Borders

Daylen · Mar 12, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
On a side note I do see hope in many immigrants I associate with from Eastern Europe, India, and Mexico...they want liberty , they want freedom, they know what it means not to have it both civilly and economically.

I have been told many times, especially by Eastern European immigrants how they don't like the direction our country is moving they moved here to escape socialism.

I used to know some Estonian guys, they were NOT fans of socialism. Its fun hearing about not having heat in the winter because of price fixing.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 12, 2012

Daylen said:
I used to know some Estonian guys, they were NOT fans of socialism. Its fun hearing about not having heat in the winter because of price fixing.

I know a lot of disappointed eastern block folks who are disillusioned with what they thought was a free country. And also found out Moldavian brandy is very good.

gunns · Mar 13, 2012

Tawnos said:
In other words: "I was raped and abused by the system, and I support similar abuse being heaped upon others, because rules are rules." Immigration law is a classic mashup of Hume's guillotine and the problem of hazing. What I mean by that is that people justfy that people ought to follow rules because they are in existence, and therefore right. Additionally, much like people who endure hazing in a fraternity or other organization are willing to inflict it upon the next group of incomers, the difficulties and pain of current immigration law seems to be justified in the abstract of "I'd better keep this up or my own experience wasn't worth it." However, you cannot objectively say that following the rules is the right thing to do simply because they exist. If you have a starving family or one suffering under a despotic regime, what is right is for you to break the arbitrary rules keeping you and your family from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Should the US government or that of any of the states stand to oppose you through imposition of rules that are impossible for you to follow (either because you will be killed (life), imprisoned by your government for wanting to leave/opposing it (liberty), or because they just don't want you to come here and seek better employment (pursuit of happiness)), then you have the right to break those rules, in my opinion.

When people start trying to deny immigration under the guise of "maintaining the national character", it's merely a call to preserve a status quo that benefits them at the expense of another. That's actually a reasonable response, but it's not a right one, a just one, one that fits in line with the values and national character the person so boldly espouses. Our nation was founded by immigrants escaping worse conditions to come here. Many of them were poor and destitute, hunted, or otherwise the unwanted masses, yet we took them in. Somehow "America the free" has been twisted into "America the keep out, undesirables". How does that jive with any of the principles upon which our country was founded, or that are protected and enshrined in our highest law of the land?

Ad hominem tu quoque: you cannot do x because it is inconsistent with your own character. Your perception of me as an unreasonable person does not alter the content of my statements nor are any of my statements made unreasonable simply due to your view of me. To analyze whether a statement is reasonable or unreasonable you should ignore who is saying it and evaluate the statement on its own merits. Else, your own biases and prejudices will drag down your ability to comprehend or respond in a mature and logical manner.

All of your arguments are based on emotions, not logic. So lets assume for your arguments sake we allow everyone south of the Border to come to America. Now what do we have? Nothing, there would be no difference in their living conditions and you would be living in poverty. It all has to do with resources, scaling infrastructure and a finite amount of money.

That is why immigration must be controlled legally. Problem lies in the fact that many of those illegals are criminals. Well that was a loaded statement, all those that cross our border illegally are criminals. But I was referring to the fact that many crossing over are committing crimes here on U.S. soil.

marshaul · Mar 13, 2012

PrayingForWar said:
Good point. Though N.Korea has it's border secured too keep people in just as much as people out. Ron Paul alluded too the possibility of people someday wanting to escape the US.

Just out of curiosity, are you aware that the immigration rate from Mexico to the US is currently negative?

marshaul · Mar 13, 2012

ManInBlack said:
A fully-secured border with a physical barrier deeply disturbs the liberty-lover in me. The last thing I want is to give the State the ability to pen me in like an animal.

On the other hand, I firmly believe that it is folly to assume that a constitutional republic can be maintained while absorbing a tremendous influx of poor people from Third World societies, many of which have not yet evolved to even the "Magna Carta" stage of understanding rights and freedoms. In many if not most of the nations that produce the majority of illegal aliens, politics is characterized by vicious intergroup struggles to obtain total power. Once control of government is achieved, it is used as a tool to deliver benefits to those in power and to screw over those who are not. Is it reasonable to assume that once they touch American soil, they will magically become good constitutional patriots and vote for limited government? I think not, especially considering their economic position once they enter, and the fact that they enter in such large numbers that they often are able to form exclusive ethnic communities that do not integrate and have very clear ideas about collective interests.

I really don't have the answer on this one.

EDIT: My comments can also be applied to legal immigration, although to a lesser degree. While there is at least some control, many overstay their visas (which I believe is actually the most common entry method of illegal aliens), and "family reunification" and humanitarian/refugee/asylum claims bring in folks who do not contribute to the needs of the country. Frankly, until unemployment is zero, I think the argument could be made that we don't need any further immigration at all. 330 million people is plenty, and I've never driven through beautiful open country and wished I had seen condos and strip malls.

I'd merely point out that our republic survived its first century and a quarter of rampant immigration from the equivalent of third-world countries.

I'd also point out that, from a purely practical standpoint, it's a fantasy to assume that government, especially our government, could ever be capable of doing something like securing thousands of miles of "border".

Frankly, I think the entire discussion is on the wrong terms.

The problems identified with illegal immigration are threefold: 1. Lack of assimilation, 2. Crime, and 3. Handouts.

3 is easy.

2 is a function of 1.

And as to 1, the best way to achieve assimilation is not through our current policies, to say the least. Consider the incentives faced by illegal vs legal immigrants.

"Amnesty" needn't require granting citizenship and handouts. It might merely entail allowing them to use the courts when they are robbed by indigenous gangs, for instance (there you go, I just prevented MS-13 from being formed. Oops, too late.).

ManInBlack · Mar 13, 2012

marshaul said:
"Amnesty" needn't require granting citizenship and handouts. It might merely entail allowing them to use the courts when they are robbed by indigenous gangs, for instance (there you go, I just prevented MS-13 from being formed. Oops, too late.).

I'm not entirely sure that it is healthy for any society, especially a free Republic, to have a large population of second-class residents, with some-but-not-all rights, living within its borders. Such people present the dual danger of being convenient targets for demagogues and potentially restive.

Tawnos · Mar 13, 2012

gunns said:
All of your arguments are based on emotions, not logic. So lets assume for your arguments sake we allow everyone south of the Border to come to America. Now what do we have? Nothing, there would be no difference in their living conditions and you would be living in poverty. It all has to do with resources, scaling infrastructure and a finite amount of money.

Based on emotions, not logic? How is it an emotional argument that our country's founding principles are those of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? We recognize people have certain enumerated and unenumerated rights, among them freedom of association and freedom of movement. Moreover, we have a constitution which states that the federal government may control naturalization. It is only since the great depression that the federal government, at the urgings of those such as yourself, has decided to overstep those bounds and control immigration as well.

Hypothesizing that by allowing another to engage in free movement and association I will end up living in poverty is an appeal to fear, an emotion bit of illogic that you are employing. It's a specious claim and one that you have not upheld. Consider for a moment the reasons people flee - political corruption and government instability can lead to a market where jobs are either unavailable or unsafe. Looking to move to a place where a person can work is merely exercising the capitalistic idea of free-trade, in this case of labor. The realities of the emigrant's pre-move plight cannot be reasonably inferred to affect or destroy that place to where they move.

In fact, speaking to resources, scaling, etc, one could make a case that labor willing to make minimum wage is a necessity to remain competitive in the global economy. We currently exist in a state of competitive advantage of mind versus manufacturing, exporting the design of products while we import the products themselves. However, such a state could and arguably should be transitory. Those industrializing countries such as China will better educate their populace as time goes on, and the ability of our country to maintain competitiveness may again revolve around being able to both design and manufacture here. When the education of the Chinese workforce results in an increase in their per-unit cost (reason: education leads to better social outcomes for the worker - i.e. more pay), we again may find ourselves in a position to hold competitive, if not absolute in some areas, advantage in manufacturing - provided we have the labor base.

That is why immigration must be controlled legally. Problem lies in the fact that many of those illegals are criminals. Well that was a loaded statement, all those that cross our border illegally are criminals. But I was referring to the fact that many crossing over are committing crimes here on U.S. soil.

It depends, many are not actually criminals, but committing a civil tort. And you're engaging in a bit of circular logic by equating the present state of the rules with the right thing to do. In other words, you're saying it's wrong because they're criminals by coming here because they're breaking a law barring them from doing so. Remove the law, and that argument loses its weight, because it is a circular bit of thinking. Right and wrong are independent of legal and illegal (this is what I referred to earlier as "Hume's guillotine" - the is-ought problem of illogically justifying what ought to be based on what is). To restate your point, imagine an anti-carry person said the following in a state that practically bans carry (e.g. CA where it has historically been nearly impossible for the average person to get a carry license, much like it's nearly impossible for the average person to immigrate here):

"That is why guns must be controlled legally. Problem lies in the fact that many of those carrying are criminals. Well that was a loaded statement, all those that carry firearms without a license are criminals. But I was referring to the fact that many carrying are committing crimes here on California soil."

What would be your response to that person?

PrayingForWar · Mar 13, 2012

marshaul said:
Just out of curiosity, are you aware that the immigration rate from Mexico to the US is currently negative?

No I was rather stunned to read this.

Where did you find these stats? Are they considering legal immigration only? If not I wonder why we have border patrol agents on the border, and who all the people they chase are.

()pen(arry · Mar 13, 2012

PrayingForWar said:
Are they considering legal immigration only? If not I wonder why we have border patrol agents on the border, and who all the people they chase are.

That the rate is negative doesn't mean people aren't still entering the US illegally. The reason the rate is negative, currently, is because immigrants are leaving states where recent laws are changing the risk/reward evaluation for illegal immigrants to seek employment. (Consequently, farmers in those states are facing severe labor shortage issues. Many farms are going under, and many are raising their prices drastically.) Many immigrants are choosing to return to Mexico.

However, this situation is temporary.

marshaul · Mar 13, 2012

I think it has a lot more to do with economic realities rather than any state laws.

I hate to point this out, but even in the USSR markets were subject to forces far greater than those within the power of local (including national) government to create.

As to its temporary nature, that may be. But to speak with such certainty ignores a simple fact: the Mexican economy is stronger than at any point in history, and ours weaker.

Do you think state laws have the power to change that, too? More pertinently, do you see the fedgov stopping appropriating and subsequently misspending vast portions of the GDP any time soon?

I wish I could say I did.

marshaul · Mar 13, 2012

PrayingForWar said:
No I was rather stunned to read this.

Where did you find these stats? Are they considering legal immigration only? If not I wonder why we have border patrol agents on the border, and who all the people they chase are.

http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/07/illegal-immigration-mexico-continues-decline/

It refers to all immigration, legal and illegal.

As to whom BP agents are chasing, as OC pointed out, they are chasing those who still immigrate illegally. Those are merely fewer in number than those who are heading the other direction.

South Park did a rather amusing episode about this last season, entitled "The Last of the Meheecans".

()pen(arry · Mar 13, 2012

marshaul said:
I think it has a lot more to do with economic realities rather than any state laws.

Certainly plausible, though the majority of Mexicans who emigrate to the United States do so from the Northern states of Mexico, where the economy remains deeply depressed. My understanding comes from the testimony of farm owners and operators and their understanding of why they can't find labor, and also from my wife, who teaches at a primarily immigrant (primarily of Mexican origin) middle school here in Texas. Ultimately, no one can be certain.

What actually matters is what principles we have, and whether and how we act upon them. My principles dictate that government cease any form of "charitable" assistance, that government cease any policy that distinguishes between people based upon provenance, and that I, personally, engage in charitable assistance. I'm pretty tired of people who try to mask their xenophobia (and, often, outright racism) behind the handout argument. If you actually have principles against handouts, be concerned about the handouts, not who's getting them. Fix causes, not symptoms. Let employers determine who is most desirable to hire and how much they are willing to pay to get those people. Who cares where the prospective workers are from?

Sincerely,
A guy who is Swedish, Dutch, English, and Irish, aka an immigrant

PrayingForWar · Mar 13, 2012

marshaul said:
http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/07/illegal-immigration-mexico-continues-decline/

It refers to all immigration, legal and illegal.

As to whom BP agents are chasing, as OC pointed out, they are chasing those who still immigrate illegally. Those are merely fewer in number than those who are heading the other direction.

South Park did a rather amusing episode about this last season, entitled "The Last of the Meheecans".

OK, I was under the impression you were saying more US citizens are moving to mexico, than the other way around. Illegals self deporting would be fine with me if it was because they were unable to sustain themselves. I do think we can not deport them all, or even that we should arbitrarily do so. It should even be easier for them to get working visas. The system is definately screwed up.

I saw that episode, I don't think I've seen a SP episode I didn't laugh at.

marshaul · Mar 13, 2012

()pen(arry said:
Certainly plausible, though the majority of Mexicans who emigrate to the United States do so from the Northern states of Mexico, where the economy remains deeply depressed. My understanding comes from the testimony of farm owners and operators and their understanding of why they can't find labor, and also from my wife, who teaches at a primarily immigrant (primarily of Mexican origin) middle school here in Texas. Ultimately, no one can be certain.

This is true. And, realistically, it is unreasonable to exclude state intervention as a part of the "economic reality". My concern is that many give the state far too much credence in its ability to do... well, much of anything efficaciously.

What actually matters is what principles we have, and whether and how we act upon them. My principles dictate that government cease any form of "charitable" assistance, that government cease any policy that distinguishes between people based upon provenance, and that I, personally, engage in charitable assistance. I'm pretty tired of people who try to mask their xenophobia (and, often, outright racism) behind the handout argument. If you actually have principles against handouts, be concerned about the handouts, not who's getting them. Fix causes, not symptoms. Let employers determine who is most desirable to hire and how much they are willing to pay to get those people. Who cares where the prospective workers are from?

Sincerely,
A guy who is Swedish, Dutch, English, and Irish, aka an immigrant

I agree with every word you wrote, my friend.

marshaul · Mar 13, 2012

PrayingForWar said:
I saw that episode, I don't think I've seen a SP episode I didn't laugh at.

The closest they've come was Butter's Own Episode. I did laugh, but I also left feeling deeply disturbed.

Incidentally, I love people who claim to hate SP due to its "liberal bias". So funny. :lol:

gunns · Mar 14, 2012

Tawnos said:
Based on emotions, not logic? How is it an emotional argument that our country's founding principles are those of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? We recognize people have certain enumerated and unenumerated rights, among them freedom of association and freedom of movement. Moreover, we have a constitution which states that the federal government may control naturalization. It is only since the great depression that the federal government, at the urgings of those such as yourself, has decided to overstep those bounds and control immigration as well.

Hypothesizing that by allowing another to engage in free movement and association I will end up living in poverty is an appeal to fear, an emotion bit of illogic that you are employing. It's a specious claim and one that you have not upheld. Consider for a moment the reasons people flee - political corruption and government instability can lead to a market where jobs are either unavailable or unsafe. Looking to move to a place where a person can work is merely exercising the capitalistic idea of free-trade, in this case of labor. The realities of the emigrant's pre-move plight cannot be reasonably inferred to affect or destroy that place to where they move.

In fact, speaking to resources, scaling, etc, one could make a case that labor willing to make minimum wage is a necessity to remain competitive in the global economy. We currently exist in a state of competitive advantage of mind versus manufacturing, exporting the design of products while we import the products themselves. However, such a state could and arguably should be transitory. Those industrializing countries such as China will better educate their populace as time goes on, and the ability of our country to maintain competitiveness may again revolve around being able to both design and manufacture here. When the education of the Chinese workforce results in an increase in their per-unit cost (reason: education leads to better social outcomes for the worker - i.e. more pay), we again may find ourselves in a position to hold competitive, if not absolute in some areas, advantage in manufacturing - provided we have the labor base.

It depends, many are not actually criminals, but committing a civil tort. And you're engaging in a bit of circular logic by equating the present state of the rules with the right thing to do. In other words, you're saying it's wrong because they're criminals by coming here because they're breaking a law barring them from doing so. Remove the law, and that argument loses its weight, because it is a circular bit of thinking. Right and wrong are independent of legal and illegal (this is what I referred to earlier as "Hume's guillotine" - the is-ought problem of illogically justifying what ought to be based on what is). To restate your point, imagine an anti-carry person said the following in a state that practically bans carry (e.g. CA where it has historically been nearly impossible for the average person to get a carry license, much like it's nearly impossible for the average person to immigrate here):

"That is why guns must be controlled legally. Problem lies in the fact that many of those carrying are criminals. Well that was a loaded statement, all those that carry firearms without a license are criminals. But I was referring to the fact that many carrying are committing crimes here on California soil."

What would be your response to that person?

Again you responded with emotion. All I said was if we allow 300,000,000 more individuals to all move into the U.S. we would be transferring the people, not prosperity. Its a matter of finite resources.

Changing my statements about illegally crossing our borders to guns is silly at best. Crossing our borders is illegal, what part of ILLEGAL don't you get? Legal immigration is a good thing and I believe it stimulates the economy and keeps things interesting. Buying guns in not illegal, just saying.

marshaul · Mar 14, 2012

gunns said:
Again you responded with emotion. All I said was if we allow 300,000,000 more individuals to all move into the U.S. we would be transferring the people, not prosperity. Its a matter of finite resources.

Markets don't work this way. Also, your "if" is impossible, and the result therefrom is irrelevant.

GhostOfJefferson · Mar 14, 2012

I'm a 100% proponent of a fully open border, HOWEVER, I couple that directly with giving 0.0% social-welfare benefits to anybody. EDIT: Nobody should get welfare, changed that, it shouldn't matter your status as immigrant/native.

If you want to come here and work, or even come here and loaf *on your own dime*, well then welcome and have fun. If you want to come here for "Free" This/That/The Other that the rest of us are forced to fund with our taxes, then get the hell out and don't let the door smack your ass on the way out.

I find this position fully in line with my general libertarian philosophies.

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 14, 2012

gunns said:
[snip] Legal immigration is a good thing and I believe it stimulates the economy and keeps things interesting. Buying guns in not illegal, just saying.

Apparently there are legal immigrants that are in prison as well:

¶The share of state prison inmates who are noncitizens is much lower. (This is largely because immigration violations themselves are federal crimes.) In 2000, 4.6 percent of inmates in state prisons were noncitizens. This number remained quite steady over the next five years, right around 4.6 percent.

¶Over all — combining federal and state prisons — 6.4 percent of the nation’s prisoners were noncitizens in 2005. This is down from 6.8 percent in 2000.
¶By comparison, 6.9 percent of the total United States population were noncitizens in 2003, according to the Census Bureau.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/business/30leonside.html

It's interesting how you accuse individuals of being emotive when you don't agree with what they have to state, or that their line of reasoning is not derived from logic.

I think what is missed here is many of both illegal, and legal immigrants are minorities, at least the ones who are imprisoned. That in-part speaks to what is an issue in America, with or without illegals, American prisons have much higher numbers of minorities incarcerated that their percentage of the population. Basically, there are socio-economic issues, and other issues that play a role in incarceration rates in America. I know, I know, emotive, right.

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 14, 2012

gunns said:
[snip] But I was referring to the fact that many crossing over are committing crimes here on U.S. soil.

You are right, "many" are committing crimes but "many" is relative. What entails many...1...1,000,000?

Apparently there is not much of an epidemic of criminal activity, outside of the criminal act of illegally crossing into the U.S. These numbers are a bit old but the numbers are likely about the same today as they were then:

"Adult illegal aliens represented 3.1 percent of the total adult population of the country in 2003. By comparison, the illegal alien prison population represented a bit more than 4.54 percent of the overall prison population.”

First off, the second half of the statement is not correct and their own study reveals that, but let’s assume that these figures are correct. According to that quote, illegal immigrants are incarcerated a rate that is 1.1 percent higher than their population, which means that the incarceration rate among illegal aliens are extremely low as Rivera suggested to O’Reilly. For example, compare that to Black Americans who represent about 20 percent of the California population and 31.4 percent of the prison population. Additionally Blacks represent about 12 percent of the US population but an alarming 49 percent of the total U.S. prison population (Blumstein, 1993; Tonroy, 1995; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996).

Further more, this low incarceration rate for illegal immigrants is based on an estimate of 7 million adult illegal immigrants in the US in 2000. If this figure is an underestimate, as many suggest, then the illegal immigrant incarceration rate would drop from the 4.54 percent percentage cited in the report.

The conclusion that illegal immigrants are incarcerated at a higher rate than their population, according to the FAIR study, compares the illegal immigrant adult population to not the illegal immigrant prison population but to the number of days that illegal aliens spent in prison compared the total number of days that all inmates spent in prison. This is flawed, because those total days that illegal aliens spent in prison include repeat offenders. I have never read a scientific study in a peer reviewed journal that would compare a population (7 million illegal aliens) to days spent (27 million) and conclude anything of merit from that comparison, but this is the article that Elder cited and this is why he is factually incorrect about what Rivera said on O’Reilly’s show. Even using these flawed statistics, the illegal immigrant population is incarcerated at a low rate compared to their share of the population, and if the FAIR researchers determined a way to extract the repeat offenders from that figure, that rate would be more accurate (could be higher or lower).<" http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TEQQK34APT5OULCUD

Borders

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member