Let's Talk Immigration

[Chiteng]

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.

I must say no. Because of two reasons.
Either we are a sovereign state, or we are not. If we are, we cannot allow illegals to use our compassion, to force us to save their lives. That would be fatal.
You can feel badly about the plight of extra-nationals all you want, but allowing external forces to dictate policy is NOT sovereign. I dislike the media using the hardship issue to manipulate the citizens.

Second, a case by case basis takes time. We need a solution NOW. Every day these illegals are allowed to remain in the country, is another day they can attempt to suborn actual citizens.

 

[Cutlass]

I must say no. Because of two reasons.
Either we are a sovereign state, or we are not. If we are, we cannot allow illegals to use our compassion, to force us to save their lives. That would be fatal.
You can feel badly about the plight of extra-nationals all you want, but allowing external forces to dictate policy is NOT sovereign. I dislike the media using the hardship issue to manipulate the citizens.

Second, a case by case basis takes time. We need a solution NOW. Every day these illegals are allowed to remain in the country, is another day they can attempt to suborn actual citizens.

Who's double login are you?

 

[Gary Childress]

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.

I must say no. Because of two reasons.
Either we are a sovereign state, or we are not. If we are, we cannot allow illegals to use our compassion, to force us to save their lives. That would be fatal.
You can feel badly about the plight of extra-nationals all you want, but allowing external forces to dictate policy is NOT sovereign. I dislike the media using the hardship issue to manipulate the citizens.

Second, a case by case basis takes time. We need a solution NOW. Every day these illegals are allowed to remain in the country, is another day they can attempt to suborn actual citizens.

Hmm. I reminded of the scene in "Airplane" where the chief asks one of his subordinates: "What can you make of this". And the subordinate says, "I can make a hat. I can make an airplane..." Sometimes insanity seems like the only sane response.

 

[BasketCase]

Native Americans routinely adopted white orphans and raised them as their own, so

Some did. Others (and by that I mean most others) took the rather unsurprising course of going to war--against all white people, whether or not they were encroaching.

It is fundamentally unjust to limit immigration beyond what is necessary for public safety.

And nobody is required by law to hire them. In my opinion, that pretty much settles it.

 

[Winner]

I support the liberalisation of global trade: the free movement of goods, capital, labour and services. When we allow goods, capital, labour and services to move to where they are most productive, everybody wins. As has been said up-thread, that's how capitalism works. Any argument against opening borders to the free movement of labour is an argument against capitalism itself.

That is bull****.

First, you're reducing people to little more than economic units, which is disgusting; second, you completely ignore the costs of immigration. Ignoring the issues of culture, integration, social cohesion, etc. is suicidal; third, the chief responsibility of a government is to take care of its people, not of other people. Opening floodgates for new immigrants is akin to doing the same in real life. Everybody loses.

 

[Mise]

Being against illegal 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.

That's a great argument! Gotta hand it to Friedman there, he's a consistent proponent of small government.


(P.S. I hope you don't mind, I corrected your typo.)

 

[Tee Kay]

First, you're reducing people to little more than economic units, which is disgusting;

How is it disgusting to give people more flexibility and opportunities to pursue wealth and happiness?

third, the chief responsibility of a government is to take care of its people, not of other people.

Immigrants cease to be "other people" when they become residents/citizens of their new country.

 

[Chiteng]

Who's double login are you?

I am Chiteng. No one would claim to be me, except me.
I am no ones double.

Ask Gary if you wish

 

[Traitorfish]

First, you're reducing people to little more than economic units, which is disgusting...

Communist.

 

[Mise]

I don't think anyone's reducing anybody to anything. You know, aside from reducing the entire corpus of liberal political and economic theory to a few pithy rejoinders.

 

[Gary Childress]

No name calling please. Let's keep the debate civil.

@MagisterCultuum: Why is unfettered immigration a good thing? Who is it good for? I'm not about to move to some third world country and probably not many Americans would either, yet I know there are millions of people from third world countries that would love to move here en masse. It sounds more like a one way street. Why should we let down the borders to a flood of cheap labor and drive our own standard of living into the dirt? Maybe we have something good here in the US. Wouldn't it be foolish to give it away? Look what happened to the American Indians when Europeans flooded into their land. Please explain a bit more what is so great about Friedman's vision. What is to be gained that will offset what is to be lost?

@Chiteng: Welcome to CFC! Nice to see you here. (Yes I know Chiteng from another forum).

 

[Winner]

How is it disgusting to give people more flexibility and opportunities to pursue wealth and happiness?

It is disgusting to view people as units of workforce that are essentially interchangeable. It's worse than disgusting - it's wrong, because it ignores human nature, or more specifically, human tendency towards cultural differentiation.

Immigrants cease to be "other people" when they become residents/citizens of their new country.

The act of entering a country doesn't make you a citizen or a resident, unless it is done lawfully.

 

[Traitorfish]

It is disgusting to view people as units of workforce that are essentially interchangeable. It's worse than disgusting - it's wrong, because it ignores human nature, or more specifically, human tendency towards cultural differentiation.

(Y'know, I was joking about the "communist" thing, but you're actually beginning to hammer out a primitively Marxian critique of abstract labour, here... )

 

[brennan]

The act of entering a country doesn't make you a citizen or a resident, unless it is done lawfully.

Does this include people who enter by means of a birth canal?

 

[Gary Childress]

Does this include people who enter by means of a birth canal?

I would think so, since being born in the US is a legitimate route for becoming a citizen. So by extension arriving via birth canal counts as "lawful entry".

EDIT: Also note everything is "documented" and citizenship is established via birth certificate etc.

 

[Patroklos]

Does this include people who enter by means of a birth canal?

Depends on where you are born. In Europe it probably won't matter, the citizenship of your parents determines things.

 

[Winner]

Does this include people who enter by means of a birth canal?

That depends on the law. Where I live, it's the citizenship of your parent(s) that matters. I think it makes more sense than "I was born to an illegal immigrant here, which makes me a citizen."

 

[Tee Kay]

It is disgusting to view people as units of workforce that are essentially interchangeable. It's worse than disgusting - it's wrong, because it ignores human nature, or more specifically, human tendency towards cultural differentiation.

Humans also have a tendency to want to seek new opportunities and a better life.

The act of entering a country doesn't make you a citizen or a resident, unless it is done lawfully.

When Mise talks about liberalising immigration laws, I'm assuming legal immigration.

Why is unfettered immigration a good thing? Who is it good for? I'm not about to move to some third world country and probably not many Americans would either, yet I know there are millions of people from third world countries that would love to move here en masse. It sounds more like a one way street. Why should we let down the borders to a flood of cheap labor and drive our own standard of living into the dirt?

It would actually have the effect of evening out the obscene income inequalities between countries and within countries, in the medium to long term, given that it is managed properly. And immigration can't be managed properly the way it is being addressed; if you widen the avenues for legal immigration, there will be less of illegal immigration and all the problems associated with it.

Maybe we have something good here in the US. Wouldn't it be foolish to give it away?

Not sure about foolish, but IMHO it'd be kinda heartless not to share it.

Look what happened to the American Indians when Europeans flooded into their land.

I for one don't kill my white neighbours and take their houses because I think they are not developing the land properly.

 

[Gary Childress]

It would actually have the effect of evening out the obscene income inequalities between countries and within countries, in the medium to long term, given that it is managed properly. And immigration can't be managed properly the way it is being addressed; if you widen the avenues for legal immigration, there will be less of illegal immigration and all the problems associated with it.

You say "managed properly". But that is not what Friedman is thinking unless I'm mistaken. Friedman doesn't believe in government interference in human matters. He's talking about doing away with borders because "managing" immigration requires government bureaucracy. So we're not talking about "managing" anything here. We're talking about unfettered migration.

Not sure about foolish, but IMHO it'd be kinda heartless not to share it.

Per the numbers Patroklos provided we are currently sharing our country with over 1 million new arrivals per year. Is that not enough? "Well, sharing it with more people would lessen the number of illegal immigrants." you say, perhaps. But won't there always be illegal immigrants? No matter how much we open the door it won't be wide enough. How many people do we need to share our good fortune with before it is enough? Do we share until everyone in the world is equal?

I for one don't kill my white neighbours and take their houses because I think they are not developing the land properly.

No but if the country were suddenly swarmed by 200 million people from XYZ culture, then XYZ culture can pretty much run things in a democracy. Then maybe all the XYZ people decide that they only want to allow immigration of XYZ people from here forward. You alone don't constitute a voting majority. So you are not a tangible threat to your neighbors.

 

[Traitorfish]

No but if the country were suddenly swarmed by 200 million people from XYZ culture, then XYZ culture can pretty much run things in a democracy. Then maybe all the XYZ people decide that they only want to allow immigration of XYZ people from here forward. You alone don't constitute a voting majority. So you are not a tangible threat to your neighbors.

You realise that cultures aren't actually things, don't you?