Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 1700's and the 1800's were the high-water marks for open immigration, and the expansion of European colonial empires. Motivated, entrepreneurial people left Europe and to a lesser extent Asia in droves for the New World countries of the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As thinly populated (due to smallpox's effect on the native population) opened for settlement and trans-oceanic travel became routine the people came. The new worlds had little to offer other than land and opportunity. There were few objections because the migrations didn't cost much to the host countries. And they gained a source of cheap labor.
Colonialism was spurred by opportunities to import valued items, as well as, unfortunately, slave labor. People rationalized colonialism as improving the lot of natives. Christianity was to solve the problems of the world. In fact, it rationalized exploitation and racism. Conceding that, however, the living conditions of people who were not tribal chiefs or royalty was deplorable. When the colonial system went "bust" in the post WW II era, many, aided by air and fast ocean travel wanted to come. And the West had a high standard of living, as well as a welfare "safety net."
Pre-Congress of Vienna, and post 1914 life in Europe was a mess. What is now the "Third World" was always a mess but its people had no access to or knowledge of the West. Now, the U.S., Europe, Australia and Israel are beleaguered by the waves of people who want something better. However, by and large, they lack the education and/or work ethic needed to succeed in 21st Century society.
"Compassion" dictates throwing open the gates. Common sense dictates ensuring that the influx is manageable and that we get the best people. This, unfortunately, entails policies that most thinking people consider heartless. The tension between people who emphasize "heart" and those who emphasize "head" is enormous and divides people from their friends and colleagues.
Independence in the 1950's and 1960's has come with large amounts of aid. And private help. Think "We Are the World." And the "world" has nothing to show for it. Taxpayers in the more affluent countries cannot be expected to open their homes, hands and hearts endlessly. Perhaps the way to go is large-scale international aid, administered by the West. Sort of like a Peace Corp. on a large scale. We cannot shirk our moral duties to the world. However, for obvious reasons, in doing this we cannot respect the right of kleptocratic leaders to "self-determination."
As you seem to recognize, immigration issues and answers change with time and circumstance. The U.S. is rapidly on its way to becoming a 'come one, come all - social welfare state.' In the process, SS coffers have been drained, Healthcare costs have spiraled out of control, U.S. SS retirement ages are being pushed further and further out, many who never contributed anything to our infrastructure and systems seem to be the primary beneficiaries, etc.
"Compassion" seems to be the hue and cry of the left, but, they never seem to have a way to pay for anything except 'tax and spend' at the painful expense of the American taxpayer. With them, it's always 'support the world with no limitations ... and let someone else figure-out how to pay the bill.' As can be plainly seen, young people today are being burdened with ever-increasing taxes, spiraling education and health costs ... and age/skill-limited incomes.
Legal immigration laws/rules were established to maintain a balance between "coming to America" and "footing the bill." It's apparent to any person willing to look at the consequences, that things are out of control. 'Sanctuary Cities' are a prime example, but, there are many others. We need to get a handle on the illegal flow of immigrants across the southern borders. Once that's accomplished, we can systematically act to inject compassion, cost and common sense into the control of our own borders. (No other nation on earth has completely open borders for obvious reasons --- and neither should we. We cannot allow the world to determine our population growth and social welfare programs, but, must be a self-determined nation of law.
As you seem to recognize, immigration issues and answers change with time and circumstance. The U.S. is rapidly on its way to becoming a 'come one, come all - social welfare state.' In the process, SS coffers have been drained, Healthcare costs have spiraled out of control, U.S. SS retirement ages are being pushed further and further out, many who never contributed anything to our infrastructure and systems seem to be the primary beneficiaries, etc.
I totally agree. "Back in the day" people came and had to support themselves. This was good for the reason that it kept away the lazy, the scared and the unintelligent, and immigration didn't cost the taxpayers much if anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton
"Compassion" seems to be the hue and cry of the left, but, they never seem to have a way to pay for anything except 'tax and spend' at the painful expense of the American taxpayer. With them, it's always 'support the world with no limitations ... and let someone else figure-out how to pay the bill.' As can be plainly seen, young people today are being burdened with ever-increasing taxes, spiraling education and health costs ... and age/skill-limited incomes.
Ask those people how much of a hit they'd take personally to be "compassionate."
Too many people don't realize that if we don't protect our borders and enforce our laws we will devolve out of existence as a nation. Everything we know and love is on the line. Really and truly.
Too many people don't realize that if we don't protect our borders and enforce our laws we will devolve out of existence as a nation. Everything we know and love is on the line. Really and truly.
The problem is that many well-intentioned people have a vision of a world without borders. In many ways it is a beautiful vision; all people living at peace and harmony. It is also an impossible vision. The people who envision and practice peace would be defenseless against the people that simply want to win.
The people who oppose protecting our borders, or any borders, want all nations to "devolve out of existence." This is similar to the view of the Withering Away of State: Meaning, Engels, Lenin and Stalin's View (with Evaluation). Frankly, the espousal of this view borders on cynical. The productive class of the world gets milked; thugs reap the benefit. There is no way that the impoverished masses benefit.
The problem is that many well-intentioned people have a vision of a world without borders. In many ways it is a beautiful vision; all people living at peace and harmony. It is also an impossible vision. The people who envision and practice peace would be defenseless against the people that simply want to win.
The people who oppose protecting our borders, or any borders, want all nations to "devolve out of existence." This is similar to the view of the Withering Away of State: Meaning, Engels, Lenin and Stalin's View (with Evaluation). Frankly, the espousal of this view borders on cynical. The productive class of the world gets milked; thugs reap the benefit. There is no way that the impoverished masses benefit.
They already tried that in the 60s and 70s in a smaller scale. They couldn't even get a commune to work. They ended up with Charles Manson and violent junkies on Haight Street. It always goes that way when you let your guard down, unfortunately.
They already tried that in the 60s and 70s in a smaller scale. They couldn't even get a commune to work. They ended up with Charles Manson and violent junkies on Haight Street. It always goes that way when you let your guard down, unfortunately.
It's worked real well in the formerly Communist countries of Eastern Europe, the USSR and even better in the Democratic Republic of Korea and Democratic Kampuchea.
All good points above. You can have social safety net or loose immigration standards (America has never had open borders) but not both. Social welfare works in Western Europe because they have stable and tiny populations comparable to larger cities in the USA combined with North Sea Oil revenue. The third world really needs America to start exporting its excess population and imposing its system on it but that doesn't jive with 21st Century sensibilities or the way American's think.
More on this subject (link). The outflow of people from these countries who are not equipped to live in the civilized world has consequences. The original migrants may be happy to be in an organized society. Their children not so much, leading to results such as this: Westminster car crash: Man arrested on suspicion of terror offences.
This activity is well outside civilized discourse and discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
