BBC News Chimes in on US Immigration (Gee, Thanks...?)

[YT2095]

so lemme get up to speed here, You take over a country that was Never yours and subjugate the Native folk that WERE Born there, and then close the borders making entry ilegal...

 

and Who was it that said that 2 Wrongs don`t make a Right a little further up in the thread?

[Mokele]

Calli's right, and uses a good analogy. There is a limit how much the economy of the country can take, so we should take a safe amount, no more. Anything more ruins it for everyone.

 

And to be clear, I wasn't born on this boat. I came over when my folks emigrated *legally*. If we have to suffer through that nightmare of paperwork, so should everyone else.

 

Mokele

[Mokele]

You take over a country that was Never yours and subjugate the Native folk that WERE Born there

 

I don't see many Picts running around the UK anymore, do you?

 

and then close the borders making entry ilegal...

 

Seriously, you've been corrected for this strawman multiple times. There's a big difference between closing the borders and simply restricting the numbers we allow in.

 

Mokele

[Callipygous]

You take over a country that was Never yours and subjugate the Native folk that WERE Born there,

 

i did no such thing...

[gcol]

so lemme get up to speed here' date=' You take over a country that was Never yours and subjugate the Native folk that WERE Born there, and then close the borders making entry ilegal...

 

and Who was it that said that 2 Wrongs don`t make a Right a little further up in the thread?[/quote']

 

You ought to know you will never win a political argument by quoting historical truth. Next you will be reminding them of the demise of roman civilisation when their "guest workers" began to assert their citizenship and made a better fist of things than their decadent masters.

 

The door of immigration, once opened widely by invitation, then propped ajar, can never be closed. They should have thought of that a long time ago.

 

But then when a presidential term is only four years, where is the benefit in thinking any further?

[YT2095]

it`s not a "straw man" at all, it`s a perfectly valid point (and Where you get the "Multiple times" from beats me!????)

 

anyway back to Topic shall we...

 

the point is this, these people NEED (else they wouldn`t even Try risking the wrath of the law).

and so, I ask, is Turning them away or Ignoring them (that`s even worse in my eyes) Humane?

 

if it overloads the current system, then Update the System!

[ecoli]

so lemme get up to speed here, You take over a country that was Never yours and subjugate the Native folk that WERE Born there, and then close the borders making entry ilegal...

 

Yes, everyone knows that the white man were terrible to American Indians. They took their land, destroyed their culture...

 

 

Wait a second! Isn't this what is sort of happening to us now?

 

However, instead of the white man being the 'illegal aliens,' it is the mexicans that is invading our land. They are 'destroying' our culture and language, and taking our jobs and hurting our economy.

 

We should learn by example. When the Native Americans let illegal aliens into their territory, they, as a people, where all but destroyed.

 

I say we learn from their mistakes, and stem the flow of illegals before it's too late.

 

@ YT - you say that we should accept illegals with open arms, and that we are hypocrits if we don't do so.

 

However, this approach didn't work for the Native Americans, and it's not going to work for us. This is our country now, and we shouldn't make the same mistakes the original owners of this land made.

 

the point is this' date=' these people NEED (else they wouldn`t even Try risking the wrath of the law).

and so, I ask, is Turning them away or Ignoring them (that`s even worse in my eyes) Humane?[/quote']

 

but, the united STates doesn't exist to fufill the so-called needs of people from other countries. When the needs of people from other countries hurt the people in our country, we are obligated NOT to fufill them.

 

To do anything else would be betraying your own citizens... why are you not getting that?

[Callipygous]

it`s not a "straw man" at all, it`s a perfectly valid point (and Where you get the "Multiple times" from beats me!????)

 

its a strawman because, as he explained, no one has said to close the border, just to restrict the numbers and do it in a way where they actually contribute like everyone else.

 

the point is this, these people NEED (else they wouldn`t even Try risking the wrath of the law).

 

note that "the wrath of the law" is also known as deportation, or "square one". wheres the risk?

 

and so, I ask, is Turning them away or Ignoring them (that`s even worse in my eyes) Humane?

 

if they dont contribute toward society as a whole, then for the love of god YES.

 

if it overloads the current system, then Update the System!

 

no system will be able to support millions of freeloaders. i dont care how much you update the system, its going to rely on everyone, or at least most, contributing for the benefit of all. not just mooching off welfare and the school system.

[YT2095]

Oh dear!

that`s Really not a good arg at all, least of all for this statement:

instead of the white man being the 'illegal aliens' date='' it is the mexicans that is invading our land. They are 'destroying' our culture and language, and taking our jobs and hurting our economy.

[/quote']

 

your "Culture" and "Language", that`s beyond Laughable to almost Hystericaly funny

 

and I thought it was also already pre-established that they do the jobs no one else wanted to do?

[ecoli]

if they dont contribute toward society as a whole' date=' then for the love of god YES[/quote']

 

As demonstrated by my point about Native Americans. The presense of 'illegal' europeans did not contribute to their society (that's a big understatement actually). So, their actions were not humane.

 

YT - Would you say that the Native Americans were doing the right thing in accepting the europeans into their homeland? Because, that's what you're saying we should do with the current illegals.

[Pangloss]

I think that is more the issue (or should be). If they are illegal, they cannot register so they cannot pay tax.

 

Right, absolutely. Which is why we need to (a) secure the border, and (b) provide a path to citizenship for the people already here, instead of constantly haranguing them as "illegals" (i.e. the "criminilization" issue) and start finding ways to integrate them into society (something we're supposed to be pretty good at).

 

What I don't understand is why this position, this combination of elements, is interpreted by some elements as "anti-immigrant". Doesn't it make sense to control the influx?

 

Also, isn't the failure to adequately control the influx (i.e. "they're coming in faster than we can integrate them") at the heart of the UK's immigration issues? Why is the BBC admonishing us for not doing the very thing that's gotten them into trouble?

 

 

However, I think this is more of an argument for decriminalizing 'illegal' immigrants. If they were not just instantly deported they would pay tax and contribute to the society.

 

For those who would disagree with this, I ask what do you actually have against the immigrants?

 

I agree with this as well, and I think you've indicated a good line of demarkation between conservatives who are honestly trying to contribute to a solution (as I shamelessly classify myself), and conservatives who would really prefer a closed border and an end to immigration.

 

(I would point out, by the way, that President Bush is firmly in the former category. It's one of the areas in which he's *lost* base-right support.)

[Mokele]

the point is this, these people NEED (else they wouldn`t even Try risking the wrath of the law).

and so, I ask, is Turning them away or Ignoring them (that`s even worse in my eyes) Humane?

 

Do you donate to charity? How much? Sorry, that's not enough. You need to donate 95% of your salary and all of your savings to the underpriveldged in places such as Somali.

 

Sound unrealistic? That's because it is. If you did the above, you'd be unable to support yourself and even go to work to make more money; it's better to help a little bit over and over for a long time than to help once and never be able to again.

 

Reality dictates that it isn't always possible to do the most humane thing, and that instead we must choose the lesser of two evils.

 

if it overloads the current system, then Update the System!

 

The *systtem* here is the economy. If you think you can improve the economy to such a degree that it can support your proposition, please do so. But you won't be able to, given that nobody in the past several milenia has been able to figure out a better system.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

Wow, I have to say this thread is kinda opening my eyes a bit about how American politics and laws are perceived in the UK. Not just in terms of whether they're thought of as good or bad, but how accurately they're understood. I've always thought it a bit odd how much attention US domestic issues garner in overseas news, but what I hadn't realized is what a poor level of understanding that reporting generates. I don't mind so much that they're paying attention to what we're doing internally, but it would be nice if they understood it instead of misinterpreting it. I'm sure that's not a universal problem, of course, but I can't help but think that it might be a prevailing one.

 

I'll have to ponder that while I'm out on the range on horseback this afternoon, rounding up illegal Haitians for deportation and shooting up the teepees of the local indian tribe. Yeehah! ;-)

[ecoli]

Oh dear!

that`s Really not a good arg at all' date=' least of all for this statement:

 

 

your "Culture" and "Language", that`s beyond Laughable to almost Hystericaly funny [/quote']

 

sorry, that's not good enough, YT. Just because you think that our culture is laughable doesn't mean anybody else thinks so. In fact, You haven't even really adressed my points at all.

 

You haven't adressed the fact that your point about Native Americans is hypocritical in nature.

and I thought it was also already pre-established that they do the jobs no one else wanted to do?

 

No, this is not pre-established, nor is it proven or shown to be true in ANY way shape or form.

 

This is a false argument without any basis in fact.

 

You, of all people, should know not to make statements without backing them up... or at least making sure that such a statement is possible to prove, upon request.

[Severian]

how do you figure? there are plenty of legal immigrants' date=' more everyday. the system works just fine,

[/quote']

 

If the system worked 'just fine' we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

im all for putting motion sensing automatic machine guns along the border.

 

That is not only barbaric - it is moronic.

 

it comes from my logical conclusion that the only reason you would put a restriction on who can or cant enter your country would be because you have decided that certain people would have a negative impact on society. so removing those restictions would be deciding to no longer try to protect society.

 

Unfortunately this is not the reason that you restrict immigrants. Firstly, you restrict them because they are culturally different from yourself. Secondly you restrict them because you have a (false) perception that people with degrees from rich countries are going to be more useful to your society. It is incredibly easy to get into the US for another western country. But the people who come from Mexico are just as likely to be constructive members of society as a rich person from the UK. So why do I get spam mail from the US government offering me a green card every few weeks, while people from Mexico are being deported?

 

You (and the UK for that matter) are squandering an incredibly valuable resource. We would all be better off economically if we found some way to help the immigrants become useful members of our society. I find it a little surprising that the US, given its history, hasn't learnt this.

[ecoli]

If the system worked 'just fine' we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

He meant that the system works well, when enforced.

 

 

 

Unfortunately this is not the reason that you restrict immigrants. Firstly, you restrict them because they are culturally different from yourself. Secondly you restrict them because you have a (false) perception that people with degrees from rich countries are going to be more useful to your society. It is incredibly easy to get into the US for another western country. But the people who come from Mexico are just as likely to be constructive members of society as a rich person from the UK. So why do I get spam mail from the US government offering me a green card every few weeks, while people from Mexico are being deported?

 

Because their illegal and they don't have green cards. We have plently of people to do 'menial' jobs. People that are citizens or legal immigrants to this country

 

You (and the UK for that matter) are squandering an incredibly valuable resource. We would all be better off economically if we found some way to help the immigrants become useful members of our society. I find it a little surprising that the US, given its history, hasn't learnt this.

 

It's not that illegals aren't useful. We recognize their hard work, etc.

 

But, when their numbers become too great, that's when we have problems.

 

also, I've said this before, that the number of unemployed in this country is about the same as the number of illegals. I'd rather have the people in this country without jobs do the work then illegal immigrants.

[Mokele]

Secondly you restrict them because you have a (false) perception that people with degrees from rich countries are going to be more useful to your society.

 

But where else will we get people with an education? Surely not from US educational system. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

 

It is incredibly easy to get into the US for another western country.

 

Nothing about dealing with the INS is easy. But I'll be getting a chance to check this for people with less-useful degrees soon, when I attempt to get my theoloogy-major fiancee over to the US from the UK.

 

We would all be better off economically if we found some way to help the immigrants become useful members of our society. I find it a little surprising that the US, given its history, hasn't learnt this.

 

Agreed, but it's a matter of scale. It's hard to assimilate and train huge numbers of people, and can the economy handle even an influx of trained workers? That's happening in a virtual sense with the outsourcing of computer tech support to India, another sore issue here.

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

But where else will we get people with an education? Surely not from US educational system. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

 

It's still a valid point though. Although higher education in the US is pretty good, secondary education is amoung the lowest amoung developed nations.

 

Agreed, but it's a matter of scale. It's hard to assimilate and train huge numbers of people, and can the economy handle even an influx of trained workers?

 

exactly right. Add that with spending in terms of general public services and you can see why such a thing isn't feasible. We are talking about millions of people here.

[Severian]

I'd rather have the people in this country without jobs do the work then illegal immigrants.

 

Why is that? I am genuinely curious. I would rather find useful work for them all, and failing that have the best person for the job irrespective of where they are from.

 

Nothing about dealing with the INS is easy. But I'll be getting a chance to check this for people with less-useful degrees soon, when I attempt to get my theoloogy-major fiancee over to the US from the UK.

 

This brings up a more pressing issue: we should be putting new laws in place to prevent cute women leaving the country.

[ecoli]

Why is that? I am genuinely curious. I would rather find useful work for them all, and failing that have the best person for the job irrespective of where they are from.

 

true, but as long as we have able bodied citizens that need work, why tap other, uneeded, resources of labour? Assuming that the americans are able to perform the work efficently, of course.

 

This brings up a more pressing issue: we should be putting new laws in place to prevent cute women leaving the country.

 

hells yes!!

[Severian]

I think this brings up the central reason why I don't dislike immigrants. I don't value someone more because they are the same nationality as myself. in fact, I tend to have a higher opinion of the disadvantaged from underdeveloped countries because they have at least had the initiative to try and do something about it, while the disadvantaged from my own society have failed in a comparatively rich environment. (That is of course a generalization.)

[ecoli]

I think this brings up the central reason why I don't dislike immigrants. I don't value someone more because they are the same nationality as myself. in fact, I tend to have a higher opinion of the disadvantaged from underdeveloped countries because they have at least had the initiative to try and do something about it, while the disadvantaged from my own society have failed in a comparatively rich environment. (That is of course a generalization.)

 

please don't misunderstand me! I don't dislike immigrants. I, too, value people's from different nations and recognize the great amount of good they can do. I work VERY closly with immigrants in my research and I respect them a great deal.

 

And, felons aside, I even respect illegal aliens. I understand that they just want what's best for themselves and their families, and I respect that they are willing to take great risks in moving to and working in the country.

 

However, if they are going to be here illegally, they have to understand that this country has a priorty to it's own citizens first, and must act in their best interest, whatever that may be.

 

This is why I'm not strictly for a massive deportation of illegals back to their home country. Rather, I think we should be tightening the boarder, to stem the current flow.

[Dak]

Also, isn't the failure to adequately control the influx (i.e. "they're coming in faster than we can integrate them") at the heart of the UK's immigration issues?

 

As i understand it, the problem is that lots of immigrants come over on a temporary visa and then stay, meaning that a/ they dont pay tax, and b/ they get shat upon by enployers.

 

Other than that, i dont think that theres actually any majour problems caused by the number of immigrants that the UK has.

 

Why is the BBC admonishing us for not doing the very thing that's gotten them into trouble?

 

It's just one article, by one seemingly biased reporter. it's hardly representative of the BBCs normal stance on this issue.

 

and I thought it was also already pre-established that they do the jobs no one else wanted to do?

 

Don't know about the US, but in the uk they do jobs that no-one else wants to do, and get payed about £2 an hour, work rediculose hours a week, and dont complain because they know that theyre illegal immigrants.

 

That's one reason not to tolerate illegal (and thus unregulated, both for the countries good and their own) workers.

 

also, they dont pay tax.

[ecoli]

As i understand it' date=' the problem is that lots of immigrants come over on a temporary visa and then stay, meaning that a/ they dont pay tax, and b/ they get shat upon by enployers.

 

Other than that, i dont think that theres actually any majour problems caused by the number of immigrants that the UK has.[/quote']

 

There are some similarites. Illegals often get taken advantage of by employees, which is a shame.

 

But, illegals do pay taxes, mostly in the form of income tax, IIRC.

 

It's just one article, by one seemingly biased reporter. it's hardly representative of the BBCs normal stance on this issue.

 

which would be...?

[Dak]

How do illegals pay tax? In the UK you'd need a national insurance number, which illegal immigrants wouldnt have?

 

Not actually sure that the BBC has a stance on this, as such. The few articles ive seen about it (other than the one in question) seem to stick to facts, rather than a BBC oppinion.