Debate on immigration

[grasshopper]

   Sorry, they shouldn't be here in these numbers.  I know about Regan telling the South Americans to stop the death squads and that these people are the children, the next generation.  We as a nation can not handle these people as good as they are.  Yes they love God, in fact most of them are devote Catholics.   I just dont like the fact that they do not try to assimilate.
   It is a fact that a lot of crime is caused by some of these people and that they drive drunk, rape and not to mention the diseases they bring into this country.  They also bring down wages for middle class workers.  I don't know about you people but I do not have a lot of money in the bank and things are getting more expensive, things like health care which most of them do NOT pay for but WE have to pay for.  Look what has happened to our educational system sence the doors to this nation have been ripped off the hinges and thrown into the trash.  We have to jail the bad ones, educate the illegal moms and dads and their children.....  We can't afford it all!  Look at Elaine and Ed Brown.  Why do you think that they decided to get out of the tax system that was encourageing this illegal activity?
   Now the crux of the biscut. If we legalise all 30 million of these people they will demand the same wages that we have.... so, we'll have to allow an other 30 million illegals into this country for more cheap labor!  it never ends.

[SpeedPhreak]

  I just dont like the fact that they do not try to assimilate.
   

I don't agree with a lot you said (although I used to) - but this one statement I do 100%.

I am for 100% open borders - world wide.  I am not just speaking of Mexico.

Just because you are born somewhere doesn't make you the property of that place & other places should have no say in where you go.  I feel we were born as free as any other animal & should be allowed to migrate as we see fit.

However I do see problems in the current situation -

1 - assimilation.  If a person is going to move to a different culture they should try to integrate into that culture.  I am not saying they have to give up their own culture & beliefs but they should definatly not impose them on their new neighbors.  One should learn the language at a bare minimum & continue w/at least knowing & respecting local customs.  I would love to move out of this country & when I do I will extend that same respect to my new home... even though it doesn't seem to happen very often when others move here.  This isn't a contradiction of absolute freedom but a token of respect of human life.

2 - we seem to allow a lot of people in but not many, if any, other countries make it as easy for us to move there (ive been trying)... unless you are well educated, a skilled laborer, have close ancestorial ties (IE grandchild of Irish citizens), &/or rich.  Immigration/emmigration needs to be a 2 way street.  It also needs to be truly open... again world wide.

Closed border policy seems to breed hate.  I used to be very negative towards Mexican immigrants.  Now I have changed my mind.  I have learned from them & taught them, I have shopped in their stores & sold my services to them.  I have figuratively & physically fought against them (mostly the ones who have not assimilated) & have befriended others as well (mostly ones who try to assimilate).  The same as I have with any person born in America.  People of other countries are people just like us & we have no right to force seperation from them the same as they don't have the right to force seperation on us.

Borders are imaginary lines created by people who think they have control of others - if one chooses to support those imaginary lines they are choosing to support the forced control of people who should be sovereign.

[Vitruvian]

Socialistic laws and government programs are the problem, not immigration (or immigrants).

[supperman15]

 
   [/quote]

1 - assimilation.  If a person is going to move to a different culture they should try to integrate into that culture.  I am not saying they have to give up their own culture & beliefs but they should definatly not impose them on their new neighbors.  One should learn the language at a bare minimum & continue w/at least knowing & respecting local customs.  I would love to move out of this country & when I do I will extend that same respect to my new home... even though it doesn't seem to happen very often when others move here.  This isn't a contradiction of absolute freedom but a token of respect of human life.

[/quote]

I think that assimilation is also a two way street.  I would be reluctant to assimilate in a culture that vehemently hates me and my kind, but if it was a better economic option, then it was a better economic option.  I wonder how much of the problem is caused by our refusal to assimilate them.   When the Romans concord a new culture the assimilated all of the new culture into Roman Mythology, they changed the myths to have Roman historical accuracy and merged the two cultures, they realized as concoring people that if they didn't let the new group belong and have a place in roman society that assimilation would be impossible. 

Having lived in three countries I too think that assimilation is important but it is more of a cultural evolution and economic survival and has to work both ways.  When i lived in japan this was amazing, my friends new and learned American customs and we shared customs back and forth both showing respect for the other.

[Russell Kanning]

Illegal Human Beings March Again!
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/05/07/illegal-human-beings-march-again/

They want your job, your property, and your country.


Last Tuesday, Americans again saw thousands (but at least this time, not millions) of criminals take to the streets, demanding recognition of their "right" to continue committing crimes........

[CNHT]

When we can freely move to Mexico and Canada in a similar fashion and demand 'rights' (benefit$) from the governments there, then I might accept the open borders theory.

However, you must understand and keep in mind that the open borders and 'no human being is illegal' thing is the push of the Communist Party USA because they want socialism. So unless you can separate the issue from increased socialism, it's not going to fly with most people.

Check it out here...

http://www.cpusa.org/article/archive/132/

[cyberdoo78]

When we can freely move to Mexico and Canada in a similar fashion and demand 'rights' (benefit$) from the governments there, then I might accept the open borders theory.

However, you must understand and keep in mind that the open borders and 'no human being is illegal' thing is the push of the Communist Party USA because they want socialism. So unless you can separate the issue from increased socialism, it's not going to fly with most people.

The solution to the problem to me is simple. Stop forcing yourself to identify with groups and identify with issues instead. I am not: American, Citizen of ANYTHING, slave, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Nazi, or the other 15 billion other groups. With only one exception, I -am- an individualist.

All groups break down to either Individualist or Collectivist. Nazis aren't that far away from Communists. Republicans aren't that far from Democrats, who aren't that far from Nazis or Communists. You are a person, not a label.

Socialism is a friend to Communism, who are both friends to Nazism, who like Leninism, who's brother is Marxism, who don't mind if Fabianism is in the party too, all of who like to pretend sometimes to be Democracy, who are kissing cousins to Republicanism. All of these groups share one common idea, that the group has rights that are more important then the individual in one or more ways.

Borders matter only to governments, not to people. You have the right to be where you want to be. If you choose you like the US better then Canada or Mexico, you ought to be able to live there, unless the government there doesn't like you for whatever reason. Then break the law, but be responsible in breaking the law.

I don't know anything, don't claim to. I have opinions, I claim those. Those change from day to day and mood to mood.

You have no right to a job, to have property, and to a country. You have a right to life and liberty and thats it.

If you don't like your current situation move if you can, and if can't, make the best out of a bad situation.

Violating the rules creates problems. The side effects are always equal in proportion and always opposite of the intended.

[CNHT]

The solution to the problem to me is simple. Stop forcing yourself to identify with groups and identify with issues instead. I am not: American, Citizen of ANYTHING, slave, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Nazi, or the other 15 billion other groups. With only one exception, I -am- an individualist.

All groups break down to either Individualist or Collectivist. Nazis aren't that far away from Communists. Republicans aren't that far from Democrats, who aren't that far from Nazis or Communists. You are a person, not a label.

Agreed. However, I am not going to do anything to help communism/solcialism 'progress' any further than it has already.

Borders matter only to governments, not to people. You have the right to be where you want to be. If you choose you like the US better then Canada or Mexico, you ought to be able to live there, unless the government there doesn't like you for whatever reason. Then break the law, but be responsible in breaking the law.

Not sure that makes sense...?

You have no right to a job,

True, we must earn it ourselves...

to have property, and to a country. You have a right to life and liberty and thats it.

No right to have property and a country? Um... I think many would disagree with that, not just myself not to mention that you just contradicted yourself again.

Violating the rules creates problems. The side effects are always equal in proportion and always opposite of the intended.

And so...?

[lordmetroid]

I do indeed have right to property. If not I wouldn't be able to eat a single item of food. Because property means full right of use and if I ate any single item of food that I didn't have a right to I would deprive someone else with it. So essentially eating that item of food proves that property rights extends beyond my own body.

[Caleb]

  I just dont like the fact that they do not try to assimilate.
   

I don't agree with a lot you said (although I used to) - but this one statement I do 100%.

What, exactly, does this mean? Assimilate? Our culture is certified, one hundred percent, loony bin crazy. Tons of us who were born and raised here are trying to opt out of this culture. And you want to force immigrants to assimilate to it?  ???

[KBCraig]

I don't agree with a lot you said (although I used to) - but this one statement I do 100%.

What, exactly, does this mean?

Don't expect a reply from SpeedPhreak. He's occupied elsewhere for the next few weeks.

Kevin

[Quantrill]

What, exactly, does this mean? Assimilate? Our culture is certified, one hundred percent, loony bin crazy. Tons of us who were born and raised here are trying to opt out of this culture. And you want to force immigrants to assimilate to it?  Huh?

Good point.


Although I still think the government should do its job of enforcing property rights, I don't care about assimilation...

[cyberdoo78]

You have a right to a country? So you will disagree with me and say that you have a right to be a citizen of Mexico even if you were born there? That was my point. A person of Mexico has a right to be a citizen of the United States? I contend that you do not have a right, per se, to be a citizen of any country.

While the commonly held belief that countries should have borders and that they should protect them, and that those who believe this to be untrue are labeled Communists and/or Socialists, I would like to offer something perhaps you might not thought of.

If a person is indeed an individual and has rights as an individual, as I believe they do, and that a group of individuals as a group have no rights other then their rights as individuals, and that the power wielded by a group can not be more then what one individual in the group has, that the idea that a group of people can lay claim to an area of space and say, this is ours, is incorrect. A individual may have the right to own property, but the group has no right to say, 'this is ours', only the individuals in that group can say, 'this is mine.' So to say that a Country has a right to defend an area of space, or to lay any claim to it is incorrect. Groups have no rights, only individuals have rights. Groups are not tangible and therefore nonexistent in reality. In fact to claim that the group exists or to give it rights is actually an idea that is part of collectivism to which Communism and Socialism belong to. To place a flag apon something does not make it yours. Only by maintaining and using that thing makes it yours. As soon as you stop maintaining it, it is no longer yours. This idea comes from Locke(I am still learning about him, so I may be incorrect). An individual has a right to property in so much as he continues to maintain it. Once he no longer maintains it, it is no longer his property. So to say that you have the right to have property, that is to say 'you have the right to an area', is not correct. To say you have the right to create property, is correct. To say you have the right to not have the property you have taken from you, is also correct. Again, the right to have property, has never been established, in my opinion.

Violating the rules creates problems. The side effects are always equal in proportion and always opposite of the intended.

And so...?

And so....nothing. Just making a observation.

Borders matter only to governments, not to people. You have the right to be where you want to be. If you choose you like the US better then Canada or Mexico, you ought to be able to live there, unless the government there doesn't like you for whatever reason. Then break the law, but be responsible in breaking the law.

Not sure that makes sense...?

Care to expand on your misunderstanding? Specifically what is it that you have problem making sense of?

Further, I don't contradict myself, except when I change my mind, which is possible in the middle of me making a point. Most likely its a simple misunderstanding in communication.

[error]

"By 2050, the majority of our population will be African American and Hispanic." So says Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings during a Wednesday speech.

I get the feeling that a lot of people are actually afraid of this happening.

[eques]

I know this has been said somewhere before, but it bears repeating clearly and concisely:

"Open borders" only make sense in a context where "public" welfare does not exist.

I don't care to speculate on how many people come to the United States in order to take advantage of the relatively generous welfare programs available, but I'd imagine the numbers are sizable, especially given that a lot of communities experience very real financial strain when "too many" immigrants move in.

I would have "open borders" with no "public" welfare, and I don't care if other countries engage in reciprocity or not.  In fact, I would rather have them continue their ill-advised "public" welfare programs if only to reduce the number of individuals who would come to America mistakenly seeking it.

Regarding "assimilation": assimilation is the sort of thing that occurs in the second generation.  First-generation immigrants will do the best they can to fit in, unless, of course, they don't have to, whether that be due to a very large and insular immigrant community or the unfortunate existence of "public" welfare.

But most people realize that restricting oneself to those who can speak your language and/or share your customs is like shooting yourself in the foot, so the former is much less of a restriction than the latter.

Requiring English for "public" welfare wouldn't help much, either, as, by definition, people will only learn what they need to get by.  Hey, language isn't an easy thing to learn once you get old!