Options

[immigration] and Human Rights

1235736

Posts

  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    Ooh, philosophy time, I see.

    Why exactly are we assuming that people have inherent rights, either to have their opinions respected or to not be mistreated?

    Because nearly all countries say that they respect human rights. Human Rights, however, do not claim to be inherent--they work because they are a vision of a better world that people accept. Because they are not inherent, it is our job and the job of countries to respect human rights--in fact many countries claim legitimacy from their respect for human rights (Jack Donnelly, Universal Rights)

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Umm...that is a reflection on the Mexican economy more than the American jobs. However, if you can't see the difference between someone who won't work because they are lazy and someone who won't work because that is the more fiscally advantageous situation, there really isn't any way to continue this discussion.
    I think you are misunderstanding - I don't see what the difference has to do with the discussion or any position anyone takes in the discussion. You won't do the job because the government will give you enough welfare that it ain't worth your time. To me that is not so blatantly different from "too lazy to do it" as you seem to think it obviously is. To the way I'm reasoning this, they are effectively identical. They can be used interchangeably for my purposes and so you aren't making any point. In other words, just pretend those employers are saying, "Americans won't do these jobs because they figure they're better off unemployed. The immigrants don't feel that way, that's why we need them."

    That is a nice piece of circular logic there; we need illegal immigrants because they have driven down wages to the point that we need illegal immigrants. This is one of the reasons why governments regulate the flow of people across their borders.

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    If we're going to let a nearly unlimited number of poor people into the country, I've always been of the opinion that we shouldn't let geography determine which ones.

    Like, we should open the doors to Haiti and North Korea before we do anything to increase the flow of illegal immigration from our neighbors. Neighbor, I guess. If our economy really needs more low skilled workers, we'd get more charitable bang for our buck by inviting the people who are worst off in the world.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Dammit, I didn't notice this thread.

    Has anyone pointed out that immigration laws in America were explicitly racist for the first 80 or so years? As in, first they were there to keep out the dirty, heathen Chinese, then the dirty, heathen...

    For the record, I agree with Yar on pretty much everything.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I dealt in a round about way the way that the republican party, which was the party of freedmen and abolition, became a party that limited Chinese immigration.

    I didn't want to immediately taint the conversation by linking anyone posting against me and racism, because that'd be a bit of a dick move.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Oh, and there's this, too:

    If the 30 affluent countries making up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) were to allow just a 3 percent rise in the size of their labor forces through loosened immigration restrictions, claims a 2005 World Bank report, the gains to citizens of poor countries would amount to about $300 billion. That’s $230 billion more than the developed world currently allocates to foreign aid for poor countries. And foreign aid is a transfer: The $70 billion that rich countries give leaves those countries $70 billion poorer. According to the World Bank study, wealthy nations that let in 3 percent more workers would gain $51 billion by boosting returns to capital and reducing the cost of production.

    The aggregate gains from a regime of completely open borders are so large as to seem unreal, but immigration policy is perhaps best understood at the level of the individual. According to World Bank economists Martin Rama and Raquel Artecona, data from the 1990s show that a Vietnamese laborer who moves to Japan will make nine times what she would at home, adjusted for purchasing power. A Guatemalan will find wages for the same work increase sixfold in the United States; a Kenyan who moves to the U.K., sevenfold. “These wage gaps create pressure for migration,” Pritchett writes, “because they are
    not primarily explained by differences in the characteristics of people. Wage rates are predominantly characteristics of places.” The biggest single determinant of how well off you will be is not the college you get into, the color of your skin, your gender, or your work ethic; it’s the country listed on your passport.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I dealt in a round about way the way that the republican party, which was the party of freedmen and abolition, became a party that limited Chinese immigration.

    I didn't want to immediately taint the conversation by linking anyone posting against me and racism, because that'd be a bit of a dick move.

    Nationalism is the highest form of ethnocentrism. Just sayin'.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User regular
    edited April 2010

    The aggregate gains from a regime of completely open borders are so large as to seem unreal, but immigration policy is perhaps best understood at the level of the individual.

    I don't understand, wouldn't this mean that countries with no immigration policy whatsoever would be wildly ahead of their competitors?

    That doesn't seem to be the world we live in.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    According to the World Bank study, wealthy nations that let in 3 percent more workers would gain $51 billion by boosting returns to capital and reducing the cost of production.

    I wonder who gets that $51 billion.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010

    The aggregate gains from a regime of completely open borders are so large as to seem unreal, but immigration policy is perhaps best understood at the level of the individual.

    I don't understand, wouldn't this mean that countries with no immigration policy whatsoever would be wildly ahead of their competitors?

    That doesn't seem to be the world we live in.


    Further down in the article:

    Lant Pritchett: The second thing is, we shouldn’t create hostages. We shouldn’t keep people locked in place within some arbitrary post-colonial boundaries just so we can continue with the bold experiment of trying to make nation-states develop. People should be free to move.

    Reason: And if we got rid of those boundaries, what would the world look like?

    Pritchett: The key to predicting that is price differentials [differences in prices charged for the same product in different places]. If you look at what has happened with enormously successful trade liberalization in the past 40 or 50 years, price differentials have fallen a lot. The only remaining enormously egregious price differential in the world is in the price of labor.

    But I think the question of what would happen if world barriers to labor were erased tomorrow isn’t that interesting because it’s not going to happen. And to some extent it’s good that it won’t happen immediately. If the world were thrown open to labor mobility today, I suspect it would cause massive disruption of a kind that nobody really wants.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Ah, that is much saner. Jesus Christ, the first line I quoted is outlandishly nonsensical.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'd like to make a distinction between being pro-immigrant and being anti-labor, because that seems to be the insinuation against those who argue for open borders (ie: "I wonder who gets the $51b,"). It's true that globalization has disproportionately served the needs of the moneyed few at the expense of the impoverished many, but in my view this is not an inherent feature of globalism but rather a side effect of the absurd concentration of capital (and with it, the ability to adapt profitably to our rapidly-changing world) in the hands of a small elite. So while it may be that in this environment, an increase in the quota of legal immigrants to the United States would benefit the fatcats while putting honest 'murricans out of their jobs, I do not believe this to be an argument against immigration as much as it is against the extreme concentration of capital.

    nescientist on
  • Options
    JarsJars Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The idea that illegal immigrants take jobs from americans has always struck me as ironic. The people I usually see saying this are hardcore republicans, which means they hate socialism. Yet government stepping in to stop companies from hiring illegal immigrants who will work for less than minimum wage instead of americans is going against the free market they so love. Though them being huge hypocrites isn't really a big surprise.

    Jars on
  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Regulating international corporations: socialism, which is bad and shouldn't be allowed

    Restricting international trade: mercantilism, totally an awesome idea that has never had adverse consequences ever

    except they never call it mercantilism, they call it "america first"

    nescientist on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Jars wrote: »
    The idea that illegal immigrants take jobs from americans has always struck me as ironic. The people I usually see saying this are hardcore republicans, which means they hate socialism. Yet government stepping in to stop companies from hiring illegal immigrants who will work for less than minimum wage instead of americans is going against the free market they so love. Though them being huge hypocrites isn't really a big surprise.

    Labor unions, who overwhelmingly vote Democrat, are about as anti-illegal immigration as one can be.

    If you want to talk about ironies, why not point out that most pro-immigrant factions are generally left-leaning, despite the centuries-long battle that Democrats have had defending the rights of the unionized laborer, who is most affected by the increase of immigrants willing to accept lower wages?

    The most important part of free-market economics is the term "all things being equal." An influx of an underclass willing to accept a less-than-typical American standard of living only tips the balance toward those willing to work below the poverty line and those who would reap the benefits of doing so.

    So remember when you say you're pro-immigration, you're also anti-middle class.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    JarsJars Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I myself am not pro-immigration, no. But when I hear someone decrying obama for turning us into a socialist nazi state or whatever there is a very high chance they are anti immigration, making it a good starting point about why we need government intervention so we don't end up in another gilded era filled with robber barons and senators from standard oil.

    Jars on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Jars wrote: »
    I myself am not pro-immigration, no. But when I hear someone decrying obama for turning us into a socialist nazi state or whatever there is a very high chance they are anti immigration, making it a good starting point about why we need government intervention so we don't end up in another gilded era filled with robber barons and senators from standard oil.

    A lot of people decrying Obama are just downright ignorant, in many regards.

    Attributing understanding advanced socio-economic theory to them is likely a bit too generous.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Jars wrote: »
    I myself am not pro-immigration, no. But when I hear someone decrying obama for turning us into a socialist nazi state or whatever there is a very high chance they are anti immigration, making it a good starting point about why we need government intervention so we don't end up in another gilded era filled with robber barons and senators from standard oil.

    Because you hear someone decrying Obama for his socialist Nazism, you feel it to be a wise thought investment to consider their ideas on immigration?

    That is one of the least compelling arguments I have ever heard.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User regular
    edited April 2010

    Labor unions, who overwhelmingly vote Democrat, are about as anti-illegal immigration as one can be.

    I kinda *wish* that were true, but that's wrong. For instance, check out this SEIU lobbying form -- http://action.seiu.org/page/invite/heatupice -- where the letter says (in part):

    "The ICE bureaucracy has gone wild and it's time to rein them in.

    The Washington Post reported that a mid-level ICE employee issued his own memo earlier this year, outlining quotas for increasing deportations of non-criminal, tax-paying workers."

    So, that is certainly not 'as anti-illegal immigration as one can be'. I'm not really complaining about them -- they're a union, and they can do what their members want -- but the way you describe the situation is just kinda untrue AR.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I like the scare quotes around "sovereignty." What that means, quite simply, is that people have a right to live in a democracy where, barring any violation of someone's constitutional rights, their votes are respected. So, if myself and fellow Americans want, we can stop certain types of immigration, or people from releasing more than X tons of air pollution each year, or whatever else along those lines.
    Well, sure. But you're sort of discounting the ability for us to have a discussion here. You're allowed to vote that you don't want so many Mexican-born people here. Yes, that is true.
    The economic justifications have been given several times over. Even ignoring more philosophical answers, the reason why large amounts of low-skill immigration is bad is because it disproportionately hurts Americans with low socioeconomic status, and we don't, nor will we for decades, have the programs in place to ameliorate this to the point where we can work past this issue.
    Well, sort of. I think the overall economic effect is positive, but yes, the effect on low socioeconomic native-born or status-quo American citizens is generally concluded as negative. But what is so special about being native born? I know people freak when I bring up this very simple argument, but... if your goal is to help American citizens of low socioeconomic status, then why not make naturalization really simple? Then you'd have a lot of American citizens (Mexican-born) of low socioeconomic status that would gain immense benefit, far greater than the benefit natives would get by keeping them out. The benefit argument doesn't really work either, until you can explain exactly why someone gets the benefit and someone else doesn't.
    I get that you think poor Americans should be disenfranchised in their own country, I just don't agree with it.
    Like I said before, the "you think x y z" arguments don't really help the discussion.
    That is a nice piece of circular logic there; we need illegal immigrants because they have driven down wages to the point that we need illegal immigrants. This is one of the reasons why governments regulate the flow of people across their borders.
    Ok, sorry, I see. The jobs you are referring to won't be done by Americans because immigrants have driven the wages below what an American will accept. I still don't see the difference here, though. Immigrants are willing to do the job at a certain price and Americans aren't. Maybe it isn't that Americans are too lazy, it's just that immigrants are too ambitious. I guess we're on too sides of an entirely relative stance; we can say it however you want. "Americans just aren't as un-lazy as those immgrants." But your goal is to keep wages high for some and lower for others by restricting the flow of human capital, and that's fine, I realize that is one of the basic ideas behind border control. I'm just wondering if this kind of economic control is justified or not, or even in the long-term best interest of anyone.

    I'd rather just raise minimum wage if you think that these jobs are so low paying that it's better to be unemployed, that addresses the issue more clearly than focusing on immigration.

    And like I said, I wish people would stop using the term "anti-illegal immigration." If that is really your stance, just argue for open borders and amnesty, and then illegal immigration will immediately disappear. I realize that illegal immigrants exist and it is fine to call them that, but your stance is anti-immigration, not anti-criminalization. Saying "anti-illegal" logically implies that you are against it being illegal, despite what people intend by it when they say it.

    Yar on
  • Options
    Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    'Anti-immigration' would imply that you want to lower the rates of legal immigration. Which does not accurately describe the views of a majority of the 'anti-illegal immigration' block, many of whom would like to increase the rates of legal immigration and drastically curtail the rates of illegal immigration.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    The economic justifications have been given several times over. Even ignoring more philosophical answers, the reason why large amounts of low-skill immigration is bad is because it disproportionately hurts Americans with low socioeconomic status, and we don't, nor will we for decades, have the programs in place to ameliorate this to the point where we can work past this issue.
    Well, sort of. I think the overall economic effect is positive, but yes, the effect on low socioeconomic native-born or status-quo American citizens is generally concluded as negative. But what is so special about being native born? I know people freak when I bring up this very simple argument, but... if your goal is to help American citizens of low socioeconomic status, then why not make naturalization really simple? Then you'd have a lot of American citizens (Mexican-born) of low socioeconomic status that would gain immense benefit, far greater than the benefit natives would get by keeping them out. The benefit argument doesn't really work either, until you can explain exactly why someone gets the benefit and someone else doesn't.

    What your arguing for is idiotic for 3 reasons:
    Firstly its a marginal utility position. There are a near infinite number of poor-helping activities the US government could engage in. We aren't under any obligation to say add a 10% VAT to pay for clean water and medical care in third world countries, but we could do it. If you believe people have a moral imperative to debtor themselves in order to help people in the third world, sell off your non-essential shit and start giving goats, but other people shouldn't lose their ability to support their families because of your misguided sense of ethics.

    Secondly, It creates a race to the bottom. By allowing an massive influx of workers to depress wages you would destroy the middle class. Turning the US into an even more starkly divided country were a few rich plutocrats are insanely wealthy and everyone else barely eeks by while living in poverty, aka Mexico. The benefits for Mexican workers you are so enthralled with would be gone in a generation or two, and all you would have achieved would be forcing Americans who would have otherwise lived a lower-middle/middle-class life into poverty.

    Finally, the US government exists for the benefit of its citizens. Asking why it should shape policies for their benefit over others is a non-starter, that is why it exists. Its like a trade union, is plumbers local #3534 required to pay more dues to support UAW? A one world government position is the only governmental system where what your advocating would make sense, and this isn't the thread to discus the dubious nature of that.

    Aside: If Mexico's government is really this bad and the people are unable to change it, maybe they need a regime change. We are pretty good at instigating those.
    Yar wrote: »
    And like I said, I wish people would stop using the term "anti-illegal immigration." If that is really your stance, just argue for open borders and amnesty, and then illegal immigration will immediately disappear. I realize that illegal immigrants exist and it is fine to call them that, but your stance is anti-immigration, not anti-criminalization. Saying "anti-illegal" logically implies that you are against it being illegal, despite what people intend by it when they say it.

    Fine our position will now be anti-uncontrolled-immigration. Granted it will be controlled by federal law, so it amounts to being against immigration that violates federal law, aka is illegal, aka anti-"illegal-immigration"
    but if you really want the "anti-illegal"-immigration cape to wear because thats somehow less confusing to you, we can adjust.

    so the positions so far:
    open borders(anti-illegal-immigration o_O )
    status quo(half-assed enforcement)
    controlled-immigration(people against immigration in violation of federal laws)
    refugees-only(figure there are probably people who only support granting asylum etc, not sure I've ever met one)
    anti-immigration(let no one immigrate ever)

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    And like I said, I wish people would stop using the term "anti-illegal immigration." If that is really your stance, just argue for open borders and amnesty, and then illegal immigration will immediately disappear. I realize that illegal immigrants exist and it is fine to call them that, but your stance is anti-immigration, not anti-criminalization. Saying "anti-illegal" logically implies that you are against it being illegal, despite what people intend by it when they say it.
    No, the problem is with the variety of social and economic problems that arise from letting in a large number of poor, unskilled and mostly uneducated people into your country.

    In addition to lowering wages of poorer American citizens, there's the issue of higher crime, illegitimacy rates and disproportionate reliance on publicly-funded social services. What is basically happening is that Mexico's underclass is moving into the US and bringing its problems with it.

    So, opening the borders would actually make all these problems worse. The flow of people over the border would go up, and the various problems I described would only increase.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    In addition to lowering wages of poorer American citizens, there's the issue of higher crime, illegitimacy rates and disproportionate reliance on publicly-funded social services. What is basically happening is that Mexico's underclass is moving into the US and bringing its problems with it.

    So, opening the borders would actually make all these problems worse. The flow of people over the border would go up, and the various problems I described would only increase.

    Let's put away the top hat and monocle and remember that the people sneaking across the border are trying to get away from a bad situation in Mexico. Fleeing from poverty and drug lords and crooked authorities - how does that not fit the definition of 'refugees'?

    emnmnme on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    In addition to lowering wages of poorer American citizens, there's the issue of higher crime, illegitimacy rates and disproportionate reliance on publicly-funded social services. What is basically happening is that Mexico's underclass is moving into the US and bringing its problems with it.

    So, opening the borders would actually make all these problems worse. The flow of people over the border would go up, and the various problems I described would only increase.

    Let's put away the top hat and monocle and remember that the people sneaking across the border are trying to get away from a bad situation in Mexico. Fleeing from poverty and drug lords and crooked authorities - how does that not fit the definition of 'refugees'?
    IIRC, the definiton of refugee typically does not include people moving for economic reasons. Otherwise, basically everyone who lived in a poor, corrupt country would qualify as a refugee.

    There's very good reasons to limit the definition of "refugee" to exclude economic immigrants. If you adopted a definition that involves fleeing for economic reasons, maybe half the world becomes potential "refugees" and the non-poor parts of the world would probably stop accepting refugees altogether, to prevent a deluge of people they would be required to take in and take care of. If an illegal can show he is fleeing for political or other legitimate reasons, that's one thing. But, coming from the ass-end of Mexico where jobs are scarce does not qualify you as a refugee under any accepted definition.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    I like the scare quotes around "sovereignty." What that means, quite simply, is that people have a right to live in a democracy where, barring any violation of someone's constitutional rights, their votes are respected. So, if myself and fellow Americans want, we can stop certain types of immigration, or people from releasing more than X tons of air pollution each year, or whatever else along those lines.
    Well, sure. But you're sort of discounting the ability for us to have a discussion here. You're allowed to vote that you don't want so many Mexican-born people here. Yes, that is true.
    The economic justifications have been given several times over. Even ignoring more philosophical answers, the reason why large amounts of low-skill immigration is bad is because it disproportionately hurts Americans with low socioeconomic status, and we don't, nor will we for decades, have the programs in place to ameliorate this to the point where we can work past this issue.
    Well, sort of. I think the overall economic effect is positive, but yes, the effect on low socioeconomic native-born or status-quo American citizens is generally concluded as negative. But what is so special about being native born? I know people freak when I bring up this very simple argument, but... if your goal is to help American citizens of low socioeconomic status, then why not make naturalization really simple? Then you'd have a lot of American citizens (Mexican-born) of low socioeconomic status that would gain immense benefit, far greater than the benefit natives would get by keeping them out. The benefit argument doesn't really work either, until you can explain exactly why someone gets the benefit and someone else doesn't.

    All of this is a necessary consequence of self-determination. If a person's government doesn't legislate in their own people's best interest, it is not better than any oppressive and unaccountable dictatorship. Once someone is a citizen their concerns are also valid, but just adding more voters without the consent of the existing citizens is, as I see it, morally equivalent to intentionally malicious gerrymandering or other anti-democratic acts.

    In fact, the reason why Mexicans want to immigrate here is because their government has been failing to legislate correctly. If more Mexicans, government and citizen, worked towards the best interests of Mexico instead of being mired in corruption and graft, or being manipulated by poisonous influences like the drug cartels, the difference between the two countries would be far smaller.
    I get that you think poor Americans should be disenfranchised in their own country, I just don't agree with it.
    Like I said before, the "you think x y z" arguments don't really help the discussion.

    That's true, and I apologize. The better statement is "The policies you are arguing for will inevitably result in poor Americans being disenfranchised in their own country as a natural consequence."
    That is a nice piece of circular logic there; we need illegal immigrants because they have driven down wages to the point that we need illegal immigrants. This is one of the reasons why governments regulate the flow of people across their borders.
    Ok, sorry, I see. The jobs you are referring to won't be done by Americans because immigrants have driven the wages below what an American will accept. I still don't see the difference here, though. Immigrants are willing to do the job at a certain price and Americans aren't. Maybe it isn't that Americans are too lazy, it's just that immigrants are too ambitious. I guess we're on too sides of an entirely relative stance; we can say it however you want. "Americans just aren't as un-lazy as those immgrants." But your goal is to keep wages high for some and lower for others by restricting the flow of human capital, and that's fine, I realize that is one of the basic ideas behind border control. I'm just wondering if this kind of economic control is justified or not, or even in the long-term best interest of anyone.
    [/quote]

    Besides the highly questionable assertion Americans are lazy and Mexicans are not, your definition of lazy is terrible. "working long hours in bad conditions for little pay," isn't a positive character trait, and should not be socially encouraged. I'd far rather live in a society where people aren't ground into dust by horrible work conditions, myself.
    I'd rather just raise minimum wage if you think that these jobs are so low paying that it's better to be unemployed, that addresses the issue more clearly than focusing on immigration.

    No, it doesn't. Excess labor is bad for wages and worker's rights even with the existence of laws to the contrary, because it is fighting against the market at a single point, rather than on multiple levels.

    programjunkie on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    'Anti-immigration' would imply that you want to lower the rates of legal immigration. Which does not accurately describe the views of a majority of the 'anti-illegal immigration' block, many of whom would like to increase the rates of legal immigration and drastically curtail the rates of illegal immigration.
    That could most easily be accomplished by making it easier to become a citizen, which, I'm pretty sure, is not what most people calling themselves "anti-illegal-immigration" want. Considering that the overwhelming majority of people weighing in on this issue are not in the business of checking people's papers, then I have to conclude that few of them actually know an illegal from a legal, and therefore are not really primarily concerned about that distinction.

    I do recognize that many people want easier naturalization and tighter border control at the same time, I'm not saying this is impossible. But I think it would be easier to just meet them at the border with paperwork ready to hand them. Kind of like Ellis Island, except at the more contemporary port of entry.
    What your arguing for is idiotic for 3 reasons:
    Firstly its a marginal utility position. There are a near infinite number of poor-helping activities the US government could engage in. We aren't under any obligation to say add a 10% VAT to pay for clean water and medical care in third world countries, but we could do it. If you believe people have a moral imperative to debtor themselves in order to help people in the third world, sell off your non-essential shit and start giving goats, but other people shouldn't lose their ability to support their families because of your misguided sense of ethics.
    Hold on. I'm not asking you to do anything for them. What "debt" are you talking about? Again, this is the cognitive flip that changes the argument - no one's asking you to do anything for them, except to stop trying to stand in their way. That's a huge difference from making you buy them a goat.

    But if your point is that one of them got your job, that is your fault at least as much as theirs. If there are people in this world who are able to contribute what you contribute, but eager to do so by taking less than you take, then you need to start with a hard look at what that means about you before you start wondering what it means about them. Being born here affords you way more opportunity to learn valuable skills and get a good education. If you still end up offering our economy no more than an uneducated third-world immigrant can do, you are the one who is letting your country down.
    Secondly, It creates a race to the bottom. By allowing an massive influx of workers to depress wages you would destroy the middle class. Turning the US into an even more starkly divided country were a few rich plutocrats are insanely wealthy and everyone else barely eeks by while living in poverty, aka Mexico. The benefits for Mexican workers you are so enthralled with would be gone in a generation or two, and all you would have achieved would be forcing Americans who would have otherwise lived a lower-middle/middle-class life into poverty.
    Immigration is shown to be a net economic positive even for the native middle class. Small business owners, domestic help, etc. You're imagining the race to the bottom. Did you read the World Bank stuff that was just posted?
    Finally, the US government exists for the benefit of its citizens. Asking why it should shape policies for their benefit over others is a non-starter, that is why it exists.
    The debate is much about who are citizens and how they become so. That makes arguments about benefitting the citizens rather circular. Like I said, if you made them all citizens, you'd suddenly be benefitting a lot of citizens. So simply benefitting citizens isn't a complete argument. You've still got to justify the process by which you're defining citizenship, other than "we'll determine who is a citizen in the manner that best benefits those who are citizens." Excel would give so a self-reference error on the evaluation of that logic.
    Fine our position will now be anti-uncontrolled-immigration. Granted it will be controlled by federal law, so it amounts to being against immigration that violates federal law, aka is illegal, aka anti-"illegal-immigration"
    but if you really want the "anti-illegal"-immigration cape to wear because thats somehow less confusing to you, we can adjust.
    Well, that's better, but you still don't seem to understand. Uncontrolled is in the eye of the beholder. Until you've defined what design and magnitude of control is best, and why it's best, saying "uncontrolled" doesn't mean anything. As I've said many times, it's not that I am offended by the word illegal, it's that I'm annoyed how much the position of being "anti-illegal-immigration" makes no basic logical sense of any sort. Being anti-illegal naturally presents you with your solution: make them not illegal. Which is entirely up to us to do as easily as we please. But I don't think that's really what people want.
    so the positions so far:

    controlled-immigration(people against immigration in violation of federal laws)
    Yeah, see, this^. The easiest solution under this position is to remove these federal laws. Is that what this position supports? Why not? Why is so hard for people to understand this simple point?
    Modern Man wrote: »
    In addition to lowering wages of poorer American citizens, there's the issue of higher crime, illegitimacy rates and disproportionate reliance on publicly-funded social services. What is basically happening is that Mexico's underclass is moving into the US and bringing its problems with it.
    Ok, sure. You seem to be willing to be honest about your stance. But again, this is an issue with poverty, not immigration. Of course Mexican immigrants are generally underclass, and thus more likely to produce criminals and need social services and such, as compared to native-borns as a whole. But the scant studies I've seen seem to indicate that the Catholic, family-oriented, work-seeking immigrants that define this population are actually less likely to commit crime or need social services than their native-born American counterparts in the underclass. Either way, the issue is still about poverty and crime and welfare, not about immigration. It's about using force to enforce birthright entitlements.

    Not to mention that we really need a working class that is actually willing to work, and in the past generation or two that has significantly dwindled in our native-born population to the point that the Mexicans, at least in high-Mexican immgration states like mine, are the only decent and proud working class we have left.
    That's true, and I apologize. The better statement is "The policies you are arguing for will inevitably result in poor Americans being disenfranchised in their own country as a natural consequence."
    Again, depends on who we include in "poor Americans." I'd like to include a lot more Mexican immigrants in that group.
    Besides the highly questionable assertion Americans are lazy and Mexicans are not, your definition of lazy is terrible. "working long hours in bad conditions for little pay," isn't a positive character trait, and should not be socially encouraged. I'd far rather live in a society where people aren't ground into dust by horrible work conditions, myself.
    It is statements like this that make Westerners seems so arrogant and vapid. Want to venture a guess as to how the Mexican immigrant, eager to do the work at that wage, and feeling his life much the better for it, would view these statements? He considers them great hours and great pay, and he would far rather live in the society he's trying to live in and make the best of, and is wondering what society you are thinking of that you'd rather live in, cause he'd probably like that one, too.
    No, it doesn't. Excess labor is bad for wages and worker's rights even with the existence of laws to the contrary, because it is fighting against the market at a single point, rather than on multiple levels.
    And your solution is... laws to the contrary? Border control is its own single point of fighting. As a wise journalist once said, it's like sitting on the beach and ordering the tide to stop coming in. There are natural forces at work.

    Yar on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    In addition to lowering wages of poorer American citizens, there's the issue of higher crime, illegitimacy rates and disproportionate reliance on publicly-funded social services. What is basically happening is that Mexico's underclass is moving into the US and bringing its problems with it.
    Ok, sure. You seem to be willing to be honest about your stance. But again, this is an issue with poverty, not immigration. Of course Mexican immigrants are generally underclass, and thus more likely to produce criminals and need social services and such, as compared to native-borns as a whole. But the scant studies I've seen seem to indicate that the Catholic, family-oriented, work-seeking immigrants that define this population are actually less likely to commit crime or need social services than their native-born American counterparts in the underclass. .
    It's a problem with immigration because the illegal immigrants we're attracting are poor and uneducated. illegal immigration wouldn't be much of an issue if illegals were wealthy and educated. But they're still significantly more likely to commit crimes and need social services than the citizen population as a whole. I really don't see this as a good thing, unless you're proposing trading underclasses with Mexico. Your claim that the illegal immigrant underclass isn't as bad as the citizen underclass is true, but it's pretty cold comfort for the rest of the citizenry that would prefer to not import a new underclass at all.
    Either way, the issue is still about poverty and crime and welfare, not about immigration. It's about using force to enforce birthright entitlements
    We're discussing poverty, crime and welfare in the context of illegal immigration. Since, you know, this is a thread about immigration. And, no, we're not talking about some supposed "birthright entitlements." You're pathetically trying to argue that our immigration laws are somehow a violation of the non-existent right to cross borders without the approval of the nation you are entering. That's simply nonsense.
    Not to mention that we really need a working class that is actually willing to work, and in the past generation or two that has significantly dwindled in our native-born population to the point that the Mexicans, at least in high-Mexican immgration states like mine, are the only decent and proud working class we have left.
    I was wondering how long it would take for you to resort to anti-American bigotry.
    Again, depends on who we include in "poor Americans." I'd like to include a lot more Mexican immigrants in that group.
    You're basically arguing in favor of sacrificing the living standards of poor non-immigrants in favor of poor immigrants. And, you're wondering why Americans, especially the poorer ones, don't see the wisdom of your position?

    I guess it's a lot easier to ruin other peoples' lives, if they happen to be poor and (predominantly) black.
    It is statements like this that make Westerners seems so arrogant and vapid. Want to venture a guess as to how the Mexican immigrant, eager to do the work at that wage, and feeling his life much the better for it, would view these statements? He considers them great hours and great pay, and he would far rather live in the society he's trying to live in and make the best of, and is wondering what society you are thinking of that you'd rather live in, cause he'd probably like that one, too.
    Why stop at reducing the living standards of poor people to that of what Mexican illegals are willing to accept? I'm sure we could import people from even poorer parts of the world who would be happy to work for a few bowls of rice a day. Heck, your average North Korean immigrant might be happy to work for free, so long as the foreman can't rape and murder them.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    I do recognize that many people want easier naturalization and tighter border control at the same time, I'm not saying this is impossible. But I think it would be easier to just meet them at the border with paperwork ready to hand them. Kind of like Ellis Island, except at the more contemporary port of entry.
    Just an FYI they had quotas and standards at Ellis island. Are you a communist? stay out. Have a chronic disease? back you go. Liable to become a public charge? Illiterate? Criminal? Polygamist? etc
    Yar wrote: »
    Hold on. I'm not asking you to do anything for them. What "debt" are you talking about? Again, this is the cognitive flip that changes the argument - no one's asking you to do anything for them, except to stop trying to stand in their way. That's a huge difference from making you buy them a goat.

    But if your point is that one of them got your job, that is your fault at least as much as theirs. If there are people in this world who are able to contribute what you contribute, but eager to do so by taking less than you take, then you need to start with a hard look at what that means about you before you start wondering what it means about them. Being born here affords you way more opportunity to learn valuable skills and get a good education. If you still end up offering our economy no more than an uneducated third-world immigrant can do, you are the one who is letting your country down.
    Adding anyone to the country who will require aid(food stamp, subsidized medicare etc) is making others buy them a 'something'.
    I don't think my job is at risk(except for h1-b shit but thats a different tangent). Beyond that your disrespect towards people who do the work without which whatever you so nobly endeavor at meaningless, is unconscionable. The building you are in right now was built by people who can do"no more than an uneducated third-world immigrant can do", and the fact that they wan't to protect their ability to do that work, and raise a family and own a home does not make them worse than immigrants willing to live 4 to a bedroom, while doing the same job.
    Yar wrote: »
    The debate is much about who are citizens and how they become so. That makes arguments about benefitting the citizens rather circular. Like I said, if you made them all citizens, you'd suddenly be benefitting a lot of citizens. So simply benefitting citizens isn't a complete argument. You've still got to justify the process by which you're defining citizenship, other than "we'll determine who is a citizen in the manner that best benefits those who are citizens." Excel would give so a self-reference error on the evaluation of that logic.
    Its not circular, you have one group current Citizens, you have a second group Immigrants. Group C goes "would including group I into our group benefit us?", If yes group I is incorporated into C. The benefits to citizenship to I are a non-consideration, except for how they would effect the benefit C receives for including them. Its an acquisition not a merger.
    Yar wrote: »
    Fine our position will now be anti-uncontrolled-immigration. Granted it will be controlled by federal law, so it amounts to being against immigration that violates federal law, aka is illegal, aka anti-"illegal-immigration"
    but if you really want the "anti-illegal"-immigration cape to wear because thats somehow less confusing to you, we can adjust.
    Well, that's better, but you still don't seem to understand. Uncontrolled is in the eye of the beholder. Until you've defined what design and magnitude of control is best, and why it's best, saying "uncontrolled" doesn't mean anything. As I've said many times, it's not that I am offended by the word illegal, it's that I'm annoyed how much the position of being "anti-illegal-immigration" makes no basic logical sense of any sort. Being anti-illegal naturally presents you with your solution: make them not illegal. Which is entirely up to us to do as easily as we please. But I don't think that's really what people want.
    so the positions so far:

    controlled-immigration(people against immigration in violation of federal laws)
    Yeah, see, this^. The easiest solution under this position is to remove these federal laws. Is that what this position supports? Why not? Why is so hard for people to understand this simple point?
    Being anti-"illegal-action", doesn't mean for legalizing the action.
    Its a trivial point. Under the crazy assumption that suddenly adding millions of poor people to various government support programs isn't a tenable action, we have to limit the number of people who come here. A position for there being limits on the number and quality(aged vs young , literate vs not, skilled vs unskilled) of immigrants, even without specify them is a perfectly legitimate position to hold in opposition to open borders and full benefits for everyone.
    Yar wrote: »
    And your solution is... laws to the contrary? Border control is its own single point of fighting. As a wise journalist once said, it's like sitting on the beach and ordering the tide to stop coming in. There are natural forces at work.
    They have these things called seawalls...

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Your claim that the illegal immigrant underclass isn't as bad as the citizen underclass is true, but it's pretty cold comfort for the rest of the citizenry that would prefer to not import a new underclass at all.
    This is good stuff. What I'm getting at, though, is why? Why don't we want to import an underclass? The one we have now, the native-born one anyway, fucking sucks compared to those of a couple generations ago! I firmly believe that a huge source of the U.S.'s rapid rise to global power, in addition to our great natural resources, is the fact that we repeatedly import a massive wave of hard-working eager lowerclassmen from around the world whenever we can. And so many among us consistently hate them at the same time, for the intense competition they bring, not just economic, but cultural competition. Competition kicks ass, though, especially over time.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    We're discussing poverty, crime and welfare in the context of illegal immigration. Since, you know, this is a thread about immigration. And, no, we're not talking about some supposed "birthright entitlements." You're pathetically trying to argue that our immigration laws are somehow a violation of the non-existent right to cross borders without the approval of the nation you are entering. That's simply nonsense.
    I doubt it's pathetic. I get that the thread is about immigration, what I'm saying is that the central point, at least the one you're making, is that Mexican immigrants tend to be poor and uneducated, and poor and uneducated people are bad. But what about the poor and uneducated here? Should they be sent to Mexico? That would also be better, right? Generally we'd say no, by virtue of their birthright.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    You're basically arguing in favor of sacrificing the living standards of poor non-immigrants in favor of poor immigrants. And, you're wondering why Americans, especially the poorer ones, don't see the wisdom of your position?
    Well, I could restate this in terms of "first generation" vs. "third/fourth generation" immigrants, to lessen the effect of the dubious titile of "non-immigrant." But anyway, no, I'm not confused as to why some people want their government to keep competition at bay with a gun and a fence. It's not really any different that banning imports of certain goods in order to bolster domestic industries that can't compete. That supposedly helps our citizens, too, except long ago we realized that was as a rule not true, and that free trade works way better.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I guess it's a lot easier to ruin other peoples' lives, if they happen to be poor and (predominantly) black.
    Who exactly do you suppose is ruining their life? Me? The employer who fires them? The immigrant, who's life has been, on average, far worse and harder than the supposed ruined life? Like I said, if the native-born has spent his whole life here with the advantages of our system but still can't offer anything more valuable of himself than can a third world immigrant, I have a good idea of who I want to blame first for his life being ruined.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Why stop at reducing the living standards of poor people to that of what Mexican illegals are willing to accept? I'm sure we could import people from even poorer parts of the world who would be happy to work for a few bowls of rice a day. Heck, your average North Korean immigrant might be happy to work for free, so long as the foreman can't rape and murder them.
    Yes, I take it these are more of those rational facts that counter all my bigotry and emotional fist-pounding. As I said before, if your problem is with minimum wage enforcement, take that up. We don't pay people bowls of rice here, or consider "you didn't get raped today" to be a paycheck. But, holy shit man, yes, if those people can get here, please! If they can barely eat, or are forced labor/sex slaves, and if they can get themselves here, and they can do a job valuable to an employer here, I hope to god they do. And I wonder what the hell kind of point you think you're making by arguing that such conditions are how things rightly should be, or that we ought to force them to stay that way by walling them off and shipping them back and otherwise standing in their way, because it's our right to get paid a hell of a lot more because of where we happened to be born.
    Just an FYI they had quotas and standards at Ellis island. Are you a communist? stay out. Have a chronic disease? back you go. Liable to become a public charge? Illiterate? Criminal? Polygamist? etc
    I'm ok with a lot of that, perhaps updated. People tend to think that because they saw a dark-skinned person in front of them at the doctor's office, that illegals are all here to suck at the welfare teet. You know, it really isn't easy to get any welfare when you aren't a citizen. About 2% of welfare benefits do end up in illegal immigrant households, but because they have U.S. citizen children living in the home. As for "public charge," I think they were talking about an insane person. There wasn't a lot of public welfare back then.
    Its a trivial point. Under the crazy assumption that suddenly adding millions of poor people to various government support programs isn't a tenable action, we have to limit the number of people who come here. A position for there being limits on the number and quality(aged vs young , literate vs not, skilled vs unskilled) of immigrants, even without specify them is a perfectly legitimate position to hold in opposition to open borders and full benefits for everyone.
    That's all I'm trying to get at. If you are acknowledging now that saying "they're illegal" is a trivial stance to take on illegal immigrants, you are exactly corrent. But yours is a legitimate position why? You can't just say "crazy" and "legitimate" as if such words are their own proof or their own arguments. If you haven't figured it out yet, what I'm doing here is distilling a shitload of racist, bigoted, xenophobic, illogical crap down into a concise and reasonable discussion on certain necessary policy measures regarding travel or migration into our borders. It seems you and I at least are getting pretty close.

    Yar on
  • Options
    Pajama_ManPajama_Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Not a big fan of necromancy, but this looked like the most appropriate place without starting a new thread:

    Arizona Passes Strict New Immigration Enforcement Protocols
    Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.

    It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal.

    Under the measure, passed Tuesday by Arizona's lower house, after being passed earlier by the state Senate, foreign nationals are required to carry proof of legal residency.



    Joe Rubio, lead organizer for Valley Interfaith Project, a Phoenix-based advocacy group, calling it "an economic train wreck." He added that "Arizona's economic recovery will lag way behind the country's if we keep chasing away our workforce. Where do the legislators think business will find workers?"


    Regardless of my feelings on the issue, I would love to have the chance to remind Mr. Rubio that Arizona's unemployment rate currently stands at almost 10%, meaning that one in ten legal residents of Arizona are in need of work.


    Isn't a "Show me your papers" law unconstitutional?
    Edit: As a matter of fact, don't they have the right to plead the fifth ammendment?

    Fact Sheet
    Trespassing by Illegal Aliens



    11. Specifies that, in addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of trespassing if the person is:

    a) present on any public or private land in the state and

    b) is not carrying his or her alien registration card or has willfully failed to register.

    It's essentially guaranteed to be challenge in court if signed.

    Pajama_Man on
    camo_sig.png
  • Options
    RoanthRoanth Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Interesting back and forth. I think the heart of the issue is what the real economic impact on the U.S. would be from an open border policy. People who are against this bring up valid points in regards to job displacement and the impact on poorer Americans.

    Problem is we have already exported most of the low-education / high-paying jobs (think manufacturing) in this country. I would argue that this economic policy has had more of a detrimental effect to U.S. workers than any open-border policy could ever have. Don't get me wrong, I am for Free Trade, but what the U.S. has been engaging in is a one-sided trade policy with a country that artificially fixes its currency and takes other anti-free trade measures (stealing IP, limiting imports, price fixing, etc.) that results in a massive trade imbalance (although we do get those low-low prices from Walmart). If China wasn't using a large part of that surplus to buy all of our sweet sweet low interest govt debt (not that they have a choice) I would be even more enraged.

    Sorry for the detour but what this means is that the only jobs that are left that immigrants can take are the crappy, service-oriented gigs (welcome to mcdonald's) that Americans don't want anyways. The people who are really *hurting* then are teenagers and people looking for temp work (sorry - no one makes a career in the fast food industry). And if we could magically get rid of illegals and labor scarcity forced the wages of those jobs way up the economy would be screwed in completely different ways. It is basically the same thing as having a protectionist economy with a bunch of tariffs to protect U.S. businesses. If you are ant-protectionism I can't see how it is possible to not also be open-borders - it is the exact same economic argument except the open-borders is more "human" and less abstract than a protectionist tariff policy.

    Finally, this country was literally built on successive waves of "cheap" immigrants that no doubtly put pressure on the people who were already here (anti-Irish, Italian, Chinese rhetoric of old). How is the argument any different today vs what people were saying about the Irish in the 1900's? It seems that an open immigration policy has benefited this country massively in the past and I don't know why today would be any different.

    EDIT: One stipulation - the construction industry in the U.S. is an exception to the service job meme. That said, I don't know why we should base our immigration policy on protecting one specific sector of the economy. For the person who mentioned how his friend's wages as a master carpenter had fallen - I think that has a lot more to do with the complete implosion of the residential and commercial real estate markets vs the unwashed hordes of mexican carpenters pouring across the border. I also doubt an illegal immigrant with a poor grasp of the english language could be a master carpenter. The construction jobs taken by illegals are generally of the incredibly laborious / uncomfortable kind (again - not exactly the most desirable jobs).

    Roanth on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    What I cannot wrap my mind around is why we would want to drop the working conditions of our poor to the lowest common denominator in the world. Baring the issue of illegal immigrants, migrant invaders, unregistered trespassers, or whatever term floats your boat, are hired/exploited/exploit the fact they are a bureaucratic black hole unrestricted adding to our lower class benefits no one currently living here. Arguing "Being born American does not grant you special privileges" is asinine. It does, it really does. It grants me the protection, and responsibility towards obeying American law.

    Our illegal immigrant population gets to completely ignore quite a few tenets of that. If i drive without insurance, no license, run a read light, and hit someone there are serious consequences to my actions. I have a bureaucratic identity, they get my license plate, they have my name, my address, and police officers can be sent to find me.

    An illegal immigrant is already operating on a false name, with false identification, and if arrested likely faces deportation back to a country. The person they hit has little recourse to be compensated for the damage they incurred, and the criminal has no incentive to pay them back. It is not like their wages can be garnished.

    Your solution of "lets just make everyone legal" completely ignores the fact that there are people who LIKE it the way it is. Giving them easy access to false identities to operate under is a bad thing, considering under your system anyone can just walk up to the border, fill out some forms, and bam new person is created.

    None of this even addresses why we should abolish minimum wage law and create a situation where we are racing to the bottom. If we allow unrestricted immigration, which you propose, we just wiped out the lower-middle, and middle classes. Every single one of those people is now competing directly with an uncontrolled immigrant population willing to work in the worst conditions for pay that is at or below subsistence living.

    We have no logical, or reasonable basis to do this. Doing so would be greatly detrimental not only to our own economy but the global economy as well. Hell this would make conditions in the countries these people are fleeing even worse, because no longer would they pick up Wal-mart sweat shop jobs. Those jobs just all came back to the US, except the pay is the same. Those countries just lost a lot of jobs, that allowed people to not starve to death. Now they either move to the US, or die.

    How do you think the economies of Canada, China, and Mexico are going to react to us no longer importing anything from them? We just made conditions in Mexico worse, increasing the amount of people fleeing north.

    Unrestricted immigration benefits no one. Our quality of life is already unsustainable, and with any limited resource it is rationed out. Currently the American quality of life is rationed by country of birth, or the job skills you can offer us, with a bit of how hard are you willing to work. Why in the hell should I want to destroy my quality of life? Why should any American?

    Detharin on
  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Everyone has a right to a well-paying (for their skills) job with strong worker protections that doesn't infringe on their right to be a fully faceted person (i.e. maximum hours, mandatory vacation, maternity / paternity leave). The problem is that many governments aren't providing that. However, it isn't the US's responsibility to make sure everyone in the world is taken care of in this regard, especially as that isn't possible.

    We can afford to allow, and even benefit from, some immigration. But too much immigration too quickly will severely damage our economy and society, particularly as the US job market is already in poor condition. I'd not willing to get stabbed by a meth addict who turned to drugs and violent crime after he lost his job so that some Mexican can make a little extra money. I don't give a shit if the Mexican is willing to work an extra hour per shift or not.

    I am surprised at the type of laissez faire labor economics people are advocating here. Apparently some people are unaware that unregulated labor markets turn out horribly for the bottom 90% of the population, as demonstrated by pretty much every industrialized nation on a consistent basis since the Industrial Revolution. And as demonstrated by Walmart, among others today, labor laws only go so far. What we fundamentally need is to structure the economy at a foundational level to give workers more ability to dictate terms, instead of being wage slaved.

    We should be trying to improve other countries' labor conditions rather than lower ours to meet the least common denominator.

    Also, the implication that lazy American born poor people are entirely at fault for their own economic problems ignores every pertinent fact about the American education system, criminal justice system, and society in general. Not everyone in this incredibly rich first world nation actually gets a first world quality education. This should be a surprise to no one of even modest education themselves.

    Bonus picture:
    201016usc296.gif

    Edit 2: Bonus thought: With the above graph in mind, and knowing the fact that socioeconomic status is a better predictor of school performance than school funding, think about the implications of these two facts in concert.

    programjunkie on
  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Your solution of "lets just make everyone legal" completely ignores the fact that there are people who LIKE it the way it is. Giving them easy access to false identities to operate under is a bad thing, considering under your system anyone can just walk up to the border, fill out some forms, and bam new person is created.

    Is this paragraph serious? The first effect of opening borders is to absolutely devastate the present thriving market for false identification. It's always going to be around, of course, and criminals will get it somehow, but our massive population of illegal immigrants creates a demand for fake ID rivaled only by under-21 alcoholics. Getting rid of that demand for a socially deleterious product is a good thing. And hopefully the dude who works at the border who has been posting in this thread will sort you out on the stringency of the naturalization process... it's more than "a few forms" and they're going to take fingerprints at least if they aren't doing DNA these days.

    EDIT: I actually really agree with nearly everything programjunkie wrote just above; I tend to think of myself as "pro-immigration," though, because while I recognize that quotas may well need to exist at some value, the present settings of our quotas are often capricious and foolish and could easily be doubled at the least in many cases.
    the implication that lazy American born poor people are entirely at fault for their own economic problems

    I haven't read this implication in this thread, though I could have missed it. I did once condemn the entitlement displayed by someone who considers it a travesty of justice that an alien would take a job from a natural-born citizen, for which the apparent justification is the belief that the citizen is more deserving than the alien, which I find dubious. A legal alien has as much right to the job as any, but an illegal is denied this due to standing on the wrong side of the variably inane and insane immigration policies of the US? Perhaps I have insufficient respect for law and order, but I wouldn't bat an eye if I or a friend were passed over for hiring because some guy who "temporarily forgot" his SSN was better qualified. And if my friend threatened to call up the DHS and report him, I would slap the phone out of his hand.

    They may be law, but the policies in force in the United States today are not just. To believe that they are is to ignore the history of racism, xenophobia, and outright idiocy which characterize their formation.

    nescientist on
  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Your solution of "lets just make everyone legal" completely ignores the fact that there are people who LIKE it the way it is. Giving them easy access to false identities to operate under is a bad thing, considering under your system anyone can just walk up to the border, fill out some forms, and bam new person is created.

    Is this paragraph serious? The first effect of opening borders is to absolutely devastate the present thriving market for false identification. It's always going to be around, of course, and criminals will get it somehow, but our massive population of illegal immigrants creates a demand for fake ID rivaled only by under-21 alcoholics. Getting rid of that demand for a socially deleterious product is a good thing. And hopefully the dude who works at the border who has been posting in this thread will sort you out on the stringency of the naturalization process... it's more than "a few forms" and they're going to take fingerprints at least if they aren't doing DNA these days.

    EDIT: I actually really agree with nearly everything programjunkie wrote just above; I tend to think of myself as "pro-immigration," though, because while I recognize that quotas may well need to exist at some value, the present settings of our quotas are often capricious and foolish and could easily be doubled at the least in many cases.

    I don't endorse the policy as it currently stands in whole, I just object to the idea that 50 million Mexicans all immigrating to the SW alone in a single year that drive the median hourly wage for unskilled work to $4/hr would be a good thing.

    I'm pro-immigration as well, I just think the issue needs to be approached with discretion.
    the implication that lazy American born poor people are entirely at fault for their own economic problems

    I haven't read this implication in this thread, though I could have missed it. I did once condemn the entitlement displayed by someone who considers it a travesty of justice that an alien would take a job from a natural-born citizen, for which the apparent justification is the belief that the citizen is more deserving than the alien, which I find dubious. A legal alien has as much right to the job as any, but an illegal is denied this due to standing on the wrong side of the variably inane and insane immigration policies of the US? Perhaps I have insufficient respect for law and order, but I wouldn't bat an eye if I or a friend were passed over for hiring because some guy who "temporarily forgot" his SSN was better qualified. And if my friend threatened to call up the DHS and report him, I would slap the phone out of his hand.

    They may be law, but the policies in force in the United States today are not just. To believe that they are is to ignore the history of racism, xenophobia, and outright idiocy which characterize their formation.

    "Being born here affords you way more opportunity to learn valuable skills and get a good education. If you still end up offering our economy no more than an uneducated third-world immigrant can do, you are the one who is letting your country down."

    programjunkie on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited April 2010

    Is this paragraph serious? The first effect of opening borders is to absolutely devastate the present thriving market for false identification. It's always going to be around, of course, and criminals will get it somehow, but our massive population of illegal immigrants creates a demand for fake ID rivaled only by under-21 alcoholics. Getting rid of that demand for a socially deleterious product is a good thing. And hopefully the dude who works at the border who has been posting in this thread will sort you out on the stringency of the naturalization process... it's more than "a few forms" and they're going to take fingerprints at least if they aren't doing DNA these days.

    They may be law, but the policies in force in the United States today are not just. To believe that they are is to ignore the history of racism, xenophobia, and outright idiocy which characterize their formation.

    Quite serious, what do you think happens when you have an open border policy and someone walks up saying I want into the US? Do we restrict who comes in on any basis? If so what are the criteria we are using, if not what do they need to do to establish an identity in your open border utopia? If it is to hard why would they bother doing it consider how much border patrol is going to be left around after we open the damn things? What about people engaged in illegal activities who would prefer any identification on them not exist in our system? Under the proposal you have not only made it easier from them to cross our border, but to also flee justice back to Mexico. Not everyone coming here has good intentions. You seem to be operating under the illusion that if you open the border, the same immigration process we currently use would be the one in use. The one that takes a lot of effort to actually jump through the hoops. Everyone is welcome provided they can survive the 3-10 year wait in their home country not accounting for the sheer flood of paperwork that would occur. Unless you want to start rubber stamping every half legible form.

    Just or not, policies that restrict immigration to people we WANT here, in numbers that fulfill the amount of jobs we can offer, with as little excess as possible, are in our best interest. Why should we elect officials, or support policies that not only act directly against our nations best interests,but the best interests of our very poor who are the hardest hit but our current economic problems? Oh right, because they are lazy and deserve it.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Roanth wrote: »
    If you are anti-protectionism I can't see how it is possible to not also be open-borders - it is the exact same economic argument except the open-borders is more "human" and less abstract than a protectionist tariff policy.

    Finally, this country was literally built on successive waves of "cheap" immigrants that no doubtly put pressure on the people who were already here (anti-Irish, Italian, Chinese rhetoric of old). How is the argument any different today vs what people were saying about the Irish in the 1900's? It seems that an open immigration policy has benefited this country massively in the past and I don't know why today would be any different.
    Detharin wrote: »
    What I cannot wrap my mind around is why we would want to drop the working conditions of our poor to the lowest common denominator in the world.
    We wouldn't. There would be some middle ground... but ideally the economic factors at work, over a not-very-long-term, would enable those poor to do the only thing that really gets them out of pverty - start their own businesses, learn new trades, etc. How often does a drywall guy, displaced by cheap Mexican labor, finally put his American know-how to use and start his own drywall business using cheap Mexican labor? The availability of cheap labor at the bottom opens up all kind of opportunities.
    Detharin wrote: »
    Arguing "Being born American does not grant you special privileges" is asinine. It does, it really does. It grants me the protection, and responsibility towards obeying American law.
    I like this. One, because you're acknowledging that it is essentially a birthright thing. But two, because you seem to believe in a very libertarian social-contract theory of government. Obey the laws and you get the protection of the laws. Exactly. Excepting the circular trivial argument of "but they're illegal!"... that is to say, if we had open borders, then anyone coming here willing to obey our laws and contribute to our society ought to enjoy equal protection under those laws. That's all there ought to be to "being American." That's what the past 300 years ought to have taught us.
    Detharin wrote: »
    Our illegal immigrant population gets to completely ignore quite a few tenets of that. If i drive without insurance, no license, run a read light, and hit someone there are serious consequences to my actions. I have a bureaucratic identity, they get my license plate, they have my name, my address, and police officers can be sent to find me.

    An illegal immigrant is already operating on a false name, with false identification, and if arrested likely faces deportation back to a country. The person they hit has little recourse to be compensated for the damage they incurred, and the criminal has no incentive to pay them back. It is not like their wages can be garnished.

    Your solution of "lets just make everyone legal" completely ignores the fact that there are people who LIKE it the way it is. Giving them easy access to false identities to operate under is a bad thing, considering under your system anyone can just walk up to the border, fill out some forms, and bam new person is created.
    If it is so desirable and easy to live without documentation, how come only the illegal immigrants do it? It should be taken for granted that easier naturalization would mean less uninsured drivers with phony ID.
    Detharin wrote: »
    None of this even addresses why we should abolish minimum wage law and create a situation where we are racing to the bottom. If we allow unrestricted immigration, which you propose, we just wiped out the lower-middle, and middle classes. Every single one of those people is now competing directly with an uncontrolled immigrant population willing to work in the worst conditions for pay that is at or below subsistence living.
    This is phantom fear-mongering. This is like saying that if we don't stop all imports of goods, then all of our domestic businesses will go under and we'll all be unemployed. It's easy enough to preach fear and protectionism this way, but somehow the opposite tends to be what really happens. When someone is willing to contribute the same to an economy but take less from it, that is by default a good thing for the economy.
    Everyone has a right to a well-paying (for their skills) job with strong worker protections that doesn't infringe on their right to be a fully faceted person (i.e. maximum hours, mandatory vacation, maternity / paternity leave). The problem is that many governments aren't providing that. However, it isn't the US's responsibility to make sure everyone in the world is taken care of in this regard, especially as that isn't possible.
    Well, how about everyone within its borders? No one said we were going after the planet here.
    We can afford to allow, and even benefit from, some immigration. But too much immigration too quickly will severely damage our economy and society, particularly as the US job market is already in poor condition. I'd not willing to get stabbed by a meth addict who turned to drugs and violent crime after he lost his job so that some Mexican can make a little extra money. I don't give a shit if the Mexican is willing to work an extra hour per shift or not.
    Again, this is all baseless fear-mongering. The economy tends not to work this way.
    I don't endorse the policy as it currently stands in whole, I just object to the idea that 50 million Mexicans all immigrating to the SW alone in a single year that drive the median hourly wage for unskilled work to $4/hr would be a good thing.
    I have no problem echoing the World Bank's opinions on the risks of some sort of instant massive change. Don't act like this minor point is seriously at play here.

    Yar on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    This is good stuff. What I'm getting at, though, is why? Why don't we want to import an underclass? The one we have now, the native-born one anyway, fucking sucks compared to those of a couple generations ago! I firmly believe that a huge source of the U.S.'s rapid rise to global power, in addition to our great natural resources, is the fact that we repeatedly import a massive wave of hard-working eager lowerclassmen from around the world whenever we can. And so many among us consistently hate them at the same time, for the intense competition they bring, not just economic, but cultural competition. Competition kicks ass, though, especially over time.
    We both agree that an underclass is generally a bad thing, it seems. Yet, you're arguing for growing that underclass. I'm at a loss to understand why you would be in favor of this. Maybe the new underclass we're importing is marginally better than our existing underclass, but that's hardly an argument in favor of them. People on this thread have pointed out the concrete negative effects of importing large numbers of poor and uneducated people into our country. Your only response seems to be some platitude that "competition kicks ass." Come on.
    I doubt it's pathetic. I get that the thread is about immigration, what I'm saying is that the central point, at least the one you're making, is that Mexican immigrants tend to be poor and uneducated, and poor and uneducated people are bad. But what about the poor and uneducated here? Should they be sent to Mexico? That would also be better, right? Generally we'd say no, by virtue of their birthright.
    No, we can't legally or morally kick out our own citizenry, no matter how poor and uneducated they might be. But, we have no obligation to import more poor and uneducated people, whose presence will compound the problem. Your position seems to be- we have a problem with the underclass in the United States, so let's make the underclass bigger. I'm wondering why you can't see the problem with this.

    Who exactly do you suppose is ruining their life? Me? The employer who fires them? The immigrant, who's life has been, on average, far worse and harder than the supposed ruined life? Like I said, if the native-born has spent his whole life here with the advantages of our system but still can't offer anything more valuable of himself than can a third world immigrant, I have a good idea of who I want to blame first for his life being ruined.
    If you take a poor person, who is at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder and is living a marginal lifestlye, and import a group of people who are willing to accept an even lower standard of living, then the standard of living for the poor citizen is going to drop. But you don't give a fuck- you'd rather make our poor even poorer in order to increase the standard of living for illegal immigrants.

    Look, I agree that poverty in this country is often a result of bad personal choices. But, I want to increase the standard of living for the American poor, to the extent possible. You, on the other hand, seem to be in favor of kicking them down to the standard of living acceptable for illegals from the poorer parts of Mexico, for some inexplicable reason. Again, are you surprised that such a policy is not popular with the electorate? Would your campaign slogan be "I promise to make the poor poorer so that the upper classes can have cheaper domestic help and easier access to poor women from south of the Rio Grande who have been forced into a life of prostitution?"

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    RoanthRoanth Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    There seems to be a view among people who want to drastically limit immigration that the economy is a zero sum game and that if a more open immigration policy is adopted this will somehow be to the detriment of the working poor (literally a "they took our jerbs!" theory).

    I don't know enough about macro economics to say if this is true or not but I look at the growth in the U.S. economy over the past 100 years and my own experience in markets and I come to the conclusion that economy is not a zero sum game and that adding to the populace can actually help grow the economy for the benefit of all.

    Again, we have not had an open-border policy over the past 20 years and look has what happened to manufacturing and blue-collar jobs. Shockingly, poor immigrants didn't take those low-education / high-paying jobs away, global trade and favored nation status with China did. People against more immigration are missing the forest for the trees - if you want to protect the working poor focus on the various unbalanced trade pacts this country has vs the immigrants.

    I ask again, what low-education / high paying jobs are left that immigrants would steal from working class Americans? If you want to protect fast-food and other low-skill / low-pay jobs for working class Americans I guess that can be your own crusade. I would rather focus on getting poor Americans the education they need so they can, you know, get a job to pull themselves above the poverty line. Let the immigrants have those service jobs that no one wants.

    The decimation of blue-collar jobs is a direct result of this country's trade policies, not immigration. I again struggle with how people can be for free trade in its current forms while simultaneously raving against the hordes of immigrants that are going to take away working class jobs. News flash! Those jobs are already gone and it wasn't the immigrants who took them.

    Roanth on
Sign In or Register to comment.