Of course, legalizing petty theft would take something away from people that they have a right to. Letting more people in to the country legally wouldn't deprive people of something they have a right to, or would it?
Letting more people in to the country legally wouldn't deprive people of something they have a right to, or would it?
It puts additional stress on infrastructure, touching on everything from services to public education to roads. It creates additional competition in the job market.
I hesitant to regard any of these things as "rights", because I think that whole topic would be a sideshow. But the list of legitimate concerns that come from illegal immigration are considerable.
Remember why Prohibition was repealed?
I think you are going to have to do some incredible debating footwork to connect illegal immigration to Prohibition in any way. For one thing, illegal immigration has thrived in large part due to strategic complacency on the part of the government. The alcohol trade thrived in spite of it.
If you want to get real fun about it, I suppose you could paint the outcome of the prohibition as an example of the uselessness of the federal government and its helplessness in the face of market forces in some situations.
Let me ask you this: do you think there are any legitimate reasons to oppose illegal immigration? Or to desire that immigration, legal or illegal, be limited? Or do you think, if China wants to immigrate 50 million citizens to this US this year, nothing should really stop them?
I don't think you would have to believe in an open borders policy to maintain that maybe we have an unduly restrictive legal immigration policy, and that we might de-motivate illegal immigration by making legal immigration less restrictive? I mean, I don't even hear any debate about what the quotas should be, and why.
It's a little like the coathanger argument against anti-abortion laws--people will get abortions whether they are legal or not, so if you make them legal at least people won't be out there harming themselves trying to get them. I should add that you don't have to actually buy this argument as a way of settling the abortion issue to see that it might be a legitimate concern-- a reason for, all things being equal, making abortion legal. Though, of course, defenders of life are going to say that all things are hardly equal.
I don't think you would have to believe in an open borders policy to maintain that maybe we have an unduly restrictive legal immigration policy, and that we might de-motivate illegal immigration by making legal immigration less restrictive?
Alright, then I'll ask my previous question in another way: do you think there are legitimate reasons to favor low levels of immigration, legal or illegal?
Further, you say "unduly restrictive". From whose perspective?
I mean, I don't even hear any debate about what the quotas should be, and why.
Because most of the topics such a debate would cover are already covered in illegal immigration discussions - and, frankly, quite a lot of effort is put into the idea that the only reason anyone could ever want lower immigration rates is because they're a bunch of really nasty, if somewhat cunning, racists.
It's a little like the coathanger argument against anti-abortion laws--people will get abortions whether they are legal or not, so if you make them legal at least people won't be out there harming themselves trying to get them.
There's an obvious pro-life response to that, and there's an obvious immigration response on this question: the presence of 50 million additional people in this country impacts my life, directly and indirectly. There are consequences for that that show up in everything from infrastructure function to societal cohesion to government spending to otherwise. It's not as if these problems go away just by saying "Well, you're a legal citizen now" en masse. If anything they're exacerbated.
Probably the only counter-illegal immigration policy that would have any hope of being successful (and that's what we're aiming for, right?) would be to invest in jobs in Mexico. After all, these immigrants would rather stay home with their families, rather than eke out a below-minimum wage existence here and sending their paychecks home, as is the case now. If they could find work at home, they wouldn't try to find it here.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, there are approximately 11.5 million illegal immigrants living in the US, of which over 6 million are from Mexico.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are currently 13.7 million legal residents or citizens unemployed.
It's likely that a very large percentage of the illegal population is illegally employed, thereby reducing the employment opportunities of legal residents.
Does an argument really have to be made in order to see the inherent injustice of this situation? Illegals should not take a job that a legal could have, regardless if it's a low-wage job or not. It's just prima facia wrong.
Not only should we not increase quotas (there aren't enough jobs to go around as it is), we should close the border and enforce labor laws so that business owners are disinclined to illegally employ illegals.
Really, there is no need for any argument here...this is just common sense.
It's not "common sense" if it won't work, regardless of whether you think it's the right thing to do. What's often missing from the arguments of the "close the border" faction is that:
1. We can't do it. Heck, the UK is surrounded by water, for Pete's sake, and they still have a gigantic "asylum seeker" (to use their term) problem. If the English Channel can't stop people, nothing we can possibly build would work better.
2. We have no reasonable chance of deporting the illegals who are here now. It will never happen. It's as impossible as getting rid of guns or cigarettes.
3. Americans don't seem to want these jobs. (Look at the states where they did exactly what the hardliners are advocating. Rather than citizens stepping in to fill the gap made by a shortage of illegals, businesses are just closing down. Is this "common sense"?)
1. We can't do it. Heck, the UK is surrounded by water, for Pete's sake, and they still have a gigantic "asylum seeker" (to use their term) problem. If the English Channel can't stop people, nothing we can possibly build would work better.
I did a quick search online and couldn't find anything that showed this. The term "assylum seeker" appears to me, to be related to an official process which includes paperwork applications. It didn't appear that they were *illegally* immigrating, and I can't find any statistics to show that *illegal* immigration is a problem for them. Do you have a link?
2. We have no reasonable chance of deporting the illegals who are here now. It will never happen. It's as impossible as getting rid of guns or cigarettes.
I never said anything about deportation. I agree with you that it is ineffectual. More than that, I think it would be inhumane in general (with certain criminal exceptions of course).
3. Americans don't seem to want these jobs. (Look at the states where they did exactly what the hardliners are advocating. Rather than citizens stepping in to fill the gap made by a shortage of illegals, businesses are just closing down. Is this "common sense"?)
I hear this a lot, but I haven't seen any studies or data backing it up. Further, many of the jobs illegals acquire are *illegally and immorally* made available in the first place. There are labor laws protecting citizens which do not protect illegals. Legals don't want the jobs because they are not fair jobs (below minimum wage with unfair and even dangerous and illegal working conditions).
If a business cannot provide a fair, legal employment practice, then it's a sham business in the first place.
There's a parallel in my mind with this claim from you that since plantations would go under if slavery were abolished, we should not abolish slavery.
I lived in England for three years (2000-2003). "Asylum seeker" was the universally-used term by people in conversation to refer to what we call "illegal aliens". I have never looked up the term, but I heard it used constantly in conversation, on the radio, and on TV. In fact, I can't recall them ever being referred to by any other term.
Heck, I hope I didn't come off as defending the horrible conditions illegals work under. It's absolutely shameful.
My source on the lack of citizen job-seekers for vacated positions in certain states was The Washington Post, in issues long since recycled. So don't ask me for dates. (Yes, I am a Luddite, and still get the paper delivered to my door each day!)
Interesting. Thanks for sharing your experience. I still wonder about the data though. I can't seem to find statistics about the numbers of illegals in the UK. My intuition tells me that it's not nearly the issue there as it is here. The geographical, political, and most importantly economic circumstances there seem to me to be far, far less likely to cause a problem for illegal immigration.
It does sound like we're in general agreement as to the problem however, but we disagree on the solution.
I assume that if it were even possible (which I doubt) to prop up the Mexican job market enough to create 3-6 million new jobs for them, that it would take a huge sum of money....money provided exclusively by the American tax payer. Isn't there a sense of moral obligation to put those kinds of resources back home to prop up *our* economy and job market?
I found some data...estimates of illegals in the UK range from ~525k to ~950k with a central estimate being ~725k. Higher than I thought, but by a percentage of the total population, it's about half as many illegals there than here (if you take the 725k figure.)
Linguistically, I think this is just another case of British and American being two separate languages!
As to the illegals issue, however, I have a suspicion the final costs of "propping up" the Mexican economy to discourage emigration would ultimately be less than the costs of simply responding to the problem. It's a case of "an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure". After all, the folks who are getting worked up over this issue generally complain about the costs that the problem is causing us more than anything else. So which costs more? Fixing up the mess, or doing something to ensure it doesn't happen?
After all, the folks who are getting worked up over this issue generally complain about the costs that the problem is causing us more than anything else. So which costs more? Fixing up the mess, or doing something to ensure it doesn't happen?
This country - and most countries - were entirely capable of policing its borders in the past, way before the current levels of technological capability we now have. This is a fact.
Another fact: it is demonstrably the case that we're not faced with a situation where, darn it, the government is really trying to solve the illegal immigration problem, but illegal immigrants keep finding a way into the country. The problem has been, for a long time, government complacency towards (or even cooperation with) illegal immigration.
As with other crimes, this doesn't necessitate the complete eradication of illegal immigration. There's probably always going to be a certain amount of murder as well - that's not a good excuse for legalizing murder.
As to the claim "it's impossible!" - no, it's very possible. Maybe what's meant is 'politically impossible', as in, "The people who favor high levels of immigration, legal or illegal, have the power to block these attempts at every step, and will never allow this to take place". In which case, let's hear who will be doing it and why, so we can know who to blame for the current situation.
I always hear about the power of the government to solve problems. Am I now being told that one of the few absolute bare minimum historical responsibilities of government - securing the nation's borders - is something it is helpless to do?
"Politically impossible" is exactly the case. Just as there is zero chance of fixing the problem of too much money influencing politics, because the folks with the power to change the laws are also the very ones benefiting from how things now stand.
Likewise, too many people with in high places are profiting from the current illegals mess, so you can't expect them to legislate against their own interests (unfortunately).
That said, I still favor the idea of investment in Mexico. It's a win-win. They get to stay home and feed their families. We lose the illegals. Isn't that better than pouring money down an enforcement rathole that benefits no one except the contractors (who, you can be sure, are salivating over all the taxpayer bucks they'll be reaping by claiming they can fix the problem).
"Politically impossible" is exactly the case. Just as there is zero chance of fixing the problem of too much money influencing politics, because the folks with the power to change the laws are also the very ones benefiting from how things now stand.
I have trouble taking your reply seriously, because if you really believed that, you'd stop voting.
Not only that...
That said, I still favor the idea of investment in Mexico. It's a win-win. They get to stay home and feed their families. We lose the illegals.
If it's impossible to fix illegal immigration because too many people are benefiting from it both politically and economically, then this 'solution' is off the table too. If people are benefiting from the illegal immigration situation such that they'd oppose seriously fixing it, they're not going to support a fix, period. It doesn't matter if the fix is 'nicer' by your lights.
More than that - investment in Mexico? I take it you supported NAFTA then? Or would it be more that you're not opposed to free trade, because it's politically impossible to oppose it - powerful business interests, after all.
I actually have never spent two seconds ever thinking about NAFTA, one way or the other. (literal truth)
But the fact is you've caught me today in a cynical mood. I occasionally despair of anything ever being accomplished in Washington, and today is one of those days.
Believe it or not, I'm enjoying this conversation. We oppose each other's views, but we're being civil. Nice change of pace.
I'm keeping my aim low in this conversation. All I'd really like recognized is that there are legitimate reasons to desire low levels of immigration, legal and illegal. (There's also legitimate reasons to desire higher levels at times.) The competition in the job market. The stress it places on infrastructure. The cultural challenges that present themselves when you have a large influx of people from a different culture or language.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the 21st Century will witness a human migration unseen since the Volkswanderung in the declining days of the Roman Empire. I anticipate the emigration/immigration rates to go way, way up in the next few decades. Fighting this inevitability will be like King Canute trying to stop the tide.
In other words, if you don't like the way things are going in 2012, you're going to hate what will be going on in 2032.
Now we can either bury our heads in the sand, self-satisfyingly saying that we're against the trend, and just live with the therefore undealt-with consequences, or we can recognize "facts on the ground" and go from there.
But just saying you don't like immigration will do nothing other than give you reason to say "I told you so". And that satisfaction only goes so far.
I feel the same way about climate change. It's happening. It's too late to stop it. So what are we going to do now? We need practical, achievable goals - not statements about what should be happening, but ain't!
So what are we going to do now? We need practical, achievable goals - not statements about what should be happening, but ain't!
As I said, this statement is a concession that government is completely incapable of delivering on one of the most fundamental tasks that just about everyone, "conservative" or "liberal", concedes as its responsibility: securing its borders.
So sorry, I reject the rhetoric. Too many countries around the world seem entirely capable of securing their borders - too many were capable of this, demonstrably, factually, in the past, including our own. Our current border issues, right now, are a result of government complacency towards or cooperation with illegal immigrants. You've given me no reason to believe this cannot be changed with effort, though granted it would be considerable effort. Politics and all.
There's no shortage of predictions of "inevitable results in the future" that turned out to be complete bunk. This sounds like another. And if it did come to the point where the US saw radically higher illegal immigration than it does now, there's a very good chance that discussing what "we" would do about it is moot, because at that point there would be no "we". There would be a variety of culturally distinct groups with next to no assimilation, occupying particular geographical locations.
That is how nations are created, and also how nations are destroyed.
America was started as a Northern European country. It was filled with to the greater extent, Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Dutch and some French. Anglo-Saxons are Germans as well; even the French are Germanic, i.e. the Franks.
This racial group formed the culture of America. America is America because of this racial influence. In the early 1900s, people understood this and that is why immigration was restricted to only European immigrants. This all changed in 1965.
Culture defines Politics and what defines culture is Race and religion. Race is very important.
For the Marxists and other socialists and liberals, in order to bring about Globalization, nations have to die. One has to end homogeneity and promote multiculturalism. The type of culture precedes the change in politics. Homogeneity, which is the backbone of "Nation", Latin, natus (from birth), is an evil in the liberal agenda. It must be destroyed.
America needs to end all immigration! It needs to rescind the 1965 Immigration Act and start deporting all non-European peoples back home or give them a green card. We need another operation Wetback that was conducted under Eisenhower in the 50s.
This country is not the country I grew up in. It is becoming more violent and barbaric. It is losing civilization. Not only that the core majority that created this country, are now becoming a minority. How does that bode well for the standard of living--or are we all destined to live in a Turd World Hellhole? That is what America is becoming with this new immigration!
You can never break the Natural Law of "Blood is thicker than water". The Mayan/Aztec invasion of America does not bode well. They are not Americans, nor can they be.
America is for whites only? What in the world do you suggest we do with the children of the slaves we brought over here, which we had the good sense to free? Back to Africa?
I did not say that "America is for whites only". You read that in there.
Do you understand the term "proportion"? To ask for Proportion is not going to extremes. Have you read Aristotle's Politics where he talks of numerous historical examples of his time where immigrants to Greek cities pushed out the original inhabitants. Aristotle has 10 to 12 instances of conflict between groups and the always disastrous results.
There is racial differences. To not acknowledge and heed nature is to be foolish and in a sense nihiistic. There is a place for small amounts of diversity, Chinatowns in SanFran, NY and other places, Harlem and others, Jewish blocks, and a small Mexican.
But what do Hindu's, Pakistanis, Lebanese, Burmese, Tibetans have to do with America?
Do you understand what Culture is? Do you understand the importance of Culture? Culture is the Racial soul of the group. I lived in Europe, been around the world, and widely read. When the UN diplomat Sutherland declared that no European country can have homogeneity, he is declaring Marxist doctrine. With the 1965 Immigration Act, we have adopted Marxist thinking.
You can not keep American Culture with Muslims, Pakistanis, Hindus and Burmese.
50 million Mexicans, all who are really are indigenious Amerindian peoples such as the Mayans and Aztecs do not have the IQ, Spirit, and cultural background to continue and uphold American values and culture. I point to La Raza. La Raza is about taking land back. They are not assimilating.
And what is wrong with wanting to LIVE with my own kind?! Is that wrong? Can I not work for my kinsmen and look upon my kinsmen? Should I not have loyalty to my forebearers? and Loyalty to future generations of my kinsmen? Or should I betray them?
Race and Culture are important. Race forms Culture and Culture imprints values of the race upon succeeding generations. The individual dies, but the Culture continues---unless unscruplous people, liberals and Catholics want unrestricted immigration--and so the Culture dies. How do you maintain culture? American culture is specific. It doesn't exist nowhere else. How do you suppose to maintain it? Muslims bringing their Sharia law going to maintain your English liberties?
Or have we been imbibing the Multiculti koolaid for too long?
You gotta love this guy! He claims superiority over people not fortunate enough to have been born into his master race, and yet he doesn't even know his own, supposedly superior language. How else to explain such sentences as:
"There is racial differences." Ever hear of subject-verb agreement?
"But what do Hindu's ...?" Do you even know how to make a plural?
I lived in Europe, been around the world, and widely read." Ever hear of parallelism?
But it even gets funnier!
"When the UN diplomat Sutherland declared that no European country can have homogeneity, he is declaring Marxist doctrine." Shows you don't know the first thing about Marxism. Kindly show me where this non-existent doctrine is found in the works of Marx, oh Widely-read One.
"There is a place for small amounts of diversity, Chinatowns in SanFran, NY and other places, Harlem and others, Jewish blocks, and a small Mexican." I'm so glad you can find a place for Ghettos. I guess you'll allow the Native Americans to keep their reservations then?
And my favorite: "Mexicans ... do not have the IQ ... to continue and uphold American values and culture." Kindly cite the studies that demonstrate any detectible difference in IQ between Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites. Oh, there aren't any? So you just made this up?
It must be comforting to just know that one is so superior. It kind of means not having to worry about actual facts!
I've got just one question for you - how in the world did you ever manage to "prove you're not a robot"?
Prokop, is not the Natural Law the Pecking Order? Is that not found throughout nature? Are humans not a part of nature? Hierarchy infuses all things. Some races have characteristics that are superior to others. Aristotle repeats the Greek proverb, "Tis meet that Greek rule barbarian". Plato noticed the difference between the Doric Greeks and the Ionians Greeks.
And so to back up the Natural Law here is a quote from Scripture that all Christians, especially our beloved Catholic hierarchy misses:
"And all men are from the ground, and Adam was created of earth. In much knowledge the Lord hath divided them, and made their ways diverse. Some of them hath he blessed and exalted, and some of them hath he sanctified, and set near himself: but some of them hath he cursed and brought low, and turned out of their places. As the clay is in the potter's hand, to fashion it at his pleasure: so man is in the hand of him that made him, to render to them as liketh him best." (LXX, Ecclesiasticus 36.10-13)
So obviously there is a hierarchy amongst the races. As there is nine choirs of angels, so there is hierarchy amongst the races. There is always a Pecking Order. Not only does the Bible teach that, but there is the Natural Law.
"Nationalism and Marxism are incompatible." Woods, Alan and Grant, Ted, Marxism and the National Question, Part 4, 25 February 2000, posted on "In Defense of Marxism", marxist.com.
I point to Rosa Luxemburg, Marxist writer and her pamphlet The Nationalities Question. I also point to Karl Kautsky who also wrote on the subject similar to Ms Luxemburg. Both are Jews, both are Marxists.
This idea began when Karl Marx published his Communist Manifesto that ended in the words, "All the workers of the world unite". John C. Kiang, in his book, One World traces this movement to socialism: "As far as world unity is concerned, Marx and Engels were the pioneers who expounded that modern industry had furnished a real foundation for a world unity, and declared not only that “working men have no country,..." but also that "Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationalities." and "In this declaration Marx and Engels claimed that the struggle of the workers was international in essence. National differences, they pointed out, were being wiped out by the development of free trade, by the growth of a world market, and by the increasing uniformity of industrial and social conditions. The workers in particular were being denationalized by modern industry, and had no fatherland."
Does anybody know the other term for Communism or Marxism? Anybody? It was originally called "International Socialism". Why was it called "International Socialism" for? Because Communism/Marxism is about destroying nations! Getting rid of nations and homogeneity!
This is why the Czeck socialists who cared about their country coined the term "national socialism" in order to differentiate themselves from their communist brethren. (q.v. Liberty or Equality, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn) The Germans copied them and borrowed their name. That is what "Nazi" stands for. "Nazi" is an ancronym for "National Socialism". If there was no International Socialism that desired the destruction of nations, there would have been no national socialism.
And this is unbeknownst to the Catholic Magesterium who has never warned people about this, that communism/Marxism/International Socialism is a genocidal ideology. The term "political correctness" was coined in the Soviet Union. Political Correctness is Marxist ideology that deconstructs race. Political correctness, which has morphed into Social Justice, is a genocidal ideology. Multiculturalism is Marxist. It is also genocidal.
28 comments:
I am surprised that there is so much talk about illegal immigration, but little mentioned about possibly preventing it by increasing country quotas.
This sounds a little like being able to put an end to a crime wave by making it so things like petty theft are no longer crimes.
Of course, legalizing petty theft would take something away from people that they have a right to. Letting more people in to the country legally wouldn't deprive people of something they have a right to, or would it?
Remember why Prohibition was repealed?
Letting more people in to the country legally wouldn't deprive people of something they have a right to, or would it?
It puts additional stress on infrastructure, touching on everything from services to public education to roads. It creates additional competition in the job market.
I hesitant to regard any of these things as "rights", because I think that whole topic would be a sideshow. But the list of legitimate concerns that come from illegal immigration are considerable.
Remember why Prohibition was repealed?
I think you are going to have to do some incredible debating footwork to connect illegal immigration to Prohibition in any way. For one thing, illegal immigration has thrived in large part due to strategic complacency on the part of the government. The alcohol trade thrived in spite of it.
If you want to get real fun about it, I suppose you could paint the outcome of the prohibition as an example of the uselessness of the federal government and its helplessness in the face of market forces in some situations.
Let me ask you this: do you think there are any legitimate reasons to oppose illegal immigration? Or to desire that immigration, legal or illegal, be limited? Or do you think, if China wants to immigrate 50 million citizens to this US this year, nothing should really stop them?
Er, thrived in spite of the government trying to stop it, that is.
I don't think you would have to believe in an open borders policy to maintain that maybe we have an unduly restrictive legal immigration policy, and that we might de-motivate illegal immigration by making legal immigration less restrictive? I mean, I don't even hear any debate about what the quotas should be, and why.
It's a little like the coathanger argument against anti-abortion laws--people will get abortions whether they are legal or not, so if you make them legal at least people won't be out there harming themselves trying to get them. I should add that you don't have to actually buy this argument as a way of settling the abortion issue to see that it might be a legitimate concern-- a reason for, all things being equal, making abortion legal. Though, of course, defenders of life are going to say that all things are hardly equal.
Victor,
I don't think you would have to believe in an open borders policy to maintain that maybe we have an unduly restrictive legal immigration policy, and that we might de-motivate illegal immigration by making legal immigration less restrictive?
Alright, then I'll ask my previous question in another way: do you think there are legitimate reasons to favor low levels of immigration, legal or illegal?
Further, you say "unduly restrictive". From whose perspective?
I mean, I don't even hear any debate about what the quotas should be, and why.
Because most of the topics such a debate would cover are already covered in illegal immigration discussions - and, frankly, quite a lot of effort is put into the idea that the only reason anyone could ever want lower immigration rates is because they're a bunch of really nasty, if somewhat cunning, racists.
It's a little like the coathanger argument against anti-abortion laws--people will get abortions whether they are legal or not, so if you make them legal at least people won't be out there harming themselves trying to get them.
There's an obvious pro-life response to that, and there's an obvious immigration response on this question: the presence of 50 million additional people in this country impacts my life, directly and indirectly. There are consequences for that that show up in everything from infrastructure function to societal cohesion to government spending to otherwise. It's not as if these problems go away just by saying "Well, you're a legal citizen now" en masse. If anything they're exacerbated.
Probably the only counter-illegal immigration policy that would have any hope of being successful (and that's what we're aiming for, right?) would be to invest in jobs in Mexico. After all, these immigrants would rather stay home with their families, rather than eke out a below-minimum wage existence here and sending their paychecks home, as is the case now. If they could find work at home, they wouldn't try to find it here.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, there are approximately 11.5 million illegal immigrants living in the US, of which over 6 million are from Mexico.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are currently 13.7 million legal residents or citizens unemployed.
It's likely that a very large percentage of the illegal population is illegally employed, thereby reducing the employment opportunities of legal residents.
Does an argument really have to be made in order to see the inherent injustice of this situation? Illegals should not take a job that a legal could have, regardless if it's a low-wage job or not. It's just prima facia wrong.
Not only should we not increase quotas (there aren't enough jobs to go around as it is), we should close the border and enforce labor laws so that business owners are disinclined to illegally employ illegals.
Really, there is no need for any argument here...this is just common sense.
It's not "common sense" if it won't work, regardless of whether you think it's the right thing to do. What's often missing from the arguments of the "close the border" faction is that:
1. We can't do it. Heck, the UK is surrounded by water, for Pete's sake, and they still have a gigantic "asylum seeker" (to use their term) problem. If the English Channel can't stop people, nothing we can possibly build would work better.
2. We have no reasonable chance of deporting the illegals who are here now. It will never happen. It's as impossible as getting rid of guns or cigarettes.
3. Americans don't seem to want these jobs. (Look at the states where they did exactly what the hardliners are advocating. Rather than citizens stepping in to fill the gap made by a shortage of illegals, businesses are just closing down. Is this "common sense"?)
Hi Bob,
1. We can't do it. Heck, the UK is surrounded by water, for Pete's sake, and they still have a gigantic "asylum seeker" (to use their term) problem. If the English Channel can't stop people, nothing we can possibly build would work better.
I did a quick search online and couldn't find anything that showed this. The term "assylum seeker" appears to me, to be related to an official process which includes paperwork applications. It didn't appear that they were *illegally* immigrating, and I can't find any statistics to show that *illegal* immigration is a problem for them. Do you have a link?
2. We have no reasonable chance of deporting the illegals who are here now. It will never happen. It's as impossible as getting rid of guns or cigarettes.
I never said anything about deportation. I agree with you that it is ineffectual. More than that, I think it would be inhumane in general (with certain criminal exceptions of course).
3. Americans don't seem to want these jobs. (Look at the states where they did exactly what the hardliners are advocating. Rather than citizens stepping in to fill the gap made by a shortage of illegals, businesses are just closing down. Is this "common sense"?)
I hear this a lot, but I haven't seen any studies or data backing it up. Further, many of the jobs illegals acquire are *illegally and immorally* made available in the first place. There are labor laws protecting citizens which do not protect illegals. Legals don't want the jobs because they are not fair jobs (below minimum wage with unfair and even dangerous and illegal working conditions).
If a business cannot provide a fair, legal employment practice, then it's a sham business in the first place.
There's a parallel in my mind with this claim from you that since plantations would go under if slavery were abolished, we should not abolish slavery.
Shack,
I lived in England for three years (2000-2003). "Asylum seeker" was the universally-used term by people in conversation to refer to what we call "illegal aliens". I have never looked up the term, but I heard it used constantly in conversation, on the radio, and on TV. In fact, I can't recall them ever being referred to by any other term.
Heck, I hope I didn't come off as defending the horrible conditions illegals work under. It's absolutely shameful.
My source on the lack of citizen job-seekers for vacated positions in certain states was The Washington Post, in issues long since recycled. So don't ask me for dates. (Yes, I am a Luddite, and still get the paper delivered to my door each day!)
In fact, when conversation turned to American politics (as it often did), the same term was used by Brits in referring to our illegal immigrants.
Bob,
Interesting. Thanks for sharing your experience. I still wonder about the data though. I can't seem to find statistics about the numbers of illegals in the UK. My intuition tells me that it's not nearly the issue there as it is here. The geographical, political, and most importantly economic circumstances there seem to me to be far, far less likely to cause a problem for illegal immigration.
It does sound like we're in general agreement as to the problem however, but we disagree on the solution.
I assume that if it were even possible (which I doubt) to prop up the Mexican job market enough to create 3-6 million new jobs for them, that it would take a huge sum of money....money provided exclusively by the American tax payer. Isn't there a sense of moral obligation to put those kinds of resources back home to prop up *our* economy and job market?
I found some data...estimates of illegals in the UK range from ~525k to ~950k with a central estimate being ~725k. Higher than I thought, but by a percentage of the total population, it's about half as many illegals there than here (if you take the 725k figure.)
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160642/Number-illegal-immigrants-Britain-nearing-1million.html)
Linguistically, I think this is just another case of British and American being two separate languages!
As to the illegals issue, however, I have a suspicion the final costs of "propping up" the Mexican economy to discourage emigration would ultimately be less than the costs of simply responding to the problem. It's a case of "an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure". After all, the folks who are getting worked up over this issue generally complain about the costs that the problem is causing us more than anything else. So which costs more? Fixing up the mess, or doing something to ensure it doesn't happen?
Bob,
After all, the folks who are getting worked up over this issue generally complain about the costs that the problem is causing us more than anything else. So which costs more? Fixing up the mess, or doing something to ensure it doesn't happen?
This country - and most countries - were entirely capable of policing its borders in the past, way before the current levels of technological capability we now have. This is a fact.
Another fact: it is demonstrably the case that we're not faced with a situation where, darn it, the government is really trying to solve the illegal immigration problem, but illegal immigrants keep finding a way into the country. The problem has been, for a long time, government complacency towards (or even cooperation with) illegal immigration.
As with other crimes, this doesn't necessitate the complete eradication of illegal immigration. There's probably always going to be a certain amount of murder as well - that's not a good excuse for legalizing murder.
As to the claim "it's impossible!" - no, it's very possible. Maybe what's meant is 'politically impossible', as in, "The people who favor high levels of immigration, legal or illegal, have the power to block these attempts at every step, and will never allow this to take place". In which case, let's hear who will be doing it and why, so we can know who to blame for the current situation.
I always hear about the power of the government to solve problems. Am I now being told that one of the few absolute bare minimum historical responsibilities of government - securing the nation's borders - is something it is helpless to do?
"Politically impossible" is exactly the case. Just as there is zero chance of fixing the problem of too much money influencing politics, because the folks with the power to change the laws are also the very ones benefiting from how things now stand.
Likewise, too many people with in high places are profiting from the current illegals mess, so you can't expect them to legislate against their own interests (unfortunately).
That said, I still favor the idea of investment in Mexico. It's a win-win. They get to stay home and feed their families. We lose the illegals. Isn't that better than pouring money down an enforcement rathole that benefits no one except the contractors (who, you can be sure, are salivating over all the taxpayer bucks they'll be reaping by claiming they can fix the problem).
Bob,
"Politically impossible" is exactly the case. Just as there is zero chance of fixing the problem of too much money influencing politics, because the folks with the power to change the laws are also the very ones benefiting from how things now stand.
I have trouble taking your reply seriously, because if you really believed that, you'd stop voting.
Not only that...
That said, I still favor the idea of investment in Mexico. It's a win-win. They get to stay home and feed their families. We lose the illegals.
If it's impossible to fix illegal immigration because too many people are benefiting from it both politically and economically, then this 'solution' is off the table too. If people are benefiting from the illegal immigration situation such that they'd oppose seriously fixing it, they're not going to support a fix, period. It doesn't matter if the fix is 'nicer' by your lights.
More than that - investment in Mexico? I take it you supported NAFTA then? Or would it be more that you're not opposed to free trade, because it's politically impossible to oppose it - powerful business interests, after all.
I actually have never spent two seconds ever thinking about NAFTA, one way or the other. (literal truth)
But the fact is you've caught me today in a cynical mood. I occasionally despair of anything ever being accomplished in Washington, and today is one of those days.
Bob,
Believe it or not, I'm enjoying this conversation. We oppose each other's views, but we're being civil. Nice change of pace.
I'm keeping my aim low in this conversation. All I'd really like recognized is that there are legitimate reasons to desire low levels of immigration, legal and illegal. (There's also legitimate reasons to desire higher levels at times.) The competition in the job market. The stress it places on infrastructure. The cultural challenges that present themselves when you have a large influx of people from a different culture or language.
Hopefully, everyone can recognize that much.
I too have liked this exchange.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the 21st Century will witness a human migration unseen since the Volkswanderung in the declining days of the Roman Empire. I anticipate the emigration/immigration rates to go way, way up in the next few decades. Fighting this inevitability will be like King Canute trying to stop the tide.
In other words, if you don't like the way things are going in 2012, you're going to hate what will be going on in 2032.
Now we can either bury our heads in the sand, self-satisfyingly saying that we're against the trend, and just live with the therefore undealt-with consequences, or we can recognize "facts on the ground" and go from there.
But just saying you don't like immigration will do nothing other than give you reason to say "I told you so". And that satisfaction only goes so far.
I feel the same way about climate change. It's happening. It's too late to stop it. So what are we going to do now? We need practical, achievable goals - not statements about what should be happening, but ain't!
So what are we going to do now? We need practical, achievable goals - not statements about what should be happening, but ain't!
As I said, this statement is a concession that government is completely incapable of delivering on one of the most fundamental tasks that just about everyone, "conservative" or "liberal", concedes as its responsibility: securing its borders.
So sorry, I reject the rhetoric. Too many countries around the world seem entirely capable of securing their borders - too many were capable of this, demonstrably, factually, in the past, including our own. Our current border issues, right now, are a result of government complacency towards or cooperation with illegal immigrants. You've given me no reason to believe this cannot be changed with effort, though granted it would be considerable effort. Politics and all.
There's no shortage of predictions of "inevitable results in the future" that turned out to be complete bunk. This sounds like another. And if it did come to the point where the US saw radically higher illegal immigration than it does now, there's a very good chance that discussing what "we" would do about it is moot, because at that point there would be no "we". There would be a variety of culturally distinct groups with next to no assimilation, occupying particular geographical locations.
That is how nations are created, and also how nations are destroyed.
America was started as a Northern European country. It was filled with to the greater extent, Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Dutch and some French. Anglo-Saxons are Germans as well; even the French are Germanic, i.e. the Franks.
This racial group formed the culture of America. America is America because of this racial influence. In the early 1900s, people understood this and that is why immigration was restricted to only European immigrants. This all changed in 1965.
Culture defines Politics and what defines culture is Race and religion. Race is very important.
For the Marxists and other socialists and liberals, in order to bring about Globalization, nations have to die. One has to end homogeneity and promote multiculturalism. The type of culture precedes the change in politics. Homogeneity, which is the backbone of "Nation", Latin, natus (from birth), is an evil in the liberal agenda. It must be destroyed.
America needs to end all immigration! It needs to rescind the 1965 Immigration Act and start deporting all non-European peoples back home or give them a green card. We need another operation Wetback that was conducted under Eisenhower in the 50s.
This country is not the country I grew up in. It is becoming more violent and barbaric. It is losing civilization. Not only that the core majority that created this country, are now becoming a minority. How does that bode well for the standard of living--or are we all destined to live in a Turd World Hellhole? That is what America is becoming with this new immigration!
You can never break the Natural Law of "Blood is thicker than water". The Mayan/Aztec invasion of America does not bode well. They are not Americans, nor can they be.
America is for whites only? What in the world do you suggest we do with the children of the slaves we brought over here, which we had the good sense to free? Back to Africa?
I did not say that "America is for whites only". You read that in there.
Do you understand the term "proportion"? To ask for Proportion is not going to extremes. Have you read Aristotle's Politics where he talks of numerous historical examples of his time where immigrants to Greek cities pushed out the original inhabitants. Aristotle has 10 to 12 instances of conflict between groups and the always disastrous results.
There is racial differences. To not acknowledge and heed nature is to be foolish and in a sense nihiistic. There is a place for small amounts of diversity, Chinatowns in SanFran, NY and other places, Harlem and others, Jewish blocks, and a small Mexican.
But what do Hindu's, Pakistanis, Lebanese, Burmese, Tibetans have to do with America?
Do you understand what Culture is? Do you understand the importance of Culture? Culture is the Racial soul of the group. I lived in Europe, been around the world, and widely read. When the UN diplomat Sutherland declared that no European country can have homogeneity, he is declaring Marxist doctrine. With the 1965 Immigration Act, we have adopted Marxist thinking.
You can not keep American Culture with Muslims, Pakistanis, Hindus and Burmese.
50 million Mexicans, all who are really are indigenious Amerindian peoples such as the Mayans and Aztecs do not have the IQ, Spirit, and cultural background to continue and uphold American values and culture. I point to La Raza. La Raza is about taking land back. They are not assimilating.
And what is wrong with wanting to LIVE with my own kind?! Is that wrong? Can I not work for my kinsmen and look upon my kinsmen? Should I not have loyalty to my forebearers? and Loyalty to future generations of my kinsmen? Or should I betray them?
Race and Culture are important. Race forms Culture and Culture imprints values of the race upon succeeding generations. The individual dies, but the Culture continues---unless unscruplous people, liberals and Catholics want unrestricted immigration--and so the Culture dies. How do you maintain culture? American culture is specific. It doesn't exist nowhere else. How do you suppose to maintain it? Muslims bringing their Sharia law going to maintain your English liberties?
Or have we been imbibing the Multiculti koolaid for too long?
You gotta love this guy! He claims superiority over people not fortunate enough to have been born into his master race, and yet he doesn't even know his own, supposedly superior language. How else to explain such sentences as:
"There is racial differences."
Ever hear of subject-verb agreement?
"But what do Hindu's ...?"
Do you even know how to make a plural?
I lived in Europe, been around the world, and widely read."
Ever hear of parallelism?
But it even gets funnier!
"When the UN diplomat Sutherland declared that no European country can have homogeneity, he is declaring Marxist doctrine."
Shows you don't know the first thing about Marxism. Kindly show me where this non-existent doctrine is found in the works of Marx, oh Widely-read One.
"There is a place for small amounts of diversity, Chinatowns in SanFran, NY and other places, Harlem and others, Jewish blocks, and a small Mexican."
I'm so glad you can find a place for Ghettos. I guess you'll allow the Native Americans to keep their reservations then?
And my favorite:
"Mexicans ... do not have the IQ ... to continue and uphold American values and culture."
Kindly cite the studies that demonstrate any detectible difference in IQ between Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites. Oh, there aren't any? So you just made this up?
It must be comforting to just know that one is so superior. It kind of means not having to worry about actual facts!
I've got just one question for you - how in the world did you ever manage to "prove you're not a robot"?
Prokop, is not the Natural Law the Pecking Order? Is that not found throughout nature? Are humans not a part of nature? Hierarchy infuses all things. Some races have characteristics that are superior to others. Aristotle repeats the Greek proverb, "Tis meet that Greek rule barbarian". Plato noticed the difference between the Doric Greeks and the Ionians Greeks.
And so to back up the Natural Law here is a quote from Scripture that all Christians, especially our beloved Catholic hierarchy misses:
"And all men are from the ground, and Adam was created of earth. In much knowledge the Lord hath divided them, and made their ways diverse. Some of them hath he blessed and exalted, and some of them hath he sanctified, and set near himself: but some of them hath he cursed and brought low, and turned out of their places. As the clay is in the potter's hand, to fashion it at his pleasure: so man is in the hand of him that made him, to render to them as liketh him best." (LXX, Ecclesiasticus 36.10-13)
So obviously there is a hierarchy amongst the races. As there is nine choirs of angels, so there is hierarchy amongst the races. There is always a Pecking Order. Not only does the Bible teach that, but there is the Natural Law.
"Nationalism and Marxism are incompatible." Woods, Alan and Grant, Ted, Marxism and the National Question, Part 4, 25 February 2000, posted on "In Defense of Marxism", marxist.com.
I point to Rosa Luxemburg, Marxist writer and her pamphlet The Nationalities Question. I also point to Karl Kautsky who also wrote on the subject similar to Ms Luxemburg. Both are Jews, both are Marxists.
This idea began when Karl Marx published his Communist Manifesto that ended in the words, "All the workers of the world unite". John C. Kiang, in his book, One World traces this movement to socialism:
"As far as world unity is concerned, Marx and Engels were the pioneers who expounded that modern industry had furnished a real foundation for a world unity, and declared not only that “working men have no country,..."
but also that
"Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationalities." and "In this declaration Marx and Engels claimed that the struggle of the workers was international in essence. National differences, they pointed out, were being wiped out by the development of free trade, by the growth of a world market, and by the increasing uniformity of industrial and social conditions. The workers in particular were being denationalized by modern industry, and had no fatherland."
Does anybody know the other term for Communism or Marxism? Anybody? It was originally called "International Socialism". Why was it called "International Socialism" for? Because Communism/Marxism is about destroying nations! Getting rid of nations and homogeneity!
This is why the Czeck socialists who cared about their country coined the term "national socialism" in order to differentiate themselves from their communist brethren. (q.v. Liberty or Equality, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn) The Germans copied them and borrowed their name. That is what "Nazi" stands for. "Nazi" is an ancronym for "National Socialism". If there was no International Socialism that desired the destruction of nations, there would have been no national socialism.
And this is unbeknownst to the Catholic Magesterium who has never warned people about this, that communism/Marxism/International Socialism is a genocidal ideology. The term "political correctness" was coined in the Soviet Union. Political Correctness is Marxist ideology that deconstructs race. Political correctness, which has morphed into Social Justice, is a genocidal ideology. Multiculturalism is Marxist. It is also genocidal.
Post a Comment