Illegal immigration is America's fault

[nbs2]

Because the US allows people to cross the border without documents, America has broken it's law and thus shouldn't be allowed to deport illegals.

So says an illegal immigrant. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d69_1187877604&p=1)

[PlaceofDis]

interesting point of view.
and indeed one that should be considered, no?

i haven't quite decided where i stand on the whole immigration issue, but i do agree that reforms and changes are necessary.

[Desertrat]

:D:D:D

It's a thought process called "rationalization". Any parent is quite familiar with it. Kids work the heck out of it, to get what they want when they know full well they shouldn't.

'Rat

[dswoodley]

:D:D:D

It's a thought process called "rationalization". Any parent is quite familiar with it. Kids work the heck out of it, to get what they want when they know full well they shouldn't.

'Rat

Indeed, seems like pretty childish reason to me.

[calculus]

Is the whole concept of illegal immigration not highly ironic in the context of America?

[jczubach]

Is the whole concept of illegal immigration not highly ironic in the context of America?

Yeah like didn't your forefathers start it a couple of centuries ago? Smarten up already.

[IJ Reilly]

Is the whole concept of illegal immigration not highly ironic in the context of America?

It is, especially considering how difficult we've made it to legally immigrate to the US. All the time I hear people say, "Why don't these people come legally?" The answer is, because it's become virtually impossible.

[dswoodley]

It is, especially considering how difficult we've made it to legally immigrate to the US. All the time I hear people say, "Why don't these people come legally?" The answer is, because it's become virtually impossible.

I'll admit the process isn't easy, but "virutally impossible?" Come on. I know at least dozen people who have become citizens over the last 5 years. Hard, yes, but doable.

[it5five]

Is the whole concept of illegal immigration not highly ironic in the context of America?

It is, and the most vocal anti-immigrant people either have no clue or are ignoring history to suit themselves.

In my opinion, the only people who have absolutely any right to complain about immigration are Native Americans.

[IJ Reilly]

I'll admit the process isn't easy, but "virutally impossible?" Come on. I know at least dozen people who have become citizens over the last 5 years. Hard, yes, but doable.

I'll stick with virtually impossible, especially for people without education, skills, and money. It can take years and require hiring lawyers even for aliens married to US citizens to be granted resident status by the Immigration Service.

As for becoming a citizen, that's an entirely different story. But you have to be a legal resident alien first. That's the virtually impossible part.

[longofest]

I'll admit the process isn't easy, but "virutally impossible?" Come on. I know at least dozen people who have become citizens over the last 5 years. Hard, yes, but doable.

It is, and the most vocal anti-immigrant people either have no clue or are ignoring history to suit themselves.

In my opinion, the only people who have absolutely any right to complain about immigration are Native Americans.

I used to work with a guy who was an immigrant. He was the most vocal person I know against illegal immigration. His view was that he went through the process and paid his dues... so should everyone else. He is very against any kind of "amnesty" program (sorry for using a loaded word).

On the same hand, I do believe he is for expanding current immigration policies to allow more immigrants into the US.

[leekohler]

I'll admit the process isn't easy, but "virutally impossible?" Come on. I know at least dozen people who have become citizens over the last 5 years. Hard, yes, but doable.

I do too- some were Iraqi citizens. If they can do it, so can everyone else. Mexico needs to fix it's problems, we shouldn't be their dumping ground.

[nbs2]

It is, and the most vocal anti-immigrant people either have no clue or are ignoring history to suit themselves.

In my opinion, the only people who have absolutely any right to complain about immigration are Native Americans.

I do think you have different contexts. People coming into your land and usurping your land - yeah, only the indigenous peoples have pretty much exclusive jurisdiction. But, until recently, people coming over had to rely on themselves and people who cared - not the government. Immigrate if you want, but the government shouldn't be expected to take on support responsibility for more than it has allocated resources. If I budget for 4 people to come to my house for dinner, expecting me to feed 6 is going to be tough.

And far be this country from being impossible without the handouts. The number of times that I've heard my dad tell his story of coming to the states with $8 in his pocket, $2 of which he lost in Germany because they wouldn't let him bring food on the plane, probably exceeds the grains of sand in the sea.

[LethalWolfe]

Is the whole concept of illegal immigration not highly ironic in the context of America?

Depending on how you want to split hairs the whole concept of illegal immigration could be seen as highly ironic in the context of any country not located in the "cradle of civilization". Of course the text book definition of immigration is basically moving from "country A" to "country B", but if you move from "country A" into a sparsely populated land that is not a country is that immigration or human migration?

Getting back on point, I don't think the defense of "you didn't do enough to prevent me from breaking known laws" is a very solid one. I mean, if Mick Vick stood up and said, "I think I should be cleared of all charges because state and federal law enforcement did not do enough to prevent me from fighting and killing dogs" would anyone not wonder if was suffering from NFL related head trauma?


Lethal

[it5five]

Depending on how you want to split hairs the whole concept of illegal immigration could be seen as highly ironic in the context of any country not located in the "cradle of civilization". Of course the text book definition of immigration is basically moving from "country A" to "country B", but if you move from "country A" into a sparsely populated land that is not a country is that immigration or human migration?



I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong) he was referring to the fact that many of our European ancestors illegally immigrated to this country.

[TheAnswer]

Mexico needs to fix it's problems, we shouldn't be their dumping ground.

Ironically enough, México once tried to deal with an illegal immigration problem, in the state of Tejas. This was met with financial and military backing of the illegal population by the U.S. Government, incursions by the U.S. army onto Mexican soil and eventually the occupation of the northern 3/8ths of México.

[jczubach]

I do too- some were Iraqi citizens. If they can do it, so can everyone else. Mexico needs to fix it's problems, we shouldn't be their dumping ground.
Yeah, except for their cheap sweatshop produced products!:mad:

[dswoodley]

Ironically enough, México once tried to deal with an illegal immigration problem, in the state of Tejas. This was met with financial and military backing of the illegal population by the U.S. Government, incursions by the U.S. army onto Mexican soil and eventually the occupation of the northern 3/8ths of México.

payback?

[LethalWolfe]

I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong) he was referring to the fact that many of our European ancestors illegally immigrated to this country.
I assumed he was talking about Columbus and the lot that follwed coming over, killing Native Americans and putting up houses. Which is why I raised the hair-spliting (and mostly rhetorical) question of human migration vs immigration. If calculus was talking about after Europeans slapped the name "America" on a map then my post is irrelevant. ;)


Lethal

[IJ Reilly]

I do too- some were Iraqi citizens. If they can do it, so can everyone else. Mexico needs to fix it's problems, we shouldn't be their dumping ground.

Please don't confuse ordinary immigration with political asylum. It may be difficult to accept, but the US has become openly hostile to immigration. The spirit of your remark is sadly reminiscent of the 1920s, when the current attitude towards immigration began (when we were being called "Europe's dumping ground"). Few people seem to appreciate how difficult immigration become since that time -- by design.

[leekohler]

Please don't confuse ordinary immigration with political asylum. It may be difficult to accept, but the US has become openly hostile to immigration. The spirit of your remark is sadly reminiscent of the 1920s, when the current attitude towards immigration began (when we were being called "Europe's dumping ground"). Few people seem to appreciate how difficult immigration become since that time -- by design.

IJ- It wasn't political asylum for the Iraqis I know. They came here in the late 90's. Please don't put words in my mouth. I do know what I'm talking about from time to time. And I'm sorry but, there is indeed a lot of racism that exists in Mexico against people of American Indian descent. I've gotten that info from Mexicans themselves. I don't see why we should be solving their problems by taking anyone Mexico discriminates against.

[TheAnswer]

payback?

If the Mexican government had the resources to back their immigrant population here that were equal to the support that the U.S. government gave to the illegal population in Tejas, I'd probably be posting this from California, E.U.M.

A further ironic twist is that because of racism in Mexican society, many of the illegal immigrants are those with a majority of Native American heritage, i.e. from native populations by-in-large unsullied by the Conquistadores and their descendants.

So, you could consider it payback by México for territories lost in the Intervención Norteamericana en México, or consider it the repopulation of Native American territories taken from them by the Caucasian invasions.

[dswoodley]

So, you could consider it payback by México for territories lost in the Intervención Norteamericana en México, or consider it the repopulation of Native American territories taken from them by the Caucasian invasions.

Yes, this is what I was getting to.

[leekohler]

If the Mexican government had the resources to back their immigrant population here that were equal to the support that the U.S. government gave to the illegal population in Tejas, I'd probably be posting this from California, E.U.M.

A further ironic twist is that because of racism in Mexican society, many of the illegal immigrants are those with a majority of Native American heritage, i.e. from native populations by-in-large unsullied by the Conquistadores and their descendants.

So, you could consider it payback by México for territories lost in the Intervención Norteamericana en México, or consider it the repopulation of Native American territories taken from them by the Caucasian invasions.

Haha- didn't think of it that way. Interesting POV.

[IJ Reilly]

IJ- It wasn't political asylum for the Iraqis I know. They came here in the late 90's. Please don't put words in my mouth. I do know what I'm talking about from time to time. And I'm sorry but, there is indeed a lot of racism that exists in Mexico against people of American Indian descent. I've gotten that info from Mexicans themselves. I don't see why we should be solving their problems by taking anyone Mexico discriminates against.

It's your own words to which I am responding. The "dumping ground" argument is precisely the same one which has been used for nearly 100 years to rationalize immigration restrictions. Why do you think people came to the US 100 years ago, because they were well treated in their home countries?

[leekohler]

It's your own words to which I am responding. The "dumping ground" argument is precisely the same one which has been used for nearly 100 years to rationalize immigration restrictions. Why do you think people came to the US 100 years ago, because they were well treated in their home countries?

I understand that. But I still don't see how that legitimizes illegal immigration. Should we simply open the borders and let anyone in? It should be obvious that's a disaster in the making.

[Ugg]

I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong) he was referring to the fact that many of our European ancestors illegally immigrated to this country.

Up until 1906, there was no such thing as illegal immigration into the US. There was simply immigration. The only thing preventing a person from coming to the US up to that point was their health.

[IJ Reilly]

I understand that. But I still don't see how that legitimizes illegal immigration. Should we simply open the borders and let anyone in? It should be obvious that's a disaster in the making.

The first thing we need to do is drop the loaded terminology from this debate. For decades now, it's been enough to drop the words "illegal immigrant" and stop the discussion right there, as though everyone who enters the country undocumented, if only because no other practical method exists, is a de facto felon. End of story? I sure don't think so.

One of the penalties for being an historian I guess is knowing that in fact our borders were effectively open to anyone until the 1920s. Somehow, that did not result in a disaster for the nation -- although as the cartoon I posted depicts, this result was forecasted by many at the time. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[TheAnswer]

Up until 1906, there was no such thing as illegal immigration into the US. There was simply immigration. The only thing preventing a person from coming to the US up to that point was their health.

Not quite true...the Chinese Exclusion Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act_%28United_States%29) (1882), placed a ban on Chinese immigration.

[Ugg]

Why do you think people came to the US 100 years ago, because they were well treated in their home countries?

Not all immigrants suffered in their home countries, the vast majority emigrated for economic reasons and more than a few simply out of a spirit of adventure.

Any discussion of historical immigration to the US needs to be placed in context. With the end of the US Civil War, the westward expansion of the railroads and the Homestead Act of 1864, immigration was seen as a necessity to the growth of the US. Many immigrants in the late 1800s got subsidized transatlantic fares by the railroads as long as they would settle out west. At the beginning of the 1900s roughly half of all Americans were born overseas.

As with all rapid expansion, it had its drawbacks and the immigrant backlash that occurred during the 1920s was a result of over enthusiastic recruitment of immigrants during the late 1800s.

Immigration has been and will always be the greatest strength of the US. But, and I don't think I'm being unreasonable, it also needs to be a gradual process. Having too many immigrants come in a short period of time will result in social upheaval and a backlash not unlike what happened in the 1920s.

The whole system needs to be streamlined and move faster. What we have now is a system from the 1940s ruled by petty bureaucrats whose sole aim is to make the process as difficult as possible.

[Ugg]

Not quite true...the Chinese Exclusion Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act_%28United_States%29) (1882), placed a ban on Chinese immigration.

Mea culpa. The treatment of the Chinese was a shameful period in American history.

[leekohler]

Not all immigrants suffered in their home countries, the vast majority emigrated for economic reasons and more than a few simply out of a spirit of adventure.

Any discussion of historical immigration to the US needs to be placed in context. With the end of the US Civil War, the westward expansion of the railroads and the Homestead Act of 1864, immigration was seen as a necessity to the growth of the US. Many immigrants in the late 1800s got subsidized transatlantic fares by the railroads as long as they would settle out west. At the beginning of the 1900s roughly half of all Americans were born overseas.

As with all rapid expansion, it had its drawbacks and the immigrant backlash that occurred during the 1920s was a result of over enthusiastic recruitment of immigrants during the late 1800s.

Immigration has been and will always be the greatest strength of the US. But, and I don't think I'm being unreasonable, it also needs to be a gradual process. Having too many immigrants come in a short period of time will result in social upheaval and a backlash not unlike what happened in the 1920s.

The whole system needs to be streamlined and move faster. What we have now is a system from the 1940s ruled by petty bureaucrats whose sole aim is to make the process as difficult as possible.

That is true. It should be easier- but I still maintain we need rules here. Bush's immigration plan certainly wasn't the way to do it either.

[IJ Reilly]

Up until 1906, there was no such thing as illegal immigration into the US. There was simply immigration. The only thing preventing a person from coming to the US up to that point was their health.

Not entirely. There was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, as well as other laws discriminating against Asians, and at some point (perhaps in 1906), immigrants needed to have $50 or someone to vouch for them, lest they be labeled "likely to become a public charge" and either detained or deported. In the end, few were deported, and of those who were, infectious disease was the main reason. The first quota system was instituted in 1921, in reaction to the flood of refugees from war-torn Europe. These quotas were by design biased in favor of northern Europeans and Scandinavians, and against southern and eastern Europeans. Take a wild guess why.

We've been living with the quota system ever since, long enough to assume that this is the only right way of constructing an immigration system. It's a premise that we don't even question any longer, despite the fact that it was created for reasons we'd hardly find defensible today.

[ErikCLDR]

So the present day America is the only country that has ever been invaded and had the natives be suppressed and taken advantage of.

I think illegal immigrants should be deported. In this day and age there are things that have to be done so that they can move here, as with any other modernized country. They also waste my tax dollars- healthcare, building the great wall of America, etc.

[IJ Reilly]

Not all immigrants suffered in their home countries, the vast majority emigrated for economic reasons and more than a few simply out of a spirit of adventure.

So poverty is not a form of suffering? Even if we were to accept this as a premise, I don't know where it gets us.

As I mentioned in the post above, the real backlash against open immigration came during the 1920s, after World War I, not as a reaction to 19th century immigration. In fact when the quotas were set by Congress, the Federal Census of 1890 was deliberately selected as the base year, over 1900, 1910 or 1920, because the character of immigration had changed substantially by 1900.

[Ugg]

Not entirely. There was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, as well as other laws discriminating against Asians, and at some point (perhaps in 1906), immigrants needed to have $50 or someone to vouch for them, lest they be labeled "likely to become a public charge" and either detained or deported. In the end, few were deported, and of those who were, infectious disease was the main reason. The first quota system was instituted in 1921, in reaction to the flood of refugees from war-torn Europe. These quotas were by design biased in favor of northern Europeans and Scandinavians, and against southern and eastern Europeans. Take a wild guess why.

We've been living with the quota system ever since, long enough to assume that this is the only right way of constructing an immigration system. It's a premise that we don't even question any longer, despite the fact that it was created for reasons we'd hardly find defensible today.

That's true, but even then all you had to do was emigrate to Canada and sneak across the border, unless of course you were Asian.


I truly believe that any society can only take so many immigrants at once. I don't like the quota system based on nationality, it's simply too biased and doesn't change fast enough to deal with global realities. But I can't imagine that any INS bureaucracy could ever adapt quickly enough.

What I'd really like to see is some sort of reciprocity scheme. There are plenty of Americans who would like to emigrate to the EU and vice versa. A one for one system would be ideal for developed countries and cut down on the nightmare that exists now.

Outside of the EU, would you simply create a continental quota system? So many from Africa, so many from Latin and South America, so many from Asia based on their respective populations?

I honestly can't see any system that would treat everyone fairly.



As far as the current situation. I think the only way to deal with it is to grant amnesty to those already here who can prove they've been working and paying taxes. The numbers are too great to do anything else.

For all the talk against migrants, Americans have benefitted through lower food prices and the lower cost of services that these people provide. We'd all be in for a tremendous shock if they were all kicked out of the country tomorrow.

[leekohler]

What I'd really like to see is some sort of reciprocity scheme. There are plenty of Americans who would like to emigrate to the EU and vice versa.

Here, here! I LOVE this idea! Ugg for President!

[Stampyhead]

Ironically enough, México once tried to deal with an illegal immigration problem, in the state of Tejas. This was met with financial and military backing of the illegal population by the U.S. Government, incursions by the U.S. army onto Mexican soil and eventually the occupation of the northern 3/8ths of México.

But Santa Ana killed all those people at the Alamo, so we called it even. Ok, not really. I understood that the early 'Texians' were there legally? Maybe I have my facts wrong...

[Ugg]

So poverty is not a form of suffering? Even if we were to accept this as a premise, I don't know where it gets us.

As I mentioned in the post above, the real backlash against open immigration came during the 1920s, after World War I, not as a reaction to 19th century immigration. In fact when the quotas were set by Congress, the Federal Census of 1890 was deliberately selected as the base year, over 1900, 1910 or 1920, because the character of immigration had changed substantially by 1900.

I'm not discounting the impact of poverty on emigration from Europe, just saying that the reasons for emigration were quite varied.

The quotas were definitely xenophobic, of that there's no doubt. But once again, in dealing with the current situation, how do we decide who comes in and who doesn't? It isn't the late 1800s anymore and unlimited immigration simply isn't an option.

[IJ Reilly]

What I'd really like to see is some sort of reciprocity scheme. There are plenty of Americans who would like to emigrate to the EU and vice versa. A one for one system would be ideal for developed countries and cut down on the nightmare that exists now.

This sounds like a sneaky way of saying that we really only want educated, affluent Europeans to come here. If that's so, then it's too late -- this scheme is already in effect.

Outside of the EU, would you simply create a continental quota system? So many from Africa, so many from Latin and South America, so many from Asia based on their respective populations?

I honestly can't see any system that would treat everyone fairly.

Quotas are always going to be arbitrary. Why use them at all?

The only thing you really need to know about a prospective immigrant is their desire to improve their lot in life. I think we tend to forget, leaving one's home country is no small matter. It takes motivation. The most productive citizens of any country are the ones who are motivated to live a better life, not the ones who live here already and think they're entitled.

[TheAnswer]

But Santa Ana killed all those people at the Alamo, so we called it even. Ok, not really. I understood that the early 'Texians' were there legally? Maybe I have my facts wrong...

The Mexican government did try to promote development in Tejas, which led the the agreement with Austin and others to promote settlement. However, there were quotas to the number of settlers to be allowed, and these were not followed.

This led the Mexican government to pass laws that would strongly discourage additional illegal Anglo settlers (such as the prohibition of slavery, required practice of the Catholic faith and the posting of all signs en Español).

Y ése es cuando la ****** golpeó el ventilador.

[Ugg]

This sounds like a sneaky way of saying that we really only want educated, affluent Europeans to come here. If that's so, then it's too late -- this scheme is already in effect.



Quotas are always going to be arbitrary. Why use them at all?

The only thing you really need to know about a prospective immigrant is their desire to improve their lot in life. I think we tend to forget, leaving one's home country is no small matter. It takes motivation. The most productive citizens of any country are the ones who are motivated to live a better life, not the ones who live here already and think they're entitled.

In theory the scheme is in effect but not in reality. I think the EU's open border system has been an eye opener when it comes to migration in the 21st century. Economic capital has gone global now it's time for human capital to go global. For developed countries, it makes sense to have a labor market open to other developed countries.

Yes, quotas will always be arbitrary but they're necessary. Take a look at what's happening in Spain with all the migrants from North Africa, it's a huge problem. If Spain were to allow them all in the country would be flooded with immigrants with little or no education and few job skills. The economy needs time to absorb them all, there's absolutely no way that they can all be absorbed within a few short years.

I absolutely agree that immigrants are extremely valuable to society. As I mentioned above, they're the single most valuable resource that America has.



Tell me this, should our borders be open to ALL who want in? I don't believe that any developed country can absorb immigrants equal to more than 1% of its total population per year. 1 million people per year seems to be a reasonable number IMO. 10 million is nothing less than economic suicide.

[IJ Reilly]

I won't claim any easy answers. But I do think it's time for a clean slate discussion of immigration, free of the baggage of the way we've handled this issue for the last many decades, which if we're to be honest about it, has more to do with discrimination than any other factor. Open borders during the first two decades of the 20th century didn't seem to ruin the country, despite all of the dire predictions that it would, so I would not take this concept off the table. My great-grandparents came here during this time period, so I suppose I've got a little bit of ownership of the idea that even poor, illiterate people have something to offer. At the very least, I have to admire their determination. After all, if it wasn't for them, I wouldn't be here, living my comfortable, prosperous life.

Speaking of which, I live in an agriculturally-based community, where about 70% of the population is hispanic, so I hardly lived in a place which is isolated from the realities of immigration. But when I see these people lugging around fruit picking bags and stooping in strawberry fields, I can't find it my heart to wonder whether they're here legally or otherwise. I also don't wonder for a second whether they'd prefer to be able to live here legally, or to risk their lives crossing deserts and giving the money they literally sweated to earn to coyotes. The answer to that question is just too obvious. More often, I wonder when it was exactly that we made hard work a crime.

[it5five]

Up until 1906, there was no such thing as illegal immigration into the US. There was simply immigration. The only thing preventing a person from coming to the US up to that point was their health.

I was referring specifically to the landing of the Mayflower, when the ship was blown off course. They had a charter to land and live north of Jamestown, but they were blown off course to Cape Cod. Instead of making there way to Jamestown, they illegally squatted where the ship had ended up.

[Ugg]

I was referring specifically to the landing of the Mayflower, when the ship was blown off course. They had a charter to land and live north of Jamestown, but they were blown off course to Cape Cod. Instead of making there way to Jamestown, they illegally squatted where the ship had ended up.

You're applying the legal interpretations of today to the sensibilities of yesteryear and it doesn't really work. I do understand your point but human migration in the 1600s is a lot different than it is today.

[Swarmlord]

It is, and the most vocal anti-immigrant people either have no clue or are ignoring history to suit themselves.

In my opinion, the only people who have absolutely any right to complain about immigration are Native Americans.

Nope. They immigrated here too. Just earlier than we did.

[dswoodley]

Okay, to bring this back the topic of the thread, which is "Illegal immigation is America's fault" because we let illegals come in and therefore they should stay. Isn't that like saying - I leave my door open and don't do anything to stop squatters from coming in. I tell them to leave, because they are breaking the law, but I don't get violent about it. They eat the food I paid for, they stay warm with the gas I paid for, they go to school using my tuition money. They then demand permanent rights to my residence since it's "my fault." So because I don't shoot them the moment they walk in uninvited, they have permanent license to my pad.

I am sure someone will point out the flaws in my analogy and be apologists for the illegals and convince me it's all my fault.

[IJ Reilly]

Loaded questions, that's the way to get a productive discussion going.

[dswoodley]

Loaded questions, that's the way to get a productive discussion going.

I guess this is in reference to my post? :confused:

The issue is "fault?" Is that really an applicable word?

[skunk]

I am sure someone will point out the flaws in my analogy and be apologists for the illegals and convince me it's all my fault.It's probably not entirely your fault, but, as has been said before, if it wasn't made so difficult to be a legal immigrant, you wouldn't have nearly such a problem with illegal immigrants.

[IJ Reilly]

I guess this is in reference to my post? :confused:

The issue is "fault?" Is that really an applicable word?

This line really did it for me:

I am sure someone will point out the flaws in my analogy and be apologists for the illegals and convince me it's all my fault.

Apologists for the illegals. Nice. Kind of shuts down the discussion before it starts, doesn't it?

[dswoodley]

It's probably not entirely your fault, but, as has been said before, if it wasn't made so difficult to be a legal immigrant, you wouldn't have nearly such a problem with illegal immigrants.

That's besides the point. What right does anyone have to enter any country contrary to the laws of said country? It's pretty damn hard to become a Swiss citizen, but I certainly would not expect the Swiss government to say "What's that? You came here illegally? Okay, well, you can stay then." I would expect to have my butt deported in a redhot second.

[dswoodley]

Apologists for the illegals. Nice. Kind of shuts down the discussion before it starts, doesn't it?

Come on, you're not gonna let the stop you. Are you?

[TheAnswer]

Okay, to bring this back the topic of the thread, which is "Illegal immigation is America's fault" because we let illegals come in and therefore they should stay. Isn't that like saying - I leave my door open and don't do anything to stop squatters from coming in. I tell them to leave, because they are breaking the law, but I don't get violent about it. They eat the food I paid for, they stay warm with the gas I paid for, they go to school using my tuition money. They then demand permanent rights to my residence since it's "my fault." So because I don't shoot them the moment they walk in uninvited, they have permanent license to my pad.

I am sure someone will point out the flaws in my analogy and be apologists for the illegals and convince me it's all my fault.

Well the one flaw I see in your analogy is what she says in the video "The U.S. broke the law first by allowing people without documentation to cross the border and taking their tax money."I don't think she's arguing solely on the fact that she was allowed to cross the border, but also that the government recognized her by collecting and keeping her taxes. I believe she's basically arguing something similar to "taxation without representation".

[IJ Reilly]

Come on, you're not gonna let the stop you. Are you?

Pretty much, yes. Trying to answer loaded questions is an exercise in futility, which is why they're loaded in the first place.

[skunk]

That's besides the point. What right does anyone have to enter any country contrary to the laws of said country? It's pretty damn hard to become a Swiss citizen, but I certainly would not expect the Swiss government to say "What's that? You came here illegally? Okay, well, you can stay then." I would expect to have my butt deported in a redhot second.You seem to have some difficulty recognising the difference between immigration and citizenship.

[dswoodley]

You seem to have some difficulty recognising the difference between immigration and citizenship.

You seem to have some difficulty recognising that with the problem in America, the two terms are essentially intertwined. How many illegal residents actually have any intention of going back to their country of origin? Probably a percent in the low, low single digits. For the others, the only option being kicked around is temporary worker cards and path to citizenship.

[steamboat26]

I think that saying illegal immigration is our fault is just a poor excuse, as many others have evidenced with analogies. I understand why people illegally immigrate to the U.S, it's essentially for the same reasons as in the 19th and 20th centuries- economic opportunity. But to expect "amnesty" just because you got into the U.S. is just absurd. Mexico deported 120,000 people in the first half of 2005, so if the Mexican government practices such high rates of deportation, why should illegal immigrants from Mexico expect amnesty?
I advocate one of the following routes-
-deportation
-massive fines and legally applying for citizenship- if illegal immigrants have been using social welfare programs- like education, medicaid, public education, and other stuff without paying taxes, they should be required to pay the taxes that they owe plus a fine for breaking the law.

It also doesn't help the U.S. economy that many illegal immigrants send portions of their income back to their home country, and some work completely in cash, and therefore have no reason to pay taxes...

[TheAnswer]

You seem to have some difficulty recognising that with the problem in America, the two terms are essentially intertwined. How many illegal residents actually have any intention of going back to their country of origin? Probably a percent in the low, low single digits. For the others, the only option being kicked around is temporary worker cards and path to citizenship.

I only have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but when I worked in a restaurant with a 100% illegal immigrant kitchen staff, all but one talked about working here and retiring back in their home countries.

[dswoodley]

I only have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but when I worked in a restaurant with a 100% illegal immigrant kitchen staff, all but one talked about working here and retiring back in their home countries.

As anecdotes go, that's pretty good. I wonder how many actually do though.

[TheAnswer]

As anecdotes go, that's pretty good. I wonder how many actually do though.

I'm sure a lot of it depends of family situations. They fall roughly into two types:

Some guys have wives and children in their home country and the women don't want to be separated from their parents, so the husband comes over here to work. Those people are more likely to go back to live with their families after earning the money here.

Then you have the younger guys (like the one who's father had already given the spot at the Pemex plant to his older brother) that come over here looking for a job so they can prove themselves to their families by making it on their own here. They come here and intend to go back, but then they fall in love and end up starting a family here.

It's really a complex demographic. In general, the older ones with family abroad are the ones that resist learning English and are waving the Mexican flag at rallies. The younger ones are trying to learn English because, even if they want to return to their home country, they realize that it's going to be 40 years before they do. They know learning English makes things a lot easier here, especially hitting on "las chicas".

[dswoodley]

It's really a complex demographic. In general, the older ones with family abroad are the ones that resist learning English and are waving the Mexican flag at rallies. The younger ones are trying to learn English because, even if they want to return to their home country, they realize that it's going to be 40 years before they do. They know learning English makes things a lot easier here, especially hitting on "las chicas".

So, is it your experience that many are content living in US (on a real long term basis) as illegal residents and they're not interested in citizenship.

[TheAnswer]

So, is it your experience that many are content living in US (on a real long term basis) as illegal residents and they're not interested in citizenship.

In my experience:

The ones who have wives and kids abroad just want to be able to work here. They don't want citizenship here, but they would like a little more stability than having to worry about getting deported 24/7.

The younger ones that aren't married yet are a little more complex. Some would like to become citizens here, others aren't so sure yet. It depends on the situation with their family back home versus their experiences since they've been here.

[LethalWolfe]

Well the one flaw I see in your analogy is what she says in the video "The U.S. broke the law first by allowing people without documentation to cross the border and taking their tax money."I don't think she's arguing solely on the fact that she was allowed to cross the border, but also that the government recognized her by collecting and keeping her taxes. I believe she's basically arguing something similar to "taxation without representation".
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but to legally work in the US you either need proof of citizenship or documentation saying you can work here even though you aren't a citizen. So if an illegal is working a job that gets taxed (as opposed to getting cash under the table) then they, and/or their employer, are breaking the law. The reason they are getting taxed is because they illegally entered the country and then illegally entered the work force. The logic that someone shouldn't be punished for doing something illegal because the laws in place weren't enough of a deterrent just doesn't work.

They know learning English makes things a lot easier here, especially hitting on "las chicas".
It's all about priorities. :D


Lethal

[SMM]

interesting point of view.
and indeed one that should be considered, no?

i haven't quite decided where i stand on the whole immigration issue, but i do agree that reforms and changes are necessary.

I am kinda with you on this one. There are some subjects I just cannot form an opinion about. I seem to see merit in all sides of the debate. I just finished reading through the entire thread. I think almost all of the points being made are good. Furthermore, I can see how a person's view would change based on their locale and how immigration would effect them personally.

I suppose any points I have are peripheral to the issue itself. For example, the immigration laws should be first fair to our citizens. However, I am not sure what that should be. I think the laws that are in-acted should be enforced. I think America has cultural belief that those words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, have value and should not be forsaken. I think that during times of national emergency, it would be necessary to have a different set of rules.

That is all pretty vanilla. So, I guess I do not know what the policies/procedues should be. I think there is a knee-jerk response to 9/11 (for security reasons). I think the fence idea is rather silly. It will cost a fortune and not solve the problem. I suspect many of the supporters are people who make, and install fences. There is much better technology to accomplish this.

I lived in Mexico, along the California border. I love the people and their culture. I love sharing the planet with them. In Seattle, we have a large Mexican and Asian population. When I used to commute to the City, each morning, around 5:30AM, I would see bus loads of immigrant workers embarking and heading to work. They are going to minimum wage jobs and all seem to have a good attitude about it. Contrary to some opinions, these people did not come here to collect welfare - they came to make a better life and get ahead. Why wouldn't I welcome them?

[devilot]

I'm sure a lot of it depends of family situations. They fall roughly into two types:And I disagree. I've already shared annecdotes in this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=198067) old thread. (If you actually care at all, please take the time to read that thread, I put a lot of energy and time into my replies there, and I hope it shows.)

For the record, I do think that most people want to live here and be law-abiding citizens. But we do make it awfully difficult for them to do so. And I do feel that we shouldn't just look the other way and ignore those who have technically broken laws to be here, but we can't just "deport them all," either. I have no magical solutions to offer. Just want to clarify that not all the undocumented workers are laborers. And not all of them are here just to abuse the system.

[TheAnswer]

The reason they are getting taxed is because they illegally entered the country and then illegally entered the work force. The logic that someone shouldn't be punished for doing something illegal because the laws in place weren't enough of a deterrent just doesn't work.

I agree completely, but there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people working out there with false documentation. When they get deported, it's not like our government verifies which SSNs they've been working under and refunds that money they've paid into the Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment insurance funds. Heck, for the most part, they don't try to find out were the person was working and go after the employer or other illegals working in the same place.

[Ugg]

I agree completely, but there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people working out there with false documentation. When they get deported, it's not like our government verifies which SSNs they've been working under and refunds that money they've paid into the Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment insurance funds. Heck, for the most part, they don't try to find out were the person was working and go after the employer or other illegals working in the same place.

Yep, and all that money going into SS and Medicare is helping keep it afloat.

That's also the reason that many immigrants choose to go back home when they retire. They'll never be able to sign up for Social Security or Medicare.

[jamesi]

I'll admit the process isn't easy, but "virutally impossible?" Come on. I know at least dozen people who have become citizens over the last 5 years. Hard, yes, but doable.

i know ppl who have become citizens too, and while the process takes longer now with the red tape, they still became citizens sure enough. even if its a slow process, its worth doing

[LethalWolfe]

I agree completely, but there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people working out there with false documentation. When they get deported, it's not like our government verifies which SSNs they've been working under and refunds that money they've paid into the Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment insurance funds. Heck, for the most part, they don't try to find out were the person was working and go after the employer or other illegals working in the same place.
When they get deported does our government require them to pay back all the money they earned working illegally in this country?


Lethal

[TheAnswer]

And I disagree. I've already shared annecdotes in this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=198067) old thread. (If you actually care at all, please take the time to read that thread, I put a lot of energy and time into my replies there, and I hope it shows.)

For the record, I do think that most people want to live here and be law-abiding citizens. But we do make it awfully difficult for them to do so. And I do feel that we shouldn't just look the other way and ignore those who have technically broken laws to be here, but we can't just "deport them all," either. I have no magical solutions to offer. Just want to clarify that not all the undocumented workers are laborers. And not all of them are here just to abuse the system.

I should have clarified again in that post that I was still referring to those immigrants that I was friends with while working in a restaurant. They were all from México or Centroamérica, and for that subdivision of immigrants, those two categories generally apply.

I agree that a vast majority of the immigrants want to live here and be law-abiding while they do so. With the immigrants I know, there is a generational distinction between those that are just here to work, send money back to their families then retire to their homeland and those who are younger and have given more thought to actually staying here (and generally put more effort into "fitting in"). Neither group is trying to abuse the system.

-------------------------------

The simple fact is, that at least in regards to immigration from México, the U.S. government doesn't try to stop it because it benefits the U.S.A., both in terms of providing a cheap source of manual labor and also because it serves as a steam valve to stabilize México politically.

During the Mexican Revolution, at least 1 million refugees crossed into the U.S.A. when México's population was less that 20 million people at the time. If another revolution happened today, we'd be looking at least 5 million refugees flooding across the border.

Our government and its corporate sponsors have decided that rather than risk another revolution, that might (or might not) provide more lasting solutions to México's socioeconomic woes, that the stream valve policy currently in place is the best way to protect our country's economic stability and the assets of our corporations on both sides on the border.

[hulugu]

When they get deported does our government require them to pay back all the money they earned working illegally in this country?


Lethal

Clever, but an ultimately empty question. Under what legal reasoning (or practical framework for that matter) would you require a deported immigrant to pay back their wages?

[LethalWolfe]

Clever, but an ultimately empty question. Under what legal reasoning (or practical framework for that matter) would you require a deported immigrant to pay back their wages?
Pretty much under the same reasoning that leads someone to believe an illegal immigrant who unlawfully holds a job in a foreign country should gain citizenship just because taxes were taken out of their unlawfully earned paycheck.;)

Like I've said in my previous posts, I think the justification shown in the video is just completely screwed up logic. Foreign nationals illegally entered the country and illegally worked in the country and should now be granted citizenship because the country was unable to initially stop them from illegally entering and illegally working in the country? Someone should ask Rove if he's missing a page out of his handbook. It's like a trespasser saying, "Well. It's really the police's fault even though I knowingly trespassed. If they would have stopped me from trespassing before I actually trespassed then I never would have been arrested for trespassing. But since they didn't stop me I think they are guilty of aiding me in my trespassing and therefore I should no long be considered a trespasser.":confused:


Lethal

P.S. I'm away from my computer for a while so don't take it personally when I don't respond to anyone's posts.:)

[hulugu]

... "Well. It's really the police's fault even though I knowingly trespassed. If they would have stopped me from trespassing before I actually trespassed then I never would have been arrested for trespassing. But since they didn't stop me I think they are guilty of aiding me in my trespassing and therefore I should no long be considered a trespasser."

This metaphor is a poor one to use in understanding this issue. Didn't the trespasser also spend time doing your laundry and walking your dog? Didn't someone pay them to do this over a period of time while keeping some money and using it to pay for the rent on the home?

I think the logic is interesting, but still screwy, but I wonder just how serious we can be about so-called tresspassers when many of us invite them in, give them a job and housing, and only send them packing when their status is called into attention.

At best, we're playing a ridiculous and hypocritical game with illegal immigrants.

[thugpoet22]

Immigrants is just the flavor of the month. I love how the media tells people what to argue and stress about. Truly the tail is wagging the dog. You all know super powers can't resist cheap labor. America is a highly industrialized country and would love the opportunity to produce products with low labor costs. We as consumers also love those cheap prices. So, who's really to blame, government, producers or consumers ? Simply put, people would not come here illegally if they couldn't get work. So lets not point fingers unless we're standing in a mirror. :D

[IJ Reilly]

Blame humanity, the true source of all problems in the world.

[dswoodley]

Blame humanity, the true source of all problems in the world.

Government! Government I say! or maybe alcohol...

[Peterkro]

Some interesting points here especially by IJ and Ugg. The deportation of people in the twenties especially to the Soviet Union is a particularly disgraceful episode in US history. Ugg's point about the freedom of Capital to move any where around the world and the restriction on Labour is very much the elephant in the room. Immigration is played well by governments such as the US by adjusting (quietly) rates of immigration it forces wages down and the threat of outsourcing has the same effect. Nation states in North America and Europe could easily absorb large numbers of immigrants with a corresponding rise in production, unfortunately governments like it as is so the top 5% of wealth owners get all the wealth. It's unfortunate that most are fooled by this and see workers in other countries as their enemies and not as would appear to a outside observer their natural allies.

[IJ Reilly]

I lean towards a libertarian position on immigration. I believe a sound argument has to be made against allowing people to live where they wish, instead of for it. Both liberals and conservatives tend to have a problem with this view, often for very different reasons. I think that if we were to wipe the slate clean of existing biases, and look at this issue with the ideal in mind of allowing human beings as much freedom of movement as possible, we'd be coming up with very different solutions to the immigration problem. Better yet, I think we'd find that it's not such a big problem after all.

[skunk]

I lean towards a libertarian position on immigration. I believe a sound argument has to be made against allowing people to live where they wish, instead of for it.I tend to agree - as long as "libertarian" has a small "l".

[juanm]

Nope. They immigrated here too. Just earlier than we did.

I feel embarrassed to bring my spanish a** to lesson a native english speaker, but...
... according to the dictionary widget, they'd be more like settlers.

:D

[SMM]

I lean towards a libertarian position on immigration. I believe a sound argument has to be made against allowing people to live where they wish, instead of for it. Both liberals and conservatives tend to have a problem with this view, often for very different reasons. I think that if we were to wipe the slate clean of existing biases, and look at this issue with the ideal in mind of allowing human beings as much freedom of movement as possible, we'd be coming up with very different solutions to the immigration problem. Better yet, I think we'd find that it's not such a big problem after all.

Do you have any quick source for their view, Mr Reilly? I would be interested in reading it.

[skunk]

I feel embarrassed to bring my spanish a** to lesson a native english speaker, but...
... according to the dictionary widget, they'd be more like settlers.

:DThat's a very good point, señor. :)

[Ugg]

I feel embarrassed to bring my spanish a** to lesson a native english speaker, but...
... according to the dictionary widget, they'd be more like settlers.

:D

I think the best way of putting it is that they were human migrants.

Immigration is really a 19th century concept but the desire to move onto greener pastures is a very animalistic instinct.

[Ugg]

I lean towards a libertarian position on immigration. I believe a sound argument has to be made against allowing people to live where they wish, instead of for it. Both liberals and conservatives tend to have a problem with this view, often for very different reasons. I think that if we were to wipe the slate clean of existing biases, and look at this issue with the ideal in mind of allowing human beings as much freedom of movement as possible, we'd be coming up with very different solutions to the immigration problem. Better yet, I think we'd find that it's not such a big problem after all.

I lean towards pragmatism.

Israel has just kicked out a bunch of Sudanese refugees, Lampedusa in Italy has become little more than an island of refugees. Spain's tiny enclave on the African coast makes The Berlin Wall look amateurish.

That's just one side of the issue. For quite a few years Britain's nurses were mostly recruited in Africa and the Philippines. The cost of education for such poor countries is enormous and then to see them leave creates a huge burden on the health system. Is it any wonder that Africa faces so many health crises when the doctors and nurses are leaving by droves? Much less all the other educated professionals.

Should we welcome all these highly educated people with open arms and leave those left behind to fend for themselves?

I don't have an answer but the time has not yet arrived where we can think in such utopian terms as a global right to freedom of movement.

[Sobe]

It is a complex problem because on the one hand, the kind of people who are willing to travel and encounter risks in order to better their lot in life are the kind of people we want in this country.

On the other hand, Americans, indeed the citizens of any country, should plainly have the right to decide who enters their borders and for what purposes and for how long.

Perhaps the problem is the tension between the states and the fed. If the states simply took over immigration issues, including enforcement and documentation at the local level, I have a feeling the problem would be much more manageable.

For example, in an article today in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082402123.html) on low wage (illegal and legal) workers striking in NYC, we get the following comment by the author:

But activists say big urban areas such as New York and Los Angeles -- where local policies prohibit city officials from asking about immigration status in labor or other disputes -- immigrant groups have become bolder in demanding rights.

(my bold)

Perhaps if we embraced the fact that this is an issue that should be dealt with locally we might sort it out for the better.

[swingerofbirch]

I think the solution to undocumented immigration is a solution that would help us in other ways. I think a very loose network of countries in the Americas would help solve these problems. European countries formed the European Union, and I think we could form something like the Americas Union, bridging South, Central, and North American countries. Because you can't just look at how do you put a seal around the United States; you also have to look at why are people fleeing Mexico. You have to look at the history of the US having taken land from Mexico.

[Sobe]

I think the solution to undocumented immigration is a solution that would help us in other ways. I think a very loose network of countries in the Americas would help solve these problems. European countries formed the European Union, and I think we could form something like the Americas Union, bridging South, Central, and North American countries. Because you can't just look at how do you put a seal around the United States; you also have to look at why are people fleeing Mexico. You have to look at the history of the US having taken land from Mexico.

We already have the equivalent of the EU, it's called the United States of America.

And no, I'm not being flippant or dismissive.

If you want to play the who took whom from what, then we can just transport everyone back to the Olduvai gorge in Africa and leave the rest of the planet unpopulated by humans.

[TheAnswer]

I think the solution to undocumented immigration is a solution that would help us in other ways. I think a very loose network of countries in the Americas would help solve these problems. European countries formed the European Union, and I think we could form something like the Americas Union, bridging South, Central, and North American countries. Because you can't just look at how do you put a seal around the United States; you also have to look at why are people fleeing Mexico. You have to look at the history of the US having taken land from Mexico.

The problem is that the majority of the EU members had similar stability in their respective economies prior to the creation of the EU. That equivalent doesn't exist here in América. I think it would probably be workable to create such unions across certain parts of América (for example, establishing one currency in all of Centroamérica), but creating such a union from the Arctic to the Drake Passage simply isn't workable at this time.

[jczubach]

Props to theAnswer. always enjoy your jesuitic sagacity and consideration. you are a model for forum behavour, and if you where a girl i'd want to kiss you, but as a guy, how 'bout an internet Hug? truly, thanks a bunch(there is no emoticon for soppy sentiment) bring it on brother...

[TheAnswer]

...how 'bout an internet Hug? truly, thanks a bunch(there is no emoticon for soppy sentiment) bring it on brother...

Thanks man...here ya go:

83352

[jczubach]

Thanks man...here ya go:

83352

You are always in my heart, Mr. thanks for your unfettered honesty, and godspeed. (yes i am an atheistic unpatriotic freak)

[IJ Reilly]

Do you have any quick source for their view, Mr Reilly? I would be interested in reading it.

Yeah, me. And you just did. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

I lean towards pragmatism.

Israel has just kicked out a bunch of Sudanese refugees, Lampedusa in Italy has become little more than an island of refugees. Spain's tiny enclave on the African coast makes The Berlin Wall look amateurish.

That's just one side of the issue. For quite a few years Britain's nurses were mostly recruited in Africa and the Philippines. The cost of education for such poor countries is enormous and then to see them leave creates a huge burden on the health system. Is it any wonder that Africa faces so many health crises when the doctors and nurses are leaving by droves? Much less all the other educated professionals.

Should we welcome all these highly educated people with open arms and leave those left behind to fend for themselves?

I don't have an answer but the time has not yet arrived where we can think in such utopian terms as a global right to freedom of movement.

Pragmatism can be a dangerous creed. Almost every terrible event in human history has been justified on the basis of its practicality.

I've never heard of immigration restrictions rationalized on the basis of protecting the population of the origin country. I'm having a difficult time grasping the implications of this theory. Are we preventing people from entering the country for their own good? Now, that seems patronizing to me.

I'm not speaking in utopian terms at all. What I'm saying is we'd come to difficult conclusions if we adjusted our premise. The assumption we make today is that people choosing to live somewhere else is automatically a problem, something which should only be allowed under very limited circumstances. Reverse the premise (at one time, it was reversed), and the conclusion will be very different.

Even if you don't accept this as necessarily being true, it is a useful intellectual exercise. Try it some time.

[jczubach]

oh yeah? "Even if you don't accept this as necessarily being true, it is a useful intellectual exercise. Try it some time." Oh, yeah...:rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

oh yeah? "Even if you don't accept this as necessarily being true, it is a useful intellectual exercise. Try it some time." Oh, yeah...:rolleyes:

Pardon me?

[jczubach]

watch my punctuation, i was agreeing with you...:).

[IJ Reilly]

watch my punctuation, i was agreeing with you...:).

Sorry, I suppose I was put off the track by the rolleyes.

[jczubach]

Sorry, I suppose I was put off the track by the rolleyes.

seriously, i dig your thought process, i should apologize as sometimes i tend to be somewhat, shall we say?, cryptic...

[zelmo]

...The assumption we make today is that people choosing to live somewhere else is automatically a problem, something which should only be allowed under very limited circumstances...

Indeed. If one were to apply this revolutionary reasoning within the borders of the USA...why, people would actually be permitted to up and move to another city or possibly another state for no good reason other that they feel they might improve their own insignificant little lives, without any regard for the citizens of the area they invade!:eek:

Thank goodness we would never dream of allowing such freedom in the good ol' USA.

[Sobe]

Indeed. If one were to apply this revolutionary reasoning within the borders of the USA...why, people would actually be permitted to up and move to another city or possibly another state for no good reason other that they feel they might improve their own insignificant little lives, without any regard for the citizens of the area they invade!:eek:

Thank goodness we would never dream of allowing such freedom in the good ol' USA.

I wasn't aware that Mexico, Canada, or any other country was admitted as a state to the union.

Until that happens, the several states making up the Union have a codified agreement in the form of the Constitution.

The US Constitution covers these issues explicitly:

Article IV
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Article IV
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

[IJ Reilly]

Indeed. If one were to apply this revolutionary reasoning within the borders of the USA...why, people would actually be permitted to up and move to another city or possibly another state for no good reason other that they feel they might improve their own insignificant little lives, without any regard for the citizens of the area they invade!:eek:

Thank goodness we would never dream of allowing such freedom in the good ol' USA.

That made me smile. Perhaps without entirely meaning to do so, you reminded me of the planning practices in place in many communities which have the hidden-in-plain-sight purpose of keeping other people from moving in.

[jczubach]

"... wasn't aware that Mexico, Canada, or any other country was admitted as a state to the union."
no we are actually adjunct serfdoms. need something, just tell, don't ask. subservience as policy. niceness. not!

[skunk]

<boring pedantry>You don't really do irony, do you?

[Sobe]

You don't really do irony, do you?

Indeed, I do.

And while calumnies are perhaps best answered with silence, I find that irony and sarcasm are best answered with facts.

[skunk]

I find that irony and sarcasm are best answered with facts.Good luck with that.

[mactastic]

That made me smile. Perhaps without entirely meaning to do so, you reminded me of the planning practices in place in many communities which have the hidden-in-plain-sight purpose of keeping other people from moving in.
So true. It's funny to witness the people living in an area developed about 10 years ago now coming to the public hearings about the area adjacent to theirs that is contemplating development. The arguments about congestion, burden on services, lack of resources etc. are the same ones their neighbors made against their houses 10 years ago. Yet somehow the irony is lost on the bulk of them.

[Sobe]

So true. It's funny to witness the people living in an area developed about 10 years ago now coming to the public hearings about the area adjacent to theirs that is contemplating development. The arguments about congestion, burden on services, lack of resources etc. are the same ones their neighbors made against their houses 10 years ago. Yet somehow the irony is lost on the bulk of them.

There's a lot of that where I live. As the Washington suburbs continue to grow, you get a lot of transplants who buy in then immediately want to shut down any new development.

It's a very contentious issue here and all the local politicians seem to be in bed with the developers.

[mactastic]

...all the local politicians seem to be in bed with the developers.
I'm shocked. I had no idea! ;)

If you notice too, the bulk of that largess goes disproportionally to one particular side of the political aisle...

[IJ Reilly]

This phenomenon is so well known, it's got a common name: gang-planking. The most ardently anti-growth people in any given community are almost invariably the most recent immigrants. I believe there are a whole host of cognitive issues in play.

Anyway, the reason I bring it up is because all of us have an idealized image of the place we live buried deep in our consciousness. Any change away from that image is going to be instinctively resisted. Someone hears two people on a street corner of their home town conversing in Spanish. They develop automatic associations, which are going to be negative or positive, depending on whether this matches or conflicts with their mental image of the place they live.

[Sobe]

I'm shocked. I had no idea! ;)

If you notice too, the bulk of that largess goes disproportionally to one particular side of the political aisle...

yes, the party in power =D

[mactastic]

yes, the party in power =D
Even factoring that in, developers favor which political party?

[solvs]

This is a really tough issue... but it helps to think of Mexicans as people too. ;)