My best friend and I have known each other for almost 20 years. One of the things I value most about our friendship is our mutual gift: if I don’t understand something, I just have to wait for him to explain it to me. At least half the time, I’ll answer him, and find myself listening to myself and learning the answer as I’m explaining it.
He’s a semi-regular reader of Wizbang, and occasional commenter. Recently, though, when we were talking, he noted that one of my hot-button topics is illegal aliens. He asked me why I gave it so much attention.
I’d often wondered that myself, and when he asked me, I had to answer. And it came down to two points.
The first one is quite simple. The United States has an extremely liberal immigration policy — quite possibly the most liberal in the world. We admit over a million people a year. And while the process is not easy, it has to be one of the easiest in the world.
Every year a million people who have followed all the rules enter the United States legally, welcomed with open arms.
And every year countless more come here illegally, or under false pretenses, or stay longer than they agreed to.
These people, for whatever reason, hold themselves as above those rules. They consider their own circumstances as more important than others, and they don’t need to bother with following the procedures that everyone else has to.
They’re line-cutters. They’re cheats. I don’t like people who do that in daily life; those that do that are spitting in the faces of all those who are following the laws and coming here legally and properly, and on their behalf I am angered.
The other reason is based purely on Constitutional principle.
One of the standard defenses for illegal immigration is that the aliens are performing the work Americans don’t want to do, that our economy needs the cheap, unskilled labor they provide to keep going. They warn that if every single illegal alien were to disappear tomorrow, our entire way of life would be severely affected — especially in areas like agriculture, construction, and cleaning services.
That argument always bothered me, and for the longest time I didn’t understand why. But the instant my friend asked me about it, it became crystal clear:
The economic argument is nothing new. In fact, it’s very, very old. So old, that we’ve alreadye debated and settled it almost 150 years ago — and the pro-cheap-labor side lost.
You might recall reading about it, It was called the Civil War.
Yeah, it’s a bit of a stretch. For one, there were other issues besides slavery involved in the war. For another, indentured servitude might be a better comparison to illegal alien labor than actual slavery. But the essence remains the same — the notion is that a cheap source of labor is being exploited and used through fear of the power of law. It was wrong then, and it’s wrong today.
In my dream world, I’d like to see the restrictions and red tape on immigration reduced to a more manageable system. But that would have to be coupled with an assault on illegal immigration. Streamlined deportation processes. Severe penalties for those who exploit illegal aliens. And, perhaps, even a change to the rules of citizenship, so children born here of illegal aliens have the citizenship of their parent’s homeland, not the United States, ending the exploitation of children as “anchor babies.”
We have a lot of good laws on the books about illegal aliens. But we need to start enforcing them. Laws that are unenforced merely cheapen respect for all other laws, and that’s a nice start towards anarchy.
Peter: “Excuse me, but I brought it up in response to -S- repeatedly referring to migrants as “felons,” clearly an attempt to insinuate that somehow these people are generally dangerous criminals.”
Point made and accepted, I missed other commenters remarks.
I don’t disagree with you regarding the welfare state as a concept and its exploitation by illegal immigrants. But clarify something I don’t understand – where do illegal immigrants in Texas get medical care? Do they go to jail or use any resources paid for by legal Texas residents, or by federal tax dollars? Here in California, they go to emergency rooms on the taxpayer dime for medical care for instance. Is there a different system in Texas? I’m truly curious.
To me your overall argument seems to be academic. Economies do not exist in a vacuum. If there were no nations, no borders, capital flows would move just as you say and none of us would be here arguing about it. But, needless to say, borders and governments do exist – and with good reason.
And, needless to say, there is more to life than economics. It is morally wrong for the US to become a predominately hispanic nation due to the effects of illegal immigration. And, if current rates of immigration do not decrease dramatically, that is exactly what is going to happen.
The US is undergoing what amounts to a slow and inexorable demographic invasion by illegals predominately of hispanic origins. I understand the latest census data shows that 3% of US population is here illegally. The percent is of course significantly greater here in California. Economics simply do not justify that invasion. Even if it is by nice people that are just looking for work, it is still morally wrong.
My view is this: Get control of the borders. When that control is shown to be in place and highly effective, then measure the effect on the labor pools. If our capitalist economy for some reason can not adapt to the changes in labor pools, then and only then create an appropriate guest worker program.
For every dollar earned by an illegal worker, that they do not send back to their homelands, and end up contributing to our economy, there is more than a dollar spent by American taxpayers to support them being here. Hell, we’d be better off just shipping those contribution dollars directly to Mexico and we’d save the overheard currently borne by US citizens.
It is morally wrong for the US to become a predominately hispanic nation due to the effects of illegal immigration.
There is nothing remotely harmful about being hispanic, being in the US, speaking Spanish, adhereing to hispanic culture, etc. We still profess to be a free society. That means, if nothing else, that non-harmful conduct should not be subjected to government control.
These things are immoral: aggressive violence, fraud, destruction or theft of property, negligently injuring others without compensation, breaking commercial promises, failing to provide for one’s children to the extent possible …
Nothing you have mentioned regarding immigrants, however illegal their presence here as a matter of immigration law is, provided they are not criminals in other respects, comes close to being “immoral.”
Septeus7 wrote- That is false Bill. Read the damn thing before you write about it. Children of Foreign Diplomats are not citizens even if they are born on American Soil. Being born on American is not the only standard for citizenship according to the Constitution. Please read it again.
I made a mistake in failing to note this exclusion but you need to read the 14th ammendment.
14th ammendment reads- “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
and the US Supreme court upheld it against Chinese exclusionary laws=
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents in 1873. In 1895, upon his return from a visit to China, he was refused entry by US customs officials, who asserted that he was a subject of the Chinese emperor and not a US citizen.
At this time, US law (the “Chinese Exclusion Acts”) prohibited Chinese immigration (except for those Chinese people who were already in the US). Chinese people were also barred from becoming naturalized US citizens — and it was argued, on this basis, that Wong was ineligible to be considered a US citizen, in spite of his having been born in the US.
The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling on a 6-2 vote that Wong Kim Ark was in fact a US citizen. The court cited the “citizenship clause” of the 14th Amendment, which states that all persons born (or naturalized) in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. Although the original motivation for this language in the 14th Amendment was to secure citizenship for the freed Negro slaves, the court held that the clause clearly applied to “all persons”, regardless of their race or national origin.
The court rejected outright the idea that the Chinese could be singled out for special treatment in this respect. “To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries,” the majority wrote, “would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”
As for the question of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States — i.e., the relationship between a person and a government whereby one “owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes” — the Supreme Court observed that English common law (legal tradition inherited from Britain by the US) had long recognized only two jurisdictional exceptions to the principle of ius soli (citizenship by birth on a country’s soil): namely, (a) foreign diplomats, and (b) enemy forces in hostile occupation of a portion of the country’s territory.
Two exceptions, the second based on English common law. Clearly laid out by our court.
No one has yet to answer how this law will be administered without possibly harming US citizens. It will happen and it will be wrong no matter what. INS/Immigration is a mess and everyone of you will say that. I’ve had personal experience with not with a friend, but family members. I can tell you how @#%^! it is. Just tell me how this law is to be administered and don’t give me its people’s tough luck if they screwed by this proposed law.
You create an underclass in this country it would lead to turmoil eventually. May I cite
Palestinians in the Arab world. Used by their arab neighbors as political pawns now they are considered a disruptive element just about everywhere. With reason too. But the Arabs created their mess.
As did the French as seen in recent riots. It will backfire, I might not live to see it but it would. Simple solutions to Big problems lead to unintended consequence.
Phinn: “There is nothing remotely harmful about being hispanic, being in the US, speaking Spanish, adhereing to hispanic culture, etc.”
I never said there was anything morally wrong with any of the above. I stated that the creation of a hispanic majority in the US by illegal means is immoral. That says nothing about being hispanic, speaking spanish, or adhereing to hispanic culture being in and of itself harmful. Certainly it is not.
I happen to like a lot about the cultures of Mexico and Central and South America – I just don’t want it foisted on the citizens of the US through illegal means.
And it is.
I would encourage anyone, pro or con on the topic of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION to visit the Frosty Wooldridge web site and read his commentaries on this subject. He provides a real eye opener on this problem.
“There is nothing remotely harmful about being hispanic, being in the US, speaking Spanish, adhereing to hispanic culture, etc. We still profess to be a free society. That means, if nothing else, that non-harmful conduct should not be subjected to government control.” – Phinn
Phinn,
What world, exactly, do you and Peter J live in? Because I think it’s the world I want to live in. You know, the one where reality is defined by what you WANT it to be rather than by what IT is.
Fact: We live in a democracy (or a republic, or a democratic republic). That means one man, one vote. That means that everybody who is a citizen here has a decision in what the government does, and the government can do a hell of a lot. It has the power to tax you, the power to throw you in jail. It has the power to tell you where your child MUST go to school (if you don’t want to have to pay ON TOP of taxes to send him to a private school). It can shut down your business. It can tell your business what color of skin its employees have to be.
You can pretend, or desire, or hope that we had some different sort of government; that it was more libertarian in nature. Hope all you want, and in many cases I’ll be right there hoping with you. But don’t assume that because that’s the way you’d LIKE it to be that that’s the way it ever WILL be.
You can, for example, act as if the presence of huge numbers of Spanish-speaking immigrants has no effect on how you “choose” to live, but it does. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs (government jobs, even) that you cannot work in without knowing Spanish. The presence of large numbers of people of Hispanic descent will inevitably change the demands on schools (and already has) for what they teach as part of the curriculum. We’re throwing out Shakesepeare and Dickens so that kids can read Pablo Neruda and Rigoberta Menchu – just for cultural “equality.”
Government has, can, and will continue to exert too much control over our lives. THAT WON”T CHANGE, as much as you or I want it to. And demographics will affect what it’s going to do.
For example, it used to be pretty much the standard that Protestant Christianity was taught in public schools. The values that kids were taught were Protestant values. The bibles they read were Protestant bbles. The prayers they said were Protestant prayers. Then the nation saw a huge influx of Catholic immigrants – from Ireland and Italy, in particular. Large numbers of Jews came later. The battles – the DEMOCRATIC RESULT of this DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE – led to the elimination of any kind of religion from public schools. Good? Bad? Indifferent? I don’t care what you think about this particular change. I’m just using history to demonstrate the political effects of immigration.
RE: economics. I don’t care how economists define “economics.” When most people – including most people – talk about economics, they’re talking about business and finance. They’re talking about money. They’re talking about GDP and GNP and ROE and profits per employee.
The 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
That’s how it SHOULD read. By that, I mean that’s how the government enforces it today. Born here? You’re a citizen. Period. So why that extra clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?” What’s that for? Is it just a rhetorical flourish? Not much of a flourish.
No, it was put there for a reason. A PARTICULAR reason. It excluded children of diplomats. It excluded Native Americans. You may think excluding Native Americans was “ugly” of those “racist” congressmen who had just lived through the bloodiest war in American history, but survival was not a certain thing, then. It is not as certain as we think it now.
Will the elimination of automatic citizenship at birth cause some bureaucratic problems? No doubt. But in the MODERN world it is MORE, not less, nescessary than ever. We have cars. We have jet airplanes. We have television.
Something like 100 million non-Americans come to this country each year. What fraction of them are women? What fraction of them are of child-bearing age? The concept of a nation means nothing if any kid who gets squeezed out whilst his mother is “jus solis” in our country is automatically a citizen.
We all own assets. Some assets we own the title or deed to – our car, our home, our computer, stocks and bonds. Some assets are ours, but only in trust. This includes the mountains outside my home. The reservoir up the canyon. The water in that reservoir. The roads I use to get everywhere. The schools my children attend. The air I breath.
Many of these assets I have been taxed for. Even more of them my ancestors were taxed for. Many of them my ancestors bled and died for.
My ability to use these assets diminishes with the presence of an increased number of people. The parks are full. The streams are overfished. I have to put my name into a lottery for a deer permit now, whereas 20 years ago I could get one automatically. The same drive that took me 20 minutes ten years ago takes me 40 today.
I may not “own” these assets in a literal sense, but I still own them. They are mine. And yours. Talk libertarianism all you want, but that’s how it is. Even a government far more libertarian than our present one would still own tens of trillions in assets in trust for its citizens.
For most people the non-monetary assets they own – their share of this country’s “stock”, as it were – is worth far more than their monetary assets. For wealthy business owners, however, the reverse is true. A businessman who builds 100 homes to sell can get a lot more for those 100 homes if there is more demand for them (eg, a larger population AND especially a growing population). That’s why he likes high levels of immigration. It means more people and more growth.
This is the politics of rent-seeking. The businessman who owns 100 homes doesn’t care that bringing more people into this country will inconvenience me. He doesn’t care that I’ll end up spending more time stuck in traffic. He doesn’t have to compensate me for it. He doesn’t care about the new schools and roads the citizens will have to pay for. He doesn’t care about the water shortages that will result from too many people in an arid environment. All he cares about is that his 100 homes just went from netting him $10 million to $30 million. Because there’s more demand. Through rent seeking he gains lots of money but pays little of the non-economic costs. He wins, we lose.
And that’s exactly what businesses are doing. Sure, THEIR economy is improving because of high immigration (ILLEGAL or LEGAL). But not most people’s.
The problem is that too many people today ignore the existence of limits. Many of the products we buy don’t seem to have limits. When demand goes up, the price goes own – for TVs, computers, software and lots of the rest. We ignore the fact that there are still some things you can’t make more of. Land, for instance. Fresh water, for another. The prices of many natural resources have been soaring lately: lumber, oil, natural gas, cement, etc.
Phinn and Peter,
The problem with all your arguments is that it ignores so many realities. Once one of your assumptions about some ideal world fails the whole argument you’ve built comes crashing down like a house of cards.
1) Too many assets owned by people are owned in trust. Because of that, their value is diluted by mass immigration. You assume we have – or can have – an entirely free market economy. That is not the case – and what’s more, most people don’t want it, even those who are very conservative by most standards. Abolish government-funded schools? Abolish public roads? Abolish national and state parks?
2) The democratic effects of demographic change. In a democracy, the political effects of a large scale change in population has an effect on your life whether you want it to or not.
3) The assumption that ultimate good is defined by economic growth, and economic growth alone. Some things do not have an economic value, but are still worth something. You can point to GNP and say “See, it grew by 3.5% last year. Without immigration it would have only grown by 2%.” But GNP doesn’t measure whether the average person’s life got better or worse. That’s why lots of people are willing to work in towns where the pay is smaller but the cost-of-living is cheaper: you can buy the exact same lifestyle for a lot less money in Colorado than you can in California.
4) The economics of natural resources. You’re too stuck on the parts of the service and manufacturing economy that have highly elastic supplies. Some things don’t, like land.
“You create an underclass in this country it would lead to turmoil eventually.”
No argument with that. But this is not the same as other types of underclass. Slaves, for example, were held against their will. They were non-citizens by government decree. If they left, their owners were bereft.
No one here is trying to create an underclass, though. They have every right to leave the country. We WANT them to leave the country. They ARE citizens of another country.
The denial of brithright citizenship is not about creating an underclass. It’s about tearing down the infrastructure that allows illegals to remain – and citizen offspring are a huge piece of that.
As I said before, all those people who say that you CAN’T enforce the laws are doing everything in their power to STOP US from enforcing the laws. “You can’t get rid of them so you need to educate their children. You can’t get rid of them so you need to give them driver’s licenses. You can’t get rid of them so you need to let them open bank accounts and own homes. You can’t get rid of them so you shouldn’t have state policemen ebforcing immigration laws. You can’t get rid of them so you need to give their kids citizenship.”
How many of them could we get rid of if we didn’t give them driver’s licenses; if we didn’t let them send their kids to public daycare (err…schools); if they couldn’t buy homes.
15 million people didn’t come here just yesterday. This problems been growing for the last 19 years. If you actually had laws that made it harder for them to stay then the problem wouldn’t be this large to begin with.
“You create an underclass in this country it would lead to turmoil eventually.”
No argument with that. But this is not the same as other types of underclass. Slaves, for example, were held against their will. They were non-citizens by government decree. If they left, their owners were bereft.
No one here is trying to create an underclass, though. They have every right to leave the country. We WANT them to leave the country. They ARE citizens of another country.
The denial of brithright citizenship is not about creating an underclass. It’s about tearing down the infrastructure that allows illegals to remain – and citizen offspring are a huge piece of that.
As I said before, all those people who say that you CAN’T enforce the laws are doing everything in their power to STOP US from enforcing the laws. “You can’t get rid of them so you need to educate their children. You can’t get rid of them so you need to give them driver’s licenses. You can’t get rid of them so you need to let them open bank accounts and own homes. You can’t get rid of them so you shouldn’t have state policemen ebforcing immigration laws. You can’t get rid of them so you need to give their kids citizenship.”
How many of them could we get rid of if we didn’t give them driver’s licenses; if we didn’t let them send their kids to public daycare (err…schools); if they couldn’t buy homes.
15 million people didn’t come here just yesterday. This problems been growing for the last 19 years. If you actually had laws that made it harder for them to stay then the problem wouldn’t be this large to begin with.
Unfortunately, until the U.S. government changes its policy regarding Cuban immigrants, it does not have a leg to stand on regarding illegal immigration. You cannot treat one group of illegal immigrants differently than other groups of illegal immigrants and still think people will obey your laws.
I just don’t want [hispanic culture] foisted on the citizens of the US through illegal means.
But the issue here is whether those means should be illegal in the first place. If immigration were opened up, and the “foisting” that you refer to were made legal, would you have a problem with it then?
We live in a democracy (or a republic, or a democratic republic). That means one man, one vote. That means that everybody who is a citizen here has a decision in what the government does, and the government can do a hell of a lot. It has the power to tax you, the power to throw you in jail. It has the power to tell you where your child MUST go to school (if you don’t want to have to pay ON TOP of taxes to send him to a private school). It can shut down your business. It can tell your business what color of skin its employees have to be.
I realize all of this, and agree with you to the extent that you believe in principles of government founded in liberty.
This discussion is a perfect illustration of how government becomes more authoritarian over time — a government enacts some anti-liberty law or program, which naturally causes all sorts of secondary and tertiary problems, then has to enact another set of anti-liberty laws in order to deal with the problems caused by the first one. Repeat ad infinitum.
Take the government schools, for example. They were created as part of an openly socialist agenda of the 19th century. As a result, parents were deprived of control over their kids’ classmates and curriculum (unless they want to pay for both the government school AND the school their kids actually attend). So, this prompts people to use the government to go a step further, to exclude (through immigration laws) people with different cultural backgrounds, thus making the classes and curriculums more homogenous.
Or, the government interferes with the fundamental liberty of contract between and employer and employee, which causes all sorts of problems, which prompts people to use government (again) to control the demographics of the labor pool.
Of course, the solution to these problems is to do away with the underlying problem-causing governmental law or program, not the creation of yet another one to ostensibly balance the first one out (but which will end up causing further problems of its own).
The tighter the government squeezes, the more problems it creates, so it squeezes even tighter to control the secondary problems, etc. It’s the one-way ratchet effect. It only ends when the ratchet breaks.
This is the politics of rent-seeking.
Are you referring to the private businessman who builds valuable houses for sale in the market (which he, in your example, wants to be more open and free?), or to yourself, who wants the government to use its special power to forcibly exclude people so that you can enjoy public assets without competition?
I understand rent-seeking to be the economic benefit supplied by special government privilege. Identifying the rent-seeking behavior depends on what you consider to be the baseline reference point, I guess.
Government has, can, and will continue to exert too much control over our lives. THAT WON”T CHANGE.
As Hayek said, nothing is inevitable but thinking makes it so.
“Historically, the period of history in which the U.S.’s standard of living was at its best (1945 – 1965), we had strong unions, protective tariffs and restrictive immigration laws.”
Historically, the period of history in which the U.S.’s standard of living was at its best is…. right now.
Not only that, but another period in history in which the U.S.’s standard of living, its level of technological achievement, and so on were growing astoundingly fast, faster than anywhere else in the world (the late 19th Century) was characterized by liberal immigration laws, weak unions (i.e., they had to get their own hands dirty and commit violence themselves to extort money; the government wasn’t yet willing to do it for them), and the nearly complete absence of a welfare state.
I have to second Ken’s comment. Although I would characterize the golden age of American economic development as from 1845-1860. This period just before the war was one of not only low but decreasing taxation (only on imports, no income tax at all), open immigration, and non-existent unions. It witnessed the greatest period of economic growth and improvement of the standard of living, for the greatest number of people, in the history of the world.
It only took a massive tax hike, essentially a reinstatement of the Tariff of Abominations from a generation before, and the election of a president who was pledged to a destructive campaign of massive federal subsidies and protectionism, to start a war and bring it all to an end.
Also, I honestly resent the undue influence that illegal immigration is having on my American culture. Here in California, we are being ‘hispanisized’ at an increasing rate. The fact is that illegal immigration is driving this unwanted, unwarranted change in our culture. And that is wrong.
I ,ove the way you held your rascist point to the very end! It made you almost sound rational! Nice work, scumbag!
Phinn: “But the issue here is whether those means should be illegal in the first place. If immigration were opened up, and the “foisting” that you refer to were made legal, would you have a problem with it then?”
Completely irrelevant question. Immigration will never be opened up again in the US because it would be detrimental to the citizens of the country since the nation no longer needs a virtually unlimited number of immigrants legal or otherwise.
The situation I addressed (and that you ignored) is not hypothetical – it is *really* happening and must be dealt with for the good of US citizens.
Quote: I made a mistake in failing to note this exclusion but you need to read the 14th ammendment…and the US Supreme court upheld it against Chinese exclusionary laws.
I’m glad you admit that you made a mistake but before you cite the Supreme Court I’d like you no that I have no respect for the words of the Supreme but for the words of the Constitution and clear intent of the law which Supreme Court has totally ignored when suites them. I suggest you read this site (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11)
for some historical background on the 14th admendment before we look at the Court decision to see if Court was even in the ballpark in its rulings regarding this issue.
Here are some choice quotes from the legislative history:
Introducing the proposed amendment, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
And “Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi-foreign nations.”
Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania “[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word.
It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. … I have supposed … that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration…? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the Country of California, and if another people, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have the free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask, are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? … As I understand the rights of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she choose who is not a citizen of some one of the United States.”
Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee “[I]t is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestions of the Senator from Wisconsin. The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” [emphasis added] Now does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajo Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them. … It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government [by which Trumbull means his tribe] that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” … It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens”
I could go on and on but the point is clear that from the legislative history that this doctrine of birthright citizenship is as best put by Senator John Conness of California, an Irish immigrant himself, “simply a fiction in the brains of persons who deprecate it, and that alone.”
So where did the Supreme come with this idea when the legislative record clearly proves the language “subject to the juridiction therefore” was spefically crafted to exclude children of foreigners and illegal aliens?
Prior to Ark here was the Supreme’s interpetation from Elk: “The evident meaning of [the jurisdiction phrase] is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States … although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ within the meaning of the [Citizenship Clause], than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government…”
Elk has never been overturned and it much more clearly applies to Anchor Babies than does Ark.
Quote from Bill”As for the question of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States — i.e., the relationship between a person and a government whereby one “owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes” — the Supreme Court observed that English common law (legal tradition inherited from Britain by the US) had long recognized only two jurisdictional exceptions to the principle of ius soli (citizenship by birth on a country’s soil): namely, (a) foreign diplomats, and (b) enemy forces in hostile occupation of a portion of the country’s territory.”
And so it completely ignored the legislative history and common law history which clearly reject of the idea of ius soli which you are misunderstanding. Ius Soli was an imperialist doctrine that America fought a war with England to end and the Supremes cited that common law. Can we say irony?
From Howard Sutherland ” The Court preferred the English view of jus soli birthright citizenship, which had allowed the Crown to assert jurisdiction over anyone born in England, no matter who his parents were….They ignored the fact that, by putting the Citizenship Clause, qualified by the jurisdiction phrase, into the Constitution, the country had deliberately superseded the common law view”
Aside from the gross ignorance of history and law that Supremes showed in Ark, it has nothing to children of illegals. There has been no test case yet of the applicability of the Citizenship Clause to illegal aliens.
So pursuant to its powers under Article I of the Constitution and the explicit grant of Congressional enforcement authority in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment the Congress can make laws seeking to end birthright citizenship.
So your statement Bill “Our politicians therefore pay lip service to immigration reform or worse. Make it tougher on legal immigration or propose unconstitutional measures like ending birthright citizenship” is totally false.
There simply is no law or jurisprudence that says ending birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.
From Bill “No one has yet to answer how this law will be administered without possibly harming US citizens. It will happen and it will be wrong no matter what. INS/Immigration is a mess and everyone of you will say that. I’ve had personal experience with not with a friend, but family members. I can tell you how @#%^! it is. Just tell me how this law is to be administered and don’t give me its people’s tough luck if they screwed by this proposed law.”
Oh and citizens aren’t hurt by wave after wave of illegals entering the court without proper screen or any process of law whatsoever?
The reason why Citizens are being hurt now is because of girlie-men like you who refuse to do that is needed because “it might hurt someobody” and don’t give me you fucking sob-stories cause my cousin’s husband may be deported cause of way current immigration works.
Solutions are painful because that is the proof that it works. Good medicine often taste bad and the world isn’t a panacea. Get used to it.
“You create an underclass in this country it would lead to turmoil eventually.”
We are creating an permanate underclass now you dumb shit cause by constantly flooding the labor market with cheap by the law of supply and demand you lower wages.
Read this book “http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385503024/103-5765795-8275053?n=283155”
Quote: “May I cite
Palestinians in the Arab world. Used by their arab neighbors as political pawns now they are considered a disruptive element just about everywhere. With reason too. But the Arabs created their mess.”
This has nothing to with immigration and “Palestinians” whoever these mythical creatures are created their own state of poverty when they help the Arabs nations in a war of agression against Israel. If they hadn’t rejected the UN’s two-state plan they would be doing fine instead they launch a genicidal war against Jews. Fuck them and fuck you for supporting them.
Quote: “As did the French as seen in recent riots. It will backfire, I might not live to see it but it would. Simple solutions to Big problems lead to unintended consequence.”
First the reason for the Muslim riots in France is that too many radical muslim ingrates are really fucking bad people and tend fuck things up wherever too many of them tend to populate.
Second, what did the French do that backfired? They let in too many poor undereducated muslim Africans thinking that it was good for their economy initially and when was too late they refused to deport because “simple solutions to big problems lead to unintended consequence.” This is exactly what we are doing now (thanks to poeple like you) and the only reason we haven’t had any big riots is cause Mexicans aren’t radicals muslims.
Seamus: “I ,ove the way you held your rascist point to the very end! It made you almost sound rational! Nice work, scumbag!”
I see. So as to not be deemed “racist” by you, one must pass your litmus test of accepting imoral, illegal, unwarranted, and unwanted change in America’s culture from illegal immigration.
Just so I’m clear, is just accepting the above preclude one from being racist, or does one have to acctually “support”, or maybe “encourage” such illegal, damaging, and immoral behavior before you deem them not “racist”?
Calling someone a “racist” is a pretty serious charge – one that is trotted out all too easily by those with little semblance of intellect. As you so aptly demonstrated in your “response” to my comment.
Instead of juvenile, underhanded name calling, why don’t you at least try to address the issues at hand? If you disagree with my statement, counter what I stated with fact and reasoned argument.
I truly don’t expect much from you. I do suspect my calling you on your trite and inane name calling stunt just further validates my being “racist” in your mind. As if it takes anything at all.
Completely irrelevant question.
Irrelevant to what? That makes no sense. You said that your objection to a less restrictive set of immigration laws is based on your objection to the foisting of hispanic culture on the US, then clarified your statement to emphasize the fact that it was the illegal means that you had a problem with. Which (again) makes not sense in this discussion since what we are talking about is what the legal status of those means should be.
It seems that if we changed the law, then the influx of hispanic culture due to immigration would no longer be illegal.
So, my question to you is: under such circumstances, would you still object to the growth of hispanic culture?
In other words, is your objection really, honestly and truly based solely on this “illegal means” business. Because, quite plainly, that makes no sense at all.
What it seems that you are actually saying is that you object to the growth of hispanic culture in the US regardless of the means by which that may happen. In fact, you seemed to call the prospect of that happening “immoral.”
“What it seems that you are actually saying is that you object to the growth of hispanic culture in the US regardless of the means by which that may happen.”
Your wrong in your assessment of what I’m saying and frankly I don’t see how you could interpret what I wrote the way you did. Implicit in your assessment is much that I neither wrote nor believe. You inserted meaning that is not there to make your ‘argument’ such as it is. You are assigning meaning that is not there and not justified by what I wrote.
As with your ‘what if’ about removing all barriers to immigration, your writing is avoiding the subject at hand, and is not close to objectively making a counter-argument to my statement. You are making things up, then expecting me to ‘go there’ and argue with you about what you made up.
I called the illegal hispanization of America immoral. It is. Clearly. An obvious and significant effect of illegal immigration is undue hispanization of American culture.
My assessment of what is happening to American culture is accurate – it is not racist (as Seamus so lamely tried to assert), and makes no value judgement whatsoever as to whether one culture is better than the other. The statement is an assessment of what is happening in America today that has great impact on the future of the country.
And if one took the time to think just a bit one might remember that American culture is wonderfully multi-ethnic, so my desire to protect my culture from illegally and immorally being changed is to protect that aspect of the culture as well.
You are transparently attempting to turn this into a discussion of culturism or most likely racism ala Seamus. You are just more obtuse and wordy about it. So just come out and say it instead of cutely dancing around with trite, uneducated guesses of what I may or may not be saying or thinking.
If that is not the case, then you should be addressing the salient issue: the impact of illegal immigration on American culture instead of your basely conceived guesses at my motives.
If you think that because of my statement I am racist then simply say so. Explain why the statement is false. Prove me wrong. Show us that there is no undue impact on American culture from illegal immigration that itself is predominately hispanic in nature.
If there is no impact, and I’m just making it all up, then you may have grounds for at least asserting my statement is racist. If on the other hand, my statement is essentially accurate and describes the matter in a factual way, then by definition, your assertions are specious and without merit to say the least.
Actually, what I think we should all take the time to do right now is sit and reflect upon all of the arguments that Phinn and Peter J have completely ignored.
Right now we’re taking in 1.5-2 million immigrants a year (and that doesn’t count the children many of them have shortly after coming here). If that number were, say, 20 million, would it still be OK?
If it’s OK to say 20 million a year is too many, why is it not OK to say 2 million a year is too many?
Is anyone and everyone who believes in ANY limits to immigration at all a pig-headed “nativist?”
How do you compensate Americans for the diminishing effect that immigration has on their “stock” in America (the tens of trillions of dollars in assets the gov’t holds in trust for the people)?
Why is it that so many people and organizations who are gigantic fans of open borders for “humanitarian” reasons happen – just conveniently, coincidentally happen – to have a major economic interest in the cheaper labor force and the increased market size provided by large-scale immigration?
How is the argument that we need immigrants to do the dirty, difficult jobs that “we won’t do” for dirt pay not similar to the economic arguments justifying slavery?
Earlier, Phinn, you said that one of the greatest economic periods in US history was the period from 1845-1860. Was it great if you were black and lived in the South? For that matter, was it great if you were white, and not a land owner, and lived in the South?
How do you get people to make sacrifices for their country when their country is just some giant Middle Eastern bazaar? Is this the country that 1 million American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines gave their lives for? The United Businessmen of America?
Libertarian candidates today get about, oh, 0.3% of the votes in elections. How do you propose bringing your ideal, free-market world into existence, especially since most of the immigrants coming to this country are moving politics far to the left? (See: California)
The government (meaning: the people) provides roads. It provides sewers. It provides water. It provides police and fire protection. It provides military protection. It provides parks. It provides public schools. It provides emergency aid (sometimes). It enforces business contracts and debt collection – indeed it greases the skids to make a lot of “free market” activity cheaper than it would be.
Name one of these things (except for schools) that even 10% of the population thinks should be privatized.
Name one country that has completely privatized its roads, its parks, its military, its police force.
How is your economic growth through population growth scheme not unlike a Ponzi scheme?
If we’re wrong (those of us who think immigration is too high) what’s the result? Slower economic growth. The results are reversible: We just start letting people in again. If you’re wrong, will we be able to kick all of these new citizens out?
Feel free to add to the list of all the objections they’ve just brushed aside. In their well-lit prison of one libertarian idea, such questions are heretical.
Phinn,
I can understand, in theory, your belief in what seems to me to be a libertarian view of the world. There are good reasons to think of things in terms of ideals – a world with the absolute minimum of government power or economic redistribution. But just because you can imagine it in your head doesn’t mean that it’s realistic on paper.
Governments have existed for a very long time all over the world. They fill a purpose. Those places which do not have official governments – places like, oh, Somalia – tend to be very undesirable places to live.
The reason we have granted govt’s so much power is that we’ve found it over time very useful to do so. We may hate the sovereign, but we need a sovereign. Human nature – other humans’ nature – demands it. Its not an accident. It’s not due to some authoritarian tendency in human beings.
For example, two of the major reasons govt’s were first formed were to protect a town from outside invaders and to manage public works projects. So governments build roads. People drive on those roads. Some people drive like maniacs on those roads, and kill other people. So we require people to have licenses, and license plates, so we can know who’s entitled to drive and who’s a hazard to other people. We create a police force to take away the personal freedoms of those who harm others. We create a draft because we need to fill the ranks of the military to protect us from invaders. We create a bureau to raise revenue to fund all of these needs. We keep records to make sure that people are paying their fair share of taxes to fund these needs. These are just some of the things that nearly everyone agrees the gov’t should do, and already you’ve given the gov’t a whole lot of power. Show me a better way, and I’m happy hear it.
Well, F’er, if you don’t want to be called a racist, don’t make racist statements.
Also, I honestly resent the undue influence that illegal immigration is having on my American culture. Here in California, we are being ‘hispanisized’ at an increasing rate. The fact is that illegal immigration is driving this unwanted, unwarranted change in our culture. And that is wrong.
In your post to Phinn:
and makes no value judgement
If you resent it, you’re making a value judgement.
And I said that you almost sounded rational. In fact, you actually brought up some valid points. But your racist rant at the end of those points shows you for the scumbag you are, and dilutes the power of any point you may have made beforehand.
Your wrong in your assessment of what I’m saying and frankly I don’t see how you could interpret what I wrote the way you did. Explain why the statement is false.
Because your statement it is a logical fallacy known as “begging the question,” also known as “circular reasoning.”
The question presented is whether immigration laws should be relaxed, tightened or maintained. There are various reasons that proponents of each position may give in support thereto.
You, however, gave a convoluted argument that began with an objection to the hispanization of US culture, but made a special point to clarify (when pressed) that you did not object to the growth of hispanic culture per se, but that you objected to the illegal means by which that occurs.
This is not an answer. I am not saying that it is not merely a good answer. I am saying that it is not an answer at all.
When asked “why should immigration remain illegal?” (or any variant phrasing thereof, such as “why shouldn’t immigration be opened?” or “why should immigration laws be changed from their present staus?” or however you want to say it), it is no answer to say “because the resulting growth of hispanic culture is illegal.”
You have changed your phrasing a bit, from “immoral” to “undue,” I assume in order to avoid the uncomfortable reality that your earlier statements are indefensible as a matter of logic (which is understandable; this is an informal forum, and not every statement can be crafted with considered precision).
That’s why I want to clarify what you are saying: What do you mean when you say that you object only to the “illegal means,” since that qualification renders your entire statement meaningless. Do you instead object to the hispanization of US culture in general? If so, that would at least be a substantive response to the question of why (or why not) the immigration laws should be changed (or not).
How do you compensate Americans for the diminishing effect that immigration has on their “stock” in America (the tens of trillions of dollars in assets the gov’t holds in trust for the people)?
I think you misunderstand me, Alan. I object to the entire idea that the government holds “stock in trust” for anyone, or that the value thereof is “diminished” by immigration. It is a bogus idea, completely unfounded in law or economics. As a result, I do not understand what you are talking about.
If you have some specific res or trust corpus in mind, please identify it specifically. It is impossible to discuss the principles of government unless we know exactly what it is we are talking about.
How is the argument that we need immigrants to do the dirty, difficult jobs that “we won’t do” for dirt pay not similar to the economic arguments justifying slavery?
Slaves can’t leave. Slave-masters gain at the expense of the slave. In contrast, workers who voluntarily choose to perform work in exchange for a pre-agreed rate of pay can not only choose to accept that work (or not), but (when they choose to do that work) are obviously improving their situations by doing so. This is so obviously true as to be a tautology — if the worker did not improve his situation by accepting employment, he wouldn’t do it.
Voluntary employment has nothing to do with slavery. Your question is so ridiculous that I am beginning to doubt your sincerity.
Earlier, Phinn, you said that one of the greatest economic periods in US history was the period from 1845-1860. Was it great if you were black and lived in the South? For that matter, was it great if you were white, and not a land owner, and lived in the South?
No, it was not great if you were black and lived in the South. Slavery was an abominable practice, and totally unacceptable in a free society (much less a free market).
But, more to the point of your question, slavery existed to the same extent during the 150+ years preceding 1845. What was it about this period that saw such tremendous economic growth?
It was the free market. It was the period of the most free market in US history, in terms not only of low tariffs, but virtually unlimited immigration, i.e., a free market for labor). The other period of explosive growth was shortly after the Revolution in the late 1700s, for much the same reasons).
And, yes, this economic benefit was extremely broad-based. It would have been even broader had it not been for slavery, which, as I said, was abominable not only for the slave, of course, but detrimental non-slave-owners as well.
How do you get people to make sacrifices for their country when their country is just some giant Middle Eastern bazaar?
I do not understand your question. Are you trying to denigrate the concept of a free market by portraying it as “some giant Middle Eastern bazaar”? What “sacrifices for their country” aer you referring to?
How do you propose bringing your ideal, free-market world into existence?
By talking about it. By highlighting the destructive parts of statist, collectivist initiatives, the ones that politicians and their sycophant-cheerleaders have always tried to hide — the harm, the economic devastation, the loss of liberty, the infringement of fundamental human rights to life, libery and property. The Statists have always (1) ginned up a phony “problem,” and (2) pretended that their supposed “solution” has no negative conseqences. The growth of aggressive government has always been predicated on these two lies.
The government (meaning: the people) provides roads. It provides sewers. It provides water. It provides police and fire protection. It provides military protection. It provides parks. It provides public schools. It provides emergency aid (sometimes). It enforces business contracts and debt collection – indeed it greases the skids to make a lot of “free market” activity cheaper than it would be.
You might not know this, but the free market provided roads before the government did. The reason you might not know it is that government-takeover of the road-building business happened before we were born, back in the 19th century, under the reign of economic idiots like Lincoln and his protectionist, corrupt supporters.
This was before cars, obviously, so there has never been a free market for road-building in the age of the automobile, so people have a problem imagining how that would work. But it does work, it did work once, and would obviously work again. The laws of economics do not change.
Schools are another matter, beyond the scope of this thread. But suffice it to say that government schools were started as an overtly socialist program, and haven’t changed their character.
I believe that a proper role of government includes the prevention and remedying of crimes, breaches of contracts, and enforcement of standards of care (i.e., torts).
Name one of these things (except for schools) that even 10% of the population thinks should be privatized.
I don’t see the point in responding to transparent appeals to popularity.
How is your economic growth through population growth scheme not unlike a Ponzi scheme?
How is it at all like a Ponzi scheme? Ponzi schemes depend on deceiving investors into believing that they are getting a genuine return on investment (i.e., their money is being used to fund productive economic activity), when they are actually only getting contributions from other duped investors (i.e., the proceeds of theft by fraud, which is not productive economic activity).
But just because you can imagine it in your head doesn’t mean that it’s realistic on paper.
I am very serious about real-world effects. If you have a specific harm that you can point to, that may halp clarify your objection.
Governments have existed for a very long time all over the world. They fill a purpose. Those places which do not have official governments – places like, oh, Somalia – tend to be very undesirable places to live.
You started off with another appeal to popularity, or perhaps an appeal to common practice, which does not merit a response. As for Somalia, that is an example of a market that is not free. It is ruled by thugs. They are worse than the thugs that run other countries, of course, but not all thugs carry machine guns. Some wear suits and have the patina of respectability.
The reason we have granted govt’s so much power is that we’ve found it over time very useful to do so.
Actually, it is more accurate to say that “we” did not grant it such power at all. In the case of our federal government, for example, “we” granted it only a very limited power over economic matters. Around 1937, it seized a lot more power, and another part of that government rubber-stamped that usurpation. “We” did not give it any such thing.
We may hate the sovereign, but we need a sovereign. Human nature – other humans’ nature – demands it. Its not an accident. It’s not due to some authoritarian tendency in human beings.
This is a meaningless hand-waving paean to authoritarianism. But if that’s the level you want to descend to, then perhaps this is a comparable response: “Human nature is to be free from claims that others are ‘sovereign’ over them. It is not natural or necessary to be subject to a ‘sovereign’ authority. The authoritarian tendency is the same as the tendency toward aggression and brutality and domination.”
Fluffy stuff, I admit. But no less substantive than your empty assertions.
Seamus: “If you resent it, you’re making a value judgement.”
Not as to the value of one culture over another. I resent the illegal and unwarranted growing influence on American culture caused by illegal immigration.
You are trying, as most race-baiters do, to redirect an argument that is above your ability to deal with by yelling ‘racist’ as a way to ‘win’ the discussion. It’s not working. You are making things up, and as in your insipid statement above, grasping tremendously and obviously.
Again, instead of vile race-baiting hysterics, why not address the issue with claims that you can substantiate? That fact that you are not even trying speaks volumes.
Phinn: “What do you mean when you say that you object only to the “illegal means,” since that qualification renders your entire statement meaningless.”
“You have changed your phrasing a bit, from “immoral” to “undue,” I assume in order to avoid the uncomfortable reality that your earlier statements are indefensible as a matter of logic (which is understandable; this is an informal forum, and not every statement can be crafted with considered precision).”
Here are my exact words that you can’t seem to read in context:
“I called the illegal hispanization of America immoral. It is. Clearly. An obvious and significant effect of illegal immigration is undue hispanization of American culture.”
I did not change my phrasing – you are selectively reading to support your position. You can and should do better.
If you disagree that illegal immigration is not unduly influencing the American culture, then please explain why you believe such. You have not made a single argument to dispute the fact and reality of what I’ve written. Instead acting as a more nuanced version of Seamus, you are stuck on race-baiting.
Ho hum. We all know that being directly or implicitly called a racist is supposed to stop someone in their tracks and force them down on their knees to beg forgiveness handing the victory to the accuser. The problem is you are purposefully assigning meaning to my words that is clearly not present in an increasingly insipid, grasping attempt to make me out to be a racist for my having state substantiated facts and my opinion of those facts.
Phinn, do you have any substance in you?
Choosing to illegally enter another country for whatever purpose is wrong and an immoral choice. When the numbers are such that the very fabric of that country is effected in ways not desired by the citizens of that country, that is immoral on the whole. Such is happening in America (fact) and yes I do resent it (opinion).
You’ve attacked me ascribing behaviors that you have no way to substantiate. Your weak, easily disproven twisting of my words is becoming even more grasping as you continue.
Again, try to address the issue instead of attacking the person who raises the issue. If you disagree with *what* I’ve written, then dispute my premise with substantiated claims to the contrary. You have yet to even try to do that.
Your words alone are enough to substantiate my claim that you’re a racist. There have been 70-some posts on this thread. You’re the only one I’ve accused of racism. Why is that? You’re the only one who has made a racist argument.
Your argument that YOUR culture is under attack and in danger of bieng “Hispanicized” is the same ridiculous argument that the demagoges and the Klan made at the turn of the century about the Eye-tals and the micks and all the dirty, filthy papists who would undermine our wasp-ish American culture.
I called the illegal hispanization of America immoral. It is. Clearly. An obvious and significant effect of illegal immigration is undue hispanization of American culture.
You want me to refute the substance of your argument, but your argument has no substance. But then again, racists rarely do.
If you disagree that illegal immigration is not unduly influencing the American culture, then please explain why you believe such. You have not made a single argument to dispute the fact and reality of what I’ve written.
I have not gotten a straight answer as to what your position actually is.
I have not attacked you. I disagreed with you, then you attempted to clarify your position, and I still have not gotten an answer from you as to what your actual position is. We cannot agree or disagree, nor can I address your “facts” and “reality” until I fully understand your position.
You keep saying that “illegal immigration is unduly influencing the American culture.”
What I will ask again is this: is it the illegality or the immigration that you object to?
If it is only the illegality that you find objectionable, that position says nothing about the actual question presented here: WHAT SHOULD THE LAW BE? (And why?)
So, to clarify your attempted clarification, I ask again: if it were not illegal, would you still believe that immigration was “unduly influencing the American culture”? If so, why?
Seamus: “Your words alone are enough to substantiate my claim that you’re a racist. There have been 70-some posts on this thread. You’re the only one I’ve accused of racism. Why is that? You’re the only one who has made a racist argument.”
I’m a racist since I’m the only one you have so far accused of being a racist…
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Too funny. I have to admit, I love it when I run across cases like you. You may be totally worthless in terms of putting forth any rational argument, but you are damn funny.
Anyway. Do you realize that your posts have no substantation to them whatsoever. You have done nothing more than call me a name and your justification comes from the fact that I’m the only one you’ve called that name. Geez. You really, truly, and with certainty, do. not. get. it.
One last try at getting something, anything, of substance out of you:
So you are essentially saying that there is no influence on American culture from illegal immigration. Prove it. If you can substantiate your de facto claim that illegal immigration is having no undue effects on American culture then we can talk about my claim that there is an effect, as having ‘no substance’.
And just to clarify: My culture is American, and American culture is mine. I am quite proud of that. I suggest you look into what comprises the American culture that I appreciate so much. Pay special attention to multi-ethnic aspects, the melting pot concept, the equality of all. There have been and will continue to be great contributions to my culture by Americans representing effectively every race, creed, religion, and region on the planet – including hispanics. Indeed, I am very proud to be American.
That I support a very multi-ethnic America in no way means I must therefore support illegal immigration and its effects simply because those choosing to break our laws and enter our country illegally are predominately from one ethnic sector. It does not matter what that sector is, it does not matter what attributes the people of that sector embody – it is still wrong.
Phinn: “You keep saying that “illegal immigration is unduly influencing the American culture.”
I’m saying that because, duh, it’s true. Please feel free to disagree. So far you’ve only attempted to insult me as a person. And belive me that does not bother in the least. I would though appreciate any argument you can put forth as to why you believe illegal immigration is not effecting American culture.
“What I will ask again is this: is it the illegality or the immigration that you object to?
“
What part of “illegal immigration” do you not get? My statement is simple and clear. I said what I meant, and meant what I said. You are asking me to ‘answer’ a hypothetical matter that is not germaine. What you posit as ‘if it were legal immigration would you support it?’ is facetious and has no bearing on the reality of our nation. Address the reality of the matter confronting all of us instead of lamely trying to figure out my psyche. That is not what this forum is about.
Unlike your position on the matters at hand, it is clear that you (like Seamus) want only to continue race-baiting. I wrote something you don’t like, and in response you state nothing about *what* I wrote, but instead go on and on about *why* you believe I wrote it.
Look. You don’t know whether I’m racist or not, and the reality of any debate is that you can not *prove* that the other person is or is not what you accuse them of. On the other hand, if my statement is “racist” you should be able to prove it easily enough by addressing the substance of that statement. It should be easy.
But so far you’ve ignored my statement, continue to imply that I’m racist or something like it, and dream up stilted hypotheticals in a vain attempt to prove you are ‘right’ about me.
I’ll repeat my statement once more, because I don’t know how much clearer I can make this:
Choosing to illegally enter another country is wrong and an immoral choice. When the numbers are such that the very fabric of that country is effected in ways not desired by the citizens of that country, that is immoral on the whole. Such is happening in America (fact) and yes I do not like it (opinion).
I think you should consider that my statement is true, false, or has some elements of both based solely on what it says. Whether I am racist or not has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of the statement.
And let me make it clear that I support controlled borders and legal immigration at levels that can be shown to be right for the nation. Having worked in the fields of the Central Valley of California as a kid and teenager, and having many friends in the agriculture business, I can attest that we need workers from outside our nation to perform good, hard, honest work in those fields.
Phinn, it may well be that I am writing in a way that is not clear to you. The impression of you on this board is not the same as that of Seamus in that you seem to be an intelligent and (a seemingly) reasonable person.
When we are facing such a significant issue in our nation – one that is arguably the number one concern of voting age citizens – there is much in tangibles to discuss without going into the never ending abyss of hypothetical questions. You do realize of course that I could repond to your hypothetical with my own hypothetical and so on, and so on. We will accomplish nothing and there is nothing of substance to be learned in so doing.
If you do not want to address my statement (as opposed to what you think my motives might be) then posit your own position on the real matters of illegal immigration that you believe shows the fallacy of my position.
Phinn, it may well be that I am writing in a way that is not clear to you.
Yes, I do not understand why you do not see the point of my question.
The simple issue is: what should the scope of legal immigration be? Tighter? Looser? The same? More importantly, why?
If, for example, it were looser, and more immigration were permitted, then for those people, their coming here would no longer be illegal. There would be no possible way to object to heir “illegal immigration” or any secondary effect therefrom, because it would not be illegal in the first place. These people, however, would have an effect on our culture, by virtue of their mere presence here. Thus, any objection to the policy that permitted them to come here would have to be based on something other than “illegality.” It would have to be based on some sort of cultural or economic effect of their having come here legally.
It’s a simple question: what do you think should be the criteria for deciding how far to open our immigration laws?
How do we decide this question? What are the metrics? What are the factors to consider? What are the steps in the reasoning process to arrive at a coherent position on the subject?
I would though appreciate any argument you can put forth as to why you believe illegal immigration is not effecting American culture.
As I may have said already, I do not believe it is the proper role of the government to make rules (i.e., exercise its special power to force people to behave in certain ways, which is what government is) based on considerations of culture.
Culture is, or should be, totally non-governmental. Culture is a social phenomenon, based on voluntary associations and practices. It is language, religion, food, dress, family structure, arts, etc.
Nothing that I would consider to be a bona fide cultural trait, custom or practice is remotely harmful. Behaviors that ARE harmful, in contrast, are easily identified, and should be prevented (or remedied) regardless of the culture of the person engaging in it. It should therefore not be part of the scope of government to control culture, or take action based upon it, one way or the other.
Government should exist to prevent and remedy harmful behavior. Cultural considerations, as being non-harmful by definition, are therefore not the proper grounds to be making any decisions about what the law should or should not be.
I believe these are the principles of a free society. My position on immigration, therefore, proceeds from my philosophy of government, and the scope of the moral use of governmental force.
I understand that a limited governmental role in matters of immigration, if actually implemented, would cause massive and immediate problems for huge sectors of the welfare state, such as government schooling, medical care, etc.
I consider these to be excellent reasons (in addition to many others) for the dismantling of the welfare state, not for restricting immigration. It is these programs that are the problem, not the immigration of otherwise peaceful, non-harmful people into the US.
So, to answer your question, I do not doubt that even peaceful immigration affects the native culture. I simply disagree that it is the proper role of government to have any role in cultural matters in the first place.
Jesus! How old were you before your father shot himself in the head for raising such a drooling moron? Or did the syphillis your mother gave him (and you) get him first? I understand that reading is very difficult for you, but try reading the very first line that you quoted.
“Your words alone are enough to substantiate my claim that you’re a racist.”
That sentence puts the lie to your next two paragraphs, so we’ll move right along. Sorry. Make that next three paragraphs.
So you are essentially saying that there is no influence on American culture from illegal immigration.
Ummmmm….I said nothing remotely like that. You said that you resent the hispanicization of your culture. I didn’t argue that it wasn’t happening. I said that resenting the growing hispanicization of your culture makes you a racist.
That I support a very multi-ethnic America in no way means I must therefore support illegal immigration and its effects simply because those choosing to break our laws and enter our country illegally are predominately from one ethnic sector.
Nobody said you had to. Mosdt of the people on this board don’t support illegal immigration. All of them (except you) have been able to make that argument without sliding into racism. (that was my point earlier which went straight over your dimwiited little head.)
And just a reminder of your own words…
Also, I honestly resent the undue influence that illegal immigration is having on my American culture. Here in California, we are being ‘hispanisized’ at an increasing rate.
Seamus – You crack me up. Now you stoop to insulting my parents. Truthfully, how old are you? Twelve?
So, let me get this straight. When you, in your infinite wisdom, utter, “Your words alone are enough to substantiate my claim that you’re a racist”, then it JUST MUST BE TRUE. (Queue booming echo effect signaling that we’ve been witness to communication from the deity that is Seamus).
Well pardon me for not genuflecting in your presence.
One more time, even though I know it’s a waste. My own words as quoted by you: “Also, I honestly resent the undue influence that illegal immigration is having on my American culture. Here in California, we are being ‘Hispanicized’ at an increasing rate.”
Show me *how* those words are racist. There is no question that illegal immigration is effecting our culture. That effect is from an illegal source and so is ‘undue’. So that statement is empirical fact – therefore not racist. Let’s see, does it bother you that I claim American culture as mine? I suspect it does. I suspect it bothers you a lot that I am proud to be American. But even so, that does not qualify me as a racist. And finally, if you believe that California is not being effected (in a way referred to by La Raza, and others like them by the term “Hispanicize”) please explain – if you can.
If I am racist I’d really like to know that, and even more importantly my wife would like to know that (inside joke).
Seamus – I’ve asked over and over for you to explain how my words make me a racist. I’ve explained the words in context and though you may not like what I have to say, that still does not make me a racist. It is clear that you are not capable of a reasoned response. It is abundantly clear that you are not capable of even carrying on a decent flame war for cripes sake.
Those who can do – those who can’t, troll…
Phinn: Thanks – I think I understand a bit more clearly where you are coming from. I don’t even disagree with your comments on the welfare state. Though we may have some minor differences I suspect we agree there more than not.
However, here is the issue for me. I respect your view that the government should not have a role in the native culture. I certainly don’t think the government should dictate the culture in any way.
But all that is beside the point in terms of our reality today. We can agree that the government *should* not effect culture, but that amounts to no more than you and I backslapping each other for our mutual brilliance on the matter and nothing else. Reality is that our government’s actions and inactions do indeed have effects on the culture. In this case it is due to the government’s not doing what it is tasked to do – control immigration into this country.
I don’t believe (and I don’t know if you do) that since immigration does have cultural impact that should preclude the government from managing immigration. If for no other reason than the fact that immigration also effects the economy, healthcare, law enforcement, international commerce and banking, and whole raft of other things that the government (though no doubt arguably) has every right to be involved in.
“Government should exist to prevent and remedy harmful behavior. Cultural considerations, as being non-harmful by definition, are therefore not the proper grounds to be making any decisions about what the law should or should not be.”
On this, I have to disagree. From my perspective, culturally induced behaviors can be harmful – such things as honor killings, clitoral mutilation, treatment of women as not equal to men, and a host of other unfortunate cultural behavioral traits most assuredly can be harmful. Laws and enforcement systems within the government should be in place to deal with those behaviors even though they are spawned by a culture or sub-culture.
it is due to the government’s not doing what it is tasked to do – control immigration into this country.
I understand, but the more important question is: why is it tasked to do so, and thus to what it extent and in what manner should it be so tasked?
I don’t believe (and I don’t know if you do) that since immigration does have cultural impact that should preclude the government from managing immigration.
Let me be very clear: the government should disregard the cultural aspect, and focus strictly on the harmful BEHAVIOR. A group of people may take it as a cultural virtue to, for example, steal cars. That cultural value is not the government’s concern. The behavior of actually stealing the cars (and any collaborative behavior to promote and facilitate it) most certainly is.
The problem with enlisting government to exercise force in areas other than addressing harmful behavior is that it’s possible to find a way to say that just about anything is “connected” to some form of harmful behavior. Unless we are firm that the government has no legitimacy unless it strictly confines itself to a particular set of activities, then you end up with the perpetual growth of governmental power into every aspect of our lives. Which is precisely what has happened in the US.
immigration also effects the economy, healthcare, law enforcement, international commerce and banking, and whole raft of other things that the government (though no doubt arguably) has every right to be involved in.
Other than law enforcement, the government does not have the rightful authority to exert its power in any of those areas.
(BTW, as a topic close to my heart, a free market for migrant labor is good for the economy, just as a free market for everything else is good for the economy.)
Did your mother bother to teach you how to read. or was she too busy sucking off guys at the bus station for crack money?
I retract that last one. I forgot about reproting on your mothers syphillis in the previous post, so I did in fact insult your parents.
Auto Loans
http://www.nfsautoloan.com
what do you think the minimum wage would be if all the people who benifit from illegal workers didn’t exist?
wouldn’t young americans then be willing to work for a wage they could exactly be able to live and surport themselves and there family’s
why are there so many working poor?
why are there so many homeless in our country that don’t have the same suport that illegal aleins have?
why are americans so complacent
While traveling most recently in Taiwan, I read an article in reference to Illegal Foreign Workers or what some US news agency’s refer to as undocumented workers otherwise know as Illegal Aliens.
The Government of Taiwan is very concerned that they believe that there are currently 23,574 illegal foreign workers in their country and has recently increased the fines for hiring such individuals;
Under the Employment Service Act,
here are the new fines that took effect on April 12, 2006:
First offense: The company is fined $5,000.00 – $25,000 USD
Second offense: The hiring manager will be sentence to 3 years in jail and the company will be fined $40,000 USD, in addition the workers are deported to their country of origin within 48 hours.
Perhaps our federal and local governments could learn from other countries on how to handle the Illegal Workers that enter our country every single day!!!