Immigration Question

Great. You're wrong.

 

I'd be inteested in having you describe, philosophically, this higher moral obligation. I'm asking the "why" question.

 

Let's make this easy. Is there anything I could say here that would change your opinion? Answer honestly. If the answer is "no", which I am almost certain that it is, then spending time trying to convince you of my position would be about as conducive as arguing my position with a wall.

 

I am pretty strongly opposed to open immigration. We have too many people in our country who coast. We do not need any more. Having worked internationally I have had the pleasure of meeting many different people of all nationalities. I know several families that have "immigrated" to the United States. Most of those families do not drain the system and in fact contribute. However, I know of a couple families who came to the US with few skills and not very good job prospects. One Asian family I am aware of came to the US after one of the children got their citizenship. That one child brought a good chunk of his immediate family over. The problem is that most of his immediate family don't have any skills that are needed in the American marketplace. Worse, they don't speak any English and don't have any interest in learning English. After the waiting period expired, several of his family members applied for an now receive public assistance. I can tell how wrong I feel that this can happen.

When I go to the US Embassy in just about any country during US Citizen hours there will be a room full of people waiting for service. A big embassy like Dubai you might have to wait several hours. What really sucks about it is that in a room of 100 people, there will be two natural born Americans. The rest will be immigrants who got their US citizenship and then left when they got the passport.

Immigration should be very selective awarded to deserving people. It should not be handed out to anyone who wants one. (before anyone blasts me, the definition of deserving to me is someone who is going to contribute to American society)

 

By the way, I forgot to mention my wife is a foreign national. We have been married for many years and she does not carry a US passport. We looked into it, but it is nearly impossible with our lifestyle. We have never lived in the United States and probably never will. It is easier for a refugee of Afghanistan to get a US passport than for my wife. Go figure.

 

"The primary objective of the Convention is to foster respect for migrants’ human rights. Migrants are not only workers, they are also human beings. The Convention does not create new rights for migrants but aims at guaranteeing equality of treatment, and the same working conditions for migrants and nationals. The Convention innovates because it relies on the fundamental notion that all migrants should have access to a minimum degree of protection. The Convention recognizes that legal migrants have the legitimacy to claim more rights than undocumented migrants, but it stresses that undocumented migrants must see their fundamental human rights respected, like all human beings."
"So far, countries that have ratified the Convention are primarily countries of origin of migrants (such as Mexico, Morocco and the Philippines)."

"No migrant-receiving State in Western Europe or North America has ratified the Convention. Other important receiving countries, such as Australia, Arab states of the Persian Gulf, India and South Africa have not ratified the Convention either."

United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are some comments from wikipedia on the The United Nations International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. No politician in this country would commit to this treaty because of the potential opposition by unions and the general fear in the community that it would be abused. Although the Treaty allows a differentiation in treatment between documented and undocumented immigrants, there probably exists a lack of trust in how the courts may deal with any differentiation.

Under the current law here, foreign workers are given a 457 Visa for work if the company that employs them cannot source Australian Workers. This visa provision is being attacked by unions here that are saying that this is being abused by companies.
Temporary Business (Long Stay) - Standard Business Sponsorship (Subclass 457)

Refugees are dealt with on a separate Convention. You cannot be an illegal refugee. Either you are a refugee or you are an undocumented immigrant. Refugees only have the right to stay until the threat to their person is lifted. The question is whether the person is a refugee or not.

Some countries treat the labor of their people as an export and the money flows back across the border to that country. The Phillippines does that with the Middle East. The problem that Australia has with the "boat people" is (1) the number that are lost at sea, (2) it skews the intake of refugees in favour of those that can pay the people smugglers so it is "a classed defined safety process". The poor go to the camps. The third issue is that the money and expertise that drifts out of the country where the undocumented immigrant comes from undermines the economy of that country. Students overstaying their visa (basically wanting to stay here) also undermine educational places designed to increase the economic power of their country of origin.
Here is an article on South Africa and Zimbabwean Refugees:
South Africa
Another important issue is the swamping of social services. Communities have reasonably invested in their social services and may suddenly find that their social services are overwhelmed by undocumented immigrants or refugees. The development of "socially defined living spaces" can create massive resentments with some areas suddenly becoming "nogo' areas for locals.

There are so many issues that need to be worked through. In my opinion, my country needs to engage positively with the countries that are producing the refugees and undocumented immigrants to increase living standards there as a first priority. More "real aid" and support for structural reforms may reduce the intake of dislocated people and potential racial conflicts. Nobody packs up and leaves his/her country if it is providing real opportunities and security. I am unlikely, for example, to "gatecrash" the US border because I am unhappy being an Australian.
I make the point that I am speaking globally and I am not over the issues in the US. Ultimately it is, as it should be, a question for the US citizenry to decide, not people who don't live there.

 

Try "You're wrong." It has amazing argumentative powers. Really. I watched a guy use it and simply crush the other one's point of view. Amazing in its simplicity. Now, I realize you run the risk of sounding like a reactive simpleton, but what the heck. Go for it.

 

"You're wrong" is generally the best response when someone says something inaccurate, say like "If one accepts the premise that the country is the border between peoples. I do not.". There is nothing I could say to change your position, so it's easiest to just point out that you're incorrect and move on.
In regards to the question Kizmet posed to me, I don't really need to defend my position. I know it's right, but I also know that neither of us is going to change the other's mind so debating it is an exercise in futility.

 

I do not know about others or their situations; but my mother, sister, and I came to this country as political asylum refugees. We had to prove no medical problems, and have financial problems in home country. We received the Government assistance for within a year when we came here in 1995. My mother worked 3 different jobs to support us, and we lived in 1-bedroom apartment, which we paid about $500.00 per month in the Northern Virginia area. I used to have only one pair of shoes, for both physical class and wearing them everywhere. In fact, my mother bought them for me from GoodWill. We received medicaid for 6 months, but only used them for physical exams for school enrollment purposes. After that we had no medical insurance just likes the rest of the Americans.

My sister and I started working as soon as we turned into 15. We worked as custodians while attended full-time school. My sister quit high school and went to vocational school. Now she owns multiple beauty salon shops. I graduated from high school and joined the Marine Corps; we had to keep our record clean for 5 years before becoming U.S citizens. Over all, we have been paying more taxes than what we received assistance from the Government.

After reading the Tsarnaev family; I could not believe that they have been taking the advantages of our Government systems. According to Tamerlan Tsarnaev's death certificate, at the age of 26 "NEVER WORKED."

I think the US Immigration policy should be tighten to avoid any issues like terrorist attacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N16hnSop6ek

 

My opinions are.

 

What Steve Foerster said.

 

Did someone mention my name? I haven't even been posting to this thread very much. I'm just trying to be my usual provocative self, stirring the pot, stirring up trouble. The fact is I haven't made up my mind on this topic. I think it's complex (do you remember the very first word in the thread?) and I think that we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of that complexity. I think it's been an interesting discussion so far but it's far from done. I think what's needed next is facts. The opinions were clear long before this post was ever created. But where are the facts? I WANT DEMOGRAPHICS!!!

 

What kind of facts are you looking for? What demographics?

I think one of the more interesting questions to ask in the immigration debate is where are the environmental studies on the impact of all of this immigration?

 

Try this one:

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/cdp_background_papers/bp2011_11e.pdf

 

I guess I was wondering if anyone had any verifiable facts that might actually support their opinion(s). Demographic data might include stuff like legal v illegal immigration numbers over time. Money spent trying to solve the problem. Money needed to really solve the problem, etc.

To me this seems a bit like the war on drugs. We spend billions of dollars and yet nothing seems any better. I'm not saying that we should just open the borders but I also don't want to spend every last cent I have trying to close them.

 

Most people ignore the facts/demographics. It's just like if you look at crime, educational achievement, etc. broken down by race. The numbers say one thing but most people plug their ears and yell "la-la-la-la-I-cant-hear-you-la-la-la" when faced with those types of facts.