“The bottom line: Most Americans would support an immigration reform plan, but only if border security comes first. And by “first” they mean before the legalization of currently illegal immigrants and before the creation of a path to citizenship. Would they be more flexible if they truly believed the federal government’s promise to secure the border? Perhaps — but they don’t believe.”
They’d be fools to. We know that the Democrats have absolutely no intention of closing the border. It’s the same kind of bait and switch that they pull with tax-rate increases and spending cuts. we get the higher rates, buy we never see the cuts.
I don’t have a problem with guest worker status for people who respect this country enough to follow the rules. The case might even be made that the existing rules for such people are excessively restrictive, driven by false ideas of economics.
Allowing people to stay with such contempt for this country to nakedly violate the rules to come here is a bad idea.
Granting the vote to people who haven’t demonstrated allegiance to the ideals of this country, as democrats wish to do, is shear madness.
This is just another racist gift to a particular ethnicity, Hispanics, who just so happen to vote mostly Democrat. I would love to see a healthier approach to immigration control – the INS and US Customs and Border Protection are both way out of control. But retaining the bureaucracy as is while simultaneously rewarding 11 million people who bypassed that bureaucracy illegally? That’s reprehensible.
So, how’s the drug war coming, Karl?
If you’ve won that war, the logical step would be to disband the DEA and transfer the agents to border patrol.
If you haven’t won that war, perhaps you should finish it before starting another one?
Those who fail to learn the history of prohibition are condemned to repeat them.
BTW, what do you intend to do with hundreds of millions of Americans who descended from those who (gasp!) bypassed the bureaucracy? In other words, everyone who entered the country prior to the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Acts in the late 1800’s?
I suggest that making it reasonable for people who want to work in this country to follow the rules would largely dry up the unregulated flood of illegal border crossers that overwhelm border enforcement and make it easier for drug traffickers. Making people who want to work here sneak into this country only harms the effort to exclude those who really need to be kept out.
But note that this is rewarding those who follow the rules. The current twisted rules reward those who violate them, as democrats like.
But note that this is rewarding those who follow the rules.
But you didn’t answer my question, Peter? What about everyone who entered the country prior to the Chinese Exclusion Act and other “rules”?
They didn’t “respect the bureacracy” — they were seeking freedom. They left the Old World to get away from the sort of rules you want.
What about their descendants — “anchor babies,” I think, is the PC term these days? Should they be deported, too? If not, why not?
PeterH,
That is a good assumption as “illegal” immigrants only became a problem when the Bracero Program that allowed foreign workers in was shut down in the 1960’s to get union support for civil rights. Prior to that the only illegal immigrants were folks like Ayn Rand sneaking into America for a better life, not just to find work. A new guest worker program could fortify the border against such criminals…
As Adam Smith, who also worked as a English customs official pointed out over 200 years ago, when demand exists a supply will be created and folks will smuggle if necessary to supply it.
Edward, everyone who entered the country prior to the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Acts in the late 1800′s is dead. I suggest we leave them where they are.
But what about their descendents? “Anchor babies,” I think is the current term? Should they be allowed to stay?
Where will you go when no one here lets you pick this fight with them?
So, how’s the drug war coming, Karl?
Well, what’s the proper analogy here? I’d say the dysfunctional equivalent would be keeping the war on drugs and all the poor law and powerful law enforcement agencies that it entails, while deciding that you won’t arrest anyone for carrying or selling illegal drugs made before a certain date. And repeating that on a regular basis to the point where drug smugglers and manufacturers stash large stockpiles of such drugs while waiting for the inevitable amnesty.
BTW, what do you intend to do with hundreds of millions of Americans who descended from those who (gasp!) bypassed the bureaucracy? In other words, everyone who entered the country prior to the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Acts in the late 1800′s?
Nothing. There was no laws regulating entry at that time and hence, no bureaucracy to bypass.
Nothing. There was no laws regulating entry at that time and hence, no bureaucracy to bypass.
And if we legalized immigration, there would be no laws prohibiting it today and no bureaucracy. You seem to acknowledge that prohibition hasn’t worked as you hoped, but your only solution is more prohibition. Do you not recognize any contradiction there?
“And if we legalized immigration, …”
Legal Immigration is legal.
It’s illegal immigration that isn’t legal.
Legal Immigration is legal.
Yes, immigration is technically legal, with a visa. You just can’t get a visa.
Just like alcohol in the 1930’s or drugs today. None of those were/are technically “illegal.” They just required/require prescriptions or visas, which are impossible to obtain.
The Soviets used to make the same argument. Emigration and internal travel were legal, Comrade, if you had a passport. Too bad you don’t have a passport!
I could get a machine gun (which Rand mistakenly believes is illegal) if I wanted to. It’s expensive, but I could do it, if I wanted to. But even Microsoft can’t get someone an immigration visa. (Bill Gates has testified before Congress on that problem.)
How does it make sense to argue that something is “legal” when it’s prohibited by law?
Ed,
Are you suggesting that there is no one going through the legal immigration process from start to finish? No one getting visa’s and then following the rules to immigrate legally?
Yes, Gregg, there’s a small number of people who are able to wor through the process and get visas. Just as there’s a small number of researchers who are able to jump through the hoops and get permits to buy heroin.
Do you think heroin is legal, by any reasonable definition?
The point, which you are missing, is that immigration is illegal for most people.
When I talk about legalizing immigration, I mean making it legal, like aspirin, not “legal” like heroin. Was that really not clear?
“When I talk about legalizing immigration, I mean making it legal, like aspirin, not “legal” like heroin. Was that really not clear?”
Yes it was really not clear. Neither is your aspirin vs heroin sentence but don’t bother explaining it.
Ok so now we agree that there is a method for legal immigration, and that there are people using that path to legally immigrate into the country. And since you agree there is a method of legal immigration, you must also agree that illegal immigration exists.
Thank you. I want to support the former and prevent the latter (to the greatest degree possible).
To me, all we really need is:
1) Make that legal process streamlined, efficient, and vastly more responsive to the nation’s needs.
2) shut out illegal immigration.
3) prevent any illegal immigrant from working or using welfare.
We, as a sovereign nation get to decide who comes in and who does not. You may not like that Ed, but that’s the way it is.
I sincerely doubt that if a family of 4, all strangers to you, showed up in your living room and demanded you get them beers and sodas, said they liked your bedroom so move into the cellar, and said that dinner at 6 would be just fine….I sincerely doubt you’d put up with that.
Ponder the term “sovereign state”.
What is interesting is folks forget why immigration was regulated in the first place, which was to keep America a pure WASP nation. Couldn’t have those nasty folks from Eastern and Southern Europe who were not Protestants becoming citizens and wanted to turn America over to the Pope 🙂
The Immigration Restriction Act of 1921 was passed with the specific intention of keeping American a WASP nation. The inspiration for the law was Madison Grant’s book, “The Passing of the Great Race”.
Organized labor also like the idea and also pushed for restricted immigration since the constant inflow of new workers looking for work made it very hard for them to organize and hold successful strikes. It should not be surprising that less than a decade after its passage Unions developed the clout that allowed passage of all the more labor laws and the golden age of unions started. It was also the era when American industrial expansion peaked for some strange reason…
BTW A German edition of “The Passing of the Great Race” also inspired a German soldier recovering in a hospital to get into politics to “save” his nation, making preservation of the “Great Race” his major focus. Der Fuhrer would later praise both the author and the American immigration laws based on it as ones Germany should use for their model.
Yes, immigration, like marriage, is one of those areas the “liberty and freedom loving” Republican Right doesn’t seem to support either liberty or freedom replacing knowledge with simplistic slogans 🙂
1) Make that legal process streamlined, efficient, and vastly more responsive to the nation’s needs.
Trying to make a government bureaucracy streamlined, efficient, and responsive is like trying to train a cat to bark. It’s easier to simply eliminate the bureaucracy.
2) shut out illegal immigration.
You’ve tried that and failed. Even the Soviet Union didn’t manage to completely stop migration across its borders. If Stalin couldn’t do it, what makes you think you can?
We, as a sovereign nation get to decide who comes in and who does not.
Not according to the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The idea that the government gets to do whatever it wants is contrary to our founding principles.
Do you believe the United States was not a sovereign nation for the first 100 years of its existence?
I sincerely doubt that if a family of 4, all strangers to you, showed up in your living room
Like Leland, you seem to be confused. The government is not a family. The nation is not a living room. The Federal government was not meant to be Lord and Master over the country, as you are over your house.
Ponder the term “sovereign state”.
I have pondered it quite often, since I live in the sovereign state of Texas. I’ve never known people to line up at the border to shoot Yankees. Do you think we should be doing that? 🙂
Ed:
“Trying to make a government bureaucracy streamlined, efficient, and responsive is like trying to train a cat to bark. It’s easier to simply eliminate the bureaucracy.”
Some inefficiency is a necessary evil if the government, constitutionally, has the task. You do the best you can. The military isn’t the most efficiently run organization but it has to be Federal.
“You’ve tried that and failed.”
Never been tried. Israeli’s do a pretty good job. We can do better. Never will it be 100% closure but we can do a whole lot better.
“The idea that the government gets to do whatever it wants is contrary to our founding principles.”
Strawman – no one said the government gets to do what it wants.
“The government is not a family.”
Clearly analogy is beyond you.
“I have pondered (the term sovereign state”) it quite often, …”
Clearly neither often enough nor long enough.
Never been tried.
Really? 20,000 Border Patrol agents — equivalent to two Army divisions? Three days and four trips to the DPS, just to get a driver’s license? Towns on the US-Canada border being split down the middle, just like Berlin? Getting pulled over by brow shirts at the side of the road, more than 50 miles from the border, wanting to know if I’m a citizen? Mandatory passports, just to enter Canada? More brownshirts stopping passengers on public transportation throughout the US, demanding to see their papers?
I imagined all those things?
Israeli’s do a pretty good job.
Israel is a tiny country in the middle of a desert. The United States is larger. Maybe your next analogy will compare it to Vatican City?
“The government is not a family.”
Clearly analogy is beyond you.
No, I understand the analogy perfectly. “The state is my father. The state is my mother,” as the Soviets used to say.
I know what such muddy-headed thinking leads to. I do not confuse the state for my parents and have no desire to be ruled by Big Brother.
Clearly neither often enough nor long enough.
I think you misspelled “police state.”
It is possible for a nation to be both sovereign and free, no matter what your analogies tell you.
By that logic, alcohol probation should be repealed only if “alcohol control comes first.” Americans would be “fools” to end prohibition before every single bootlegger is in jail and every speakeasy has been closed.
Why do you think that continuing prohibition will solve problems that were created by prohibition?
The real bait and switch came when the war on immigrants began in California (one of the most heavily Democratic states in the union). All the Democratic Party (controlled by historically anti-immigrant groups like the AFL-CIO) had to do was pretend to support immigration, knowing the Stupid Party would take the bait and come out against immigration just because Democrats appeared to be for it.
In return, Republicans gained — what? Did Californians switch to the R column, in gratitude? Did anyone seriously expect they would?
“…knowing the Stupid Party would take the bait and come out against immigration just because Democrats appeared to be for it.”
This is disingenuous. The vast majority of Republicans are not against immigration. They against illegal immigration. When proponents of a policy have to resort to lies in order to pass it, that’s not a good sign.
Really, after seeing the results of large-scale illegal immigration into California of a largely unskilled third-world population (making the most prosperous state in the Union almost insolvent, turning one of the best education systems in the country into one of the worst, exploding crime and poverty almost everywhere, and turning an economically conservative state into a Democratic welfare state), why would you want to duplicate that nationwide?
We’ve seen the results of this policy, and it is ruinous.
This is disingenuous. The vast majority of Republicans are not against immigration.
Sorry, but you wrapped two falsehoods into one.
First, it was not “the vast majority of Republicans” who started the War on Immigrants. It was (liberal Democratic) California. At the sound time, RINO Pat Buchanon brought his anti-immigrant freak show to (conservative Republican) Texas and got creamed in the Texas primary.
Unfortunately, Republicans adopted the anti-immigration meme in the bizarre belief that it would help them win places like California.
Second, we’ve beyond the shibboleth that “We aren’t against immigration, we’re against illegal immigration.” Immigration Warriors openly admitted as much, in the last round of this debate:
What’s left out in the conversation about how racist people are who don’t want amnesty and open borders, is any discussion or analysis of legal immigration. After we determine how racist people are, do we get to actually talk about legal immigration or is this like raising taxes where the talk about racism never stops?
If you were really “against illegal immigration,” you would support legalization!
As for those “ruinous” policies, which the United States followed for more than 100 years until the passage of the first Chinese Exclusion Act, I think they actually worked rather well. Better than your policies have.
My comments were in response to you calling everyone racist if they don’t agree with you about immigration.
Why do you think that people who come here without applying for citizenship want to be Americans? Isn’t that ethnocentric? Maybe they would like to retain their citizenship of their home country but would just like to live someplace that wasn’t so terrible that would drive them to come to the USA. But our system doesn’t allow for that type of choice right now.
In the other thread I said we could increase the rate of legal immigration from countries in Central and South America as well.
There are any number of things that can be done within our current system without having open borders for mass migration to have a nice relationship with our neighbors to the North and South. The same is true with dealing with the people who are already here without granting over night amnesty to them.
But we are talking large numbers of people, from all over the world. They don’t evenly disperse over the country and we don’t have the infrastructure in place to absorb them all. A large rapid influx of people puts pressure on things like sewers, roads, the electrical grid and cities deserve the ability to plan for population growth.
I am not sure if you are familiar with public schools but administrators carefully watch population growth in their towns and plan the construction and renovation of schools to meet demand. But you don’t just build a school over night.
Land must be purchased, bids for architects, community review panels, teachers hired, and all of this must be funded with property taxes of current residents. This just to illustrate that things don’t happen over night and the complexities of actually running a city.
This isn’t the olden days when people rode horses. There isn’t just one school teacher that teaches all the age groups.We have a higher standard of living and higher expectations of the services that government supplies. Our society is more complex and harder to run than it was when we had dirt floors and houses made out of sod.
We want new citizens to have good living conditions, schools and other public services. But none of the things that make that happen spring up over night or without planning. Which is why I am against open borders and if someone was for open borders, I hope they would be smart enough to put a plan in place to help the people who immigrate fit into their new communities and for their new communities to be able to absorb them.
There isn’t just one school teacher that teaches all the age groups.We have a higher standard of living and higher expectations of the services that government supplies.
Actually, you have much lower standards, judging by the illiteracy rate produced by the modern public-school system. As a former manager of mine used to say, “Don’t confuse effort with results.”
But none of the things that make that happen spring up over night or without planning.
So you believe. Economists have shown that they do happen, more easily and better, without planning. Freidrich Hayek called it “spontaneous order” but the basic idea goes back much farther. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” for example. (And the nice thing about market economics is, it works whether you believe in it or not.)
“…a plan in place to help the people who immigrate fit into their new communities…”
wodun,
SURELY you JEST Sir!
When immigrants come to our shores, even if those shores are just the Rio Grande, it is WE who should adjust OUR lives to accommodate them, just ask the DNC and folks like Mr. Wright.
Yeah, right, that’ll work.
I’m not going to claim to be an expert, BUT, my mother is a First Generation Italian American. I know a lot about the immigrant experience from my family. but it’s the immigrant experience that WAS the norm in America. Until the Cubans began moving to South Florida in the late 50’s and early 60’s anyway.
My grandparents and ALL their siblings and some other family came here in the early 1900’s from Naples and parts of Sicily. In order for them to get and keep jobs, and do any business outside their Italian neighborhoods and in order to become America Citizens, THEY had to learn to speak English and except for cooking at home and speaking at home, they BECAME ‘American’.
They had no concept of the U.S. Government nor the Governments of NY, NYC, NJ nor Ft. Lee where they settled, having to print citizenship study guides, citizenship tests, drivers license tests, or thousands of other documents in Italian or in Italian with Sicilian dialectic explanations. They came here to BE Americans, they kept there national identity via things such as oral family history and food and religious choice.
But they NEVER thought it was the job of anyone in this country to meet them even half-way, much less all the way in making life here a section of ‘home’, with all the opportunities of the United States.
Actually, Schumpty, the first wave of Italian immigrants were met with the same sort of comments you make about Cubans today.
Italians were also accused on resisting assimilation. They refused to give up their old ways. They followed a strange religion (Roman Catholicism), ate strange food (spaghetti and lasagna), and set up their own businesses, like Italian bakeries, and keep to themselves in communities called “Little Italies.” Many of them still do.
Every new wave of immigrants suffers from intolerance, and is intolerant of the next wave that comes after them.
Ed,
Evidently, on this topic, you are unable to come to grips with the concept of:
“That was then;
This is now”
and understand the situations are entirely different.
Edward, with all due respect, schools just don’t pop up over night and your contention that they and other services do is BS. I recommend going to some open meetings of your various local governments and committees because it doesn’t look like you know much about how cities are run. You might even learn something to strengthen your argument without resorting to calling people who disagree with you racist.
We live in a complex world that isn’t as large as it used to be. Our country can not absorb everyone that wants to come here. With open borders a billion people would show up in a few months.
I get your philosophical agrument that everyone is cool, I also think people are cool, and I disagree with you that opposition to open borders is motivated by uncool racism.
And no, I don’t have lower standards. I don’t want to go back to a time we lived in sod houses with dirt floors. I say we because I don’t want any immigrants to live that way either because I value and respect them as human beings.
Sorry, Wodun, you obviously didn’t understand what I meant by standards.
The quality of a school is not measured by its floors. Aristotle said that a school was a log with a teacher at one end and a pupil at the other. (I know, what did he know? 🙂
If you judge the quality of a school by its carpeting, rather than its teaching, you have completely missed the point of education.
Private schools and home schools do spring up overnight, regardless of what you believe. The public schools are increasingly the schools of last resort, as responsible parents home school. It isn’t about carpeting.
turning one of the best education systems in the country into one of the worst
Blaming immigrants for the failure of the socialist experiment in public education is convenient, but misplaced.
It was not immigration that caused the public school system to adopt flawed techniques like “look-say reading,” which resulted in an epidemic of illiteracy, and replace education with political/social indoctrination. The roots of the problem go back to the very beginnings of the public-school movement, as described by Samuel Blumenthal:
http://www.unz.org/Pub/Reason-1979mar-00018
In the 19th Century, high-school graduates were expected to be able to read the Bible in Greek and Latin. By the 20th Century, what you call the “best education systems in the country” were turning out graduates who couldn’t read the Bible in English. By which I mean the modern English bible, not the language of Shakespeare and King James! Do you really want to brag about that?
Even Grinnin’ Jim does not claim the public-school system offers a high standard of education. He merely defends it on the (factually incorrect) grounds that no private school is willing to admit “problem” students.
Michael,
Which was exactly the basis for the law which created the illegal immigrant issue, The Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, a law based on the lies of the supposed radical supremacy of the “Nordic” race and the need to preserve that supremacy in the United States.
Please do some research and read some history.
WTF?
First of all, “Nordics” are not a race. Second, I mentioned neither Nordics nor race in any of my replies. If you’re going to knock down straw men, please leave my name off the post.
Michael,
I though you might be interested in knowing how illegal immigration became illegal immigration. But as with most on the far right you seem have no interest in history or understanding how we got to where we are.
People, think about why they’re doing it.
The Democrats are pushing amnesty because they believe that adding 11 million new Democratic voters will give them a permanent national majority so they will be free to enact their entire agenda nationwide. They want to turn the entire United States into California. That’s the purpose of amnesty.
Why is it so hard for conservatives to think strategically?
In terms of political strategy, the Republicans are in trouble either way. If they support a path to citizenship, they get a bigger Hispanic electorate. If they oppose it, they further alienate the already quite large Hispanic electorate.
It’s very naive to think Republicans will get any increase in Hispanic electorate regardless of what they do on immigration. The illegals want free stuff and they will get it only from the Dems (mostly).
Of course, we know how naive the Republican “leadership” is on this and other issues. They’re not the stupid party for nothing.
Jim,
you left out that many who vote for (R)’s do so only to vote AGAINST the socialists like Obama. I think many see Reagan as the last POTUS candidate worthy of voting FOR.
And the choices below that aren’t great either in most cases.
many see Reagan as the last POTUS candidate worthy of voting FOR
The Reagan who supported amnesty?
The Reagun the left still calls racist? If Republicans support amnesty they will be called racists and if they don’t support amnesty they will be called racists because for the left it isn’t about a genuine desire for racial equality but using racist attacks to drive wedges between groups for political power.
Anyone who says that Republicans will pick up votes from Amnesty is ignorant of history, lying, or both. After each amnesty, even after John McCain’s failed plan, Hispanics have voted Democrat by huge margins. All amnesty will do is make the rest of America look like California: broke, out of work, polluted, corrupt, desperate… and permanently run by Democrats.
That may be true, Jim. They may be screwed if they oppose amnesty, but they are screwed (as we all are) if they support it.
Sometimes you have to do the right thing, even if you might lose.
By Edward Wright’s logic, a nation should have no borders at all.
The right supports the free movement of goods and capital; why not labor?
People are more than labor.
That’s been the Republicans’ problem: they want the labor without the people.
The same can be said of the Democrats. White Democrats have no plans to live next door to the people they import.
Free sale of goods and capital. Within terms of ownership, freedom to move such property. However, you can’t by definition move land. Borders are about defining land and are essential in protecting ownership of it.
Borders are about defining land and are essential in protecting ownership of it.
Are you saying that the problem with unrestricted immigration is that the immigrants would steal land?
In reality, more immigration would result in more economic activity, making land more valuable.
Borders are about defining land and are essential in protecting ownership of it.
Only if you accept the collectivist view that the state owns everything within its borders.
But let’s accept your view for a moment. If closed borders are good and immigration bad, why shouldn’t Texas seal its borders? Or Houston? If immigration between nations is bad, how can immigration between states, or cities, be good?
This is not a strawman argument. When I lived in Washington state, I met a lot of people who would like to seal the borders. Immigrants from California were especially hated. “Native Washingtonians” talked about Californians the way Californians talk about Mexicans.
Their argument was quite similar to yours, about defining land protecting ownership from Californians who wanted to “buy up the state.”
What’s the difference between your argument and theirs?
Citizenship, for starters. The people who left their homelands and came to the fledgling states and territories were, more often than not, expected to leave their old ways behind, and accept, more or less, the principles upon which this nation was founded. The melting pot did the rest.
Now, the melting pot is openly mocked and derided, the principles stomped on, and those who try to follow the law and accept them are chumps.
Question for you: under your utopia, what stops China (used here solely because they have the population and the centralized government to do it) from exporting 50 million adults with orders to form a new Party and take over our elections? Silly? Sure, but no less than your broad “open borders” claims.
I would also ask you to explain to “native Coloradans” that what happened to them is perfectly o.k. with you.
The people who left their homelands and came to the fledgling states and territories were, more often than not, expected to leave their old ways behind
Really? My mother grew up near Moscow, Pennslvania in a house that spoke Russian, Polish, and Lithuanian. (There was no talk of “English only” legislation back then.)
I’m not aware of many settlers who left their European languages, religion, and culture behind. Sam Houston, an adopted Cherokee, was criticized by the Secretary of War for showing up at a meeting in Indian attire — the old European ways were considered preferable by most white settlers.
Ask some Germans if there was talk of English only during WWII.
Only if you accept the collectivist view that the state owns everything within its borders.
Bullshit. The borders of my property define the land that I own. If I can’t define what my property is, how can I then trade my property? No point discussing the hypo, because the premise is flawed.
The borders of my property define the land that I own. If I can’t define what my property is, how can I then trade my property?
You seem to be confusing your personal property line with the US-Mexican border. I suggest you check your deed.
You can’t sell the United States because you don’t own it. At least, not without going to jail for fraud.
Did you forget what we were discussing?
I’m following the conversation. Jim said if I support free movement goods and capital, I support free movement of labor. But that’s not the issue with immigration and securing the border. The issue is defining US territory, which is US property. I can’t trade goods and capital if I can’t define goods or capital. It’s helpful to have a government that can be the record of such things, but that’s not a collectivist notion. The thought that defining borders is collectivism is nonsense. I define borders to identify what is mine and not yours. Collectivism would say there are no borders because everything is shared.
The issue is defining US territory, which is US property.
Saying so doesn’t make it so. Just because something is within US borders does not make it US government property. In fact, if we followed the principles of the Founding Fathers, the US government would own very little property: a few courthouses, military bases, and so on.
I can’t trade goods and capital if I can’t define goods or capital.
Did you obtain those goods and services from US territory? If so, they are US government property, by your definition. If not, you presumably obtained them from some other nation and they are the property of that government. You can’t trade goods and capital unless they belong to you — not the government.
I define borders to identify what is mine and not yours.
You’re continuing to confuse private property lines with national borders. Your property line defines what is yours. The US-Canadian border does not. You may own land on *either* side of the border, whether you are a citizen of the US or Canada. Or neither. Most of the land is owned by other people. Some of it (by no means all) is owned by the US and Canadian governments.
National borders do not determine the ownership of anything. They determine the limits of national jurisdiction, period. To determine the ownership of property within the borders, you need to check a deed, bill of sale, etc.
Someone who crosses the border from Canada to the United States is not trespassing on your property unless you happen to own the piece of land immediately adjacent to the border.
Collectivism would say there are no borders because everything is shared.
Nonsense. The Soviet Union was collectivist. The Soviet Union had borders. And fences, passports, strict immigration laws — all the things you want. What makes you believe collectivists don’t believe in borders?
Sorry Eddie, but your comments are simply irrational bullshit. Case in point:
National borders do not determine the ownership of anything. They determine the limits of national jurisdiction, period.
Jurisdiction, the area over which legal authority extends to enforce laws.
To determine the ownership of property within the borders, you need to check a deed, bill of sale, etc.
What determines the legality of a deed? A bill of sale? the border? the property? Wouldn’t you need a jurisdiction?
Name calling, Leland? Is that your intellectual level?
A bill of sale does not have to originate within the borders of the United States in order to be legal. There are deeds which predate the jurisdiction (and existance) of the Unitef States, yet they are recognized as legal.
Property rights originate not from the government but from human action: The mixing of previously unowned property labor with labor, as described by John Locke.
Property rights predate the existance of government; even the existance of modern humans. As Harry Stine pointed out, even a litter of puppies understands property rights.
None of which has anything to do with your delusion that immigrants are trespassing on your property, or US government property.
You persist in confusing private property (the land you own) with national territory (the land from which you want to exclude other people because you don’t like their place of birth). Like the medieval kings, you claim that national territory is the property of the state and anyone who enters without permission of the state is trespassing. We no longer have kings, so the modern version of this theory says the land belongs to the people. (“This land is your land; this land is my land,” in the words of Woodie Guthrie.) That theory of collective ownership is called collectivism.
The United States was not founded on royal or collectivist theories of land ownership, however, but on the theories of John Locke. The Founding Fathers rejected kings and believed in natural rights (including, yes, the right to travel and move freely — which is implicitly protected under the Nineth Amendment).
You may believe that natural rights and the founding principles of the United States are “irrational bullshit,” but that does not constitute a valid argument against them.
Name calling, Leland? Is that your intellectual level?
What? I give up, you’re intentionally being irrational.
You persist in confusing private property (the land you own) with national territory (the land from which you want to exclude other people because you don’t like their place of birth).
Whoever you are, I see the concept of legal vs illegal immigration is beyond your comprehension. Hell, if there are no borders, how the hell do you immigrate? But by all means, claim people are calling you names and then call them racist. Play the victim card, and see if anyone cares or takes you seriously.
The United States had borders and open immigration for more than 100 years.
I don’t know why you think it’s impossible to have both.
The United States had borders and open immigration for more than 100 years.
What does that mean? Define borders, US national or between states? Define open immigration, freedom to change citizenship or travel for tourism and business? Explain where you get 100 years?
I don’t know why you think it’s impossible to have both.
I’ve made no such claim and no reason to, since I have no idea what you mean by that statement.
What does that mean? Define borders, US national or between states?
Border: the part or edge of a surface that forms its outer boundary; the line that separates one country, state, province, etc. from another.
Define open immigration, freedom to change citizenship or travel for tourism and business?
Open immigration: Inward migration free of tariffs or barriers.
Explain where you get 100 years?
Declaration of Independence — 1776
First Chinese Exclusion Act — 1882
1882-1776 = 106
I’ve made no such claim and no reason to, since I have no idea what you mean by that statement.
You’ve accused me of saying the United States should have no borders. I’ve said no such thing. (In fact, I don’t understand how such a thing would be physically possible.) So, I can only conclude that you are somehow equating what I did say (the United States should return to the open immigration policies of the Founding Fathers) with what I am being accused of saying.
You’ve accused me of saying the United States should have no borders.
I did not. “Areader” made that comment. I have seen no effort by you to repudiate that claim made by him. As I’ve stated multiple times, I found your arguments irrational, and therefore have no clue what you are thinking.
So you, like Jim and his Know Nothings, are talking about life in the 1850s. Here’s a clue, it is 2013, and we have huge entitlements now. We also ended slavery, but I don’t suppose that’s one of the laws our Founding Fathers incorporated in the US Constitution that you want to harken back to? Then again, I can’t be sure, since the incorporated slavery because many people consider their slaves as property prior to the existence of the US because they had a bill of sale. With you, one wonders what value that bill of sale would have if the US Constitution started out prohibiting slavery in US territory.
I did not. “Areader” made that comment.
Yes, you did. To be precise, you said: “I see the concept of legal vs illegal immigration is beyond your comprehension. Hell, if there are no borders, how the hell do you immigrate?”
If you don’t intend to stand by your words, what’s the point of writing them?
Here’s a clue, it is 2013, and we have huge entitlements now.
Yes, I know. That’s an old anti-libertarian argument. “You don’t live in a 100% free society, so you shouldn’t be concerned that my legislation takes away even more of your freedom.”
Sorry, but that’s a logical fallacy. The fact that you’ve lost part of something doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be concerned about losing more of it. Not being 100% free does not mean we must consent to being 100% unfree. Having gone part way down the road to serfdom does not mean we have to follow you the rest of the way.
We also ended slavery, but I don’t suppose that’s one of the laws our Founding Fathers incorporated in the US Constitution that you want to harken back to?
I didn’t say that, but I’m not surprised you did. It’s one of the “big gun” slanders people frequently resort to when it’s losing an argument against freedom and desperately need to change the subject.
Slavery, or something very close to it, is where we’re headed if we follow your philosophy of “Here’s a clue, it’s 2013, no one should care about freedom anymore.”
Yes, I know. That’s an old anti-libertarian argument. “You don’t live in a 100% free society, so you shouldn’t be concerned that my legislation takes away even more of your freedom.”
Actually, I’m thinking exactly what Ayn Rand says in Atlas Shrugged
Continuing from above: It is irrational to operate as if you are not living under the current rules and those making the rules. To say, “it is moral to have open borders therefore we should do it in 2013” is irrational if it doesn’t consider that people like Jim don’t want open borders; what they want is the power to dilute oppositional votes to gain more power. Jim has made it clear that he has no desire to use his power for the improvement of society, but only to enhance his own power.
Those of us that our rational understand that before you open up the borders, you need to fix other problems. Entitlements are a far larger issue than open borders and far larger moral problem than immigration. You won’t fix entitlements by opening the border, you will exacerbate the problem. You won’t gain votes by opening the border, you’ll lose them (aside to your foolish claim, neither Reagan, Kemp, or Gingrich won an election on the issue of immigration. Never.). To think its possible because it was possible 100 years ago is irrational. To claim others are immoral because they point out the flaws in your concept is foolish. Particularly when your argument is more hyperbole than fact. For example, nobody has suggest prohibiting immigration. Personally, I’ve made no other point than to suggest we need to recognize our border and respect them; and you, whoever you are, suggested that I’m a racist based on this argument.
So continue with your name calling. Say I’m being anti-libertarian. But I read your comments like the character of Eddie Willers; you still think you can win while others get to make the rules.
it doesn’t consider that people like Jim don’t want open borders
I *do* consider the fact that people like Jim don’t want open borders — as I’ve told you, the Immigration War began in California, with liberal Democrats, before Republicans were foolish enough to take up the banner — and I understand the reason why.
Last year, Forbes Magazine had an article entitled, “Open Immigration Will Greatly Slow America’s Rush Toward an Entitlement State” (URL in comment header).
Just because Jim doesn’t want something isn’t reason not to do it. Has Jim ever been right about anything? 🙂
Those of us that our rational understand that before you open up the borders, you need to fix other problems.
That sounds like another argument we hear frequently. “Before we open the border to space, we need to fix all our problems here on Earth.”
If you never start work on one problem until you’ve fixed all other problems, you’ll never do anything.
Given the large part entitlements play in our budget problems,
slowing the growth of the entitlement state sounds like a good idea to me right now.
You won’t fix entitlements by opening the border, you will exacerbate the problem.
Forbes disagrees with you. Even people on Jim’s side disagree with you. One of the most common complaints Californians make about immigration is that it’s undermining their welfare state. It seems bizarre that so-called conservatives argue against immigration in order to save the welfare state.
To quote Thomas Lehman, Adjunct Professor of Economics and Western Civilization at Indiana Wesleyan University:
even if we grant this argument the benefit of the doubt and concede that unrestricted immigrants would indeed flood the welfare system, the answer to the problem lies not in closing off the borders or “beefing up” border security. The answer lies in eliminating the American welfare state, and prohibiting anyone, native or immigrant, from living at the coerced expense of another.
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/coming-to-america-the-benefits-of-open-immigration#ixzz2PX1B4WtB
Even people on Jim’s side disagree with you.
Wonderful, I consider that a feature, not a bug.
You just want immigrant labor? To mow your lawns and build your houses? That sounds kinda messed up…
“The right supports the free movement of goods and capital; why not labor?”
Because it’s incompatible with a welfare state.
I agree with this. People like Jim want all sort of social benefits for society. If you have open immigration, you can’t maintain substantial entitlements. Well, it might be able to keep the retirement portion of Social Security limping along for another generation (though I doubt immigrants would be gullible enough to support Social Security past the point where it goes deeply in the red), but the rest of the apparatus would have to go.
I guess, like usual, Jim doesn’t connect open immigration with tragedy of the commons.
There’s also the problem of vote dilution. For example, if we import another 11 million Democrat voters, what’s that going to do for those people who don’t agree with the Democrat party ideology? At some point, you do need to protect your own interests.
If you have open immigration, you can’t maintain substantial entitlements.
Why not? You seem certain that immigrants don’t pull their own weight, while native-born citizens do. Do you have any evidence for that?
if we import another 11 million Democrat [sic] voters, what’s that going to do for those people who don’t agree with the Democrat [sic] party ideology?
It’s going to motivate them to find a political program that has some appeal for new citizens. For a historical example, see the Know Nothings.
At some point, you do need to protect your own interests.
But it’s easy to be shortsighted about those interests. The Know Nothings were sure that unlimited immigration was destroying their country, when in fact it was making it richer, freer, and more powerful.
Why not? You seem certain that immigrants don’t pull their own weight, while native-born citizens do. Do you have any evidence for that?
I don’t see were Karl gave a comparison between immigrants vs native-born. Why do you make this comparison? I think Karl’s point is that if you provide an open door to the US to receive US entitlements without compensation, then you have an incentive to mouch. That native-born people see this incentive and take advantage of it isn’t a good argument for opening up US entitlements to anyone who can manage to enter the country and claim them.
As for your Know Nothing nonsense, what were the federal entitlements available to immigrants in the 1850s?
Why not? You seem certain that immigrants don’t pull their own weight, while native-born citizens do. Do you have any evidence for that?
We already have hundreds of millions of people moving around the world for economic reasons. Current legal immigrants to the US have to jump through a lot of hoops. If you create open immigration, then the only obstacles are the plane ticket and finding a place to stay.
So what do they get in exchange? It depends on what’s there. We see already that people will move just for the opportunity for economic gain. That’s currently who shows up in the US. Some pull their weight and some don’t. What happens when there is no risk involved in that economic gain (due to an entitlement) and the barrier to entry is much lower?
If there are substantial entitlements which can be acquired, then you just paid for all the work it’d take to move. The resulting dynamics will crush flat any entitlement accessible to incoming immigrants. You’ll have a flood of people who aren’t pulling their own weight. It’s a standard tragedy of the commons problem as I already noted.
It’s going to motivate them to find a political program that has some appeal for new citizens.
Or keep those people from becoming new citizens. Ethnic conflict is a normal consequence of these games.
It’s also worth noting that prior to immigration restriction one had powerful patronage institutions such as New York City’s Tammany Hall which depended on immigration. Tammany Hall lost power within a decade of the imposition of substantial restrictions on the immigration it depended on for power.
We see already that people will move just for the opportunity for economic gain.
LOL. That sounds like a line from Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Gasp! It’s the Ferengi! Deflector shields on full, man the photon torpedoes! They want to sell us things!
So what do they get in exchange?
Read “The Wealth of Nations.”
What happens when there is no risk involved in that economic gain (due to an entitlement) and the barrier to entry is much lower?
Where did I advocate “an entitlement”? Please show me a quote, or stop making things up.
Again, look at history. For more than 100 years, the United States had no immigration restrictions and no entitlements. Is there any reason to believe it wouldn’t work again? Please give me something more concrete than “That was then, this is now.”
For more than 100 years, the United States had no immigration restrictions and no entitlements. Is there any reason to believe it wouldn’t work again?
Yep, we have entitlements now and whether you mention them or not, they exist with no sign in sight that they will disappear (other than by bankruptcy, see San Bernardino).
If you are arguing for unrestricted immigration and no entitlements, then that’s a great utopia. You’ll never get there if you adopt unrestricted immigration before dealing with the entitlement issue, which seems to be what Jim is arguing to do.
But hey, tell Karl he’s living in a sci-fi world; it’s a loser argument, but it seems your game.
So Edward, you are now advocating for open borders and the elimination of entitlements like Medicare, SS, food stamps, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, ect?
These things exist in the present tense. This time travel thing wont to do is interesting. Let’s all go back to a time before running water, electricity, and the internet. Things were so much simpler then. If you wanted to build a building in San Fransisco, you just built it. Who cares about earthquakes.
At some point you have to defend your ideas in the present, in the world as it exists today.
So, you believe a lassiez-faire republic is “a great utopia” — but you think enforcing prohibition is a practical idea?
I’ve offered the early United States as an example of a nation that came close to being such a “great utopia” and worked reasonably well.
Can you give me an example where prohibition has worked well? Alcohol in the 1930’s? Drugs and immigration today?
We both seem to be in agreement that prohibition of immigration has not worked well, but you believe it can be made to work if we — what? Spend more money? Hire more government employees? And if that doesn’t work, then what?
National borders are to keep the government in, not to keep the people out.
Trent,
Exactly and that was one of the secrets to U.S. success for nearly 150 years…
Ed won’t take the bait, so I will. Yes, we should have open borders.
The point is, these people have no legal path to gain entry. A Mexican with no salable skill set (read: tech) cannot get a visa or permit or whatever, except for an occasional bracero program. Yet, obviously, American employers want these low-wage workers, usually not being able to find American workers at any price range.
They shouldn’t be able to get health benefits? No argument here. Nor should they – or anybody else – get socialized medicine, education, or anything else? Of course not. Solve that problem and the immigration problem solves itself.
By the way, folks, this is not really a national problem. I have lived in many parts of the country and the place you see the illegals in large numbers is where property values are very high, such as Los Angeles and New York City. I live out in the Hamptons, where property and rent is very expensive, so we have a large contingent of (I assume) illegals. Why? Because they are the people willing to live ten or twenty to a small house. The only “local” workers live forty minutes west of here and their rent is pretty damn high as it is. Very few people can afford to buy here if they have to live off the local economy. The only reason I live here is that our property has been in my wife’s family since the 1950s.
The answer, of course, is to allow building the kind of dwellings that such workers could afford – compact apartments and such, three or four stories tall. High density housing and multi-family houses. But the politics out here is such that they can never get approved. So, we have illegal workers piling in small houses instead.
Just saying…
I think John K Berntson pretty much nails it. Part of the labor problem in this country is that we are so rich nationally that we can survive vast numbers of people that are too good to work certain jobs. My crew average pay is well over double minimum wage and getting intelligent native born Americans is very difficult.
I have heard hundreds of variations of “I don’t get paid to think” as well as “Pay me more and I will work harder”. Those often by people unwilling to do either for any rate. Others are “You get a n—– to do that” and the various wetback slurs with the same inflection by white and black. I contract to get work done and I need people that will do it.
Two step immigration reform.
1. Zero benefits to any non-citizen. Eliminates the deadbeats from other countries.
2. Stop paying our own young people to fail. Eliminates a lot of the jobs the illegals are coming for.
Now you have a shot at border security with about 10% as many illegals to catch.
It is an unfortunate part of the English tradition that manual labor is of low status; any man of status works with a pen (or in front of a keyboard today). One does not find the same disdain on the continent (e.g.: Germany). But, we have been ruled by New England since “Reconstruction”, so that is unlikely to change. Still, removing barriers to entry (e.g.: min wage) and encouraging skilled trade over “college” for at least the 50% of society that’s below 100 IQ could go a long way to reducing our addiction to foreign labor.
One does not find the same disdain on the continent (e.g.: Germany).
Germany has a serious problem with credentialism to the point that a lot of politicians and business leaders are fraudulently getting doctorates.
For example, the German minister of education recently resigned after it was discovered that she had committed blatant plagiarism in obtaining her doctorate (the story mentions she was the second minister in about two years to get caught). Apparently, there’s a number of Germans who want the substantial credibility, but not the work, that comes with such a degree. I can’t see such educational fads generating respect for skilled labor.
This is an idea that has ONLY come about since we began looking for ‘the Right Stuff’, it’s not any American tradition to think like that, it’s not tied to the system where English Gentlemen didn’t do manual labor.
Even into the late 1940’s and 1950’s when veterans got the GI Bill, and used it, they didn’t all look for or get a desk job and start pushing pencils for pay. We didn’t see a preponderance of guys getting Business Degrees post WWII or Korea. In fact only 51% 0f WWII vets and 43% of Korean War vets used their GI Bill for college, and they didn’t swell schools that offered desk jobs.
The concept of going to college as the only way to ‘better yourself’ is an idea that was sold to the Boomers, i.e. the children of WWII and Korean War vets.
I was born in 1954, and I remember noticing the change in schools as I progressed. They went from stressing a HS Diploma as the jumping off point to life as an adult, to pushing HS as JUST a stepping stone to a College Degree.
I remember the old traveling road show by DuPont Chemicals coming to my JRHS. The presenter said that the world was changing and for US to succeed we’d HAVE to go to college to work for companies like DuPont. I can remember thinking then, that day, that I’d grown up in a neighborhood full of and gone to school with guys who’s dads worked at DuPont in Louisville KY, and I knew THEY didn’t have degrees. I can remember thinking then, that day, what kind of world was he talking about, where you’d need a degree to work at / operate a chemical plant, that was being run THAT day, by guys with HS diplomas and just their OJT at DuPont? What was changing?
Well, I got my answer in the ensuing years. We’ve seen most of the chemical and manufacturing jobs moved to Asia and South America and Africa, where just EVERYONE has a college degree! And to top it off, places like McD’s, Dominos and BK want their Managers to have a College Degree to run their stores. I’ve run two of those, before the ‘need’ arose and did quite well for myself AND the corporations. And I’m not pickling on the food industry. I’ve seen the same thing in other industries I’ve been in.
When our local electrical producer was seeking a permit to build a new nuke here in NC, I sent out feelers to see if they’d be hiring any old hands for our old positions. The simple answer was, send us a resume WITH a college transcript if you had NOT attended college during or after that prior construction period. Resumes without a degree displayed prominently, would be tossed. So I was smart enough to run that office at 29 with no degree, but years later with years more working experience I was not.
On what planet does that make sense.
What’s changed in America is the attitude of employers, not the abilities of NON-college graduates. What’s changed in America is the idea that anyone under 22 or 23 or older even without a degree isn’t mature enough or smart enough to be an effective leader.
Unless of course, that 20 to 24 y/o or older, is holding a rifle or running a tank or firing cruise missiles or doing drug interdiction stops along our coasts in a 20′ to 50′ boat. THEN he’s plenty damned smart, but let him or her slough off that uniform, and they go back to being dumb as a post in the eyes of the civilian employers and in many instances government hiring offices too.
GOP, see Lucy and the football.
When my wife came to America as a legal immigrant, I had to qualify for her to come. If I hadn’t met those financial requirements she could not have come here legally. Should we ignore those requirements now?
Edward wants open borders. Illegals are already demanding the vote here in AZ with many people arguing they should get it.
They do not completely pay for the services the state provides. Others are forced to pay for them.
China restricts births. Is that what we want here?
Open borders may work for third world neighbors. I do not believe it would work here.
Ken,
Mexico is a prime example of how WE should treat our border WITH Mexico. They have big, heavily built fences and manned / armed guard towers at their Southern Border. but somehow, for us to do that to them is wrong.
For all their talk of accepting illegals in Mexico, Central American governments continue to complain about the kinds of treatment their citizens receive IN Mexico.
The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany also had fences. Berlin had a wall.
Those things do not make a country a better place to live.
America was supposed to be better than that. Something new. A free country.
If you believe the lack of freedom makes Mexico a better country than the United States, why don’t you move to Mexico? You might have to spend a few years filling out forms and small fortune on lawyers and bribes to government officials, but that’s what you’re arguing for — right?
I have a fence around my yard, does that make me a Nazi? Lots of people and organizations have fences and their use is well documented going back to the dawn of homo sapien sapiens. The use of a fence does not make someone a Nazi or a racist.
And you never address your own ethnocentric assumptions about immigrants or the people you are arguing with.
No, it simply means you’re suffering from Leland’s Syndrome, which leaves the sufferer unable to distinguish between a private homeowner and the US government.
Your house is your property. The United States is not the government’s property. As a homeowner, you have the right to can paint your house blue, decide that everyone who lives there must say grade before a meal or bow down to Mecca, or prohibit books that offend you. The government does not have the right to paint the entire country blue, require everyone in the US to worship as he decrees, or prohibit books that offend the government.
Putting a fence around your house to keep out people you don’t like is not the same as putting a fence around the United States to keep out people you don’t like. There’s a difference, even if you can’t see it.
People? I thought I was arguing with a tribble! 🙂
You are making a value assuption about the motives of people who build fences. I like my neighbors just fine, the fence isn’t there because I don’t like them. Which is the same assumption you made from the beginning, that opposition to open borders is based on racism. I am not opposed to open borders because of skin color, either the immigrants or my own.
Our country belongs to the citizens and we elect a government to manage it.
And you still don’t address the enthocentric assumption of yours that people actually want to be Americans. Some do and some don’t but you want to force ctizenship on them and press them into the service of our system. To me, this is unethical.
Our country belongs to the citizens and we elect a government to manage it.
Rubbish. Collective ownership is nonsense, and central planning doesn’t work. No matter how hard you believe in them.
If I hadn’t met those financial requirements she could not have come here legally. Should we ignore those requirements now?
We ignored those requirements for over 100 years. Otherwise, most of the people living in America now couldn’t be here.
You still haven’t explained what the negative consequences of that policy were. Was the American economy held back during that period? Tell us why you think Washington, Jefferson, etc. had it wrong.
They do not completely pay for the services the state provides. Others are forced to pay for them.
Interesting. Do you believe native-born Americans completely pay for government services they receive? That others are not forced to pay for them? Really?
China restricts births. Is that what we want here?
It seems you would, if you were intellectually consistent. If people are an economic bad, rather than an economic good, it makes as much sense to limit.
In the words of Ronald Reagan, you see people only as mouths to feed and forget that they also have minds and hands to work.
Well said.
Australia has a nice wall around it and while people do try to cross it, the numbers are not great. Austrailia is a nice enough country but not really a big draw for immigration. It doesn’t face any of the pressure the USA does and if it did, doesn’t have the land or resources to support the influx of people that would come to the US if we had open borders.
It is easy for you to advocate for open borders when you don’t have a stake in the outcome and don’t have to deal with any of the consequences.
Australia has 10x more legal immigrants than the US, and we have to put people in boats to patrol the border.
As I often ask, what’s my nationality got to do with it? We’re talking about principle here.
Are you sure?
The USA has 40 million immigrants living here, greater than the entire population of Austraila. Last year we had 1 million new citizens. Austraila had about 400k. As a percentage of your overall population, you have a good point but not in raw numbers.
If Austraila had open boarders how many people would drive there? The country has natural barriers to entry. The USA, not so much and more people would hop a boat or plane to move here if they could.
Does your nationality matter? It certainly isn’t out of bounds if you are trying to tell me how my country should be run.
We are not just talking about principles but the real world effects and consequences of those principles which effect certain countries differently.
“Don’t be fooled again,” indeed. The Left always disguises its ultimate goals. Why would you expect honesty from a gang whose agenda is essentially legalized looting?
That’s what I see too.
They want to vote in and co-opt a group of people who will vote for them ONLY for decades. It’s not a bad deal for the elected worms, until the money runs out.
But eventually the house of cards will crumble.
As it is, many of the legal aliens I knew have gone home to Mexico or Central America. Where I used to live you could hardly swing a cat without striking Spanish speaking families. They were all here, working r raising families for the littlest ninas and ninos to abuela cooking and babysitting while the parents worked.
Now they are an extinct breed, only the single men remain. And it was pointed out to me that 90% of them were here illegally.
And if you want to see people TRULY pissed off over these ‘normalization’ proposals, go talk to someone who SAT it out through the legal system. And not just Mexicans or other immigrants from Central America are pissed either. I know a few Scots and one English lady who waited inline legally who see it as an affront to their having played by the rules.
It looks to me like being a fools fool to work, if robbing banks becomes a lesser misdemeanor.
And if you want to see people TRULY pissed off over these ‘normalization’ proposals, go talk to someone who SAT it out through the legal system. And not just Mexicans or other immigrants from Central America are pissed either. I know a few Scots and one English lady who waited inline legally who see it as an affront to their having played by the rules.
No kidding.
It’s ironic that Immigration Warriors claim they are the only Republicans who know how to win elections.
Immigration reformers like Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, and Newt Gringrich may be pariahs, but they actually won elections.
Ed,
Do you believe borders should be completely open? Should anyone be allowed to enter the US, and stay, at any time no matter what?
What are the criteria, if any, a person should not be allowed to enter the US and live here? And if there are criteria under which you think entrance should be denied, who does that?
Gregg,
[[[Do you believe borders should be completely open? Should anyone be allowed to enter the US, and stay, at any time no matter what? ]]]
Why not? It worked well for the first 150 years…
So would Edward or Trent actually like to make a case for open borders?
Calling people racist Nazi doesn’t lend any support and being against legal immigration doesn’t show any benefits for open borders.
Or is this just an elaborate trolling session?
Wodun,
The history of why illegal immigrates became illegal, (the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921) , even is inconvenient, is the history even if YOU may not like it.
Also I am not calling anyone Nazi, merely pointing out the same book, “The Passing of the Great Race” played key roles in both the reversal of immigration policy in the United States in the 1920’s and in German politics in 1920’s and 1930’s. And noting America has been having “immigration problems”, largely self-inflicted, ever since. And will continue to have until the root cause, the quota system created to preserve “American culture” is addressed and eliminated. If the root is rotten how could anything that comes from it not be?
However, you are free to do your own research, you have enough starting points, to confirm why a Republican Congress and President suddenly decided to throw the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty under the bus and reverse 150 years of immigration policy.
But anything done will be only temporary. And border “security” is just a placebo as no border has ever been totally secure. The closest was the Berlin Wall and even there individuals were able to make it across dispute having to dodge machine gun bullets. It was no where near as long as the borders of the United States are.
But what is saddest on this thread is how many are looking at his from the perspective of political brownie points rather than what best reflects American tradition and the Constitution of the United States… President Washington was right to warn of the danger of political parties.
The quota system as it exists today does not favor white people, as if all white people were even the same anyway.
But if you were to try and make a case for open borders, I would read it. So far, no one has said how that would be a better system than what we have now.
Wodun,
If you did your research you would see that the folks the Immigration Act intended to keep out, the Jews and Catholics from countries like Poland, Italy, etc. would be classified as white today. You know, folks like Rand, and probably even your parents if they hadn’t come before 1921.
The original law was modified in the 1960’s to set quotas based on the existing demographic distribution of the population by national origin, but since that distribution had been already set been set by the earlier law it only reinforced the basis.
As for an argument for open borders. How about the American tradition of being a nation of immigrates, where immigrate groups come and work they way up the social ladder by hard work. And in doing so build industries and the economy.
Just look at the historical expansion of the American economy. The rate of expansion peaked in the 1920’s right after the laws restricting immigration passed. Coincidence? Probably not when you look at all the inventions and industries build by immigrates like Telsa, Edison, Bell, Carnegie, Goldwyn, Sikorsky, the Warner brothers, etc… Folks who came here broke, worked hard and built a nation.
Elon Musk is a modern example. He came here on a student visa to study at Stanford, than changed his status after he built and sold his first company while being a “student”. I recall him talking about how he couldn’t afford an apartment so he slept in his office at an Entrepreneurial gathering in Los Angeles by the airport in 2005.
Or look at the number of immigrates that serve in the military, far higher than the percent they make of the U.S. population.
http://americasvoiceonline.org/research/fact_sheet_immigrants_and_the_military/
BTW my own brother-in-law earned his citizen ship in the U.S. Army, through two torus of Iraq including the invasion and two in Afghanistan. His oldest son, also born in the Philippines, is currently in ROTC in college and plans an career in the U.S Army.
Then look at Japan, with is strict policy, how it has stagnated.
Immigration is what keeps America young and vigorous… The more that come the larger the economy gets. You want to jump start America, then just open the borders and see what happens.
But if you were to try and make a case for open borders, I would read it.
I see the response is once again: If you did your research you would see that the folks the Immigration Act intended to keep out, the Jews and Catholics from countries like Poland, Italy, etc. would be classified as white today. In short, you’re racist.
Still no case for open borders in today’s world. Just this notion that a border is akin to racism rather than recognition of the constraint of our laws. Oh, what’s his name, did acknowledge jurisdiction, but then never seemed to understand the value of jurisdiction. Apparently, we are just supposed to define our borders without any understanding of why.
So, I’ll make the case for a lawful open immigration. We need to make sure those interested in coming into the United States are doing so to participate and produce. Every nation in the world expects this from immigrants. None allow moochers, regardless of race, skin color, gender, or sexual orientation, to come to their land and stay. It’s not about race, its about productivity. Enforcing this is no less immoral than any business restricting employment to productive employees or any home owner restricting access to their land to people who won’t destroy it. Some moral principle simply adjusted for scale.
Do I want to grow our workforce? Yes I do. And that can be done by either internal growth (birth rate) or by immigration. However, if an immigrant comes here not to work, but to take advantage of our social programs, they do nothing to grow our workforce. They don’t participate in trade, because they don’t provide anything for that which they take. I believe in trade. I believe you provide something in order to gain something. Adam Smith discusses this in Wealth of Nations.
Leland,
Ah, another history denier… Things were so good and noble in the old days….
But I am curious, why do you think the illegals in the U.S. are taking advantage of social programs? Any evidence?
Most illegal immigrants steer well clear of government programs and they work, usually longer and harder than citizens and legal immigrates do for a lot less wages. In fact the Republican war on illegal immigration is actually harmer Republican states. Case in point the cry from farmers in Idaho to send more to work on their farms…
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/05/07/2106234/idaho-farmers-we-need-immigrant.html
Idaho farmers: We need immigrant workers
Published: May 7, 2012
And of course the immigrants they are looking for aren’t coming from Canada or England…
“And border “security” is just a placebo as no border has ever been totally secure.”
Strawman. No one asks for 100% impermeability nor does anyone suggest it’s possible.
Republicans are suppose to be against regulation arguing how much money it costs to follow government regulations. Well here is an opportunity to get rid of entire stack of complicated, confusing and expensive regulation while signaling to the world America the land of freedom is open for immigration again 🙂
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/immigration-regulation-costs_n_3014442.html?utm_hp_ref=business
U.S. Immigration Regulation Costs $30 Billion Annually: Study
The Huffington Post
By Caroline Fairchild
Posted: 04/04/2013 12:41 pm EDT
Updated: 04/04/2013 12:56 pm EDT
The current liberal take on immigration is quite simple: We must keep it illegal but cannot enforce the law. This has the long-term effect of producing a large resident population who are dependent on the good will of liberals.
In particular, if an ethnic group with a lots of illegals tries leaving the “plantation,” the people on the next Journolist will coordinate reasons to start cracking down on them (e.g., they’re homophobic, they’re overpopulating the U.S., they’re busting unions, etc.) It won’t be any more difficult than the leftist about face on Israel over the past generation or two. It you want a specific example, consider the case of Elian Gonzalez. It was the left who called for his deportation.
We can put a stop to this by deregulating immigration, i.e., open borders. I suspect that the Left will find a reason to oppose it.
Joseph,
So why are so many on the right against opening our borders, far more then on left?