"myths And Half-truths About Illegal Immigration"

[tinybear]

Quote by: RickSp Just like blacks under the Fugitive Slave Act or Jews under the Nuremberg Laws. Interesting how bigotry suddenly is represented by as "respect for the law." Some laws don't deserve respect.

What's wrong with the law Rick? And what bigotry are you referring to? All illegal aliens are breaking the law irrespective of race, creed or religious belief. If a white blonde-haired Christian Caucasian enters our borders illegally, he is as much a criminal as a Mexican who sneaks in from Tijuana or a Muslim Arab from Abu Dhabi.

[namguy69]

Quote by: weasel Just because CNN has stopped talking about illegal immigration doesn't mean this issue has fallen off the map. I present for your consideration an article I found concerning this matter. MYTHS AND HALF-TRUTHS ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION [Free Republic] Here's an examples: "MYTH: Americans won't do the work that illegals do. TRUTH: Prior to 1965 when the disastrous Immigration Bill was passed, there was very little immigration. In fact, between 1925 and 1965, there was even a period of net emigration out of the United States. During this time, our grass was getting cut, our meat was being packed, our children were being watched and our houses were being cleaned. The idea that somehow we suddenly can't run a country without an unlimited supply of foreigners is absurd. Those in favor of foreign labor are corporations who are addicted to cheap labor. They are the ones who are benefiting. But their benefit comes at the American tax payer's expense when you consider that the American tax payer is virtually subsidizing the labor costs of the greedy corporations by supplying the illegal foreign workers and their families with welfare, free education, free medical, WICs, housing assistance, etc. -- something the corporations won't do. Americans won't allow themselves to be exploited like illegals do, but they WILL do the work that illegals do for fair compensation and benefits. If Americans did the work that illegals do at higher pay, would that benefit the consumer? You bet it would in the long run. But many Americans who do not care about America's future are consumers who favor the idea of exploiting illegal workers because it keeps commodity and service prices down in the short term.' " Your comments are appreciated.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, story of this country and many others.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: rmnunez All this talk about guns and government, I thought the issue was undocumented immigrants. Is the idea that the US lacks an effective government and hence that patriotic citizens themselves, in revamped readings of 2nd Amendment rights, ought to arm themselves to shoot and kill defenseless impoverished Mexican stoop laborers scrambling across the desert? If this seems reasonable to anyone I can appreciate why caliber and firepower would be an issue as they'd probably be confronting like-mindeds who focus on property acquisition picking more affluent targets.

The discussion is over if the government has any right to limit those who come into the country.

[brien]

The discussion is over if the government has any right to limit those who come into the country

Don't all governments set quotas and policy on immigrants?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Yes,but blef and others were questioning the government's right to have any power.

[brien]

Well, in the ivory towers, government derives its power from those governed. Sadly, this is not really the case anymore. Governments derive their power from money, crooked politicians, and the military.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Not the case anymore? This was never the case, there have always been desenters who wish to seperate. As you said, Luckily for the government, they control the biggest source of power, the military

[brien]

This was never the case,

I beg your pardon. In 1789, this nation was founded to serve the will of the people and it worked up until the late 19th century.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary The discussion is over if the government has any right to limit those who come into the country.

Imagine the chaos if no government in the world had any right to limit those coming into their countries.

As a matter of fact, will there be any such concept as a 'country' left?

[rmnunez]

Tiny, how about you imagine the problem immigration poses to the world in general and how this can be dealt with. The US obviously has a problem, but many EU countries and a number of others who are located at strategic points also contend with serious immigration problems.

Immigration involves people moving from one country to another, but people move in a variety of ways and for many different reasons. Distinguishing between people fleeing political or other repression and persecution, seeking to further their education, specialized medical treatment, familial support or economic opportunity, is not always easy -but many of these people have US, EU and other, as well as internationally recognized rights to shelter.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: brien I beg your pardon. In 1789, this nation was founded to serve the will of the people and it worked up until the late 19th century.

Really? so the Union had the right to violate the will of the confederates? Last time I checked, the declaration asserts the right of the people to overthrow their government. What about the blatant taking of Indian land and other violation of people's, including its own constituent's will. That's hypocrisy, hypocrisy that i agree with, but still hypocrisy.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: tinybear Imagine the chaos if no government in the world had any right to limit those coming into their countries. As a matter of fact, will there be any such concept as a 'country' left?

The ones arguing this were arguing that the government shouldn't exist.

[rmnunez]

Quote by: tinybear Imagine the chaos if no government in the world had any right to limit those coming into their countries. As a matter of fact, will there be any such concept as a 'country' left?

Current thinking suggests the gradual disappearance of national boundaries. The trend has been to ease the movement of goods and services (and the people providing them) between countries. The EU leads the way removing customs controls among members, but many countries have similar arrangements (though not as developed) in regional settings (NAFTA, CARICOM, Mercosur), all sorts of bilateral arrangements too. Globalization now makes national borders highly permeable for goods and capital flows, information and services follow, people can't be far behind.

Nations who esconce themselves behind artificial barriers to trade, capital or people will be relegated to a lower level in the future.

[Keith Hamburger]

OK. Let's address the basic question.

What gives anyone the right to deny economic opportunity, or any other benefit, to anyone else due to an accident of birth on one side or another of an arbitrary geophysical or geopolitical boundary?

Keith

[Gods_Mercenary]

In a democracy, the people's rule is supreme. If the people vote to deny a non- citezen a right, then the government does that. I'm not saying it's right, but that's the enlightenment ideas that this and most other democracies were built on.

[rmnunez]

Keith, the "basic question" seems to be whether national rights to exclude foreigners trump universal rights to be free from discrimination based on national identity.

But I think the market will answer this faster as higher volumes of qualified "international citizens" expand their operations providing professional services without regard to national borders. United statians probably can't appreciate the fact they have managers and directors, attorneys, accountants, human resources and advertising executives around the world overseeing their multinational's branch operations and franchisees in all the major capitals. They are the investors, so they can run their operations, but as they interact with their colleagues locally, these guys increasingly are like their bosses -just as qualified, experienced, internationalized and mobile.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: rmnunez Keith, the "basic question" seems to be whether national rights to exclude foreigners trump universal rights to be free from discrimination based on national identity.

I'm not even asking about "national identity". The determination is a shear accident of geophysical location at the time of birth, it has nothing really to do with identity. If a person is born on one side of an arbitrary line, they can have a job that will support their family. If they're born on the other side of that line, they're not allowed to.

How can this be in any way moral or just?

Keith

[Gods_Mercenary]

Who said it's moral or just? In a democracy it doesn't matter if something is right, just if it's the people's will.

[notworthabean]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger I'm not even asking about "national identity". The determination is a shear accident of geophysical location at the time of birth, it has nothing really to do with identity. If a person is born on one side of an arbitrary line, they can have a job that will support their family. If they're born on the other side of that line, they're not allowed to. How can this be in any way moral or just? Keith

Kieth, I understand your reasoning, and in an ideal world it would make sense, however nation states are more then just "arbitrary lines". nations states are defined by more then their borders, they are run by a government, have tax codes, have militaries, provide services etc. now for this nation state its obvious preference is for tax paying citizens to be the people getting most of the jobs and getting the welfare services, it is not in their interest to have non-citizens under cutting native citizens causing problems. not to mention differences between citizens of nation states causing problems in previously stable areas.

to put it simply immigrants often cause problems sometimes, thus the reason why nation states governments have the responsibility to regulate it in the way that’s best for their country.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: notworthabean to put it simply immigrants often cause problems sometimes, thus the reason why nation states governments have the responsibility to regulate it in the way that’s best for their country.

This is a ridiculous mindset, and that is why 12 million illegal immigrants should be given amnesty, its the best way to "integration"
we will make a new america with more tolerance of others