Immigration explained

[jetboatdeath]

Let's say I break into your house

A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials in ages!!!
It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV.

Her point:

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.

Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.
Let's say I break into your house.
Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.
But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors.
I've done all the things you don't like to do.
I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).
According to the protesters:
You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me and to my family
(my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.

It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself.
I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.

And what a deal it is for me!!!
I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.
Oh yeah,
I DEMAND that you to learn MY LANGUAGE!!!
so you can communicate with me.

Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! Only in America .....if you agree, pass it on (in English). Share it if you see the value of it.

If not blow it off......... along with your future Social Security funds, and a lot of other things.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

an interesting expression of that point of view, but there's a wide gap between what's appropriate at the personal level vs. what's appropriate at the societal level.

i realize that there are exceptions, but from what i can tell the majority of those who oppose immigration also support the war.....

"hey bubba, that funny guy across the street -- i hear he might have a gun"
"well, shoot, coy, we can't let him have a gun. he might hurt folks."
bubba and coy kick in his front door, kill a bunch of people in the house and lynch the guy in the back yard.
and they never do find a gun.


to be clear, i'm not anti-war as a rule. it's just that your metaphor doesn't scale.

 

[Cryozombie]

it's just that your metaphor doesn't scale.

I dunno... puts it on a personal level that makes sense to me... Is it exactly the same... no, but is it that different? No...

 

[bushidomartialarts]

i really think there's a dividing line.

there are actions (war, execution) that are moral at the societal level that are inexcusable at the personal level. conversely, there are actions at the personal level (indulging in self destructive habits, fore example) that would not be acceptable as public policy.


leastaways that's my way of thinking.

 

[michaeledward]

The apparently immobile position assumed by the Republican Congress on immigration has been interesting for me to watch. In the spirit of full disclosure, I do not think there should be any such thing as "illegal immigration". I believe anyone who wants to come to American to live or work, should cross the border freely, walk into a Social Security Office and get a legal document that allows them to work, earn money and participate in the system.

It was interesting to hear reference to this article recently.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Extremism_72/4973_72.htm

The hardline anti-immigration stance is leading to increased activity among existing Ku Klux Klan chapters, and spawning new chapters across America.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/06/klan.report.ap/



When one sees a note that ends with ...

Only in America .....if you agree, pass it on (in English). Share it if you see the value of it.

... it is not difficult to read this letter as an invitation to join their organizaiton.

 

[Ray]

I believe anyone who wants to come to American to live or work, should cross the border freely...

What if all 6 billiion wanted to move into your apartment complex?

I think that the oft quoted reason for alien workers ("they are doing jobs that most americans won't") is a cop out. If the jobs need to be done, then the employer will have to pay a wage that will attract [some] American workers to the jobs. If, whatever the service or product, becomes more costly in the market place due to the higher labor component costs then the consumers will have to decide if they want to pay the price or not. Either the market will support the wages or the product/service will no longer be available.

 

[michaeledward]

What if all 6 billiion wanted to move into your apartment complex?

My landlord would be very happy. Supply and Demand .. don't you know.

I think that the oft quoted reason for alien workers ("they are doing jobs that most americans won't") is a cop out. If the jobs need to be done, then the employer will have to pay a wage that will attract [some] American workers to the jobs. If, whatever the service or product, becomes more costly in the market place due to the higher labor component costs then the consumers will have to decide if they want to pay the price or not. Either the market will support the wages or the product/service will no longer be available.

On one hand you argue the free market (wages), while simultaneously with the other hand you are arguing protectionism (workers)?

That seems confusing.

But, again, in the interest of full disclosure, I think the barriers should be the other way around. Tarrifs should be applied to goods coming into the country. That places the burden on those who will consume the finished goods. (All profits enter the supply chain only with the final purchaser.)

By applying tarrifs to the labor pool that adds value to raw materials, it seems to me that we are asking workers to run a 100 yard dash with ankleweights, artificially slowing down productivity. This is a very bad analogy on my part ... I wish I had a more elegant analogy, but I do believe the common discussions have it exactly backward.

 

[The Kidd]

I liked the article and it explained the issue very well. You cannot have situational ethics "Its ok to break the law if the reason is good enough" if that is the case then why can't we rob banks because we are poor or just kill people because they are bad. There is a process to get into this country, does it need to be streamlined, yes. Lets work on that end instead of rewarding others for breaking laws.

 

[bydand]

The apparently immobile position assumed by the Republican Congress on immigration has been interesting for me to watch. In the spirit of full disclosure, I do not think there should be any such thing as "illegal immigration". I believe anyone who wants to come to American to live or work, should cross the border freely, walk into a Social Security Office and get a legal document that allows them to work, earn money and participate in the system.

Have to disagree with you (yeah I know, real news there right? ) I don't see this stated as a "immobile position assumed bit the Republican Congress" but rather an amusing story from a slightly different perspective. My oldest friend (not age wise, but time wise) is 100% Hispanic. Both sides of his family still live within a few miles of the US/Mexico border (in both counties, Mom's family is in the US, and Papa's family is still in Mexico.) Yes, I do call them Mom and Papa even though I am 43 years old now as a side note. The whole family is as Democratic as I have ever seen and it has led to some spirited disscussions during cook-outs, and other family get togethers (they are as much my "family" as my own flesh and blood family.) The one area we all agree 100% on is immigration. They have gone through the process themselves before I was born, and the family members who have come across have done so through the proper channels. They cannot stand their own countrymen who short circuit the process by illegally entering and working in their new Country. As they have told me over and over, it is a black mark against the Hispanic culture and distorts others views of them personally. All of their Children who were born legally here have been asked for green cards or it has been implied that there were way to work without one if they didn't have them when applying for a job. That is the reality of allowing illegal immigration to happen with the whole open door policy; give them a green card, welfare, and everything else, but take away the hard work and respect that those who followed the law at the same time.

It was interesting to hear reference to this article recently.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Extremism_72/4973_72.htm

The hardline anti-immigration stance is leading to increased activity among existing Ku Klux Klan chapters, and spawning new chapters across America.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/06/klan.report.ap/

Honestly haven't had time to read these yet, so I'll not comment and make a fool of myself.

When one sees a note that ends with ...

Originally Posted by jetboatdeath
Only in America .....if you agree, pass it on (in English). Share it if you see the value of it.

... it is not difficult to read this letter as an invitation to join their organizaiton.

This is a giant jump. Come on now, 99.99% of the people who read this are not going to even make a connection like this. How can the message "Don't come into my Country illegally" be construed to mean "Damn it here is another foreigner, time to join the Klan!"

 

[Ray]

On one hand you argue the free market (wages), while simultaneously with the other hand you are arguing protectionism (workers)?

I'm not arguing protectionism. I'm arguing the enforcement of the law.

However, the goods and services produced with the higher wage will not be competitive on the world market. This would force the American producer to find a way to become less expensive, either through more automation or other means.

Tarrifs should be applied to goods coming into the country. That places the burden on those who will consume the finished goods. (All profits enter the supply chain only with the final purchaser.)

By applying tarrifs to the labor pool that adds value to raw materials, it seems to me that we are asking workers to run a 100 yard dash with ankleweights, artificially slowing down productivity. This is a very bad analogy on my part ... I wish I had a more elegant analogy, but I do believe the common discussions have it exactly backward.

I believe that tarrifs discourage free trade and artificially skew the market place. There should be no tarriffs (with the possible exception of those who are found to be breaking the trading laws [dumping for example]).

 

[bydand]

Just had a chance to read those articles you posted Michaeledward and that is disturbing news. I was hoping those groups were on the way of the dinosaures, but they seem to keep raising their ugly heads like the cancer they are to socitiey. It figures they would use this issue to distort it to fit their agenda and gain new members, it just sickens me to hear that people are sheep enough to fall for it. :barf:

 

[michaeledward]

It's nice to see the title of this thread corrected. Whilst I normally pass on poor spelling, I did find it ironic that a post decrying people from other countries began with a gross misspelling in our native language.

Thank you to whomever corrected this.

 

[michaeledward]

I'm not arguing protectionism. I'm arguing the enforcement of the law.

However, the goods and services produced with the higher wage will not be competitive on the world market. This would force the American producer to find a way to become less expensive, either through more automation or other means.
I believe that tarrifs discourage free trade and artificially skew the market place. There should be no tarriffs (with the possible exception of those who are found to be breaking the trading laws [dumping for example]).

I am not arguing non-enforcement of the law.

The function of a law that restricts free flow of people over borders is exactly the same as the function of a law that restricts the free flow of capital or goods over borders.

While there may be other functions in immigration law, you can not deny that one effect of the application of the law is a tarriff on labor.

Have to disagree with you

I don't know with what you are disagreeing?

I understand that completely open borders would qualify as a radical idea. So, I don't expect may to agree. But, it worked well for the first 175 years of our country.

You don't think the Republican Congressional position is hardlined, and immobile?

Just wondering what you are disagreeing with?

 

[Ray]

While there may be other functions in immigration law, you can not deny that one effect of the application of the law is a tarriff on labor.

Of course I can deny it. A tarriff is a duty or tax imposed by one of the two countries involved in the transaction. For example: If country A wants to ship aluminum to country B, then country B may impose a tarriff which country A must pay. Yes, it raises the price to the consumer because someone has to pay the price (if a price demanded, and it doesn't always have to be).

Letting someone from country A into country B illegally to make aluminum in an unsafe sweatshop where the workers are possibly paid under the table for wages less than the law of country B allows is completely different than a tarriff.

I understand that completely open borders would qualify as a radical idea. So, I don't expect may to agree. But, it worked well for the first 175 years of our country.

Open borders worked well for the aboriginal Americans and for the aboriginal Austrailians; and the aboriginal South Africans....

Do you suppose it will work as well for you and me?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Let's say I break into your house

A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials in ages!!!
It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV.

Her point:

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.

Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.
Let's say I break into your house.
Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.
But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors.
I've done all the things you don't like to do.
I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).
According to the protesters:
You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me and to my family
(my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.

It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself.
I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.

And what a deal it is for me!!!
I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.
Oh yeah,
I DEMAND that you to learn MY LANGUAGE!!!
so you can communicate with me.

Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! Only in America .....if you agree, pass it on (in English). Share it if you see the value of it.

If not blow it off......... along with your future Social Security funds, and a lot of other things.

Nice analogy

And before a war breaks out over what I mean by analogy

A similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

i realize that there are exceptions, but from what i can tell the majority of those who oppose immigration also support the war.....

Not sure how this connects with the post but since it was posted.

There is a difference between immigration and illegal immigration. Now are you saying if someone does not want any people from other countries in the USA they support the war or people who do not want people to come into and live in the USA illegally support the war?

I have no problem with immigration; I have a big problem with illegally entering and staying in the USA.

As for letting in all comers, thats fine as long as the next time something gets blown up I don't here "We were lied to" or "how could they let this happen to us" again.

 

[michaeledward]

Of course I can deny it. A tarriff is a duty or tax imposed by one of the two countries involved in the transaction. For example: If country A wants to ship aluminum to country B, then country B may impose a tarriff which country A must pay. Yes, it raises the price to the consumer because someone has to pay the price (if a price demanded, and it doesn't always have to be).

Letting someone from country A into country B illegally to make aluminum in an unsafe sweatshop where the workers are possibly paid under the table for wages less than the law of country B allows is completely different than a tarriff.

Ray, Your mixing many arguments now.

If there are no border restrictions, how can person from country B be illegally making a product in country A?

If it is legal to make the product, and the worker is not here illegally, won't the labor laws in place prevent 'unsafe sweatshop' environments.

If the workers are not here illegally, wouldn't they be offered the protection of wage laws within the existing market?


I continue to propose that an effect of immigration law is a tarrif on labor.

Open borders worked well for the aboriginal Americans and for the aboriginal Austrailians; and the aboriginal South Africans....

Do you suppose it will work as well for you and me?

You are correct. The Europeans destroyed the indiginous residents of the Western Hemisphere. Our species is often short-sited when searching for wealth. Are you arguing that immigration restrictions in the United States are preventing similar decimations?

 

[crushing]

It's nice to see the title of this thread corrected. Whilst I normally pass on poor spelling, I did find it ironic that a post decrying people from other countries began with a gross misspelling in our native language.

Thank you to whomever corrected this.

I would pass on that too as it may not be the case that we share a native language. I'm not sure how that is ironic.

As for 'decrying people from other countries'; while I may not agree with or even like the analogy, I took the post to distinguish those involved in breaking the law from those that do not. The media also have difficulty with the differences and often refer to illegal aliens as immigrants. Perhaps it is purposefully done, like removing the -ic from Democratic Party, or attempting to link those opposed to illegal immigration with the KKK? Memes can be powerful.

 

[Ray]

Ray, Your mixing many arguments now.

If there are no border restrictions, how can person from country B be illegally making a product in country A?

If it is legal to make the product, and the worker is not here illegally, won't the labor laws in place prevent 'unsafe sweatshop' environments.

If the workers are not here illegally, wouldn't they be offered the protection of wage laws within the existing market?

I continue to propose that an effect of immigration law is a tarrif on labor.

In my mind, I conceived country A as a country where Aluminum was produced less expensively than in country B. Part of the reduced cost was the cost of employee wages. I put country B in the category of a place where wages were higher and poor people from country A would illegally enter country B.

As you may be aware, people from other countries illegally enter the US because they can make more money in the US. You may also be aware that the people are often treated badly, given to working in unsafe conditions and benefitting from few of the laws of the US that are supposed to protect US workers. That's the anology.

I'm mixing no arguements.

You are correct. The Europeans destroyed the indiginous residents of the Western Hemisphere. Our species is often short-sited when searching for wealth. Are you arguing that immigration restrictions in the United States are preventing similar decimations?

Our species isn't short-sighted. It's selfish and inconsiderate of others. We look for out for number one first, as a rule (not withstanding the good and kind people who would act with altruism).

We are no where near ready for open and free borders.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I liked the article and it explained the issue very well. You cannot have situational ethics "Its ok to break the law if the reason is good enough" if that is the case then why can't we rob banks because we are poor or just kill people because they are bad. There is a process to get into this country, does it need to be streamlined, yes. Lets work on that end instead of rewarding others for breaking laws.

on the other hand, the gap between what's legal and what's ethical wouldn't fit comfortably in the grand canyon.

it seems to me that much of the current trouble stems from the fact that the law, as it currently stands, serves nobody well. there's a legitimate economic and social need for a different system. when that happens, breaking the law (sometimes called civil disobedience) become a responsibility.

situational ethics would be not doing what's right because, in the current situation, what's right would be against the law.

 

[bydand]

I don't know with what you are disagreeing?

I understand that completely open borders would qualify as a radical idea. So, I don't expect may to agree. But, it worked well for the first 175 years of our country.

You don't think the Republican Congressional position is hardlined, and immobile?

Just wondering what you are disagreeing with?

Sorry about not being clearer. The parts below are what I was disagreeing with.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I do not think there should be any such thing as "illegal immigration". I believe anyone who wants to come to American to live or work, should cross the border freely, walk into a Social Security Office and get a legal document that allows them to work, earn money and participate in the system.

... it is not difficult to read this letter as an invitation to join their organizaiton.

First point because there has to be a screening process of some sort, or we will end up with every criminal and low-life other Countries don't want. It would be a lot cheeper to buy a passage to the US than imprision them.

The second point because it IS difficult to read an invitation to join the KKK in that letter.