Imigration

[DuncanONeil]

Because you understand that giving is a personal issue and that the resources for giving are limited, this somehow makes you selfish?
Then there is the issue of how it is possible to be charitable with someone elses' money?

I'm tired of going round and round about this. We're getting nowhere, fast. You're not going to convince me that impoverishing the world to try to save the poor is the right thing to do, and I'm not going to convince you that it's not.

Maybe you're right about me. Maybe I am a selfish bastard who doesn't care what happens to the poor. It certainly doesn't concern me all that much. I'm too busy worrying about keeping myself from becoming poor. When it comes to charity I'm more concerned with myself than others.

Maybe it's because, over the years, I've come to the realization that people in general are just plain bad. There are individuals who are good and decent, sure, and I treasure these when I find them. But as a group there's just nothing to like.

So I'm going to bow out of this argument. I've pretty much said all I want to about it anyway.

[DuncanONeil]

Really only because one group is speaking from a base of reason and the other from a base of emotion.

I have to agree with Thorne:
This has just become a circle, Never Ending and continuous.

[DuncanONeil]

Would you consider moving somewhere to take a job that pays you 13 times your current wage. If it meant breaking a law? A law for which if you get caught the worst that happens is you get sent back home?

I agree that, in 137 posts we haven't got very far, although I don't think it has become completely circular. But if it has, let's try to break out.

We all agree that illegal immigration is a reality, and it is petty damned obvious that rounding them up and sending them home is futile, even if it is the right thing - and the only right thing to do (I said "if"). Even putting them in gaol for a few months before they go home won't stop the others - and probably won't deter the ones who are actually put in prison ... they'll try again as soon as they can.

So what's the answer? Giving police more powers demand to see olive-skinned people's papers and to incacerate those who can't produce them? Allowing vigilantes to patrol borders instead in the hope that their enthusiasm for the job will make them more effective than existing border guards? Throwing the borders wide open?

I suppose that first, we have to agree what the pupose of border controls is, and take it from there. We also need to take an unbiased look at why immigrants take the risks they do for - let's face it - economic reasons.

[DuncanONeil]

The real problem with many borders in parts of the world is that they were not drawn by the locals!
As far as the AZ law goes it is not so much an, no change that, is not a new law. It is merely a set of principles for AZ to engage in enforcement of Federal law.

It is not allways economic reasons that drive imigration, sometimes one is forced to leave a place to escape violence and or survive a war.

I know when I started the thread the focus was on Arizona and its new law, which btw isnt all that stringent even compared to laws allready existing on the books in other states of the USA (as mentioned in a different thread about Florida) and other countries throughout the world; but I certianly didnt expect the focus to soley be upon the USA's imigration issues so much as the world over.

I was perhaps one of the last generation of my mother's people born for a long time in a country where unregulated imigration of a completely differnt group of refugees from a niehboring region became a catalyst among many other catalysts that tore the nation of my birth appart at the seams and basically lead to the ethnic cleansing/expulsion allmost in total of our people making us refugees in our own right.

I am sure one can easily see why this topic is near and dear to me in so many ways, which is why I have been keeping my own views private for the most part.

I like the "idea" of countries without borders myself, the freedom for anyone to travel anywhere apeals to me but considering my personal experiences and a close study of history I can also see the sometimes nessecity of controling one's borders and who is allowed to cross over them and interact with one's society.

Such interaction which in many cases has proven throughout history to not be so mutually benificial for all parties envolved.

Personally I have no issue with Arizona's new law, it is certianly not imho as bad as political pundents of the opposition party to the Governor of that State would like to make it out to be.

I can understand and empathize completely with the people who go to the extremes of leaving their homes and crossing borders to try and make a better life for themselves and their familes.

That being said, I am also a very strong proponent of them doing so legally in keeping with the requirments of the country they wish to enter or become a citizen there of, including making every endeavor to learn and respect the language and other prevelant customs where aplicable.

[rissaya]

I may be wrong here, but I thought Arizona had more Hispanics than any other state in the US, except New Mexico. So the bill had to pass with atleast some Hispanic support. Also, I believe that no contact can be established with a citizen in order to determine if they are illegal immigrants or not, unless contact has been established due to some other infraction of the law. Unless the people being "profiled" actually do something illegal, they do not need to fear being questioned. In addition, I thought there was a standard, well defined procedure to determine suspicion for the police in the USA.

[leo9]

really only because one group is speaking from a base of reason and the other from a base of emotion.

roflmao

[DuncanONeil]

I may be wrong here, but I thought Arizona had more Hispanics than any other state in the US, except New Mexico. So the bill had to pass with atleast some Hispanic support. Also, I believe that no contact can be established with a citizen in order to determine if they are illegal immigrants or not, unless contact has been established due to some other infraction of the law. Unless the people being "profiled" actually do something illegal, they do not need to fear being questioned. In addition, I thought there was a standard, well defined procedure to determine suspicion for the police in the USA.

Heck I have not received any police training yet I can develop suspicions. Sometimes they even qualify as reasonable!

[DuncanONeil]

roflmao

I am sure you think you know which is which but it is possible you are incorrect.