3 questions NRO would posit to any offered immigration reform;

If you are paying attention, I'm guessing you have heard the USA will have immigration reform soon, so, be ready for it.

The editors of National Review on line have 3 questions they would posit to any offered immigration reform;

1) Will it encourage future illegal immigration?
2) Will it increase the problems associated with illegal immigration?
3) Will it promote assimilation?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345113/three-questions-immigration-editors

For your favorite types of reform, how would you answer these questions?

Gorfias:
If you are paying attention, I'm guessing you have heard the USA will have immigration reform soon, so, be ready for it.

The editors of National Review on line have 3 questions they would posit to any offered immigration reform;

1) Will it encourage future illegal immigration?
2) Will it increase the problems associated with illegal immigration?
3) Will it promote assimilation?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345113/three-questions-immigration-editors

For your favorite types of reform, how would you answer these questions?

1) I think the main thing that encourages illegal immigration is the relative economic success and perceived social mobility of each country.

So you could either smash the myth of the American dream, or contribute lots of foreign and development aid to the countries the immigrants are coming from, so they don't want to come to your country any more.

2) What are those?

3)
image
ASSIMILATE! ASSIMILATE!

Lol.

Nah but seriously they can do what they want as long as they can speak English and don't compromise the key liberal ideals that the majority of the population adhere to.

I don't think more assimilation is necessarily desirable.

What major changes will there be to the Policy, if you don't mind summing it up?

@Danny Ocean

So you could either smash the myth of the American dream, or contribute lots of foreign and development aid to the countries the immigrants are coming from, so they don't want to come to your country any more.

Or actually target corporations for breaking the law. They are the ones providing incentives to illegal immigrants, after all, with opportunities for work outside the legal framework. But that would not be in the politicians' interests because those same corporations pay them and they want to keep the illegal immigrants coming.

The whole "build fences, be tough on illegal immigration"-nonsense is a smokescreen. Nobody wants to tackle the incentive-structure because they profit from employing illegal immigrants and paying them next to nothing. They're cheap labour, why would anybody in power want to stop them? That's why this issue is only used for populism and actionism, to garner votes.

As long as the incentives remain, illegal immigration will continue unabated.

Realitycrash:
What major changes will there be to the Policy, if you don't mind summing it up?

Think the opposite of the question:
1) Will it encourage future illegal immigration?
Will it subsidize illegal immigration? You get more of what you subsidize.
2) Will it increase the problems associated with illegal immigration? Accurate or not, problems associated the illegal immigration include an artificial depression of low skill wages, greater burdens on social programs, more crime.
3) Will it promote assimilation?
Or will it create greater tribalism? More people demanding group rights?

1) not if it's linked to border security which as of right now it is.

2) The bill comes with a mandatory change in wages to median income of current workers in each respective field by businesses.

The reason there is a burden on social programs is because immigrants aren't paying entirely into the system giving the SN and getting them to pay income taxes as well back taxes and fines will alleviate that burden. Not to mention it will give the families of the immigrants a chance to prosper which very difficult to do as of right now. There is never an immediate change.

It's a cycle immigrants are paid less than a livable wage their children who may well be illegal as well can't get financing for college or improve there position because they are afraid of being turned in or found out by better jobs, so they go to business that will look the other way. So two generations forced into poverty with no chance of getting out or one in poverty with the next generation in a much better chance to change their class. That not only will increase their income but reduce the likelihood of becoming criminals.

You have to think most illegal immigrant violence/drugs are directed towards other illegal immigrants. And the illegal immigrants can't go to the authorities out of fear of the police, that fear dissipates when they know they won't be deported.

3) What's more likely to cause assimilation calling immigrants criminals or immigrants on a path to citizenship? Just like many cultures in the US there will be gradual assimilation especially when they don't need to huddle in the same communities for protection.

Gorfias:

Realitycrash:
What major changes will there be to the Policy, if you don't mind summing it up?

Think the opposite of the question:
1) Will it encourage future illegal immigration?
Will it subsidize illegal immigration? You get more of what you subsidize.
2) Will it increase the problems associated with illegal immigration? Accurate or not, problems associated the illegal immigration include an artificial depression of low skill wages, greater burdens on social programs, more crime.
3) Will it promote assimilation?
Or will it create greater tribalism? More people demanding group rights?

How am I supposed to speculate about those questions if I don't know what changes they will make?

Realitycrash:

How am I supposed to speculate about those questions if I don't know what changes they will make?

Right now, that is still somewhat up in the air. Some of what people are arguing about:
1) Subsidies. Should we give what will ultimately be amnesty to people who are in the country because they've cut in line in front of others trying to do things the legal way. What you subsidize, you get more of. There is also the Dream Act, which I've read a lot of conflicting stuff. Those favoring Amnesty at least state they think enforcement AFTER will destroy any incentive amnesty provides.
2) Once legal, the immigrants will have status to claim any government assistance available to legal residents. This costs money. Also, increase supply, steady demand, equilibrium price goes down. Lots of unskilled workers dilutes demand. It lowers wages for the poorest. On the other hand, as Dmase points out, legal immigrants will start paying taxes. Also, if immigration spurs growth, more growth is greater demand which increases labor wages.
3) Once illegal immigrants are out of the shadows, they will be freer to engage in group rights. They will be better able to engage in their own sub-cultures and demand greater representation by quota into government contracts, scholarship, job opportunities, home loans, regardless of other matters.

Imagine a nation with 99 tagalog speakers and one frenchman. Everyone would defacto speak tagalog. That last french guy would learn it so as not to be isolated commercially and socially. But if the numbers approach 50-50? You'll have a different situation.

Dmase again, posits:

dmase:

What's more likely to cause assimilation calling immigrants criminals or immigrants on a path to citizenship? Just like many cultures in the US there will be gradual assimilation especially when they don't need to huddle in the same communities for protection.

Gorfias:

Realitycrash:

How am I supposed to speculate about those questions if I don't know what changes they will make?

Right now, that is still somewhat up in the air. Some of what people are arguing about:
1) Subsidies. Should we give what will ultimately be amnesty to people who are in the country because they've cut in line in front of others trying to do things the legal way. What you subsidize, you get more of. There is also the Dream Act, which I've read a lot of conflicting stuff. Those favoring Amnesty at least state they think enforcement AFTER will destroy any incentive amnesty provides.
2) Once legal, the immigrants will have status to claim any government assistance available to legal residents. This costs money. Also, increase supply, steady demand, equilibrium price goes down. Lots of unskilled workers dilutes demand. It lowers wages for the poorest. On the other hand, as Dmase points out, legal immigrants will start paying taxes. Also, if immigration spurs growth, more growth is greater demand which increases labor wages.
3) Once illegal immigrants are out of the shadows, they will be freer to engage in group rights. They will be better able to engage in their own sub-cultures and demand greater representation by quota into government contracts, scholarship, job opportunities, home loans, regardless of other matters.

Imagine a nation with 99 tagalog speakers and one frenchman. Everyone would defacto speak tagalog. That last french guy would learn it so as not to be isolated commercially and socially. But if the numbers approach 50-50? You'll have a different situation.

Dmase again, posits:

dmase:

What's more likely to cause assimilation calling immigrants criminals or immigrants on a path to citizenship? Just like many cultures in the US there will be gradual assimilation especially when they don't need to huddle in the same communities for protection.

The US is already a defacto bilingual country, there are about 40M people who speak Spanish as their first language, many of them don't speak English at all.

I just think it's funny at how obviously political all this questioning about the ramifications of letting in the illegal immigrants is. Because in the early 20th century we had our first big influx of immigrants looking for better opportunities, who were also poor, uneducated, and didn't speak English, and that time is lauded as one of the most quintessentially "American" times in our history.

The only difference is now they're "illegal," and the reason they're illegal is because we've raised the bar of entry so high that people who are technically on the same level as those who came to Ellis Island can't reach it. So I think it's rather hypocritical for people to say we're "rewarding" the crimes of illegal immigrants when we were the ones who set up the unnecessary situation in the first place. Changing laws because a crime is being committed a lot isn't usually a viable approach, but if the situation being caused by that law is going to cause more problems than it solves then I think it's worth looking into.

Verbatim:

dmase:

What's more likely to cause assimilation calling immigrants criminals or immigrants on a path to citizenship? Just like many cultures in the US there will be gradual assimilation especially when they don't need to huddle in the same communities for protection.

The US is already a defacto bilingual country, there are about 40M people who speak Spanish as their first language, many of them don't speak English at all.

Is Dmase correct though? I'm betting that a majority of capital in the USA rests in English speaking hands. (I'm of Russian descent. I don't speak it really. To be mainstreamed, I needed to know English as did my parents.) What is the median income of Spanish speaking only residents of the USA? I'm betting it is low.

I don't know if Dmase is correct, but I think s/he could be. If these people no longer live in the shadows, they will have motivation to mainstream where the money is. I cannot write that will be enough. Will Spanish speaking only claim a form of discrimination that allows for government imposed wealth transfers? I think that too is possible.

Lilani:

the reason they're illegal is because we've raised the bar of entry so high that people who are technically on the same level as those who came to Ellis Island can't reach it.

Can we agree that there are still those that obey our laws and come here legally? On the radio today, a caller asked host Howie Carr, "Do you know what group hates illegal aliens the most? Legal ones that followed the rules and got cut in line."

I can understand the desperation of those that came here illegally, but I can't condone it. Amnesty does that, but it may be a necessary thing to do. If Dmase is right, it will at least be the pragmatic thing to do.

Gorfias:
Can we agree that there are still those that obey our laws and come here legally? On the radio today, a caller asked host Howie Carr, "Do you know what group hates illegal aliens the most? Legal ones that followed the rules and got cut in line."

I can understand the desperation of those that came here illegally, but I can't condone it. Amnesty does that, but it may be a necessary thing to do. If Dmase is right, it will at least be the pragmatic thing to do.

I agree that there are still those who come here legally, but I don't see it as fair to hold it against them because not all of them had an equal opportunity to pursue the legal method in the first place. IIRC it costs a minimum of $15,000 initially to immigrate, which means only the middle/upper middle class even have a prayer of affording it. Then there's a cap on how many can immigrate annually and the waiting list is getting longer at a faster rate than it's getting shorter. So not only are we giving the poor no other options but to sit in their shithole and die or come over here where even as criminals they'll get some level of basic care, but we aren't letting even those who can afford it in at a fast enough rate. I see our current situation as a funnel filling up with sugar that is too small to get the job done, so the excess is spilling over the sides. And rather than finding a bigger funnel, we're just running around complaining about how it's the sugar's fault for coming out of the bag too fast.

Crime very often occurs to fill needs and wants that lawful actions cannot fulfill. The lawful method of immigration doesn't fulfill the needs of all those who wish to immigrate, so the drug cartels and human traffickers are filling that gap in the market themselves.

Gorfias:

Verbatim:

dmase:

What's more likely to cause assimilation calling immigrants criminals or immigrants on a path to citizenship? Just like many cultures in the US there will be gradual assimilation especially when they don't need to huddle in the same communities for protection.

The US is already a defacto bilingual country, there are about 40M people who speak Spanish as their first language, many of them don't speak English at all.

Is Dmase correct though? I'm betting that a majority of capital in the USA rests in English speaking hands. (I'm of Russian descent. I don't speak it really. To be mainstreamed, I needed to know English as did my parents.) What is the median income of Spanish speaking only residents of the USA? I'm betting it is low.

I don't know if Dmase is correct, but I think s/he could be. If these people no longer live in the shadows, they will have motivation to mainstream where the money is. I cannot write that will be enough. Will Spanish speaking only claim a form of discrimination that allows for government imposed wealth transfers? I think that too is possible.

Those numbers are for citizens not for immigrants AFAIK, the majority of Spanish speakers did not immigrate into the US, well they did but they didn't move the border did after the US Mexican war..

Lilani:

Gorfias:
Can we agree that there are still those that obey our laws and come here legally? On the radio today, a caller asked host Howie Carr, "Do you know what group hates illegal aliens the most? Legal ones that followed the rules and got cut in line."

I can understand the desperation of those that came here illegally, but I can't condone it. Amnesty does that, but it may be a necessary thing to do. If Dmase is right, it will at least be the pragmatic thing to do.

I agree that there are still those who come here legally, but I don't see it as fair to hold it against them because not all of them had an equal opportunity to pursue the legal method in the first place. IIRC it costs a minimum of $15,000 initially to immigrate, which means only the middle/upper middle class even have a prayer of affording it. Then there's a cap on how many can immigrate annually and the waiting list is getting longer at a faster rate than it's getting shorter. So not only are we giving the poor no other options but to sit in their shithole and die or come over here where even as criminals they'll get some level of basic care, but we aren't letting even those who can afford it in at a fast enough rate. I see our current situation as a funnel filling up with sugar that is too small to get the job done, so the excess is spilling over the sides. And rather than finding a bigger funnel, we're just running around complaining about how it's the sugar's fault for coming out of the bag too fast.

Crime very often occurs to fill needs and wants that lawful actions cannot fulfill. The lawful method of immigration doesn't fulfill the needs of all those who wish to immigrate, so the drug cartels and human traffickers are filling that gap in the market themselves.

While I agree that legal immigration is in dire need of reform and I hope there is enough steam leftover from the illegal immigration push to help out the legals, we are kinda having a population problem right now.

Don't get me wrong, we have plenty of space and resources, but what we don't have is infrastructure. Our population has grown by over 50% in 40 years, and yet most of our infrastructure/bureaucracy is from the 60'/70's. The bureaucracy of our country is absolutely terribly, and having an open gate policy would strain it further.

Not to mention, we are not the only viable country to immigrate to. If we were then we would be more obligated to bend the rules, at least in my view. There are plenty of other wonderful countries to immigrate to.

I don't think there should be any such nonsense as declaring one type of immigration to be legal and others to be illegal. What makes a man a citizen of a nation? Is it where he's born? Is it where his parents are born? Is it the colour of his skin or his culture? Certainly some nations even use religion as a qualifier. To hell with the economic arguments both for and against, it's backwards, to me, and horribly outdated to let some people live in your country and others not to based on tests. As if tests really tell us anything about a person's character! If people follow the law and pay their taxes, who cares where they were from? Open the floodgates!

Is my view.

Odgical:
I don't think there should be any such nonsense as declaring one type of immigration to be legal and others to be illegal. What makes a man a citizen of a nation? Is it where he's born? Is it where his parents are born? Is it the colour of his skin or his culture? Certainly some nations even use religion as a qualifier. To hell with the economic arguments both for and against, it's backwards, to me, and horribly outdated to let some people live in your country and others not to based on tests. As if tests really tell us anything about a person's character! If people follow the law and pay their taxes, who cares where they were from? Open the floodgates!

I think groups of people (such as those that form into nations) can have legitimate reasons to want to limit membership and that, whatever faults or disparities one might find in the process of becoming a member, that isn't a very good argument for getting rid of those processes altogether. Just because there are a bunch of people who I'd rather not be Americans, that doesn't in turn mean that everyone should be an American. Even in the broadest form of political association, I feel it is wise to be at least a little bit selective. The United States is probably too selective and limited as far as its legal immigration policy. But "opening the floodgates" is not the answer.

Odgical:
I don't think there should be any such nonsense as declaring one type of immigration to be legal and others to be illegal. What makes a man a citizen of a nation? Is it where he's born? Is it where his parents are born? Is it the colour of his skin or his culture? Certainly some nations even use religion as a qualifier. To hell with the economic arguments both for and against, it's backwards, to me, and horribly outdated to let some people live in your country and others not to based on tests. As if tests really tell us anything about a person's character! If people follow the law and pay their taxes, who cares where they were from? Open the floodgates!

Is my view.

Immigrate to Uganda i hear it's lovely.
People immigrate to find a better life, this is not a basic right, the US like any other country has a full right to protect it self against negative immigration.
The reforms are not about opening the floodgates but about the the hell you do with all those people who got their illegally, some of them are 3rd and even 4th generation.
Immigrants in most cases follow the law and pay taxes just as fine, does not mean that they don't have a negative effect on the economy or the country. The EU has major problem with immigration, forget the social aspects, many immigrants to the EU are a burden on the economy due to the social benefits these countries provide. When they implemented free healthcare, free education, pension and social security and a truckload of other benefits they did not count on millions of people that will come to mooch off them while paying back very little in return. When you have a situation that for each highly skilled worker that immigrates to an EU country earning a high income while in most cases using very little benefits you get 1000 unskilled workers, many of them will live fully or partially from unemployment and other benefits while breeding like rabbits you get an unsustainable immigration policy. Yes people every where deserve a better life, but screwing up functioning countries like the US, Canada, Australia, and EU countries is not a solution.

Ryotknife:
While I agree that legal immigration is in dire need of reform and I hope there is enough steam leftover from the illegal immigration push to help out the legals, we are kinda having a population problem right now.

Don't get me wrong, we have plenty of space and resources, but what we don't have is infrastructure. Our population has grown by over 50% in 40 years, and yet most of our infrastructure/bureaucracy is from the 60'/70's. The bureaucracy of our country is absolutely terribly, and having an open gate policy would strain it further.

Not to mention, we are not the only viable country to immigrate to. If we were then we would be more obligated to bend the rules, at least in my view. There are plenty of other wonderful countries to immigrate to.

Unless you're also going to start telling people they can't have more than two children, I don't see why cutting off immigration is in any way a viable way to address that issue. The way I see it, if we're going to seriously take this as an opportunity to address overpopulation, I can't interpret any plan that restricts immigration but doesn't even touch on people within our own population having 8 and 10 kids they can't take care of as anything more than xenophobia. In other words: If you're worried about overpopulation then fine, but don't come to me with a plan to restrict immigration unless you've got a plan to restrict births as well. Our problems with overpopulation didn't start with immigration, and nor does it end there. Even if we stopped all people from hopping our borders right now, illegal or otherwise, our population would still be going up at a rate of 2.1 births per woman (according to Google), which is still a pretty fast rate.

Aside from that, the way I see it this immigration from Mexico is pretty inevitable. Millions are here right now, living and working, and more are still coming over. Even if we stopped all border hopping right this second, that would still leave 12+ million people within our borders who aren't accounted for. Unless you're going to argue weeding out and deporting all of these people is feasible (and good luck with that), amnesty in some form or another is inevitable. Anything else is just a waste of resources. And at the very least, the children of illegals who grew up here are going to need some help. Even if they weren't born here and didn't come over until they were infants, the fact is they grew up here and because of that know about as much about living in Mexico as any other child who grew up in the US does. Throwing them back would be akin to throwing any kid off the street into Mexico.

It's much better worth our time and money to find a way to integrate these people into the system. Nothing less than storming into Mexico Iraq-style and using our own military to wage war on the drug cartels and forcibly un-fuck their government is going to stop people from trying to come over, and while building a wall might solve one angle of this problem about 10 years from now, it doesn't do anything about the people who are here right now. Getting a better system in place will deal with the problem on our hands right now and get these people into the system faster so they can become functioning, tax-paying citizens faster.

Lilani:

Ryotknife:
While I agree that legal immigration is in dire need of reform and I hope there is enough steam leftover from the illegal immigration push to help out the legals, we are kinda having a population problem right now.

Don't get me wrong, we have plenty of space and resources, but what we don't have is infrastructure. Our population has grown by over 50% in 40 years, and yet most of our infrastructure/bureaucracy is from the 60'/70's. The bureaucracy of our country is absolutely terribly, and having an open gate policy would strain it further.

Not to mention, we are not the only viable country to immigrate to. If we were then we would be more obligated to bend the rules, at least in my view. There are plenty of other wonderful countries to immigrate to.

Unless you're also going to start telling people they can't have more than two children, I don't see why cutting off immigration is in any way a viable way to address that issue. The way I see it, if we're going to seriously take this as an opportunity to address overpopulation, I can't interpret any plan that restricts immigration but doesn't even touch on people within our own population having 8 and 10 kids they can't take care of as anything more than xenophobia. In other words: If you're worried about overpopulation then fine, but don't come to me with a plan to restrict immigration unless you've got a plan to restrict births as well. Our problems with overpopulation didn't start with immigration, and nor does it end there. Even if we stopped all people from hopping our borders right now, illegal or otherwise, our population would still be going up at a rate of 2.1 births per woman (according to Google), which is still a pretty fast rate.

Aside from that, the way I see it this immigration from Mexico is pretty inevitable. Millions are here right now, living and working, and more are still coming over. Even if we stopped all border hopping right this second, that would still leave 12+ million people within our borders who aren't accounted for. Unless you're going to argue weeding out and deporting all of these people is feasible (and good luck with that), amnesty in some form or another is inevitable. Anything else is just a waste of resources. And at the very least, the children of illegals who grew up here are going to need some help. Even if they weren't born here and didn't come over until they were infants, the fact is they grew up here and because of that know about as much about living in Mexico as any other child who grew up in the US does. Throwing them back would be akin to throwing any kid off the street into Mexico.

It's much better worth our time and money to find a way to integrate these people into the system. Nothing less than storming into Mexico Iraq-style and using our own military to wage war on the drug cartels and forcibly un-fuck their government is going to stop people from trying to come over, and while building a wall might solve one angle of this problem about 10 years from now, it doesn't do anything about the people who are here right now. Getting a better system in place will deal with the problem on our hands right now and get these people into the system faster so they can become functioning, tax-paying citizens faster.

I support giving amnesty to the 11 million illegals in our country as it would be impractical to kick them out, and it would involve a lot of innocents being unjustly punished as there many of them have been here for decades and started a family or who are 3rd or 4th gen illegals. It is not the kids fault that their mother or father came here illegally.

We do not, however, have any moral or legal obligation to let millions start walking across the border as they see fit, especially when our public sector is being strained so much as it is and will likely experience budget cuts. To top it off, unemployment is a serious issue in our country, even for unskilled/minimum wage workers all the way to professional. Exactly where are they going to find jobs? As for why pass the buck onto foreigners and not the citizens? well that is an easy one. Our country does not have an obligation to foreigners, it DOES however have an obligation to americans. I don't know how infringing on people's rights is the same thing as saying No Vacancy. And truth be told at the rate at which our population is exploding we may very well have to institute population control laws 50-100 years down the road.

As for the Cartels, I would love it if our military got more involved. However any effort would have to be led by Mexico, not the US. If we went in on our own it would turn into a clusterfuck as the Cartels do have popular support. Unfortunately, the US is not known for playing second fiddle in someone else's marching band. It doesn't help that it is illegal for our soldiers to serve a foreign general. The situation in the US would be so much better if the Cartels didn't exist. You would see a drastic reduction in gang and drug related violence.

(hell even state colleges here in the US have a screening process and will only accept a certain number of students who qualify. That is significantly more immoral than limiting how many immigrants come into the country)

Seanchaidh:
I think groups of people (such as those that form into nations) can have legitimate reasons to want to limit membership and that, whatever faults or disparities one might find in the process of becoming a member, that isn't a very good argument for getting rid of those processes altogether. Just because there are a bunch of people who I'd rather not be Americans, that doesn't in turn mean that everyone should be an American. Even in the broadest form of political association, I feel it is wise to be at least a little bit selective. The United States is probably too selective and limited as far as its legal immigration policy. But "opening the floodgates" is not the answer.

Then, by all means, what basis will you choose people to join your nation? Intelligence? Knowledge? Wealth? I ask you why? Why select traits? Anyone can work and an economy is made up of working individuals - the more you have the better your economy can become. Right now the US has a workforce of whom illegal immigrants are a small but significant portion of cheap, disposable labour. What makes a man a citizen of the US? Do these people, who live and work there, not deserve the same legal protections as someone who was born there? What significance does the geographical location of where the mother gave birth really have?

Verbatim:
Immigrate to Uganda i hear it's lovely.
People immigrate to find a better life, this is not a basic right, the US like any other country has a full right to protect it self against negative immigration.
The reforms are not about opening the floodgates but about the the hell you do with all those people who got their illegally, some of them are 3rd and even 4th generation.
Immigrants in most cases follow the law and pay taxes just as fine, does not mean that they don't have a negative effect on the economy or the country. The EU has major problem with immigration, forget the social aspects, many immigrants to the EU are a burden on the economy due to the social benefits these countries provide. When they implemented free healthcare, free education, pension and social security and a truckload of other benefits they did not count on millions of people that will come to mooch off them while paying back very little in return. When you have a situation that for each highly skilled worker that immigrates to an EU country earning a high income while in most cases using very little benefits you get 1000 unskilled workers, many of them will live fully or partially from unemployment and other benefits while breeding like rabbits you get an unsustainable immigration policy. Yes people every where deserve a better life, but screwing up functioning countries like the US, Canada, Australia, and EU countries is not a solution.

What, exactly, would you like me to argue? Because your arguments seem to be completely convoluted. Would you like me to address your point economically, where immigrants provide billions to the EU in cheap labour? Socially, in that immigrants often-times have more liberal notions about the countries they migrate to than the conservative portion of the natives? Or back to what I want to argue in that you have no right to determine whether a man should join your club or not based on where they were born? The problem, I think you are most afraid of, is that people come to other nations with their own cultures and don't adapt. I, however, believe that if your way of life is so good then they will naturally, over generations, perhaps, change their ways. Like the Old English in Ireland who became more Irish than the Irish.

Lilani:

I agree that there are still those who come here legally, but I don't see it as fair to hold it against them because not all of them had an equal opportunity to pursue the legal method in the first place.

Immigration isn't an egalitarian thing. A nation is supposed to be able to pick who comes based on who we want. Maybe our laws are such in order to filter out those who are not already middle and upper class for our own purposes. Did we, like any other nation historically, lose the right to this determination?

Verbatim:

Those numbers are for citizens not for immigrants AFAIK, the majority of Spanish speakers did not immigrate into the US, well they did but they didn't move the border did after the US Mexican war..

Grim numbers and facts. So you think assimilation unlikely? The best scenario of which I can think is related to Europe. Along borders, there are plenty of people that are at least bilingual. But Germans that can speak French still see themselves as Germans. Not sure that will translate here.

Odgical:
Then, by all means, what basis will you choose people to join your nation?

I haven't decided; that doesn't mean anyone at all is acceptable. Health, politics, extraordinary talents, usefulness, criminality... it is all relevant. A nation is an association of individuals: it is of interest to each who can join.

Also, I don't see how having more nationals necessarily improves my standard of living-- especially when there is a large volume of international trade. A larger economy is not necessarily a better one. (I prefer my economic measurements per capita.)

Seanchaidh:

Odgical:
Then, by all means, what basis will you choose people to join your nation?

I haven't decided; that doesn't mean anyone at all is acceptable. Health, politics, extraordinary talents, usefulness, criminality... it is all relevant. A nation is an association of individuals: it is of interest to each who can join.

Also, I don't see how having more nationals necessarily improves my standard of living-- especially when there is a large volume of international trade. A larger economy is not necessarily a better one. (I prefer my economic measurements per capita.)

You're choosing people like they're a particularly good breed of cattle, as though they're not people at all. Why does it matter what PhD someone has or what invention someone brings when each person is capable of doing something extraordinary that benefits the whole? As long as they pay taxes in the mean time, and as long as they follow the law, why would you let one person into a country based on something as untelling of his character as possessing a particular skillset and not another who is capable of learning the same thing? More over, if this is how you choose, why would you not advocate kicking out people you deem to be not useful and a drain on your country's resources? Is it not the same thing as picking only the useful people to come in?

I tell you, it's arbitrary how we pick and choose who's allowed in and who isn't and the nationalism surrounding immigration is harmful, both to the economy and... I dunno, the sentence was going really well until I tried thinking of the second thing. To humanity? Yeah... yeah, sounds cheesily delicious.

Odgical:

Seanchaidh:

Odgical:
Then, by all means, what basis will you choose people to join your nation?

I haven't decided; that doesn't mean anyone at all is acceptable. Health, politics, extraordinary talents, usefulness, criminality... it is all relevant. A nation is an association of individuals: it is of interest to each who can join.

Also, I don't see how having more nationals necessarily improves my standard of living-- especially when there is a large volume of international trade. A larger economy is not necessarily a better one. (I prefer my economic measurements per capita.)

You're choosing people like they're a particularly good breed of cattle, as though they're not people at all. Why does it matter what PhD someone has or what invention someone brings when each person is capable of doing something extraordinary that benefits the whole?

Where practical, people should be evaluated as people. This does not mean "open the floodgates".

Gorfias:
Immigration isn't an egalitarian thing. A nation is supposed to be able to pick who comes based on who we want. Maybe our laws are such in order to filter out those who are not already middle and upper class for our own purposes. Did we, like any other nation historically, lose the right to this determination?

I suppose we haven't lost the right, I just think it's odd that we're exercising it in the first place. The last time we exercised it, it was during WWI and WWII, for obvious reasons. Until then we let in all sorts of people. And now...what? We've decided we're "good enough?" We've decided our "melting pot" has reached the right balance of flavors?

Also, again, people coming over is inevitable. Millions are already over here, and even if we began construction on a 20-30 foot unscalable wall between us and Mexico today it would take a decade or more for the thing to be built (not to mention tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to build and then from that day forward guard). So until then, we'd still have to deal with the ones that are here and the ones that will continue to come over for the next 10 years or so. Deciding whether or not they should come over is not the end of the conversation. They're here, that's a fact. They've been here and working for a while now, actually. If there's any affect they were going to have on the economy or the workforce, it's happened already.

Seanchaidh:
Where practical, people should be evaluated as people.

Would you like to rephrase this? Or did you mean this to sound as dehumanising as it does to me?

Odgical:

Seanchaidh:
Where practical, people should be evaluated as people.

Would you like to rephrase this? Or did you mean this to sound as dehumanising as it does to me?

I think you read what you want to read anyway.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked