Let's Talk Immigration

[Cutlass]

Well let's go ahead then and say that Occupy Wallstreet should not demand justice for those who messed up the economy while the government looked the other way during the housing boom. We'll call it even. The rich get to keep their loot and "we" get to feel guilty for letting them do it. How does that sound?

EDIT: Woops, I should say "The rich get to keep their loot and "we" get to feel guilty for inviting them to do it." Would it be fair to demand justice after basically telling Wall Street to mess up the economy?

Notice how virtually no Wall St people have been arrested? How there haven't even been more than trivial fines against anyone?

 

[Gary Childress]

Notice how virtually no Wall St people have been arrested? How there haven't even been more than trivial fines against anyone?

True, and since illegal immigration isn't being enforced either, we should allow everyone to do as they please. Let Wall Street bankers mess with the nations economy and let illegal immigrants do as they please. There, that fixes everything. We have nothing to complain about. In fact "we" should really stop telling people to break the law like "we" are currently doing.

But wait? If we stop telling people to break the law that would mean enforcing the law. But if we enforce the law then we are being unfair to all the people that we didn't enforce it with before. All those people whom we told to break the law are going to be in trouble if we start enforcing the law. It's catch 22. Once we don't enforce a law we are not allowed to ever enforce it. Right? Because if we start enforcing it, then we are being unfair.

Hmm. That presents a problem. And what about new laws that are created? How can we enforce new laws against Internet hacking? Once upon a time there were no laws against hacking on the Interent. So we basically told people to do it. Now we suddenly tell them not to do it? Wow Cutlass. Sounds like we are in quite a jam when it comes to law enforcement. What should we do?

 

[wolfigor]

But wait? If we stop telling people to break the law that would mean enforcing the law. But if we enforce the law then we are being unfair to all the people that we didn't enforce it with before. All those people whom we told to break the law are going to be in trouble if we start enforcing the law. It's catch 22. Once we don't enforce a law we are not allowed to ever enforce it. Right? Because if we start enforcing it, then we are being unfair.

I do see your point: it doesn't matter if in the past law was not enforced, sometime we do have to stat enforcing it.

However "enforcing the law" may be not that simple:
What if their original countries do not accept those illegal immigrants?
How do you force the deportation without violence?
What about people coming from countries where their life will be at risk if repatriated?
What about those people that came-in as children and lived all their life in the country?
What about punishing those employers who exploited illegal immigration?

I don't say that we shouldn't "enforce the law" but that doing so is a very delicate exercise that goes beyond a slogan.

 

[Gary Childress]

I do see your point: it doesn't matter if in the past law was not enforced, sometime we do have to stat enforcing it.

However "enforcing the law" may be not that simple:
What if their original countries do not accept those illegal immigrants?
How do you force the deportation without violence?
What about people coming from countries where their life will be at risk if repatriated?
What about those people that came-in as children and lived all their life in the country?
What about punishing those employers who exploited illegal immigration?

I don't say that we shouldn't "enforce the law" but that doing so is a very delicate exercise that goes beyond a slogan.

Very well said. How do we make things right after someone has broken a law and how do we do it in a way that does not promote future transgression of a law? Is the law itself fair or does the law need to be amended? These do not appear to be simple matters for simple slogans.

Also the article in the OP mentions school tuition and Federal Student aid. Federal Student Aid is something paid for by taxpayers. If someone is in the country illegally should they be eligible for money donated by taxpayers? Should the transgression of their parents be rewarded with tax payer aid to their children? As a citizen, if I disregard a law I am punished. If I commit fraud on my FAFSA I am eligible to be fined for it. Should the same not apply to someone who is in the country illegally?

 

[Oruc]

I do see your point: it doesn't matter if in the past law was not enforced, sometime we do have to stat enforcing it.

However "enforcing the law" may be not that simple:
What if their original countries do not accept those illegal immigrants?

Not our problem if they aren't our citizens

How do you force the deportation without violence?

Laws are enforced through state violence

What about people coming from countries where their life will be at risk if repatriated?

Not our problem

What about those people that came-in as children and lived all their life in the country?

If they came in as children they obviously haven't lived all their ife in the country in question, deport them

What about punishing those employers who exploited illegal immigration?

Why shouldn't we?

 

[classical_hero]

There are three types of immigration. Legal immigration. This is the only immigration I am for since it means those who have gone through this process have been checked. Then there is documented illegal immigration, since these are the people who overstay their visa's and thus are easy to process and treat to see why they did that, thus they are not much of a problem. The main problem are undocumented illegal immigration, since ewe have no idea who they are and what they are here for, since we have no idea at all. We have a problem in Australia due to idiotic policies of the current government that basically gave the green light to people smuggling. We don't even know if people have been told of a future good life and they will be given a life of horror instead.

 

[Gary Childress]

Not our problem if they aren't our citizens


Laws are enforced through state violence


Not our problem


If they came in as children they obviously haven't lived all their ife in the country in question, deport them


Why shouldn't we?

In a sense it's not our problem. But we can always try our best to make things as right as we can, maybe on a case by case basis or something. If for no other reason than to be able to sleep at night after what we have done to someone.

If you were coming from a country where the government were trying to kill you because you weren't "on board" with Socialism or whatever that country may preach, how would you feel if the country you ran to decided to pack you up and send you back to your executioners? Wouldn't you beg and plea for some kind of compromise or some arrangement whereby you would have a chance to survive? Or do we just throw you to the sharks and say, "sorry, not our problem." There but for the grace of God go I, as they say.

Shouldn't our laws reflect a sense of understanding and fairness? Or do we draw the line and simply dump illegal immigrants in the waters over the 3 mile mark and if they manage to swim back to their country fine, if they drown, not our problem? I vote our laws should try to serve the general welfare of everyone involved so long as the transgression isn't something serious like murder or terrorism.

 

[Oruc]

If you were coming from a country where the government were trying to kill you because you weren't "on board" with Socialism or whatever that country may preach, how would you feel if the country you ran to decided to pack you up and send you back to your executioners? Wouldn't you beg and plea for some kind of compromise or some arrangement whereby you would have a chance to survive? Or do we just throw you to the sharks and say, "sorry, not our problem." There but for the grace of God go I, as they say.

I could beg all I like but you would be under no obligation to help me, treat others how you expect to be treated.

Shouldn't our laws reflect a sense of understanding and fairness? Or do we draw the line and simply dump illegal immigrants in the waters over the 3 mile mark and if they manage to swim back to their country fine, if they drown, not our problem? I vote our laws should try to serve the general welfare of everyone involved so long as the transgression isn't something serious like murder or terrorism.

Unless they happen to be mermaids I don't see why we would dump people in the ocean.

 

[Gary Childress]

I could beg all I like but you would be under no obligation to help me, treat others how you expect to be treated.

Perhaps we are not under any obligation to help you. Does that mean we shouldn't try to help you? I'm not seeing any necessary connection there.

 

[Oruc]

Perhaps we are not under any obligation to help you. Does that mean we shouldn't try to help you? I'm not seeing any necessary connection there.

I'm not seeing why you would help me.

 

[Gary Childress]

I'm not seeing why you would help me.

Why would anyone help anyone else? If you screw some poor innocent person over, ruining his or her life, do you sleep well at night? If you had an easy chance to help someone with little or no cost to yourself, someone who demonstrated regard for you and respect toward you, would you feel good about turning a cold shoulder to that person? Not that expecting a reward for it is necessary but a friend in need is a friend in deed, as it is wisely said. Do you have any friends? If not perhaps doing something generous like offering to help someone move out of their house or something might win you one. Or do you just expect everyone to like you and warm up to you for no reason at all?

Or take the positive side, don't you feel good about helping a person who has treated you well? Don't you feel sort of elated when you get to play the good guy and others say to you, "Wow! You are a good person. You did a wonderful thing by helping that other fellow."

I'm sure, somewhere along the way you have helped or been helped by absolute strangers, sometimes probably without ever realizing it. Isn't people helping one another preferable to living in a world where everyone shuns helping others? If you were bleeding on the street with a broken leg and no one called an ambulance to help you, would you feel a little betrayed by your fellow citizens?

OTOH if I were bleeding on the street and called out to someone passing by, "hey dumbass, call an ambulance you worthless pile of ...." Then you know... maybe I don't derserve to be helped. But someone might probably help me anyway, although perhaps a little reluctantly. People tend to look out for one another and when you look out for others others are more likely to look out for you. Don't you think?

 

[Oruc]

Why would anyone help anyone else? If you screw some poor innocent person over, ruining his or her life, do you sleep well at night?

I don't see why I would want to screw over random people over

If you had an easy chance to help someone with little or no cost to yourself, someone who demonstrated regard for you and respect toward you, would you feel good about turning a cold shoulder to that person?

It depends on whether they asked for help and if they had returned favours in the past (or if they are a pensioner, I walked a pensioner to the post office when the roads and pavements were covered in ice she could hardly walk the best of times)

Not that expecting a reward for it is necessary but a friend in need is a friend in deed, as it is wisely said. Do you have any friends? If not perhaps doing something generous like offering to help someone move out of their house or something might win you one. Or do you just expect everyone to like you and warm up to you for no reason at all?

Work friends and pub friends. I expect us to keep up appearences then go our seperate ways

Or take the positive side, don't you feel good about helping a person who has treated you well? Don't you feel sort of elated when you get to play the good guy and others say to you, "Wow! You are a good person. You did a wonderful thing by helping that other fellow."

I've done favours for people in the past they were quick to forgot and quick to expect another

I'm sure, somewhere along the way you have helped or been helped by absolute strangers, sometimes probably without ever realizing it. Isn't people helping one another preferable to living in a world where everyone shuns helping others? If you were bleeding on the street with a broken leg and no one called an ambulance to help you, would you feel a little betrayed by your fellow citizens?

OTOH if I were bleeding on the street and called out to someone passing by, "hey dumbass, call an ambulance you worthless pile of ...." Then you know... maybe I don't derserve to be helped. But someone might probably help me anyway, although perhaps a little reluctantly. People tend to look out for one another and when you look out for others others are more likely to look out for you. Don't you think?

I never said I wouldn't call an ambulance for someone, we were talking about immigration why'd you make this so personal.

 

[Gary Childress]

OK Oruc, I apologize if I seemed to get personal. I didn't mean to. I was simply trying to use examples that I thought would be most easily understandable to what I was trying to say.

You say it is "not our problem" if an illegal immigrant would suffer by repatriation to their home country or if the country wouldn't accept them back. To which I agreed that it probably isn't our problem. BUT I went on to say that I thought laws ought to try make things as right as possible, meaning simply throwing someone back to their home country as a matter of absolute course in the face of danger or some similar circumstance may not be a good way to administer immigration law, that there ought to be some consideration given to a person's particular circumstance or some recourse whereby we are not simply throwing people back to the wolves so to speak. Why? Because I am essentially saying that throwing someone back to the wolves doesn't feel very right to me.

You said you didn't see why I would help you if you were in the shoes of someone who faced danger in your home country if returned. I essentially replied that helping others often feels right and often leads to good in return.

So what do you say we pick up where we left off:

You say whatever bad happens to illegal immigrants in the process of being deported is "not our problem". I agree. It's not our problem. But that doesn't mean we have to be cruel or callous and simply turn them over to any and every fate that awaits them. On a case by case basis we can take circumstances into consideration and weigh the options. Would deporting them back likely be dangerous to them? Do they or do they not deserve that danger? If yes or no what are other options? I don't know, that would involve more thought than I'm willing to put into the thread at this point.

It's true that it's "not our problem" but I would shudder to think that such an attitude might lead to actions which might destroy lives of people who really just want a better life and were trying to escape something worse. IF A PERSON DEMONSTRATES THE DESIRE TO COOPERATE AND FLOURISH AMONG THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY OF DESTINATION, EVEN IF THEY START OUT ILLEGAL (BUT WITH JUSTIFIABLE REASON) THEN I, PERSONALLY, IN MY OPINION, SEE THAT AS A GOOD START TO OPENING THE DOOR FOR THEM UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. I don't believe in drawing lines and saying, "sorry, I can't help you because the law says you're not supposed to be here." Under some circumstance perhaps it would be OK to allow them citizenship, depending upon their circumstances. But that is also not to say that we are obligated to deal with any and eveyrone in the exact same way depending upon the circumstances.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should simply draw the line and say, you broke the law, like everyone else you must pay the same price of breaking it and be deported. I don't know. It just sounds a little harsh to me to draw absolute lines.

 

[Oruc]

You say whatever bad happens to illegal immigrants in the process of being deported is "not our problem". I agree. It's not our problem. But that doesn't mean we have to be cruel or callous and simply turn them over to any and every fate that awaits them. On a case by case basis we can take circumstances into consideration and weigh the options. Would deporting them back likely be dangerous to them? Do they or do they not deserve that danger? If yes or no what are other options? I don't know, that would involve more thought than I'm willing to put into the thread at this point.

Does America not have right of asylum?

It's true that it's "not our problem" but I would shudder to think that such an attitude might lead to actions which might destroy lives of people who really just want a better life and were trying to escape something worse. IF A PERSON DEMONSTRATES THE DESIRE TO COOPERATE AND FLOURISH AMONG THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY OF DESTINATION, EVEN IF THEY START OUT ILLEGAL (BUT WITH JUSTIFIABLE REASON) THEN I, PERSONALLY, IN MY OPINION, SEE THAT AS A GOOD START TO OPENING THE DOOR FOR THEM UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. I don't believe in drawing lines and saying, "sorry, I can't help you because the law says you're not supposed to be here." Under some circumstance perhaps it would be OK to allow them citizenship, depending upon their circumstances. But that is also not to say that we are obligated to deal with any and eveyrone in the exact same way depending upon the circumstances.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should simply draw the line and say, you broke the law, like everyone else you must pay the same price of breaking it and be deported. I don't know. It just sounds a little harsh to me to draw absolute lines.

I believe you're confusing asylum seekers with Illegal immigrants. Just because illegal immigrants give you a sob story doesn't mean it's true

I suppose my dislike of illegal immigration comes from the fact I hope to immigrate myself and I certainly intend to do it the legal way.
But for some reason people are quite happy to reward those who disobey the rules (I've even saved up quite a bit of money towards it), maybe if I had a mexican or arabic accent they would be more welcoming.

 

[innonimatu]

Large scale illegal immigration helped to keep wages artificially low in specific sectors (e.g. agriculture) and, indirectly, reduced negotiation power for salaries for the locals.
This was the unwritten strategy of several countries.
[...]
Whatever gain the country had in the short term, it will be paid back with interest in the next years.

Agriculture, construction, and services. Agriculture was residual in terms of total employment, but construction was big.

It was never about gains for the country, it was about gains in terms of power to the wealthiest groups inside the country. It was about breaking workers' negotiating power, and especially their unions. If unemployment would not be directly engineered by killing entire sectors of the country's industry (because that would be expensive to its owners!), it would be engineered by bringing in immigrants. Double gain for the bosses: they had cheaper labour to exploit, and they could start breaking the unions that limited their political influence - from below in the "value chain", surely, but it worked to set the mood for the other sectors.

The insistence of several "leftist" parties in avoiding to address the contradictions between their internationalist ideals and the threat posed by immigration to their natural national constituencies is going to cost them dearly if economic crisis and unemployment keep advancing in Europe.

 

[Gary Childress]

Does America not have right of asylum?

We have immigration policies designed to help those specifically seeking asylum. Yes.

I believe you're confusing asylum seekers with Illegal immigrants. Just because illegal immigrants give you a sob story doesn't mean it's true

And just because they have a "sob story" does that therefore mean they are ALL lying? Are all illegal immigrants the same? Is it not possible that some are telling the truth when they give us a "sob story"? That's why I say we should look into it on a case by case basis. Some illegals may be here because of legitimate fear of circumstances back home. Don't you think?

I suppose my dislike of illegal immigration comes from the fact I hope to immigrate myself and I certainly intend to do it the legal way.
But for some reason people are quite happy to reward those who disobey the rules (I've even saved up quite a bit of money towards it), maybe if I had a mexican or arabic accent they would be more welcoming.

Good luck to you. I hope everything works out for you as it should.

BTW: Out of curiosity, is your native language English? I ask because you seem to have a hard time following what I'm typing. You sort of pick isolated sentences up but don't seem to connect them to each other. It's difficult to communicate complex ideas with you. I'm not sure if you realize that or not.

 

[Patroklos]

I've found that asking for a stance on immigration is the best way to tell real economic right-wingers from xenophobes. Support for immigration makes a lot of sense from a business perspective as well as a human rights perspective, which is why Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush had "liberal" opinions on immigration.

It's very disturbing to me that the Republican party and other right-wing parties worldwide have shifted against immigration. It implies that anti-immigrant sentiment is now so powerful that it has become worth it for supposed pro-business conservatives to ignore their ideology on this issue and oppose easy immigration.

This only makes sense to you because it is based on a caricature, not an actual position any significant group of American's hold.

Right wingers and Republicans are not against immigration. In fact they think it is a healthy and normal thing for the government to allow. There is no call for the hundreds of thousands to millions of immigrants that the government grants citizenship to every year to be restricted or reduced. In reality, many want these efforts and numbers increased, because there are obviously plenty of ineligible non citizens who would be a boon to our nation who can not get in legally. They also champion the nation state system and the sovereign right of a nation to collectively decide who and how many people are allowed to immigrate. Maintaining those powers as a government or supporting them as a citizen is not xenophobia or racism or "anti-immigration" in any way, shape or form.

What they are against is ILLEGAL immigration, which is a no brainer and can only be argued against if you are like Traitorfish and dream of an alternate reality irrelevant to anything, or you are a partisan lefty who artificially dissolves very real distinction between legal and illegal immigration and ignores any support for the former in an attempt to shoehorn accusations of xenophobia/racism/isolationism/buzz word of the week. Or in other words, do what you were doing.

Behold the xenophobia of the US!!! Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status:

2007: 1,052,415
2008: 1,107,126
2009: 1,130,818
2010: 1,042,625

Yeah, we really aren't into this whole immigration thing here in America...

I do see your point: it doesn't matter if in the past law was not enforced, sometime we do have to stat enforcing it.

However "enforcing the law" may be not that simple:
What if their original countries do not accept those illegal immigrants?

That's what our diplomats are for, and honestly most of the sources of immigrants that would deny taking them back aren't particularly hard to crack on this front.

How do you force the deportation without violence?

Why would this be a goal? that's how the state enforces every law, including the speed limit. If you mean how to avoid physical violence that is usually the choice of the illegal immigrants, but I see no reason to shy away from enforcing a law because it might require appropriate violence to do so.

What about people coming from countries where their life will be at risk if repatriated?

That's what asylum is for, the state department can decide if that is a legit concern.

What about those people that came-in as children and lived all their life in the country?

I think they should be given a visa when discovered to allow them time to apply through the normal immigration process, and if they compete well good on them. So basically you won't get kicked out unless you were not qualified to get here in the first place (committing a crime here or at the country or origin before consideration, for instance).

However, I think it is morally flawed to give the children of more geographically accessible illegal immigrant populations like Mexico (Mexico shares a contiguous border and has an economy that makes illegal immigration attractive, it is not racist to state this obvious fact) should have some leg up on immigrants that can't get a head start due to oceans like Ghana or India.

It should be remembered that many "immigrants rights" champions are really just Mexican nationalist racists or those pandering to that group. They don't care about fairness in immigration one bit. One of the benefits of immigration is the diversity of the immigrants themselves, something these groups want nothing of.

What about punishing those employers who exploited illegal immigration?

All for it, this happens quite a bit now but should obviously be done more.

 

[Oruc]

And just because they have a "sob story" does that therefore mean they are ALL lying? Are all illegal immigrants the same? Is it not possible that some are telling the truth when they give us a "sob story"? That's why I say we should look into it on a case by case basis. Some illegals may be here because of legitimate fear of circumstances back home. Don't you think?

I don't think they are all going to be liars just the majority, you can get a good indication from what country they have come from, the border agencies will know the world hotspots, but if they really scared why don't they claim asylum? The people in OP don't seem to be in that much fear.

Good luck to you. I hope everything works out for you as it should.

Thanks

BTW: Out of curiosity, is your native language English? I ask because you seem to have a hard time following what I'm typing. You sort of pick isolated sentences up but don't seem to connect them to each other. It's difficult to communicate complex ideas with you. I'm not sure if you realize that or not.

I am English (I didn't do well in school put it that way) you ask alot of questions so I try to answer them individually.

 

[Gary Childress]

I don't think they are all going to be liars just the majority, you can get a good indication from what country they have come from, the border agencies will know the world hotspots, but if they really scared why don't they claim asylum? The people in OP don't seem to be in that much fear.


Thanks


I am English (I didn't do well in school put it that way) you ask alot of questions so I try to answer them individually.

Oruc, no problem. I'm the same way sometimes, especially when I try to read philosophy books. I just try to keep in the back of my head that maybe I'm missing something key to understanding a text before I make the usual fool of myself in front of a professor. But I keep plugging away, hoping someday to figure out some of the "deep" stuff.

If you're ever interested I can recommend a few pretty good starter materials for learning about philosophy. Fascinating stuff to read.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Being against legal immigration but for legal immigration essentially boils down to supporting a huge and inefficient government bureaucracy to regulate a beneficial aspect of the free market.


It makes more sense to take Milton Friedman's position that legal immigration is bad but illegal immigration is good.