quote:Lyrhawn: your proposal to limit immigration in the face of the United State’s inability to handle all of the incoming foreigners will require a screening process of some kind. How do you make sure that such a process isn’t discriminatory?
The immigration screening process is supposed to be discriminatory. It is a manifestation of fear and pride - two things we would be better off without.
We are afraid that immigrants will take jobs, food, health care, physical space, and money away from citizens. We are afraid that immigrants will dilute or pollute our language, culture, and national identity - things in which we invest quite a bit of pride.
We forget that it was only a matter of chance that we ourselves were born into this country.
posted
skillery, rational self-interest as a society is also a factor.
Lyrhawn left off political and ethnic repression as a valid reason for allowing an immigrant into America. This has historically trumped economic criteria.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:provision should also be made to make sure that stable families are kept together.
Whose definition of "stable family" shall we use?
In many cultures, grandparents, aunties and uncles, cousins, neighbors, and friends are all considered part of the family. Should our guests be required to either present a marriage certificate or to submit to a blood test?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two parents, kids. Or single parent and kids.
Grandparents, aunts, uncles and all that jazz are luxuries. If they want to come, they can apply too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Skillery, I disagree..not that it was chance, but I don't agree that we don't have a right to be concerned about things that affect us.
And I don't agree with all pride is wrong, or that that is the only good reason to have limits on immigration.
We have all invested a lot of time, effort, and money on living here, and I don't see how letting everyone who wants in come in would improve much, while I do see some of the problems that could arise because of that policy.
My great-grandparents came over here to make a bettr life for their families, and did so by following the rules and applying as required by law. I am not advocatind CLOSING our borgers, but I don't think they should be thrown open completely either.
If we open out borders to any and all, there are a lot of very plausible risks to consider.
And not all (or even most) or them can be dismissed so easily.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is an honest question.Can anyone name an example of a country where immagration has a negative economic effect?
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
How many countries have NO barriers to immigration, though? I can't think of one single industrial country that doesn't have some sort of immigration policy....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't agree that we don't have a right to be concerned about things that affect us.
We probably have different viewpoints regarding things that "affect us." My viewpoint is that the only effects of any consequence in this life are the ones that send us on our way to heaven or hell.
If we're only here on holiday to enjoy ourselves and to get the most out of eating, excreting, sleeping, and reproducing, then yeah, keep 'em all out. (But if I'm on the other side of the fence, not enjoying myself, then by all means, let me in!)
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Long. Actualy it wasn't an honest qustion. "Everthing I've ever told you has been a lie, including this." "What" "That everything I've ever told you has been a lie. That was a lie." —Peter Cook's Satan in Bedazeled.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Grandparents, aunts, uncles and all that jazz are luxuries.
I disagree. Grandparents, aunts, uncles and "all that jazz" are critical components to a balanced family and society.
One of the saddest things in our "modern" life here is that we don't have those connections as strongly anymore - and that ends up costing society as a whole.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stand by my assertion. Extended family is nice, but a 2 or one parent family with children will survive. If it came down to two families coming to America, or one large one, I'd rather see two come.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wasn't part of the success of earlier immigrations the fact that immigrants brought their entire support system with them?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but earlier immigrants could take their family, friends, cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and whoever, without worrying about who was being left behind. Because no one was being left behind.
There's no such policy now. So when you want to bring your extended family with you, you have to tell someone else that they can't come. Which is why I think it's more important to bring a family core here, and many of them, rather than one massive extended family transplanted here.
Edit to add: If I actually saw a number studies that show that a full extended family system provided dramatically more stable homes, and that smaller families didn't survive as well. I might change my mind. Ideas are always a work in progress.
posted
It simply isn't practical to expect the United States to physically be able to hold all of the oppressed peoples of the world. Yes, there are countries with horrible conditions and governments. Whose problem is it?
Is this our problem as Americans? No. We must take care of our own, and be stingy about who immigrates into our country. So many of us are unemployed or underemployed--there is a serious problem keeping a vast amount of Americans up to the "wealthy" standard that the rest of the world seems to think we're all at. There is a lot of poverty in America--a lot of hungry people. A lot of desperation when we can work full-time jobs and still not pay modest bills. I find the idea that an immigrant can come and take my job from me or another American completely loathsome. Why do we care so much about the poor of the world, yet not care a bit about the poor of our own country?
Is this our problem as HUMANS? You bet. The answer, though, is not trying to fit them all into our country. That's ridiculous--they couldn't all fit. But no one is really suggesting that we fit the whole third world's population in American, are they? But with completely open borders, if they all wanted to come, they could, couldn't they? (If they wait long enough.) Rather, let's examine what's wrong with their own country--is it oppressive? abusive? poor? underdeveloped? Let's help them fix it up.
posted
I had the advantage of reading your own posts first, so they were very much colored by yours... Honestly, I hadn't thought much about it until I started reading the debate thread.
posted
I just had a thought that swings me in the other direction:
Back in days of massive immigration from Europe, there was a lot of unclaimed land in the U.S. available for homesteading. We were essentially underpopulated. That isn't the case any more. Now all the land is owned by somebody - locked up and fenced off.
Look out the window when flying coast to coast and you'll see a lot of private and government land just sitting there doing nothing.
The greedy corporations want it all. They want immigration of cheap labor, and they want to own the land that might be made available to those immigrants.
So instead of finding a place where they can scrape their own living from their own soil, new immigrants have to scrape a living from someone else's soil.
I'm still in favor of reduced limitations on immigration, but it ought to be accompanied by an effort to put unused land to use.
The government subsidies that support food prices by paying farmers to not produce would have to stop. Tax breaks to corporate land owners who agree not to develop their land should also stop. Without those subsidies and tax breaks, the land owners would be forced to either put the land to use or sell it.
Our living comes from the soil. The more soil we put to work, the more people we can support.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but you can't ignore the reason why the government pays the farmers to keep land unused.
It's to keep prices up. Plant more land, prices go down, farmers are even worse off. I guess that is neither here nor there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plant more land; invite more friends to dinner...
Who is this "poor farmer" that you mention? Do you know any poor farmers? Did you see one on TV? Is it the Farmer in the Dell? Does he get up at 3:00 AM to irrigate and milk the cows?
Or is it Jimmy Carter or George W?
Have we been brainwashed to think that all farmers are poor, wear coveralls, shovel manure, and drive tractors all day from dawn to dusk?
The farmers I know work in the city at a desk while their crops are growing. They take a day off now and then to plow or harvest. But those are just hobby farms.
The farmers that none of us know are the corporations that own the vast majority of arable land in this country. Those are paid college kids driving those tractors and moving that pipe during their summer break.
Do you want to pay those corporations not to produce, so that they don't hire more immigrant workers to do the dirty work, so that they don't grow more food to entice more hungry people across the border?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow this is actually a case where every post was interesting and seemed well thought out until the last one, sheeesh, hobby farming...
The world must be changed so that it is not such a bad place to be compared to the US, or it will eventually break whatever barriers we erect and make this just as bad a place. That is the duty of the West in this century.
posted
The way America handles its agriculture is probably at the heart of many of our problems.
We've got enough arable land here to feed the world, but the majority of our grain goes to feeding livestock, which is promptly turned to manure.
Mexico is our largest customer for food exports. If our food was cheaper maybe more Mexicans could afford it without having to move north.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The grain is turned to fat, not meat. The animals are brought into the feed lot to fatten them up prior to sale. Animals are sold by weight. Grain is so cheap that it's actually cost-effective to turn it to fat and manure.
We could be fattening up immigrants instead of animals.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I haven't seen much mention of is the resource that immigration presents. Now, don't get me wrong, I think that illegals operating "under the table" merely foster unemployment for those who are here legally. However the influx of consumers and workforce could be beneficial to an economy when managed correctly.
I see little management at all of the problem. That is where I have a problem with it.
Posts: 410 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Besides I like cows, if they are too fat we can give them a gene tweek and away we go. Seriously, I grew up on a farm in Iowa, good luck getting me to give up steak so we can feed immigrants.
Everybody plays the hand they are delt, if you want to cry because yours is better then somebody elses then go ahead. I will rejoice in it and play it to win.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Honestly, I hadn't thought much about it until I started reading the debate thread.
