Protestors march against more secure U.S. border

[pax]

Piffle.

That "legal/illegal" dichotomy is just a smokescreen for people who don't want any kind of immigrants, period.

Want proof? Here it is:

What would you say to simply abolishing most immigration laws, making it much easier for new immigrants to enter America?

(Listen for the screams ... here they come.)

pax

 

[Jammer Six]

I feel pretty safe about all this because I know you won’t report me to the authorities for my trespassing.

Come on up, meef.

I want you to ignore the flaws in your analogy, they're just pesky minor details.

Nope, I won't report you. Not for trespassing.

I really think you, alone, have hit on the best solution to our disagreements. I invite all of you who agree with meef to join him in his solution.

We get stronger every time an immigrant crosses the border.

 

[Pafrmu]

Deleted.

 

[meef]

Pax:

Piffle.

That "legal/illegal" dichotomy is just a smokescreen for people who don't want any kind of immigrants, period.

I don't know who you're referring to Pax. You're not speaking for me.

What would you say to simply abolishing most immigration laws, making it much easier for new immigrants to enter America?

Why?

 

[gc70]

by pax:
What would you say to simply abolishing most immigration laws, making it much easier for new immigrants to enter America?

(Listen for the screams ... here they come.)

Abolish all of the immigration laws... but strictly enforce employment and labor laws. Illegal immigrants would not be as significant an issue if they were not the vehicle for greedy employers to unilaterally exempt themselves from our country's labor laws.

BTW, I would love to see you explain to my Chinese (naturalized US citizen) sister-in-law that there is no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.

by JammerSix
We get stronger every time an immigrant crosses the border.

Would those be legal immigrants or illegal immigrants, or will you persist in your coy game of insinuation?

 

[pax]

meef ~

Because people have a basic human right to enter into private contracts without interference from any meddlesome government.

pax

 

[CAnnoneer]

That "legal/illegal" dichotomy is just a smokescreen for people who don't want any kind of immigrants, period.

Dead wrong. I know many legal immigrants that are far more in tune with the American values than many "natives". Having gone through the process and followed the laws, they feel slapped on the face for being bunched up in the same category as those whose first act in America was to break the law instead. The former are immigrants, the latter are invaders/trespassers/criminals.

What would you say to simply abolishing most immigration laws, making it much easier for new immigrants to enter America?

Please explain what the result of that would be. I predict a huge wave of maybe 20 million foreigners per year trying to squeeze through the gates before the inevitable reversal of the impracticable measure. Please explain how so many people can be safely absorbed and assimilated in our society, without unfair or unreasonable pressure on the citizenry.

Methinks many idealistic philosophers and mental experimentalists need a cold shower of reality. Especially the anarchistic arm of extreme libertarianism (anarchism never proved viable), the laissez-faire mongers (laissez-faire never existed and never will), and the kumbaya globalists (who generally end up macheted by the "huddled masses" they are trying to save from themselves).

 

[meef]

Because people have a basic human right to enter into private contracts without interference from any meddlesome government.

Well, I can't fault that concept.

However, do people have a basic human right to any and all welfare, education and health programs provided by that same government that shouldn't be meddling in private contracts?

My concern regarding unlimited immigration is with that aspect.

Of course, that opens a whole 'nother can of worms, I suppose.

Note: As I'm posting this, I see that CAnnoneer has said it far more elequently. Kudos.

 

[pax]

CAnnoneer ~

Thank you.

The problem, in your eyes, isn't the fact that these people are coming here illegally. You're all for letting a select few in, here and there. But only a few. After all, some of your best friends are immigrants!

But you don't want as many immigrants to move here as wish to come. You aren't against them coming here simply because they are illegal. "Illegal" is simply the convenient excuse.

Rather, you are against most immigrants. You don't want them here because if there weren't laws against them coming, a lot of them would come.

So it ain't about legal vs illegal. If the laws made it legal for every single person who wanted to immigrate to come to America, you would vote to change the laws so that most would be prevented from doing so.

So it isn't about the fact that they are breaking the law. It's all about quotas ... about how many people from some other culture you can tolerate living next door to you and your family.

pax

 

[CAnnoneer]

Because people have a basic human right to enter into private contracts without interference from any meddlesome government.

Then you should have no problem with A and B conspiring to do C harm. After all, they are just entering into a private contract?

 

[pax]

However, do people have a basic human right to any and all welfare, education and health programs provided by that same government that shouldn't be meddling in private contracts?

Nope.

No one has a basic human right to steal from other people.

Not Americans. And not Mexicans either.

The solution to thievery isn't draconian laws against thieves of a certain skin color and racial heritage.

The solution is to dismantle the welfare state.

pax

 

[AndyC]

I don't know of any country that allows everyone who wants to immigrate - and I've been through a few

 

[CAnnoneer]

So it isn't about the fact that they are breaking the law. It's all about quotas ... about how many people from some other culture you can tolerate living next door to you and your family.

Why can't it be about both? The two aspects are independent and equally valid.

Laws do not exist physically. They are mental programs, precepts if you will. Laws are strong only so long as most people are willing to follow them, while the few that don't are dealt with by LEOs.

If we as a society no longer believe in our system of government and devalue our laws to the point at which any bishop, mayor, or group of invaders can take a dump on them in public and smile complacently, we are in for a world of hurt.

A society without law may be some people's dream of ultimate unbridled unadulterated freedom, but in practice such freedom will turn into lawlessness, and then into the rule of the strong, in essence restarting the social evolution that has brought us where we are at the expense of rivers of blood of people better than you and I. Do we really want to nullify and efface their mark, and squander their legacy?

I think many of us should do some long hard thinking about cause and effect and long-term consequences of emotional decisions.

 

[pax]

Then you should have no problem with A and B conspiring to do C harm. After all, they are just entering into a private contract?

CAnnoneer, you know better than that. Try again.

Or are you honestly contending that the mere presence of a Mexican living next door to you is doing you harm?

The problem isn't the Mexicans.

The problem is that your own government is robbing you blind. But rather than getting rid of the government thieves who rob you, you instead turn against the needy who are more than willing to be given what you yourself voted to give them.

(What, didn't vote for a thief? Bet you did.)

pax

 

[Pafrmu]

deleted.

 

[gc70]

The solution is to dismantle the welfare state.

So do you think that all of those people pouring across the border are lazy, shiftless bums coming to our country soley to feed at the government trough? You know that illegal immigration is demand-driven by the insatiable appetite of sleazy employers.

 

[pax]

CAnnoneer ~

Please note that I haven't said I am against all laws.

What I said was, you can see that the legal/illegal dichotomy is a smokescreen for something else -- simply by asking those who insist that they aren't racist and that it's only about whether immigrants obey the law, a very simple question:

Would you be in favor of abolishing all the anti-immigration laws, thus making all immigrants legal ones?

The answers prove my point.

Done for the evening. Night all!

pax

 

[RocketMan]

Pax,

You, of all people, playing the race card in this discussion.
I had thought better of you.

 

[Destructo6]

Piffle.

That "legal/illegal" dichotomy is just a smokescreen for people who don't want any kind of immigrants, period.

Nonsense. I don't think anyone needs to play the race card to be irritated when folks think that proximity somehow yields some sort of special priviledge.

And special priviledge is right. Try getting a Border Crosser Card (DSP-150/I-586) from anywhere but Mexico: can't be done.

I catch these characters everyday and I feel for many of them. Often, they get robbed or ripped-off by their coyotes, walk for days with little food and inadequate water, and much more. Many would be perfectly good US citizens. Some, however, are the scum of the earth: mules, murderers, molesters, sodomists, etc.

The admissions process does a pretty good job of weeding out the undesireable and every country has a right to determine which aliens are admitted.

 

[Jim Diver]

Simple solution for the illegal problem. If an employer gets caught with an illegal on the payroll, the employer gets 3-5 years in the joint and if someone reported him for hiring illegal aliens, they get 50% of the fine that is leavied against the business that hired the illegal.

Soon after, no one will hire illegals out of fear of bubba and bars... no jobs = no reason for the illegals to stay = no more illegals comming north... only crossing headed south.

Then ICE can get to work shutting down the illegal drug trade headed into the US from the south.

 

[CAnnoneer]

CAnnoneer, you know better than that. Try again.

Just extrapolating completely based on your own words. But, what I am really driving at is that gov and laws are necessary, because the lack thereof will produce more problems in a real human society than it would solve. While I agree that fedgov has become way too strong and way too corrupt, devaluing our laws and kicking them around in the dirt is not the answer.

Or are you honestly contending that the mere presence of a Mexican living next door to you is doing you harm?

Mexican per se, no. Illegal alien, yes. In the current system, they cost me tax dollars, lost opportunities, increased car insurance, increased medical insurance, housing costs, and a load of other indirects.

The problem is that your own government is robbing you blind.

That is a related but separate problem.

But rather than getting rid of the government thieves who rob you, you instead turn against the needy who are more than willing to be given what you yourself voted to give them.

Yes, the gov is robbing me at gunpoint. But, I'd rather have the money go into infrastructure, fundamental research, national security, etc., which indirectly would benefit me and my country, than subsidize big globalist business and encourage and breed invaders towards whom I have no obligations.

Oh, and nobody in this thread has given a good answer to the question I repeatedly pose: How do you propose we absorb a wave of 20 million annually in the dystopia of open borders?

 

[spartacus2002]

We can get into all sorts of high-and-mighty arguments over who hates immigrants v. who loves immigrants, but I prefer to operate in the reality-based universe.

We have an unsustainable number of illegal immigrants in this nation. America is not some global commons where anybody can enter at any time for any reason in any numbers for any length of time. America is a nation that has a right and a duty to secure its borders for the good of the American citizens.

This will make some howl, but I'll say it: America exists for the good of Americans, not for the good of all those who wish to enter.

Note, please, that I said "those who wish to enter," not "those who wish to be Americans." It's safe to say that those 500K marchers weren't expressing their pride and joy about being Americans; they were expressing their political power over being Mexicans in America. Didn't you see the Mexican flags and hear the chants of Mex-i-co? They want their piece of the American pie without becoming Americans.

And that is what this debate is truly over: the lack of assimilation. You let 20 million Mexicans into America and let them remain Mexican nationals in a foreign country, well guess what -- you don't have 20 million new Americans, you have a Mexican nation within America. And this Mexican nation within America IS causing problems with crime and with sucking our social services dry.

Mark my words: this past weekend was our immigration 9/11, and the Aztlan Intifada is coming. Once amnesty passes the Congress, the word "emboldened" will come nowhere near close to describing how La Raza, MeCHA, LULAC, etc. will feel. Grab a map and a dictionary, look up the word "irredentist" and take a gander at Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.

Those of you who cry over the thought of poor hard-working Jose having to go back home and legally emigrate the hard way are stabbing the rest of us in the back.

 

[Jim Diver]

How do you propose we absorb a wave of 20 million annually in the dystopia of open borders?

It would not be 20 mill for long... A full 25% of Mexico's citizens live in the US already.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Those of you who cry over the thought of poor hard-working Jose having to go back home and legally emigrate the hard way are stabbing the rest of us in the back.

They are stabbing us and themselves in the back. The irony.

 

[AStone]

We have an unsustainable number of illegal immigrants in this nation.

Ah, finally, we approach a kernel of truth in this thread that gets to the root of the problem.

Only thing I'd change there is the scale: We have an unsustainable number of people on this planet, many of whom become "illegal" immigrants.

(And remind me, please: were the first Europeans on North Amercian continent legal or illegal? According to whose laws?)

Why do you think they cross our border?
Better car? No. McDonalds? No.
Diamonds? Hell, no. House in the burbs? No.

They simply want to eat, have shelter, provide for self and family.
This is not rocket science.

You've got it, they don't.

Bottom line: At this point in human history, there are too many humans on Earth, and not enough food, water & shelter to go around.

My money is on the following bet: in the next few decades, as human numbers continue to increase, and certain <ahem> natural conditions change, that problem is going to get a whole lot worse.

Nem