances home to mom and dad.

Undocumented immigrants drive wages down, no question, but the right is dead-set against any solution to that "problem" that involves recognizing the basic human rights of undocumented people, referring to it derisively as "amnesty".

Actually, wage suppression by foreign-born engineers is a thing and is why Google et al want more H1- B visas despite not actually needing them.

I think overall that the goal of 'open borders' is just a distraction that liberals should set aside for the moment. This should in no way be construed as support of anti-immigration policies broadly or as support of anything Trump does specifically. I just feel that the goal of open borders is not something that is widely supported and is a concept that deserves a lot of scrutiny over undesired, unforeseen affects. It should not be used as a blanket rallying cry from the left - particularly when it is used as a bludgeon by the right to suppress any pro-immigration movement.

Basically, it's something that deserves study and shouldn't be advocated as a panacea until that time. Until then, I don't think the left should push for this because it will only generate a huge backlash from the voting public.

I kind of assume I'm about to be called a racist now...

 

[Akka]

they don't seem able to understand/believe that it's possible to have a different opinion without being an inhuman monster.

That's a pretty good sum up, and certainly not limited to this one discussion.

 

[warpus]

there are people in the US who are very frank about wanting the country to be White and Christian.

Same in Canada. Fortunately the racists on this side of the border aren't as loud or numerous, so they don't really get to impact policy any. It isn't an unpopular point of view though, in some quarters at least... The political party in charge (of the country) has been making some unpopular immigration moves lately, which is pushing some people in that direction as well.. or perhaps simply making people who have always held such views more likely to speak up.

Right. The debate in this country is about what we want, although not everybody is honest about that (claiming that immigrants are more likely to commit crimes is one smokescreen that people use, for example). The president of the university wants her graduates; other people want low-cost labor; President Trump wants fewer people from certain countries.

From where I'm sitting 99% of that discussion is just left-vs-right talking points and nothing of substance. But admittedly I am not paying 100% attention to politics south of the border.

The integration question is an interesting one. I'm more of a "salad bowl"-guy than a "melting pot"-guy, if you know those terms. One of my political science professors was a hardcore melting pot-woman. She was from Lithuania originally, if I remember. I wonder if people who've immigrated are more likely to support the melting pot model, while people who were born here are more into the salad bowl model? I'm just thinking out loud.

Personally I feel like a balance between both approaches is ideal. On one hand you don't want people to throw away the culture they grew up with. Bring it here to Canada, open culture-specific restaurants, churches, community centres, etc. Revel in whatever culture you bring with you. However, on the other hand you've also got to embrace Canadian values and eventually become productive members of Canadian society. That's why Canada is far more likely to allow somebody with a good degree to immigrate compared to somebody who does not have education in a field we covet. A country taking in immigrants needs to look at its own needs first and foremost. If we need doctors in this country, let's let in more doctors, etc.

Looking at my own family, I feel like we've achieved this balance. We've held on to our culture, our kids are bilingual, we eat Polish food, we attend Polish social events, we use the Polish language, and we still consider ourselves to be Polish. At the same time though we're now contributing members of Canadian society, we've embraced this country and consider ourselves to be Canadian, we speak the language, we pay taxes, and we accept and embrace Canadian values. I'm obviously biased but this is a great example of an immigration story gone right - we have not only integrated into Canadian society, but also enriched Canada's cultural fabric by bringing some of our own culture with us.

 

[EgonSpengler]

After posting above, I happened to read an article about the drastic decline in illegal immigration in the US over the last 16 years. The article says that most of the illegals are people who overstay their visas, and not people who cross the border illegally. So this focus on the border - building a wall, etc - is really just another smokescreen. It says that "1.2 million people obtained lawful permanent resident status via a green card" in fiscal year 2016. That doesn't sound like a lot to me, but I guess I don't know what 'a lot' would be for a country the size of ours. [Edit: typos]

Looking at my own family, I feel like we've achieved this balance. We've held on to our culture, our kids are bilingual, we eat Polish food, we attend Polish social events, we use the Polish language, and we still consider ourselves to be Polish. At the same time though we're now contributing members of Canadian society, we've embraced this country and consider ourselves to be Canadian, we speak the language, we pay taxes, and we accept and embrace Canadian values. I'm obviously biased but this is a great example of an immigration story gone right - we have not only integrated into Canadian society, but also enriched Canada's cultural fabric by bringing some of our own culture with us.

I think that's a great example of the 'salad bowl' in action. The 'salad bowl' doesn't mean you don't embrace your new country and its values, although what exactly our collective values are is another point of heated debate here - we Americans disagree among ourselves about freedom of religion, for example, and where there's a right to privacy and where there isn't.

 

[Synobun]

Actually, wage suppression by foreign-born engineers is a thing and is why Google et al want more H1- B visas despite not actually needing them.

I think overall that the goal of 'open borders' is just a distraction that liberals should set aside for the moment. This should in no way be construed as support of anti-immigration policies broadly or as support of anything Trump does specifically. I just feel that the goal of open borders is not something that is widely supported and is a concept that deserves a lot of scrutiny over undesired, unforeseen affects. It should not be used as a blanket rallying cry from the left - particularly when it is used as a bludgeon by the right to suppress any pro-immigration movement.

Basically, it's something that deserves study and shouldn't be advocated as a panacea until that time. Until then, I don't think the left should push for this because it will only generate a huge backlash from the voting public.

I kind of assume I'm about to be called a racist now...

I usually see people on the left go for open borders when someone on the right dog-whistles about it. A clever trick, and one way too many people fall for.

There is a middle ground between total absolution of citizenship and building a pointless wall on an arbitrary border.

The fact of the matter is that, unless you're willing to make your country a complete hellhole of a place, you're going to have people who want to join your country. For some, they will try and do this by any means necessary. The US lauds itself as the place to be. In many respects, it is. Therefore, it's a valued destination for the desperate. They will come regardless of what you do unless you make the US so undesirable that their current threats are better than the threats they'd face in your country. That's not a good finish line to aspire to.

It feels very drug war-esque. You're fighting against an 'enemy' that can't be beaten, and the crimes of the war are largely of self-design. It's better for the country socially and economically to provide an above-board way of assimilating and transitioning to legal residency than it is to hunt people down and man the wall with rifles. If you maintain what makes America great then you also maintain the desire for others to join you. You may as well do your best in allowing them to contribute instead of forcing them to hide.

 

[warpus]

I think that's a great example of the 'salad bowl' in action. The 'salad bowl' doesn't mean you don't embrace your new country and its values, although what exactly our collective values are is another point of heated debate here - we Americans disagree among ourselves about freedom of religion, for example, and where there's a right to privacy and where there isn't.

Surely your own constitution is clear about the question of freedom of/from religion.