Thoughts on illegal immigration.

[R. Richard]

My only thought on this subject is who made the boundaries? Free world? Pfft.

Actually, I can answer your question.

In the case of the USA, the boundaries were made up by theft from the Amerinds, negotiations with Mexico and Canada and war. The last might be best understood by Googling up 'the Alamo.'

In the case of Portugal, the boundaries were made up by war with the various kingdoms that eventually formed Spain.

In the case of South America, the boundaries were largely made up by war with Spain. The last might be best understood by Googling up Bernardo O'Higgens.'

 

[R. Richard]

Just wanted to point out that the situation in Cuba is not catastrophic. People don't have money, or freedom to elect or reject their government, but they don't live in fear of starvation, torture, disease etc. Also they're pretty literate end well-educated compared to Americans! And they have a better basic health service.

Wrong! If you criticize, in any way, the government of Cuba, you risk torture and even death. If Cubans in the US didn't send money, some poor Cubans would literally starve to death. Cuba once exported food, now it imports food, mainly from the US.

As to the conditions in Cuba, the workers paradise is so nice that any number of Cubans risk their lives to arrive in the US with just the clothes on their backs.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I don't know about this...the United States, although it is a country - a nation-state - it actually a conglomeration widely varied cultures, almost on a state by state basis. The only thing that keep them together, except for that little ruckus back around 1861, is the belief in the constitution, which limits the power of the central government - although this is becoming less and less true - and gives most of the power to govern to the states themselves. Therefore the US really doesn't have common culture, except that they are all Americans. I myself am a Midwestern American, although I have lived in many different cities in various states. Even the major city I currently live near, itself has a variety cultures.

Actually, there is an American culture, which is a fusion of the various subcultures, overlaid with the ideas of the Founding Fathers and the Enlightenment, though many don't realize it. Most people, sadly, wouldn't be able to name most of the Framers or much of the Constitution.

As for immigration, there is a simple matter of legal vs. illegal. If a law is worth making, it's worth enforcing. Otherwise, don't pass it and then use it on an arbitrary. That just breeds injustice and corruption.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

One of the teasons for that might be that, during the Civil War and WW1 and 2, the unwilling went along and did poorly. In Vietnam, the unwilling dodged the draft, one way or another. The ones who actually ended up taken were those who didn't mind all that much. I don't mean they liked the idea, I just mean they didn't dislike it all that much.

How poorly? In the Civil War, Federal draftees won, while Confederate conscripts held out for 4 years. That's not too bad. In Vietnam, they fought bravely, yes. I respect them for that. But they didn't win.

 

[NoJo]

Wrong! If you criticize, in any way, the government of Cuba, you risk torture and even death. If Cubans in the US didn't send money, some poor Cubans would literally starve to death. Cuba once exported food, now it imports food, mainly from the US.

As to the conditions in Cuba, the workers paradise is so nice that any number of Cubans risk their lives to arrive in the US with just the clothes on their backs.

You're just pissed because you can't go there

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RICHARD

The babel might be interesting to observe.

But the idea is to relocate immigrants from HERE to THERE, what happens after they get THERE is irrelevant. Maybe Mexico could colonize Iraq.

 

[R. Richard]

You're just pissed because you can't go there

As I pointed out before, going there isn't really the problem. It's getting back out.

 

[R. Richard]

RICHARD

The babel might be interesting to observe.

Interesting? Someone once defined adventure as someone else, far away, having a hard time of it.

 

[CharleyH]

I have mixed feelings about this issue. Part of me is annoyed that I went to all of this legal effort to get naturalized, while they just go over the border. On the other hand, I am a citizen and they are not, so they do not reap the full benefits of immigration, so in a sense they are already being punished.

Add to this sweatshop labor, and only the fact of how horrid things must be in Mexico for them to prefer such conditions makes this seem like a reward for their crimes.

Amnesty...that may go too far, true, if taken to a certain extent. But is it so bad to ease the immigration laws in the first place to make it unnecessary for people to break the law in order to enter this great country? I am not advocating "open borders", as some would say. I understand the need to keep out criminals, lunatics, and terrorists. But most immigrants are just peasants, seeking a better life. I am not sure how much all of them know of the U.S. immigration laws. I was different, but then I am from a civilized, totally literate European country with First World technology and decent laws and regulations governing labor conditions.

But I don't want to just open the border and let everyone in. Where is the middle ground, the decent compromise that keeps the floodgates closed, but lets in the "huddled masses, breathing, yearning to be free"?

There is a fine line between preserving border control and outright xenophobia. Then again, my native country has no place to judge, given its discrimination against Turkish and Kurdish refugees. And that's just what the Mexicans are, I think. Refugees, just like Cubans and Haitians, from a catastrophic situation at home.

While you are worried about Mexicans, 100's of Canadians are invading daily.

 

[freshface]

While you are worried about Mexicans, 100's of Canadians are invading daily.

But they tend to be white and speak English, so we hardly notice them.

 

[CharleyH]

But they tend to be white and speak English, so we hardly notice them.

Thank you.

 

[CharleyH]

In the case of Portugal, the boundaries were made up by war with the various kingdoms that eventually formed Spain.

Not really. Both Portugal and the kingdoms of Spain were warring the Arabs and pushing them away to the south, so the border between Portugal and Spain just more or less happened as a result of the North to South sweep.

In the case of South America, the boundaries were largely made up by war with Spain. The last might be best understood by Googling up Bernardo O'Higgens.'

Only within the Spanish-speaking space. The border of Brazil resulted from how far the Brazilians could make into the tropical forest before finding the Spanish on the other side; French Guiana resulted from wars between Portugal, France and the Netherlands, and treaty negotiations, etc.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Wrong. Iberia was once a collection of kingdoms that included Portugal, Castile, Leon, Aragon, Andalusia, and others. Marriages congealed most of Iberia into Spain.

The pope demarcated zero longitude to separate Spanish claims from Portugese claims.

 

[R. Richard]

Not really. Both Portugal and the kingdoms of Spain were warring the Arabs and pushing them away to the south, so the border between Portugal and Spain just more or less happened as a result of the North to South sweep.

Not quite so simple. The Portuguese Restoration War (Portuguese: Guerra da Restauração) was the name given after the 19th century by romantic historians to the war between Portugal and Castile after the revolution of 1640, that ended the sixty years period of the dual monarchy between Portugal and Castile under the House of Habsburg. A Spanish state and a Spanish King would officially start to exist just after the French-inspired Bourbonic reforms of the 18th century.

In the 17th century and afterwards, it was simply known in Portugal and elsewhere as the Acclamation War, as it simply restored the independence of Portugal's ruling dynasty, the House of Braganza, deposing a tyrant king under constitutional Portuguese Law, and acclaiming (or electing) another one more suitable to the country. This had been done already several times before in Portuguese history.

There's a lot more, but there were battles fought and a continuing border war for some time.

 

[Edward Teach]

You generally agree with his points?

I generally agree with your points.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I generally agree with your points.

I generally agree with your points.

 

[Edward Teach]

Not really. Both Portugal and the kingdoms of Spain were warring the Arabs and pushing them away to the south, so the border between Portugal and Spain just more or less happened as a result of the North to South sweep.

Only within the Spanish-speaking space. The border of Brazil resulted from how far the Brazilians could make into the tropical forest before finding the Spanish on the other side; French Guiana resulted from wars between Portugal, France and the Netherlands, and treaty negotiations, etc.

I thought the Portugese simply hated the mud so they kept the solid Brazillian ground and let the French and Spanish have the bogs.

Edward the Dry

 

[Edward Teach]

I generally agree with your points.

Wanna play a card game?
You're cute as hell

 

[cantdog]

Well, if you're to have a nation-state, you need a national identity of some sort, a common culture that can unite the diversity of subcultural minorities. Otherwise, you're a fragmented empire, and such things are doomed to fall.

This points to the real battleground. Culture! The fears these anti-immigrant people have, now and for the last century, involve cultural survival.

So. rather than sweat what origin people might have or what color their skins are, stick to the point. These Irish-Americans, for example, who want big fences and mass deportation-- how ignorant of history they choose to be! HELP WANTED NO IRISH NEED APPLY was a common enough sign a hundred years ago, and here are the Ogilvies and Donovans of America barking like rabid dogs at the latinos.

The point is, the Irish were at length seduced into the American mutt culture we have here. Oh, they still want their daughters to marry Catholic, sure. Look around! There are more Irish here than in Ireland, now, but no one is wringing their hands about our culture being "drowned" by Irishness.

If the dominant cultural mix is actually, as these xenophobes suggest, in grave danger from these immigrants and their own imported culture, then it's not a very robust or fascinating or seductive culture, now, is it?

Quit fighting the immigrant war and start winning the culture war. If THEY join YOUR culture, you will have preserved it. If YOUR kids, rather, begin to talk and live like urban blacks or latinos, then yes, you are losing. The culture war is the main thing, in the end. What have the Anglos got to get excited about? Button down shirts, ties, boardrooms? Those godawful "hats" that now do most of the country music in this country? Get on the stick! If you have a bland, loser culture, then you'll deserve to lose this.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I think that the bigger issue is that there must be a cultural umbrella that can unite the various cultures within American society. True, there will always be Chinatown and Little Italy. As there should be. It has improved things, and made them more interesting. But can we absorb the new wave? I hope so.

But that is separate from the legality matter. Are immigration laws a bit old-fashioned in some ways? Perhaps, but not totally. We still don't want murderers, gangsters, terrorists, etc. Now, if there are some arcane rules that make no sense, that's different.

Perhaps the best approach to simply review and examine all present immigration laws, changing those which no longer (if they ever did) make sense, and keeping what does make sense. Then the illegals will be without excuse, just cutters in the immigrant line. And no one likes a line jumper.

McCain-Kennedy didn't do this. It didn't address the basic issue. It just adopted the whole "guest worker" nonsense, which would let in people without any real restrictions or limitations, whatsoever.

Instead, do a top to bottom shaking up of the immigration laws and throw out the bathwater, but not the baby, as it were.

 

[freshface]

I think that the bigger issue is that there must be a cultural umbrella that can unite the various cultures within American society. True, there will always be Chinatown and Little Italy. As there should be. It has improved things, and made them more interesting. But can we absorb the new wave? I hope so.

But that is separate from the legality matter. Are immigration laws a bit old-fashioned in some ways? Perhaps, but not totally. We still don't want murderers, gangsters, terrorists, etc. Now, if there are some arcane rules that make no sense, that's different.

Perhaps the best approach to simply review and examine all present immigration laws, changing those which no longer (if they ever did) make sense, and keeping what does make sense. Then the illegals will be without excuse, just cutters in the immigrant line. And no one likes a line jumper.

McCain-Kennedy didn't do this. It didn't address the basic issue. It just adopted the whole "guest worker" nonsense, which would let in people without any real restrictions or limitations, whatsoever.

Instead, do a top to bottom shaking up of the immigration laws and throw out the bathwater, but not the baby, as it were.

But see, that's the problem with immigration reform. In one paragraph you say only keep the laws that make sense. In the next you say "guest worker nonsense." Personally, I think that the guest worker provision makes sense. For generations, Mexicans came to the US as migrant workers for part of each year to follow the harvest. The rest of the year they spent in their home villages with their wives and children, usually long enough to harvest a crop. In some places, this was the pattern for the whole village. All the young men spent part of each year working in the US. When we sealed the border and it became harder and more expensive to cross, these men brought their families to the US. Instead of having part time residents, we have the whole family living in the US full time. Now, when we deport the family, we're deporting native-born US citizens. I wonder how loyal they'll be when they return as adults to the country that deported them as children.

 

[Guest]

I generally agree with your points.

Gimme a hug, baby.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

But see, that's the problem with immigration reform. In one paragraph you say only keep the laws that make sense. In the next you say "guest worker nonsense." Personally, I think that the guest worker provision makes sense. For generations, Mexicans came to the US as migrant workers for part of each year to follow the harvest. The rest of the year they spent in their home villages with their wives and children, usually long enough to harvest a crop. In some places, this was the pattern for the whole village. All the young men spent part of each year working in the US. When we sealed the border and it became harder and more expensive to cross, these men brought their families to the US. Instead of having part time residents, we have the whole family living in the US full time. Now, when we deport the family, we're deporting native-born US citizens. I wonder how loyal they'll be when they return as adults to the country that deported them as children.

If their children are born as citizens, then the children shouldn't be deported. But letting people in every year as "migrant workers", without screening for criminals and terrorists? Not a good idea. It's the letting them in the first place that's the issue. Even temporary residents need to be carefully screened.

Those laws pertaining to permanent residents that are too restrictive, however, can be relaxed. However, some things should be automatic red flags- criminal convictions, terrorist links, things of that sort. And the path to citizenship must involve learning to speak English fluently.

 

[xssve]

Well, if you're to have a nation-state, you need a national identity of some sort, a common culture that can unite the diversity of subcultural minorities. Otherwise, you're a fragmented empire, and such things are doomed to fall.

On the contrary, nearly all progress in the United States, really ain't all of human history, can be traced to people who defied the "natural order", what ever it was - the most vibrant cultures are generally found the margins of cultures, the most progressive city states of antiquity were usually those found on the borders between widely disparate cultures - monolithic cultures tend to be resistant to change, but change itself never sleeps, and the collapse of civilizations usually correlates with a culture that becomes too monolithic and sclerotic; these cultures tend to stagnate and decay under the weight of their own inertia.

Progress in Europe was almost unknown until the Italians started trading with the Orient, and eventually, that changed everything.

Our national identity, if we have one, is supposed to be equal treatment under the law and free and fair competition - period. Those are the principles upon which this country was founded, and it's a sound foundation; once it becomes about protecting the status quo, it's all downhill.

 

[freshface]

If their children are born as citizens, then the children shouldn't be deported. But letting people in every year as "migrant workers", without screening for criminals and terrorists? Not a good idea. It's the letting them in the first place that's the issue. Even temporary residents need to be carefully screened.

Those laws pertaining to permanent residents that are too restrictive, however, can be relaxed. However, some things should be automatic red flags- criminal convictions, terrorist links, things of that sort. And the path to citizenship must involve learning to speak English fluently.

Right, so you decide if you leave your four year old in the US or take him back someplace where he might not survive childhood.

We have thousands of miles of border. We're never going to keep people out. Better to have a system for guest workers that gives us the workers we need and reduces the incentive for people to come in illegally.

You still have to define criminal convictions, terrorist links, etc. In China you can be convicted for criticizing the government. Does that mean that you shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to the US? There have been cases in the news recently of people who were kidnapped as children and forced to serve in rebel organizations that have been deemed terrorist. That happens all the time with the FARC in Colombia. They have no problems at all with conscription. A fifteen year old is given the choice to fight or die. He manages to escape when he's seventeen. Should he be banned for life from coming to the US? I don't think it's nearly as black and white as you do.