Imigration

[MMI]

I don't normally respond to the yellow writing, no matter how much of it there is, but there's nothing wrong in espousing a cause out of emotion.

In fact, show me proposition that is based on pure logic alone.

[DuncanONeil]

But for some people the only arguments they have are emotional. I see noting wrong with a person having strong emotions on a subject but it would seem that they would better serve themselves and their position if they included data points that are evidentiary in nature.

I don't normally respond to the yellow writing, no matter how much of it there is, but there's nothing wrong in espousing a cause out of emotion.

In fact, show me proposition that is based on pure logic alone.

[Stealth694]

Good Point Lion:

But cops are pretty careful, about Profiling Charges, they can be filed by anyone, and then its days in and out of court ect. Most cops just don't want to take the time for a frivolus lawsuit.

But if they can prove they had a reason thats a different story.

[DuncanONeil]

I don't think his "point" is the laest bit good.
In fact I do not even think it is a point.

Good Point Lion:

But cops are pretty careful, about Profiling Charges, they can be filed by anyone, and then its days in and out of court ect. Most cops just don't want to take the time for a frivolus lawsuit.

But if they can prove they had a reason thats a different story.

[TantricSoul]

I'de like to thank Thorne and Jennifer for their input on this thread ... its a great treat to witness such a sharp mind and such a deep heart have a discussion on an issue such as this.

My opinion ... we do need to enforce the laws ... and we desperately need to change the law so that immigration to the states is easy, quick and more in line with this:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

America has been billed as the "land of opportunity" outside its borders for many decades now ... it is shameful that opportunity is limited to a few hundred thousand, of those that yearn to breathe free, a year.

[Thorne]

My opinion ... we do need to enforce the laws ... and we desperately need to change the law so that immigration to the states is easy, quick

I have no problem with the idea of changing the law, even to the point of allowing more immigrants, legally, into the country. But until those laws are changed, I think we have to enforce the laws as they exist today. If you believe the laws are bad you fight them in the courts, or in the Congress. You don't simply ignore them.

[Jennifer Williams]

We accept responsibility for those who are us. Family, tribe (city), clan (state), country, in that order. But in this case that means legal citizens, regardless of race or country of origin. That includes, among others, legal Latinos.

This, I believe, is the core of where we differ.

We all are "us". There is no "they." Family? The human race. Anyone and everyone. What if my sister tomorrow married a guy from Mexico? Instant family. City? People move in/out of my city, my state, and my country every day, and that does not change their level of importance to me. Yes, of course I love my family. I just remind myself that any person I speak to is part of someone's family, and so therefore, equally as important as mine.

No, we are not responsible for each other. Or not every other person. We accept responsibility for some, and those we help as much as we can. But I, for one, will not accept responsibility for every hungry person in the world.

I have no logical argument for this. It just makes me plain sad. You have a right to feel differently than me. But if I suddenly found myself with enough food for the whole world and some way to distribute it, I would. I feel responsible for my fellow human beings everywhere, because what separates me from them? The pure random chance of where I was born, and nothing else. I could easily have been them; I could still easily become them. At any time I could become sick, or poor, or wronged, or alone. How dare I think myself more important or better than anyone else, simply because I was randomly dealt a better hand of cards than they were?

And yes, we are responsible for each other, because that is the root of civilization. Evolutionary-wise, does it make sense for the strong to protect the weak? No. In the animal world, they let the weak die, because they are a burden. Humans are different. We choose to bear the burden of the weak, because we believe in something better than that. We believe in civilization, in that even the weak have value, simply because they are one of us.

And we are all "one of us."

I have no problem with the idea of changing the law, even to the point of allowing more immigrants, legally, into the country. But until those laws are changed, I think we have to enforce the laws as they exist today. If you believe the laws are bad you fight them in the courts, or in the Congress. You don't simply ignore them.

On this, I would have to agree with, except where following the law would violate a person's human rights. Human rights always apply first, and our country believes that, which is why places like emergency rooms and food pantries aren't allowed to report illegal immigrants. Because getting them the food and medicine to carry on as living, healthy human beings is more important than the laws. Our own government knows this; which is why they are so hesitant to enforce inhumane acts, like deportation (also because it's a pointless waste of resources when the deported person is going to do everything they can to come right back, anyway).

[Thorne]

I just remind myself that any person I speak to is part of someone's family, and so therefore, equally as important as mine.

All well and good, but if you had to choose between helping your sister and helping a stranger (which means that you cannot help both) which would you help?

I have no logical argument for this. It just makes me plain sad. You have a right to feel differently than me. But if I suddenly found myself with enough food for the whole world and some way to distribute it, I would.

As would I! I'm not saying I'm cruel, or intolerant, or even against helping. I'm only saying that there are priorities. If I had the means to feed the world, believe me, I'd jump at the chance. Not because I felt responsible, but because it would be the right thing to do!

How dare I think myself more important or better than anyone else, simply because I was randomly dealt a better hand of cards than they were?

I don't consider myself better than anyone else. LOL! Far from it!
But I am more important than those others, to my family and to myself. The only ones more important to me than myself would be my wife and my children, probably in that order. But my own well being ranks just below them. The rest of the world ranks in decreasing order below that.

Evolutionary-wise, does it make sense for the strong to protect the weak?

Yes, it does. Especially if the weak has abilities or talents which can benefit the group. Human males are generally physically stronger than females, so they protect them for the benefit of the tribe! The man who can make strong spears, even though he only has one good leg, benefits the tribe and must be protected.

Humans are different. We choose to bear the burden of the weak, because we believe in something better than that. We believe in civilization, in that even the weak have value, simply because they are one of us.

I've never claimed differently. But there are priorities. Would I run into a burning building to save a 90 year old man? Probably not. To save a child? I sure as hell hope so! (Until the moment happens no one can know, but I don't think I could live with myself if I did nothing.)

And we are all "one of us."

This is the fundamental difference between us, I think. I don't feel the same way. Perhaps its a flaw in my makeup, but I don't think of it as such.

which is why places like emergency rooms and food pantries aren't allowed to report illegal immigrants. Because getting them the food and medicine to carry on as living, healthy human beings is more important than the laws.

I would agree as to providing treatment and giving them food. But reporting them afterward is not preventing them from doing that.

Our own government knows this; which is why they are so hesitant to enforce inhumane acts, like deportation

Deportation is not inhumane, except in circumstances where the person would face imminent danger or death if returned.

[MMI]

All well and good, but if you had to choose between helping your sister and helping a stranger (which means that you cannot help both) which would you help?

I think it is probably a mistake to bring this discussion down to "what-ifs" at this level. We are not talking about individuals giving or withholding specific assistance to/from other particular individuals, we are talking about whether a society should give or withhold aid to/from members of a group of people identifiable only by the fact that they do not "belong".

Being human, in an "either/or" situation, I would choose my sister, of course, but if it were a choice between allocating some small part of my taxes to help desparate "outsiders" or to direct that money to some other civic purpose instead, I would vote to give aid every time.

As would I! I'm not saying I'm cruel, or intolerant, or even against helping. I'm only saying that there are priorities. If I had the means to feed the world, believe me, I'd jump at the chance. Not because I felt responsible, but because it would be the right thing to do!

I have to say you do sometimes give the impression of all those bad things, but, again, I think this is down to the fact that you are dealing with a "macro" problem on a "micro" level. But then you say you would willingly feed the world if you could, because it would be the right thing to do.

That, Thorne, is so true and shows a spark of humanity through the cold, emotionless facade you like to present to us all.

I don't consider myself better than anyone else. LOL! Far from it!
But I am more important than those others, to my family and to myself. The only ones more important to me than myself would be my wife and my children, probably in that order. But my own well being ranks just below them. The rest of the world ranks in decreasing order below that.

You family is lucky to have someone to support them. How many illegal aliens are so fortunate? Should they be deprived of the support society can easily afford because they are in a wretched situation already?

Yes, it does. Especially if the weak has abilities or talents which can benefit the group. Human males are generally physically stronger than females, so they protect them for the benefit of the tribe! The man who can make strong spears, even though he only has one good leg, benefits the tribe and must be protected.

I suggest that what you are describing is not evolution (survival of the fittest) but the development of a sophisticated social structure, and, perhaps, an economy.

I've never claimed differently. But there are priorities. Would I run into a burning building to save a 90 year old man? Probably not. To save a child? I sure as hell hope so! (Until the moment happens no one can know, but I don't think I could live with myself if I did nothing.)

What makes a child better than an old man? Would you actually pass a frail and feeble old man to save a healthy and agile child?

How are we supposed to extend this analogy to young (mostly) illegal immigrants and the (generally) older US citizenry?

This is the fundamental difference between us, I think. I don't feel the same way. Perhaps its a flaw in my makeup, but I don't think of it as such.

I don't think it's an inate flaw; I believe it to be a conscious choice.

I would agree as to providing treatment and giving them food. But reporting them afterward is not preventing them from doing that.

Can you not see that, if I as an illegal alien, know I am going to be deported once I have been fed and cured or delivered of my baby, I would rather starve, suffer (and infect), and risk my new baby's very life than reveal myself to the hospital?

Deportation is not inhumane, except in circumstances where the person would face imminent danger or death if returned.

Forget "inhumane" - we are talking about economic migrants, mostly. What about simple human sympathy?

[DuncanONeil]

Yet there has been no change in the "authorized" number of immigrants in decades!

I'de like to thank Thorne and Jennifer for their input on this thread ... its a great treat to witness such a sharp mind and such a deep heart have a discussion on an issue such as this.

My opinion ... we do need to enforce the laws ... and we desperately need to change the law so that immigration to the states is easy, quick and more in line with this:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

America has been billed as the "land of opportunity" outside its borders for many decades now ... it is shameful that opportunity is limited to a few hundred thousand, of those that yearn to breathe free, a year.

[Miamhail]

While the wages are lower in Mexico, so is the cost of living. The $4.50 a day goes a whole lot further.

Immigration to Guatemala and Belize may be tough. They have stricter immigration rules than the U.S. And they enforce theirs.

Mexico also has immigration rules. They round up the "illegal aliens" in their country and deport them. Most are in the country just to pass through on their way to the U.S., but some go to Mexico to live. Especially from even poorer nations south of them.

In Mexico, if you are not a citizen - you are not entitled to attend school, receive any government assistance, vote, or own property or a bank account.

[denuseri]

Just some fyi: A large portion of the illegal imigrants are not even from mexico to begin with, they are from guatamala, honduras, and nicaragua.

[Thorne]

Just some fyi: A large portion of the illegal imigrants are not even from mexico to begin with, they are from guatamala, honduras, and nicaragua.

According to Wikipedia, "According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2005, 57% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 24% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America; 9% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe; and 4% were from the rest of the world."

But they are 100% illegal, and all should be treated the same.

[MMI]

According to Wikipedia, "According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2005, 57% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 24% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America; 9% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe; and 4% were from the rest of the world."

But they are 100% illegal, and all should be treated the same.

Yes, they should all be treated with equal respect.

They are only "illegal" because you make them so, but there is no advantage to you in doing that. You might not accept the British experience is valid for America. but look at it this way: If a person works, he creates wealth - most for his master, but some for himself. That wealth is then used to buy other goods and services which in turn generates more wealth ... I'm sure you've all covered this basic economic theory at some time or other, so I'll leave it there and come to the point. If, as you suppose (I doubt you know), illegal immigration is costing America more than the additional wealth created by those migrants, it's no-one's fault but those who prevent them from working (legitimately) so they can pay taxes and make worthwhile contributions to the country they want to become part of. Let them work legally and they'll pay as much tax as you do. They'll take out their own medical insurance, and they'll buy their own food. They might even start businesses that will grow into American-controlled multi-national conglomerates. And America will grow richer as a result.

Sure, one or two might try to cheat the system, but are you going to tell me no WASP would ever stoop to that level? You just implement checks and controls to prevent it from happening too much.

The alternative will be to send them back - and although this is the solution you advocate, it is a lose-lose solution. The "illegal" suffers a life-time set-back, and the nation misses a cast iron opportunity for growth, and meanwhile has to pay the cost of policing the borders and the cost of repatriation. You might want to save a few cents in taxes, but such petty meanness will have an adverse and, for some, devastating effect on real lives - at home and abroad.

[DuncanONeil]

We did nothing to make them illegal! them took that upon themselves when they chose to sneak across the border. They clearly know what they are doing is wrong and yet they choose to do so!
Hence they voluntarily broke US law!

Yes, they should all be treated with equal respect.

They are only "illegal" because you make them so, but there is no advantage to you in doing that. You might not accept the British experience is valid for America. but look at it this way: If a person works, he creates wealth - most for his master, but some for himself. That wealth is then used to buy other goods and services which in turn generates more wealth ... I'm sure you've all covered this basic economic theory at some time or other, so I'll leave it there and come to the point. If, as you suppose (I doubt you know), illegal immigration is costing America more than the additional wealth created by those migrants, it's no-one's fault but those who prevent them from working (legitimately) so they can pay taxes and make worthwhile contributions to the country they want to become part of. Let them work legally and they'll pay as much tax as you do. They'll take out their own medical insurance, and they'll buy their own food. They might even start businesses that will grow into American-controlled multi-national conglomerates. And America will grow richer as a result.

Sure, one or two might try to cheat the system, but are you going to tell me no WASP would ever stoop to that level? You just implement checks and controls to prevent it from happening too much.

The alternative will be to send them back - and although this is the solution you advocate, it is a lose-lose solution. The "illegal" suffers a life-time set-back, and the nation misses a cast iron opportunity for growth, and meanwhile has to pay the cost of policing the borders and the cost of repatriation. You might want to save a few cents in taxes, but such petty meanness will have an adverse and, for some, devastating effect on real lives - at home and abroad.

[DuncanONeil]

Just some fyi: A large portion of the illegal imigrants are not even from mexico to begin with, they are from guatamala, honduras, and nicaragua.

Data indicates that only 57% are Mexican!

[Stealth694]

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

[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.

[leo9]

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

roflmao

[DuncanONeil]

roflmao

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

[MMI]

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]

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.

[denuseri]

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.

[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.