Per Request, the Immigration Catch-All

CheezePavilion wrote:
Pawz wrote:

Cheese.. lol. Really? You want to know how FAST other countries will dump their undesirables on your shorelines if you say 'Hello, free access for all'? Australia would probably be the first :P.The people immigrating is NOT the problem. Immigration is not a problem. Immigration is great. ILLEGALLY immigrating is a problem. Stopping the illegal immigration is the solution. Why do people immigrate illegally? Because it's better here, regardless of low wages, poor working conditions or high crime rate. Why is it better here?

Like I said, that's a circular argument: if immigration is great, but illegal immigration is a problem, then legalizing all immigration is just as much of a solution as stopping it.

Now, if immigration of undesirables is the problem, then it's the immigration of undesirables that is the problem, legal or not.

Um, that's exactly what I said. I said, either you support a policy of fully open borders and solve the problem by making everyone legal (with its obvious ramifications) OR you *must* choose some criteria that make people 'undesirable', thereby making some people unable to immigrate legally, thereby identifying a set of people who if they enter the country, do so illegally.

I kind of assumed that the open borders option was off the table, since it seems blindingly obvious to me that it's a terrible idea. If not, like I said, I live in a country that's currently trying to ship its 'boat people' to another country, so I imagine Australia would be happy to change to shipping them to the US.

Maybe that's the first issue that needs to be addressed?

Bandit, you're posting false information about Mexico.

I just wanted to note that Mexico does not have any sort of "Policy" to encourage emmigration to the US. I don't know where you're getting this idea?

The people who try it do so of their own free will, due to the promise of better pay for their hard work. It's a last resort for poor, hard working people, not a first choice.

The government has actually tried "Come Back to Mexico" campaigns, and "Don't go to the US illegally, it's dangerous and you might die". So that's just false. The government recognizes Mexico receives a lot of money from immigrants to the US, but there's never been any sort of policy to encourage emmigration.

bandit0013 wrote:

I wonder how mexico handles illegal immigration:

These were repelled in 2008: http://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/n...

Illegal migration law was changed and now it's only an administrative fault, not a crime. (not sure how to translate, but you could never be convicted and sent to jail for that, just means you have to pay a fine ). At the end it also mentions one of the programs for voluntary repatriation (PRVI).

Today, there's still programs to encourage people to not go to the US, and they inform you of how badly they'll treat you if you try to go to places like Arizona.

Unlike the USA, there's no huge movement to reject anyone who wants to come. Celebrities are known to be here working "illegally" in TV shows. Lots of Chinese people who own their restaurants and sell Chinese items too.

By the way, I've heard the cases about South American immigrants being treated harshly and extorted, and I assure you this has absolutely no support from the mexican population.

We just see it as another disgusting thing the police do to abuse their power and there's Non-government human rights organization protesting against this very harshly.

So I don't think just because some corrupt mexican policemen have done it (outside the law) that you could consider that part of the mexican immigration policy. Seems to me like a story that has been blown up for the benefit of anti-immigration pundits.

edit: Personally I don't support mexicans going to the US either, but if it happens, I don't think the US should treat them so badly. From all reports I've heard from personal friends who come back, they're always treated like crap.

@Mex

My viewpoint on the Mexican government's policy stems from this little gem.

Don't go, it's dangerous... but here's a map and how to go properly. Yeah, I get it, we don't want anyone to die crossing the desert, but sheesh.

bandit0013 wrote:

@Mex

My viewpoint on the Mexican government's policy stems from this little gem.

Don't go, it's dangerous... but here's a map and how to go properly. Yeah, I get it, we don't want anyone to die crossing the desert, but sheesh.

Your source is Fox News? I'm out of this conversation. >_>

But even reading the article, it clearly says it's a Human Rights group that was concerned about all the people dying in the desert while attempting the trek to the US. That's always been true, the government has always warned people not to go, and that it's a very dangerous thing to attempt. It's known that thousands of people die every year trying to cross the border, and some are killed or extorted by criminals on the way.

These maps seemed aimed at lowering the death rate of people who will attempt it anyway, not trying to encourage them to go.

It's like the "Distributing condoms encourages teens to have sex!" argument. Well, they were probably going to do it anyway, at least give them some protection. I guess everyone sees what they want to see.

But if it makes you feel better, the maps were never released. While they were being developed by a Human Rights group, the Mexican government stopped the project due to pressure from the USA: http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=214334 . So I guess that's some more dead mexicans who thankfully never reached the USA to find some work.

Anyway, the point is that no one encourages people to go to the US illegally.

You might want to check dates on any source articles too Bandit - first thing I noticed was that Mex posted something from 2008 and you rebutted with an article from 2006

Any way you fly it though, every other country has some kind of immigration policy. And I still don't understand why being against illegal immigration somehow means that you're against immigrants in general. Are you're trying to say those Chinese people are illegal immigrants that own restaurants Mex?

I can totally understand the anti-illegal sentiment, considering my parents were immigrants, and I immigrated myself. It's not a matter of 'you must suffer because we did', but it IS galling to see someone get a free pass just because they arrived in a rickity boat instead of going through customs.

Pawz wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Pawz wrote:

Cheese.. lol. Really? You want to know how FAST other countries will dump their undesirables on your shorelines if you say 'Hello, free access for all'? Australia would probably be the first :P.The people immigrating is NOT the problem. Immigration is not a problem. Immigration is great. ILLEGALLY immigrating is a problem. Stopping the illegal immigration is the solution. Why do people immigrate illegally? Because it's better here, regardless of low wages, poor working conditions or high crime rate. Why is it better here?

Like I said, that's a circular argument: if immigration is great, but illegal immigration is a problem, then legalizing all immigration is just as much of a solution as stopping it.

Now, if immigration of undesirables is the problem, then it's the immigration of undesirables that is the problem, legal or not.

Um, that's exactly what I said.

It isn't--it may have been what you meant, but it wasn't what you said.

Any way you fly it though, every other country has some kind of immigration policy. And I still don't understand why being against illegal immigration somehow means that you're against immigrants in general. Are you're trying to say those Chinese people are illegal immigrants that own restaurants Mex?

It's not so much a matter of being against it, but the reasons for being against it and the measures proposed for dealing with the problem that's the issue. Mex's argument is a perfect case: better some more illegal immigration and less people dying while they try than less illegal immigration and more people dying. It's about not making the goal of keeping every possible illegal immigrant out the top priority--it can be a priority, but more pragmatic goals should come first.

I can totally understand the anti-illegal sentiment, considering my parents were immigrants, and I immigrated myself. It's not a matter of 'you must suffer because we did', but it IS galling to see someone get a free pass just because they arrived in a rickity boat instead of going through customs.

It just seems so petty though.

When the majority of immigrants are illegal by way of having no choice in the matter, being "anti-illegal immigrant" becomes that much closer to just being "anti-immigrant."

Of course protectionist policies that "protect" the local labor market are inherently anti-immigrant by nature. You "protect" the local labor force by persecuting everyone who isn't.

LarryC wrote:

When the majority of immigrants are illegal by way of having no choice in the matter, being "anti-illegal immigrant" becomes that much closer to just being "anti-immigrant."

So basically, what you're saying is because some people in a neighboring country experience hardship that it invalidates immigration policies of the neighboring countries? Seems to me you're building a case for the invasion of Mexico.

LarryC wrote:

Of course protectionist policies that "protect" the local labor market are inherently anti-immigrant by nature. You "protect" the local labor force by persecuting everyone who isn't.

While this statement is factually correct, the language you choose to use is filled with negativity. Based on your knowledge of economics, what do you think would happen if every low class, unskilled laborer in India suddenly moved to Europe? Would the resulting labor prices be a net gain? Doubtful. As I have shown earlier in the thread, the impact of 12 million illegals (roughly, since it's an estimate, but is roughly 3% of our population) on farm labor is a 40% decrease in wages. What happens to wages if you double it? Triple it?

CheezePavilion wrote:

It's not so much a matter of being against it, but the reasons for being against it and the measures proposed for dealing with the problem that's the issue. Mex's argument is a perfect case: better some more illegal immigration and less people dying while they try than less illegal immigration and more people dying. It's about not making the goal of keeping every possible illegal immigrant out the top priority--it can be a priority, but more pragmatic goals should come first.

This is a logical fallacy of the false choice.

A better solution would be for the Mexican people and their government to clean up the corruption and crime so that people wouldn't be desperate to flow over the border. As a good neighbor I propose instead of invading Iraq maybe we should lend special forces support to kill every drug cartel we can find. Legalize pot too to cut into their profits.

bandit0013:

Re: war with Mexico

Not at all. You said that, not I. I'm saying that being "anti-illegal" becomes closer to just being "anti-immigrant" the more illegals there are, particularly when those illegals are primarily there because they want to work and have no legal means of entry.

Once that ratio reaches 100% (though it never will), the two become synonymous. If your immigrant population is largely illegal, then it simply means that being anti-illegal is largely being anti-immigrant, though they are not completely synonymous.

It's up to you whether or not you think being anti-immigrant is a bad thing, but if you do, then you have to follow that through to its logical conclusion. Then you have to accept that reality, or change your viewpoint.

Or remain illogical. I suppose that's possible, too.

Re: Economy

You must forgive me. My knowledge of economics is very limited. I'm a bio major, not an economics major.

That said, it is economically impossible for every low class unskilled labor in India to move to Europe. In the first place, Europe can be hostile to non-white people, there's the cost of travel to consider, and the labor market is not inexhaustible. There are many inherent downsides to immigration, regardless of any further protectionist policies an immigrant may have to endure. For another matter, India has its own demand for low unskilled labor, so the market wages should correct once the supply of labor starts going down.

More importantly, that's not the point. Protectionist policies work by persecuting immigrants. That's the long and short of it all. You can't make a stand about protecting immigrants and then turn around and institute policies that make their lives harder. That position is inconsistent.

LarryC wrote:

More importantly, that's not the point. Protectionist policies work by persecuting immigrants. That's the long and short of it all. You can't make a stand about protecting immigrants and then turn around and institute policies that make their lives harder. That position is inconsistent.

This statement is a fallacy as well. By making sure immigrants are legal and get the wages/benefits accorded to citizens I do make their lives better. That is a one main goal of immigration policy, the protection of immigrants. Good policy is also balanced with the protection of the state, since resources are not unlimited. Just because you don't let 100% of potential immigrants in doesn't invalidate the goals of immigration policy or make the policy "anti-immigrant" with the broad stroke you are using.

bandit0013:

Not the point. Did I say that asking illegals to be legal would make their lives harder? NO. That is not what I said. At all.

American immigration policy does NOT primarily seek to protect immigrants. Its primary purpose has long been to keep immigrants, and especially non-white immigrants, out. That's why there are quotas. That's why the fees are so large. That's why the conditions are so onerous, and sometimes just plain impossible.

You cannot argue that American immigration policies are primarily to protect immigrants, when it obviously makes life so hard for both the legals and the illegals. The deplorable state of H1B skilled workers argues greatly against such a view.

LarryC wrote:

bandit0013:

Not the point. Did I say that asking illegals to be legal would make their lives harder? NO. That is not what I said. At all.

American immigration policy does NOT primarily seek to protect immigrants. Its primary purpose has long been to keep immigrants, and especially non-white immigrants, out. That's why there are quotas. That's why the fees are so large. That's why the conditions are so onerous, and sometimes just plain impossible.

You cannot argue that American immigration policies are primarily to protect immigrants, when it obviously makes life so hard for both the legals and the illegals. The deplorable state of H1B skilled workers argues greatly against such a view.

"Immigration to the United States has been a major source of population growth and cultural change throughout much of the history of the United States. The economic, social, and political aspects of immigration have caused controversy regarding ethnicity, economic benefits, jobs for non-immigrants, settlement patterns, impact on upward social mobility, crime, and voting behavior. As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined.[1] Since the removal of ethnic quotas in immigration in 1965,[2] the number of first- generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled,[3] from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007.[4] 1,046,539 persons were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 2008. The leading emigrating countries to the United States were Mexico, India, the Philippines, and China.[5]"

-wikipedia

I would say that an influx of over a million persons a year is hardly anti-immigrant.

I don't see how the absolute volume of immigration from a wiki article (no less!) demonstrates why protectionist policies designed to burden immigrants isn't anti-immigrant.

bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

It's not so much a matter of being against it, but the reasons for being against it and the measures proposed for dealing with the problem that's the issue. Mex's argument is a perfect case: better some more illegal immigration and less people dying while they try than less illegal immigration and more people dying. It's about not making the goal of keeping every possible illegal immigrant out the top priority--it can be a priority, but more pragmatic goals should come first.

This is a logical fallacy of the false choice.

You really need to stop misusing terms and phrases you don't understand. I couldn't even respond to most of your other post it was such a mess.

A better solution would be for the Mexican people and their government to clean up the corruption and crime so that people wouldn't be desperate to flow over the border. As a good neighbor I propose instead of invading Iraq maybe we should lend special forces support to kill every drug cartel we can find. Legalize pot too to cut into their profits.

Maybe, maybe not. What you propose has nothing to do with making illegal border crossings less dangerous. The irony here being, *this* is the logical fallacy of the false choice.

LarryC wrote:

I don't see how the absolute volume of immigration from a wiki article (no less!) demonstrates why protectionist policies designed to burden immigrants isn't anti-immigrant.

#1 it's a source filled with citations.

#2 you seem to be defining "anti-immigrant" as wanting to keep as many immigrants as possible out. Given that we let in over a million a year, more than any country on this planet, you can hardly point to the USA as "anti-immigrant".

CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

It's not so much a matter of being against it, but the reasons for being against it and the measures proposed for dealing with the problem that's the issue. Mex's argument is a perfect case: better some more illegal immigration and less people dying while they try than less illegal immigration and more people dying. It's about not making the goal of keeping every possible illegal immigrant out the top priority--it can be a priority, but more pragmatic goals should come first.

This is a logical fallacy of the false choice.

You really need to stop misusing terms and phrases you don't understand. I couldn't even respond to most of your other post it was such a mess.

"False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") "

Either we allow more illegal immigration which results in less death or we don't allow illegal immigration and lots of people die. This is textbook false choice/dilemma. To further it I presented a third option. I suggest that you need to read up.

Please clarify which of my statements about your previous post were unclear and I will address it for you. Or you can just continue to make blanket statements and accuse others of being illogical while making logical errors yourself. That is what set me off about your post.

bandit0013 wrote:

Either we allow more illegal immigration which results in less death or we don't allow illegal immigration and lots of people die.

Please don't take what I said out of context: Mex was talking about all the people dying in the desert while attempting the trek to the US, and whether we should make that trek more or less dangerous.

Is cleaning up the corruption and crime a better solution? Yes--I agree with you! but just because it's the better solution doesn't mean it's the only solution: we can do both at the same time. That's why I called it ironic for you to bring up the false dilemma fallacy. You were presenting your third option in an attempt to force a choice between it and either of the other two options. See my point now? Heck, we could legalize pot and use the revenues from taxing it to build water stations in the desert.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Heck, we could legalize pot and use the revenues from taxing it to build water stations in the desert.

Sure, if you think that it's our duty as a sovereign nation to build water stations on Mexican soil and that it's our responsibility to allow unlimited immigration from Mexico because they can't manage their own state.

IMAGE(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304069_2339424598389_1033120262_2653926_208680449_n.jpg)

bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Heck, we could legalize pot and use the revenues from taxing it to build water stations in the desert.

Sure, if you think that it's our duty as a sovereign nation to build water stations on Mexican soil and that it's our responsibility to allow unlimited immigration from Mexico because they can't manage their own state.

Yes bandit, my platform is Aquafest Destiny. The truth is finally out.

#1 it's a source filled with citations.

It is, indeed, a source filled with citations. That does not make it relevant. If you had linked Peru's immigration policy or the mating habits of weasels, it would also have been a well-cited source.

#2 you seem to be defining "anti-immigrant" as wanting to keep as many immigrants as possible out. Given that we let in over a million a year, more than any country on this planet, you can hardly point to the USA as "anti-immigrant".

What we're talking about is individual state measures to make life very difficult on all immigrants, illegal or not, and saying that they are anti-immigrant. You are then pointing at national immigration policy, and immigration counts, as evidence that entirely separate state policies, which the US government is challenging in court, are not anti-immigrant.

I suppose you might just be confused, but if you're doing this because you A) support these state policies, and B) want to think of yourself as pro-immigrant, well... you can't really do both. There is no "C) all of the above" in this instance.

I've come across very few people in media or otherwise that claim to be "right leaning" who support pulling people over for driving while brown or "papers citizen". The vast majority of people who want better immigration controls mean that you should have to present valid identification to vote, live, or work here. I would posit that the main driver behind things like the stupid border fence are due to the lack of enforcement that exists within our borders.

So yes, there is a huge difference between just grabbing immigrant looking people on the street and demanding papers and a legal process for the three things I mentioned above. Also, being that everyone should have to show identification when applying for work, voting, or buying/renting a home it's not an anti-immigrant position.

Why should they? Why do we need to exercise that much control? Voting and benefits, I can see, but why on earth should you have to provide ID to work or rent an apartment or buy a house? That's not small government, that's intrusive and controlling government.

Malor wrote:

Why should they? Why do we need to exercise that much control? Voting and benefits, I can see, but why on earth should you have to provide ID to work or rent an apartment or buy a house? That's not small government, that's intrusive and controlling government.

Let's see, why should we provide ID to work... oh yeah, because you are supposed to pay into things like social security, medicare, and unemployment insurance. Because your employer is supposed to pay taxes on your labor as well. How do you propose doing that if you can't verify who the employee actually is? How do you propose to follow child labor laws if you can't require identification of birth age?

For renting or buying property... if you don't know who the buyer is, how do you expect to enforce bill payment etc if you can't verify who they are? How do you propose to run a credit check to protect renters and owners from being swindled? I mean, do you think the government should be granting property deeds without checking identification? How do you propose to prove that I don't own your house?

Who said I give a hoot about small government? I like effective government.

You seem to be suffering from a case of "well I wouldn't rip anyone off, therefore we need no controls"

bandit0013:

#1 It's Wikipedia. That speaks for itself.

#2 That does not follow. Absolute volume of immigration does not say anything about the nature of the policies governing. China has the biggest population on the planet. Does that mean that their government policies are pro-population growth? No.