U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-08-2011, 02:58 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,127 times
Reputation: 111

Advertisements

I agree that it does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-08-2011, 06:45 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,881,481 times
Reputation: 6517
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime View Post
Why is it JUST? If you want to impose upon other people then the burden of proof is on YOU, not the other way around. You're begging the question by dismissing arguments against your position as "excuses". I've heard all the excuses from your side. But the bottom line is that just, free governments do not erect barriers to the movement of human beings whose only crime is being born "over there".

You think we need standards, OK, then YOU tell US why the current standards are so great.

This talk of "importing" people is dehumanizing. Who is "we" anyway? Are you personally filling out an order for some immigrants? I'm not. If you move from California to Oregon, does that mean that Oregon just imported you? No, it just means you moved.

The fact that some people might be criminals doesn't give you a right to impose upon an entire group. You brought up the need for standards, OK, give us your standards. Let's hear them. You seem to think the current standards are pretty good, so tell us WHY they're so great.
Standards:
1. Pass a criminal background check
2. Pass the biometrics.
3. Pass health screening
4. Proof of financial ability to support themselves
5. Have a skill or profession that this country needs
6. have a sponsor
7. If they have a relative willing to assume responsibility that negates #4,5,6.
By assume responsibility they assume all liabilities and financial ownership of the applicant. That means if said immigrant breaks the law the sponsor owns it. If the immigrant hurts someone they own the liability.
Bottom line unless they have something this country needs or have a willing sponsor they don't meet the standards.
I have posted these standards many times. They are not excuses they are valid standards that many modern countries use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,881,481 times
Reputation: 6517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
I'm pretty sure that none of us have given any of these reasons (by "us" I mean rhymetime, huddled, and me).



Depending on what you mean by "normal," this is more or less correct. There are a bunch of ways to look at this without getting into "rights" or whatever, which no one here ever seems to want to define.

Most notably, though, you can isolate migration from one area to another without introducing variables like national borders. Guy wants to move from area A to area B. Without knowing anything else, you'd never oppose this. Now let's say you know he's poor. Do you start to oppose this now? Probably not, because there's no net negative here - if he's a drain on the place where he's from, his leaving will benefit them even if he's a burden on his new home. So let's say that he's moving across township lines. Suddenly, if you're in area B, you might have an opinion about this. This opinion is 100% selfish, because it is clear that the only net effect of him moving is that he will be slightly happier, at least, in area B. This sort of thing happens all the time - people worry about their property values when a "different element" moves into their area and so forth.

Now throw a national border between area A and area B. The issue remains fundamentally unchanged. People move different places to gain access to different resources, including jobs, including social services, etc. etc. You might think that a huge number of poor people moving into your country is definitely a bad thing. But that's a pretty big assumption. Nothing about our welfare system is inherently stable - if everyone decided to stop working all at once, our unemployment benefits would drain resources from federal and state coffers hard and fast. During recessions, you see more welfare payouts. If the welfare system cannot handle this sort of influx, it can be adjusted. It eventually WILL be adjusted in such a case. Now, if you care more about people who live within those lines than people who do not, I might suggest a complete re-evaluation of your moral universe. Maybe you disagree, but I kind of wonder what stops you from caring more about people in your state, or people in your town.

Nothing in this whole analysis requires that we go around letting in murderers. Not letting certain criminals travel around freely provides a decent incentive to avoid committing those crimes, I suppose. But if your reason for not wanting person X to move into your town is something along the lines of "this is going to affect my life negatively, I'd rather person X move back to where he affects someone ELSE'S life negatively" then yeah, you aren't really making an argument. You're just saying you think you're more important than other people. WHICH IS COOL. Seriously. I tend to worry about myself more than others, it's not like some horrendous character flaw. It's just not a coherent public policy argument.
I never said you or Rymetime or huddled used those excuses but many other supporters of illegals have.
As a US citizen we have the right to move freely within the borders of this nation. Thats not in question nor ever was. The exception being convicted pedophiles etc.
As far as migration in the form of immigration. Every nation on the planet as far as I know have immigration laws. Most of which reflect the needs of the individual nation and rightly so. Why should any nation assume a burden of an unskilled illiterate immigrant? Speaking for the USA I would say we produce quite a few of our own without adding to it.
What I care about is that we control who enters and who doesn't just as we control who enters our homes and who doesn't. Yes break ins happen but we should not accept this as a part of life.
Foreign nationals are expected to obey our immigration laws and that is not an unreasonable expectation. What is unreasonable is that we should be expected to grant a free pass to those who violated our laws which we as a nation have a right to determine. The immigrant need not agree with them nor should this be a deciding factor in our policies.
I am someone who is sponsoring an immigrant. My step daughter. She speaks english almost as well as a native of the USA. Has 2 degrees and no criminal past. Why should even 1 illegal be allowed to stay while she waits in line? Unlike every single illegal she has never violated our laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 07:56 PM
 
1,574 posts, read 788,884 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
Standards:
1. Pass a criminal background check
2. Pass the biometrics.
3. Pass health screening
4. Proof of financial ability to support themselves
5. Have a skill or profession that this country needs
6. have a sponsor
7. If they have a relative willing to assume responsibility that negates #4,5,6.
By assume responsibility they assume all liabilities and financial ownership of the applicant. That means if said immigrant breaks the law the sponsor owns it. If the immigrant hurts someone they own the liability.
Bottom line unless they have something this country needs or have a willing sponsor they don't meet the standards.
I have posted these standards many times. They are not excuses they are valid standards that many modern countries use.
What does "pass the biometrics" mean?

Who determines what level of "financial ability" is sufficient?

Who determines what skills "this country needs"?

FYI: The bulk of immigrants that can support themselves and have needed skills (as evidenced by the fact that they A) get jobs and B) (much to the chagrin of some posters here) have the balls to send money back to their home countries have zero chance of legally immigrating under the current rules.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 08:06 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,127 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
As a US citizen we have the right to move freely within the borders of this nation. Thats not in question nor ever was. The exception being convicted pedophiles etc.
Right off the bat I said that I'd like to avoid "rights," and yet here it comes in full force in your response. Ugh. I know that governments generally allow the free flow of people within their national borders. I know that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
As far as migration in the form of immigration. Every nation on the planet as far as I know have immigration laws.
I do not care about this. Seriously, you constantly switch back and forth between having positive and normative discussions. I don't see the point in discussing these issues if you aren't going to stick with one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
Most of which reflect the needs of the individual nation and rightly so. Why should any nation assume a burden of an unskilled illiterate immigrant? Speaking for the USA I would say we produce quite a few of our own without adding to it.
So - normatively - why do you feel we are obliged to "burden" ourselves with ANYONE? I am not talking about anyone's legal rights under the current regime. I'm asking why you feel this is so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
What I care about is that we control who enters and who doesn't just as we control who enters our homes and who doesn't. Yes break ins happen but we should not accept this as a part of life.
So you think that you have a claim to the United States as a whole similar or equal to your claim in your own private property?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 08:14 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,881,481 times
Reputation: 6517
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime View Post
What does "pass the biometrics" mean?

Who determines what level of "financial ability" is sufficient?

Who determines what skills "this country needs"?

FYI: The bulk of immigrants that can support themselves and have needed skills (as evidenced by the fact that they A) get jobs and B) (much to the chagrin of some posters here) have the balls to send money back to their home countries have zero chance of legally immigrating under the current rules.
The feds determine what it would be. My suggestion 50 g in a bank for 2 years. This would provide for if they struggle finding employment or have a medical crisis.
The fed should also determine based on what professions are currently understaffed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 08:22 PM
 
1,574 posts, read 788,884 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
The feds determine what it would be. My suggestion 50 g in a bank for 2 years. This would provide for if they struggle finding employment or have a medical crisis.
The fed should also determine based on what professions are currently understaffed.
The market seems to do a pretty good job on its own of determining what jobs need to be filled. How are government bureaucrats going to improve on that?

I mean, this is the same group of people that buy $1500 hammers, right? And Benicar says we can't trust anything they say. But they're going to get THIS right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 08:24 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,881,481 times
Reputation: 6517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
Right off the bat I said that I'd like to avoid "rights," and yet here it comes in full force in your response. Ugh. I know that governments generally allow the free flow of people within their national borders. I know that.



I do not care about this. Seriously, you constantly switch back and forth between having positive and normative discussions. I don't see the point in discussing these issues if you aren't going to stick with one.



So - normatively - why do you feel we are obliged to "burden" ourselves with ANYONE? I am not talking about anyone's legal rights under the current regime. I'm asking why you feel this is so.



So you think that you have a claim to the United States as a whole similar or equal to your claim in your own private property?
The point is you can't compare the migration of citizens to that of illegals. We have the right to move about freely in this country and they do not. They might wish otherwise but that is not reality.
You dont care about the fact that every nation has immigration laws. But as a nation it is our legal right to also have such.
As far burdening ourselves with anyone. I feel with high standards we minimize the risk of burden.
I dont feel I own the USA as I do my private property. But as a legal citizen I do have a degree ownership of my nation. I would expect my fed gov to restrict and control who enters. They may not live in my home but I will be forced at some point shoulder atleast a measure of the burden of those they allow that dont pan out. They drive on our roads, they occupy our prisons, their children attend our schools and they use our hospitals to name but a few areas.
To be honest I am not sure what you mean by the term normatively.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 08:30 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,881,481 times
Reputation: 6517
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime View Post
The market seems to do a pretty good job on its own of determining what jobs need to be filled. How are government bureaucrats going to improve on that?

I mean, this is the same group of people that buy $1500 hammers, right? And Benicar says we can't trust anything they say. But they're going to get THIS right?
The 1500.00 hammers is more myth than anything else. LOL I actually saw this first hand and how it happened.
In the day they didnt use computers the same way for billing as today.
Say the navy ordered 500 hammers. The company wasn't allowed to bill 500 hammers at 50.00 per. They had to itemize every hammer. When a double stroke happened the navy was given a refund of the overbilled amount.
The market as we know will seek the cheapest labor they can regardless of legality and the greedy scum doing it pocket the gains.
For example we need RN's. Hospitals are short staffed. We just are not producing enough.
Immigrants who are RN's and pass the test I cant recall the name of it get a work VISA. My sisters hospital has sponsored quite a few Philipine nationals this way.
Thats an example. They have a trade and a skill we need.
This as opposed to allowing a stampede to get into our country seems to make more sense
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 08:34 PM
 
335 posts, read 280,964 times
Reputation: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime View Post
If you're just determined to think of it that way, then fine. But since the law is unjust whether they get rewarded for breaking it or not doesn't matter to me at all compared to the need to stop enforcing unjust laws.
Your opinion that a law is unjust is simply your opinion and nothing more. Opinions aren't facts or proof.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top