I have the perfect was to solve the problem of illegal immigration, FOREVER!

[Japher]

Over crowding in prisons? Legalize murder, rape, and theft... Problem solved!

What an idiot.

 

[Xen]

crap idea; countires are formed to act in the best intrest of thier citizens; throwing open the flood gates to the worlds poor might be a wonderful gesture, buts also a sure fire way to make living in the country that has the gates int he first places's lot in life crap, as its flooded with immigrents who expect every part and parcel the benifits of citizenship, which you by all means, would give them, thus both failing, and alienating the origional citizenry of your country. crap idea, want to work tro maske the world a better place? so do it, but immigration itself dosent answer anything, you have to address the problems of the countires people are immigrateign from to do somthing.

 

[amadeus]

How would these new migrants pay for the health services, housing, and education, Pasi?

 

[~Corsair#01~]

They would be enslaved in our country. So many immigrants... the government would be pressured to create a kind of two-level citizenry, with two different minimum wages and god knows what else. It's the only a country could come even remotely close to coping.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I find it interesting, though not surprising that every poster voicing objections to my proposal does so not on humanitarian grounds but rather on economic or cultural grounds. Not one of you, aside from storealex whom I have already dealt with, disputes the all-encompassing truth that it is a fundamental human right to move about as he or she pleases. No one has bothered to deny the fact that it is through financial segregation that Western nations separate the undesireable poor and lower class of humanity from the rest of the world. While I thank you all for accepting this truth, I am alarmed that you people are willing to forsake a human being's fundamental rights simply because you (erroneously) believe that it would create adverse economic and social conditions within you own nation, that you are willing to put your petty desires ahead of the rights and well being of another human being. Who are you to deny an African or Asian wallowing in a refugee camp access to your nation's healthcare and jobs? "Sorry, if we allow you people in, it will be bad for us." This is the kind of logic that might fly in a fascist world, but in a world claiming that claims to be democratic and protecting of human rights, this is an unacceptable line of thought. There is nothing more important that basic human rights, such as the right to freedom of movement, and even on the outside chance that a massive influx of immigrants would create a depression, so be it. Democracy and human rights are more important than the quarterly profit of x company or n conglomerate.

Can you not wrap your minds around the concept that it is no one's ability nor responsibility to violate human rights?

Total freedom to move between nations would provide a massive economic stimulus as economic activity is largely dependent on two things: movement of goods, and movement of people. With no meaningful barrier in place to restrict immigration, both would be made massively easier. With a greater labour pool from which to supply a growing population, unemployment would spiral downwards. The ability of society to provide for its individuals would skyrocket to greater still proportions. Government revenue from a greater income tax pool and shooting skyward corporate profits would be astronomical. I could go on for years.

Besides, it seems obvious that one significant benefit towards striking down excessively bureaucratic immigration laws would be rapid progression towards a world government, in which case all of your arguments would be instantaneously moot.

 

[Speedo]

Not one of you, aside from storealex whom I have already dealt with, disputes the all-encompassing truth that it is a fundamental human right to move about as he or she pleases.

I didn't address it beacuse it's irrelevant. There is only one fundamental human right, and that ain't it.

Of course, you're welcome to live in a dream world with your ideas and philosophies, just don't expect anyone else to give you a second thought.

 

[Japher]

Even if it is one's "fundamental right" to move about as they wish (which it is not) you cannot sacrifice economic truisms for humanitarian rights. And you saying that we are ignoring humanitarian view points are completely in the wrong, because the economic impact of open borders will cause more humanitarian rights to go to the way side.

Before you start assuming "truths" and "rights" you must realize that it IS money that makes the world go 'round... whether you wish it so or not.

 

[Xen]

are you that naive to not be able to see the greater picture? Are you so foolish as to set aside the value of life that people in first world nations enjoy, and throw it away in an effort to give everyoen the same at once? because apperentlly, you are that naive, and you are that backwards thinking.

its a simple fact that you going to have to deal with; first would countries have labour problems right now, this is an inescapable fact; now, why dont you tell me what happens when you bring down every barrier to immigration, and let whom ever wants to coem in however quantaties manage to come, actually come. Wait, i dotn have to let you answer, I can tell your right now; first world countires are filled with refugess with no particuler skills coming in clamouring for social benifts and jobs as citizens, taxing systems that as is now in many cases can barelly support the current load, and these social systems would collapse, and thiere is no argument agianst this set this upon a now changed landscaped of nations now filled tot he brim; and you cannot deny that immigrents woudl coem in such quantites as to do exactly this, with people looking, perhaps even demanding jobs when thiere are simpley non availible, and indeed, in such a back drop siotuation, one can only forsee more jobs leaveing those nations affected; you now have countries filled with jobless refugess clamouring for benifts of a social system that cannot handle it, wantign jobs that dont exist; you havnt solved the 3rd worlds problems buddy, you've only destroyed the first world.

You dont seem to to understand that economics and modern day humanitariansm have to work hand in hand by sheer necessity; not somthing I like to view, but the way fo the world is the coin, and all thing in it are now based upon it, and any efforts to spread equality to the world HAVE to take this factor into account, and in NO CASE, will it EVER be a simple solution with it to solve a proble, particuarly one so naive as to let any and all peopl emigrate to first would countires, as this wont solve any ones problems, it will just spread them to ye tmore people, making th eproblem you though you could solve even worse.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I didn't address it beacuse it's irrelevant. There is only one fundamental human right, and that ain't it.

Of course, you're welcome to live in a dream world with your ideas and philosophies, just don't expect anyone else to give you a second thought.

It is a fundamental human right to be free from discrimination and segregation on any criteria, and denying entry to a nation simply because they do not meet the requirements (usually because they cannot afford the fees associated with immigration) is segregation of the human race based on wealth. Human beings are being denied access to better healthcare, fair justice systems, a good social welfare net, respectably paying jobs, etc, because in the eyes of your INS, they are not suitable to live in your country. This is discrimination, this is segregation, and not only is it wrong, but it is explicity forbidden by your constitution and by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[Japher]

You're right Pasi... Mexico doesn't uphold to a lot of things in the US constitution, we should sue them!

Seriously, Pasi, did you eat paint chips as a kid?

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

The freedom to move about as one pleases is a basic human right.

Now that is a naive and silly thought. Ideally that would be true, but it has never been true in history. Powerful, peaceful nations and groups of nations have been able to make it true for their own people, but otherwise it has not been true.

I would like to see immigration laws MUCH easier, but you go to far. I want to keep out the terrorists and other such types, while letting economic migration continue. I agree immigration will slow greatly once other nations have better economies, and that must be the goal. American immigration laws are far too strict, but open borders is too far in the other direction. A better balance is the key.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

You're right Pasi... Mexico doesn't uphold to a lot of things in the US constitution, we should sue them!

Seriously, Pasi, did you eat paint chips as a kid?

I have a pair of questions for my friend Japher:

1) I do not see how you can extract such a meaning from my words. I was referring to the fact that American immigration laws are a violation of fundamental human rights established by America's constitution. This is to demonstrate that not only morally is America's immigration laws violating fundamental human rights on a moral level, but also a constitutional and legal level as well. Yes, Mexico probably violates these human rights too, but in a manner different than America. My understanding of Mexican immigration law is less comprehensive than that of American immigration law, but I assume Mexican customs officials and immigration laws to be less strict than America's.

Am I the only person in the world that understands that human rights extend beyond whatever some scrap of paper says?

2) Why do you feel the need to constantly insult and attack me? This is explicitly forbidden by forum convention.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Now that is a naive and silly thought. Ideally that would be true, but it has never been true in history. Powerful, peaceful nations and groups of nations have been able to make it true for their own people, but otherwise it has not been true.

Thank you, I was waiting for someone to use this argument.

Because a human being has been denied a fundamental human right throughout history does not make it acceptable for us to do the same. Because something that must happen has not happened before does not make it acceptable for us to prevent it from happening now and in the future.

It is through progressiveness that the human race advances, and immigration laws as they exist now are outmoded and segregationist, a holdover from the imperialist days since past (in most nations, anyways).

 

[klazlo]

Am I the only person in the world that understands that human rights extend beyond whatever some scrap of paper says?

There might not be too many like you, given that human rights were written on a similar scrap of paper.

 

[Japher]

2) Why do you feel the need to constantly insult and attack me? This is explicitly forbidden by forum convention.

just trolling... sorry

1) I do not see how you can extract such a meaning from my words. I was referring to the fact that American immigration laws are a violation of fundamental human rights established by America's constitution. This is to demonstrate that not only morally is America's immigration laws violating fundamental human rights on a moral level, but also a constitutional and legal level as well. Yes, Mexico probably violates these human rights too, but in a manner different than America. My understanding of Mexican immigration law is less comprehensive than that of American immigration law, but I assume Mexican customs officials and immigration laws to be less strict than America's.

If the laws violated the constitution they would of been over turned by the supreme court, would they not? Protecting our borders is not violating human rights. You would have us assume that we should let in ppl who want to destroy the US because of some jihad they decalred, less we discriminate them due to religious difference.

 

[Speedo]

It is a fundamental human right to be free from discrimination and segregation on any criteria

Negative. Human beings have the right to hold whatever beliefs they wish, and to pursue those beliefs as they desire. All else is relative.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Negative. Human beings have the right to hold whatever beliefs they wish, and to pursue those beliefs as they desire. All else is relative.

You deny that human beings have the right to be free from segregation and discrimination in any way? You deny centuries of progress on the concept of human rights? You deny your countrymen and self an ideal that hundreds of thousands, nay, millions of Americans have found and died for throughout your history?

Fascism, thy name is Speedo.

PS. I must get back to work now, I will post further in this thread later today.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

If the laws violated the constitution they would of been over turned by the supreme court, would they not? Protecting our borders is not violating human rights. You would have us assume that we should let in ppl who want to destroy the US because of some jihad they decalred, less we discriminate them due to religious difference.

You are naive enough to believe that the Supreme Court is some great bastion of democracy and freedom? The Supreme Court is the place where the US Constitution matters the least in America.

And that second part about the jihad and discrimination: BINGO! I knew someone would get it. When you discriminate and segregate others, even if the people you discriminate against and segregate are the very people who wish to destroy you, you are as bad as those that literally commit acts of genocide around the world. Those that fail to uphold human rights are the same as those who actively and knowingly violate them.

 

[betazed]

It is a fundamental human right to be free from discrimination and segregation on any criteria

Negative. Human beings have the right to hold whatever beliefs they wish, and to pursue those beliefs as they desire. All else is relative.

hmmm.... I wonder if you will still believe that, if I start believing that it is my right to discriminate against you and start pursuing that belief.

 

[Leonel]

That's all well and good but flinging open the borders would cause a humanitarian situation that has never been seen before in the history of humanity itself.

Millions of migrants pouring into the developed nations. What happens when they get there? Even the developed nations of the world have at the very least hundreds of thousands of unemployed and their own homeless problems already. Unemployment would soar FAAAAAAR faster than jobs can be created. The immigrants would not be documented as it's literally a free for all. Hence they have no legal obligation to pay taxes. Guess what taxes are used for; infrastructure, social services, etc etc. Hospital's will be overwhelmed with thousands and thousands and thousands of new immigrants demanding medical aid for their families. What about housing? There's only so much housing in the developed countries. What happens when all the cheap housing gets sold out? The new immigrants would either pack into inadequate housing or have to sleep in the streets. What about law and order? Police forces in the states are already having a hard time trying to keep crime in check in their cities populations. Can you imagine what would happen if millions of new immigrants began to flood these cities? It would be naive to believe that all these immigrants would be law abiding upstanding people. What happens when the jails are packed far beyond their capacity?

What about the impoverished nations? What will they do for labor as all their potential labor forces leave to a seemingly better opportunity? Companies there may already be operating on a shoe string budget and trying to lure workers back with higher pay could bankrupt them and put them out of business. The sudden loss of citizens in these impoverished nations could mean less taxes for these governments that are already having a tough time just functioning.

Developed nations simply cannot cope with the sudden influx. Not only do the immigrants stay in their impoverished situation, but the citizens of developed countries become impoverished themselves as public services that they relied on for the basic necessities are starved and bankrupted by immigrants that don't have an obligation to pay the taxes to fund said services. Everyone loses! EVERYONE! The native citizens, the new immigrants, everyone! Really it's a nice ideal and I do believe everyone should be given a chance but unless you got solutions as to how the concerns I stated below would be addressed, it's a rather foolhardy proposal and simply not practical.