Illegal Immigration

[ydoaPs]

One of the arguments in favour of the recent Arizona immigration law was that the illegals ARE here illegally; they are breaking the law. I want to know, is it a justified law? In Massachusetts, it is illegal to be an atheist; that doesn't make it a good law. Should we deport all the atheists and non-Christians in Massachusetts to another state? Of course not.

 

Why should we not just grant citizenship to whomever wants it? It's not like immigration costs jobs. It might even help the economy with the increased tax money and increased spending.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm all for replacing the immigration quotas with a sort of quality control.

[jackson33]

Why should we not just grant citizenship to whomever wants it? It's not like immigration costs jobs. It might even help the economy with the increased tax money and increased spending. [/Quote]

 

QUALITY and overwhelming quantity; Every time I try to pin down, actual applications for Green Cards, Visa's or other means for legal entry, I come up with different figures. However the US 'Immigration System' works according to an estimate of any particular Nationality that's already here, not necessarily the numbers applying for entry. For instance is said folks from most European Countries, the natural waiting period (opposed to special permits) is between 15 to 25 years, while in Mexico or most South American Countries, these figures can go over 100 years.

If the US operated under the open Boarders principle, there simply would be no way to handle, control who is in the Country and more importantly why, with a probable 10-15 million green cards for several years being issued, if anyone even bothered.

 

As for increased tax money or even spending, it just doesn't work out this way. Most Citizens here today, don't pay much if any Federal Income Tax and traditionally, it's the second or third generations of legal immigrants that become what you might call productive.

 

One of the arguments in favour of the recent Arizona immigration law was that the illegals ARE here illegally; they are breaking the law. I want to know, is it a justified law? In Massachusetts, it is illegal to be an atheist; that doesn't make it a good law. Should we deport all the atheists and non-Christians in Massachusetts to another state? Of course not.[/Quote]

 

Arizona or for that matter US Federal Policy/Law, for bids entry into this Country, unless that entry has been authorized or to have overstayed that authorization. That's the illegal part and under certain procedure, yes they can be deported back to their homeland. If in turn they break additional law (almost all do) they can be either held accountable for those crimes (pay a fine/go to jail, etc), be properly deported (the penalty for illegal entry) or a combination of the two.

[Pangloss]

I want to know, is [standard federal immigration law] a justified law?

 

Assuming I read your post right (your question seems to be asking about overall immigration policy, not the Arizona law in particular, but if I'm wrong please correct me), if it's not justified then it will have to be changed for every other country as well, because every other country controls its borders and regulates who can enter and why.

 

And, by the way, the United States allows more legal immigrants each year than every other country in the world -- combined.

 

Those two factors would seem (to me, at least) to point to a simple answer to your question of "yes".

[ydoaPs]

Assuming I read your post right (your question seems to be asking about overall immigration policy, not the Arizona law in particular, but if I'm wrong please correct me),

Yep, the Arizona thing was just where I most recently heard the argument.

 

if it's not justified then it will have to be changed for every other country as well, because every other country controls its borders and regulates who can enter and why

Could you explain this a bit? I don't see how that follows.

 

And, by the way, the United States allows more legal immigrants each year than every other country in the world -- combined.

So?

[Pangloss]

Sure, you seemed to be asking whether it's fair for the United States to regulate immigration (at all). To answer the question, I pointed out that every other country does it (not direct evidence, but it certainly suggests that others have found it to be a reasonable thing to do), and that we allow more of them than anybody else (suggesting that we're more fair than anyone else, if by fair you mean allowing more people in).

[Severian]

Should we deport all the atheists and non-Christians in Massachusetts to another state?

 

As long as you don't deport them to my neck of the woods.

[ParanoiA]

I thought this was an interesting contrast. France is deporting illegals - poor, destitute illegals, after just 3 months to find work, studies or some obscure notion of "becoming established", whatever that means.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/08/19/france.roma/?hpt=Sbin

 

 

Sure, you seemed to be asking whether it's fair for the United States to regulate immigration (at all). To answer the question, I pointed out that every other country does it (not direct evidence, but it certainly suggests that others have found it to be a reasonable thing to do), and that we allow more of them than anybody else (suggesting that we're more fair than anyone else, if by fair you mean allowing more people in).

 

Exactly. It's not that we should look to other countries for guidance on what our policies should be here, in America. (After all, I prefer capitalism over anything else, yet international guidance would have us fairly socialized.) It's that we shouldn't be judged for those policies outside of a global context.

 

Personally, I'm proud of our openness to immigration. I'm even a bit proud we have a petulant impulse against immigration restriction. But we mustn't be stupid and naive just to prove how racist and xenophobic we're not. The complete open borders argument lacks sense and feels like overcompensation to atone for ancestral shame.

 

I'm not into living down my father's sins. They get buried with him. I'll answer for my own.

Edited August 19, 2010 by ParanoiA

[CharonY]

I think few dispute the fact that a nation has the right to regulate the borders. There is of course a question of what are the cost-benefit estimates of immigration and illegal immigration. The main problem I have with that discussion is that they are often grossly distorted and not based on facts or at least informed estimates. Based on these one could/should determine what influx of immigration is desirable, what is sustainable and where one would like to put the rates. But again, I would like to have this based on data, not ideologies.

[john5746]

One of the arguments in favour of the recent Arizona immigration law was that the illegals ARE here illegally; they are breaking the law. I want to know, is it a justified law? In Massachusetts, it is illegal to be an atheist; that doesn't make it a good law. Should we deport all the atheists and non-Christians in Massachusetts to another state? Of course not.

 

Do atheists utilize resources that they don't pay for? Are they literate, i.e can they function in society? Are they committed to the other citizens, should we be attacked or would they prefer defending another country? Will they swear on the bible to all this?(oops)

 

Why should we not just grant citizenship to whomever wants it? It's not like immigration costs jobs. It might even help the economy with the increased tax money and increased spending.

 

Sure, there are no costs to allowing uncontrolled immigration, in fact, it creates profit. Any increase in healthcare, education, environment and infrastructure costs, will be offset by the taxes these people pay. In fact, we will be able to provide even more services, like those awesome European countries, while not maintaining low taxes on the poor. Anyone see any problems with this? And that's just the economics.

Edited August 19, 2010 by john5746

[Pangloss]

I thought this was an interesting contrast. France is deporting illegals - poor, destitute illegals, after just 3 months to find work, studies or some obscure notion of "becoming established", whatever that means.

 

I thought this quote from that article was interesting:

 

He said the Roma will only return to France in the coming days because that's where they have set up their lives.

 

"Their children are at school here. They want to work here. It's been five, seven, 10 years that they have been living here. And though there have been obstacles, they are going to stay. And it's not fancy policies that are going to solve the problem," he said.

[ParanoiA]

Are they committed to the other citizens, should we be attacked or would they prefer defending another country?

 

Now there's a question I haven't considered at all. I could see that premise being just as saucy as this question of restricted immigration. Glad you brought it up. And I'm not sure what I think about it yet...cool.

 

Sure, there are no costs to allowing uncontrolled immigration, in fact, it creates profit. Any increase in healthcare, education, environment and infrastructure costs, will be offset by the taxes these people pay. In fact, we will be able to provide even more services, like those awesome European countries, while not maintaining low taxes on the poor. Anyone see any problems with this? And that's just the economics.

 

Ah, I see a problem here. We can still maintain low taxes on the poor because the rich are a minority and we'll just continue to vote the tax burden onto them.