Immigration Question

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Kizmet, May 18, 2013.

Loading...
  1. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Complexity

    Currently our legislators are developing a revision to our (USA) immigration laws. Where I live this doesn't seem to be too much of a big deal but I have an interest in the subject. I'm guessing that most of our members were born right here in the USA and a much smaller percentage were born elsewhere and then came to this country either as children or adults. Depending on how far back you want to go, we all came from somewhere else. Of course, that's true for every country in the world except maybe South Africa. Ancient history aside, personally, I'm glad we're all here.

    In this time of terrorism I understand the need to protect our borders. I also understand the need to simply know who the people are who are living in our country. But here's something else I know. My family came to this country and they just walked off a ship and they were, in that moment, Americans. That was how our country was founded. Also, I know this. If I was living in another country (like somewhere in South/Central America or Asia somewhere) and if I had no opportunity and little hope then I think I would be willing to break the law in order to put myself in a better position. I might have a family that has a chance in the world. I would break the law. So how could I then punish people who would do just as I would do.

    So, smart people of degreeinfo, what should our immigration policy be?
     
  2. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    open borders
     
  3. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Please tell me you are joking? Pretty please.

    Our immigration policy should come from this standpoint; What is good for the people of THIS country? What's best for everyone already here...legally.
     
  4. ebbwvale

    ebbwvale Member

    A massive debate raging in Australia at the moment on this topic for this country. Refugees are paying people smugglers massive sums of money to come from Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Africa (somewhat less). A lot are drowning trying to get here. The ones that arrive and are granted asylum are taking the place of people from the camps in Africa or elsewhere. There is a total number of places allocated each year to Asylum seekers. Everyone that comes by boat removes that opportunity for one in a camp. Some people have been in camps awaiting placement for 20 years. Camp life is generally brutal. Unspeakable atrocities are often committed in these camps.

    There is a dilemma. Each country must protect its borders or it brings into question security. If, for example, enough people could pour through an open border and enjoy full citizenry then your country's values and economy could change in the blink of an eye. You may get "pushback" against women's rights and the idea of religious freedom due to the clash of cultures for example. By the same token, unduly harsh acceptance lets the persecution of people continue. No country wanted to accept the Jewish population prior to World War Two which, in Nazi eyes, validated the Nazi continuance of persecution. A lot of our country's best and finest have their origins in the immigration and refugee policies. I guess like the US, we would be very poor without immigrants.

    I think the first move by developed countries is, as far as possible, alleviate living conditions in the third world and any place where persecution occurs. I think the key to that is the economy. As far as I can see, the development of a middle class lifts the overall living conditions and facilitates the the breakdown of prejudices over the longer term, although there are many examples of a middle class perpetuating minority discrimination.

    Secondly, there must be an immigration focus on a primary goal which puts the interests of the country's citizenry before others. If you do otherwise, you will get swamped by the need. Secondly, genuine refugees should always be accepted. This does not mean, however, that they enjoy the full rights of citizenry, but they are free from presecution and their basic needs are met inclusive of education, health, etc. To do otherwise, in my opinion, is to revictimize them. Economic refugees, fleeing poverty not persecution, should be restricted if you are already targeting areas of need with meaningful support programs for their country's internal difficulties.

    Whether this would be acceptable in the US or not, is purely a matter for the US. The world has a refugee problem at present due to conflict, poor governance, and famine. These three issues need to be addressed to alleviate pressures on borders. Distance education has a role in this and some internet colleges are providing meaningful support to impoverished countries.
     
  5. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    An interesting view from another country. My suspicions are somewhat confirmed. This is a global issue and will not be solved by simply saying "no."
     
  6. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Agreed, and no, 03310151, we're not joking. Part of it is a liberty issue -- if you're a free person, you're free to go where you want so long as you don't harm other people. And refusing permanent status to young people who were brought here as children and know no other country is disgraceful and cruel.

    Another part of it is that it wouldn't be that big a deal. I'll look for the article, but apparently research has been done where people every country were surveyed on whether they would like to leave their country and if so where they would rather be. By running those numbers, if everyone in the world who wanted to come to the U.S. had the option to do so, the population here would swell, but only to a bit over 500 million. Obviously there would have to be no access to public welfare for new arrivals, but otherwise over time that is not a population too large to effectively assimilate. In fact, turning the welfare argument around, if you want to collect Social Security or Medicare later in life you'd better support immigration, because Americans as a whole have too low a birth rate to sustain those sorts of public pyramid schemes.
     
  7. graymatter

    graymatter Member

    FYI: Came to the United States as a child with parents who came on an education-only VISA. Never left (neither did my parents or siblings). For several years, we were "illegal" to one degree or another. Parents are now both US citizens. Siblings (and I) have green cards (well, pink).
     
  8. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    I'm glad you're all here.:heart:
     
  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Not an open border for me, but one with a gate--a big one.

    Have undocumented aliens been the major perpetrators of terrorism in the U.S.? I'm not talking about over-stayed student visas, but actual people who snuck in . I don't think so, but perhaps I'm mistaken. It seems like most terrorism is conducted by U.S. citizens or legal aliens.

    Other than terrorism, it seems to me that the major issue left is economic impact. This can be assessed for people applying to come to the U.S., and it is. But for people already here? It would seem that acceptance is the only feasible policy. They're not going to leave no matter how much law enforcement is thrown at the issue. So let's treat it as a (world) societal issue and develop long-term solutions, not short-term reactions. Those two oceans don't isolate us any more.
     
  10. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    I agree with this. Of course, like everything else in life, the devil lives in the details. Beside that I only want to say this. The general philosophy of the fiscal conservatives (Republicans) always seem to be "Let the market control events." It seems to me that the market IS controlling events. People continue to stream across our borders and they all seem to be able to make a living (it's that market thing, you know?) So where's the issue? While I don't think that we can simply, "open the borders," we can have a welcoming policy that values people and their ambitions. There are lots of bargaining chips in this debate. There is a lot of latitude (the size of that gate).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2013
  11. ebbwvale

    ebbwvale Member

    When considering this issue, it is always good to remember the native peoples. I know what open and unfettered immigration did to the Aboriginal Australian. I would be interested to know what the US Indian thinks of what happened to them during the massive migration to the US in the 19th century and since. More is at stake than the economy if you consult the indigenous populations

    Getting a balance seems to be the right way to go. The devil is indeed in the detail.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2013
  12. AUTiger00

    AUTiger00 New Member

    These are my pre-requisites for becoming a citizen:
    1. Don't be a terrorist.
    2. Do not have a criminal record, especially violent crime.
    3. Make a valid attempt to learn English.
    4. Pay taxes/Don't be a drain on social services.

    The only other caveat I might have is restricting access to most/all social service programs for 3-5 years. My sister recently relocated to Australia for a job and had to show she had her own health insurance, had no major medical conditions (they will not grant a Visa if you have HIV/AIDS, for example), was not morbidly obese and did not have a criminal record. I'm not sure why we can't do something similar to that.
     
  13. ryoder

    ryoder New Member

    Look to Mexico for immigration requirements. They have a very solid set of laws on the matter.
    They do not allow illegal immigration and legal immigrants must prove they will not be a burden on the state.
     
  14. This isn't to different from what America currently requires. My wife had to take a medical exam to insure she didn't have any communicable diseases. I (being her sponsor) signed an affidavit stating that she would not use any government benefits (Medicare,etc...) for 5 (can't remember exact timeframe) years. She had to get a complete background check including fingerprints. She had to submit her resume to show that she is employable. We had to provide a TON of financial documents. Contrast to popular belief, our immigration policy has gotten tougher. Mainly because of 9/11. Long gone are the days where you could marry a U.S. citizen and then jump right into the country. All in all (including tickets, fees, etc...) we have spent well over $15,000 on the immigration process.
     
  15. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Who do you think is coming to this country? A bunch of Dentists and Engineers are sprinting across San Ysidro? They just want to come over here and produce, but man all these racists won't let them in. I lived in SoCal for 8 years, you need to see immigration up front. It's not what east coast elites think it is. But whatever.

    I doubt those vibrant youths will be as motivated when they discover they're working to prop up social programs for elderly gringos, programs which won't exist anymore when they reach retirement age. Sounds like a great bargain for them.

    Mexico has sent more immigrants in 35 years than all the Germans, Italians and Irish combined in 400. Do you fully understand chain migration and how legalizing one immigrant today results in another 4 to 8 due to familial links? Do I need to remind you that our ancestors where never offered familial unification?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2013
  16. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Gosh, it would seem that there are a lot of native-born Americans that list should be applied to.
     
  17. There are two sides to the sword. I assume you're referring to illegal immigrants otherwise you would be making yourself look like a complete fool if you're referring to legal immigrant. Granted, you are correct in certain aspects. The strong majority of illegal immigrants coming into America aren't Dentist or Engineers. That doesn't mean they all are criminals though (minus the fact that they are under an illegal status). SoCal is only a piece of the pie. We are talking about ALL of America, you have to keep that fact in mind. Immigration often does more for a country in the long run. Heck, all of our ancestors (except maybe the Native Americans) where immigrants to this nation at one point.
     
  18. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    If you really think that everyone who lives in the Mid-Atlantic or New England is an "East Coast elite", then you need to stop paying so much attention to the right wing talk radio echo chamber. Doubly so if you think that there aren't a lot of immigrants in every metropolitan area, not just yours.

    Evidently so, since that's the current deal yet you're concerned too many people want to come here.

    In absolute numbers or relative to the populaton at the time? Way back at the time of the Revolution there were as many newspapers published in German as English in the U.S., yet it didn't stop the Germans who came from getting with the program after a generation.

    Do you seriously believe that it's an easy process to bring additional eight additional family members? Even spouses can be difficult -- it's much easier to file for a change of status for a spouse who's already here than to bring one in, and even that takes a year.

    They didn't need it, since all they needed in those days was a ticket on a boat coming over.

    -=Steve=-
     
  19. AUTiger00

    AUTiger00 New Member

    I'd be fine with that. Beyond that, we have a higher moral obligation to assist our own citizens than those coming in from another country (many illegally). They should be the responsibility of their home country's government, not ours.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2013
  20. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    If one accepts the premise that the country is the border between peoples. I do not.
     

Share This Page